golfers_r_me This guy reminds me of my goofy, awkward childhood neighbor. I loved that man. Coincidentally, I had just rewatched SSM and then discovered this gem. I saw SSM when it first came out. I was a starry eyed liberal back then. Seeing it again is so fascinating because it is such a reflection of who I am now, and how I've changed. I was also really into M. Moore as well. My overarching sentiment is that to be "into" anything you have to just blindly accept what is put in front of you. If you are "into" being a liberal then you will not seriously entertain any conservative ideology (and vice versa). And if you're "into" regulation than you wont entertain the concept of personal freedom (and vice versa). Let's be honest, SSM has a serious liberal bent to it. Furthermore, it's difficult to discern what his agenda is. To take down McDonalds? To fight the conservatives? Subversion of corporate America? Animal welfare? Public health? M. Moore existed just to make the Bushes look bad. I think that was really his only agenda. And I think SSM only agenda was to make McDonalds look bad. They're muckrakers. 20 yrs ago McDonalds rolled out a low calorie, healthy menu. Why? Because they conducted a multi million dollar, nation wide survey and overwhelmingly ppl said they would eat healthy food if it was offered. It bombed and they removed the menu 2 short yrs later. The moral of the story is that ppl say one thing but behave differently. So, they went back to selling ppl what they want.Fat Head only exists as a rebuttal to SSM. There's nothing wrong with that. Many musicians have only existed because they thought they could do it better. Many politicians have only gotten into politics because they thought they could do it better. And so it goes with athletes, businessmen, inventors, and comedians. I think this is a great rebuttal to SSM.

ssparkalipoo The film maker also claims to debunk the "bologna" of Spurlock's movie with facts. The only problem some of the facts he presents are as he would say "bologna". He claims that African Americans and Hispanics have a "genetic predisposition" to weighing more. When I heard this it sounded so wrong that I actually had to look this up and I found no studies that proved this and only one study that you could really stretch to argue that this is true, but doing so would require a lack of a basic understanding of how science works. He also over estimates how much meat hunter and gatherers ate. It is true that health declined with the shift from hunting and gathering to agriculture, but meat only consisted of 20% hunter and gatherer's diet. His claim that a vegetarian diet makes people depressed and tired is also untrue. There are studies linking vegetarians to depression and anxiety, but nothing proving that vegetarianism makes you depressed. Some of his points are good, but seeing that some of the "facts" he presents are wrong, it made me lose trust in him. What also made me lose trust in him was his obvious right wing politics and his conspiracy that the government wants us to be fat. His information on heart health was interesting, but he essentially decided to only look at one measure of health. On top of the flaws in his argument and lack of focus, I found his personality rather grating.

MartinHafer While I think "Fat Head" is a very flawed film, I do recommend you watch it. It has many good points to make and makes you think...too bad the film is so ugly to look at and uneven that you might not bother watching the movie to its conclusion. Watch it...even if it is really ugly and could have used some work.When the film begins, the filmmaker (Tom Naughton) brings up some possible inconsistencies behind Morgan Spurlock's film "Super Size Me". I really wish Naughton hadn't piggybacked on Spurlock's film, however, as although I agreed that Spurlock wasn't particularly fair in how he conducted his 'experiment', focusing all this energy against Spurlock seemed to deflect from THE most important message in "Fat Head"--that many of our dietary assumptions are wrong! Various experts throughout the film made convincing arguments that animal fats are NOT bad and should make up much of our diet. And, interestingly, the US government food pyramid we all followed for so long (which recommended consumption of HUGE amounts of grains) actually have made us fatter and less fit. But, focusing so much on Spurlock was done, most likely, for marketing reasons. As a result, the film seemed a bit ill-focused.Despite these complaints, my biggest ones are because the film looks very amateurish. The graphics look incredibly cheap and ugly--really, really, really ugly. So, while Naughton is making some good points, he's doing it with graphics which would embarrass most viewers. Plus, sometimes Naughton made wonderful jokes and observations--and other times, he missed the mark and having some outsiders help him polish the film would have really helped.The bottom line is that Tom Naughton has a lot of talent and made some wonderful observations. But, he simply needs polish and better direction. So, if he could perhaps work WITH A TEAM, the results would look so much better instead of looking more like a YouTube post than a movie. There's a lot to it....and try to look past its deficits.

kingrb88 I found the video quite interesting but like my summary title says off topic and sometimes misleading. A lot of points he made or tried to get across in the video were his own opinions and not any type of proved facts with any ground to stand on. I wouldn't have a problem with this but he was trying to sell his opinions as they were facts. The video was way too long. The first 30 mins I was glued to the TV but from about 30 minutes - 1:15 I was just completely lost in all of the "scientific" ramp about lipids and cholesterol which did not tell me anything about fast-food or his diet. He never showed his actual meals for the day which was a big disappointment as isn't this what this whole documentary was supposed to be about? He only showed a quick flash of paper with his days total calorie intake and that was it. I also have a problem with the description of the video, as it states, 'he loses weight by eating fries'. Not one time while he was on the 'fast food diet' did I see him touch a french fry. He was quick to talk about and judge 'Supersize Me' and down that documentary but I found this individual being very contradictory in his comments. There just wasn't enough information or variables here on the particular diet he was on and all the supporting facts of the diet. Overall I feel it was a pretty bland, off-topic, self promoting documentary.