| Fat Head |  | Director: Tom Naughton
Actor: Tom Naughton
Studio: Morningstar Entertainment
Category: DVD
List Price: $19.98
Buy New: $11.88
as of 3/12/2010 11:35 MST details
You Save: $8.10 (41%)
New (16) Used (2) from $10.74
Seller: moviemars
Rating:  34 reviews
Sales Rank: 9,713
Format: Color, DVD, NTSC
Language: English (Original Language)
Rating: NR (Not Rated)
Region: 1
Aspect Ratio: 1.33:1
Number Of Discs: 1
Running Time: 104 Minutes
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.2
Dimensions (in): 7.5 x 5.3 x 0.6
MPN: OSC2219
UPC: 063634022190
EAN: 0063634022190
ASIN: B001NRY6R2
Theatrical Release Date: 2008
Release Date: February 3, 2009
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
| |
| Features:
|
| Similar Items:
| |
| Customer Reviews:
Showing reviews 1-5 of 34
 A must-see for health nuts! February 18, 2010
Heather M. Rivard (Fayetteville, NC)
1 out of 1 found this review helpful
This movie was a great rebuttal to Supersize me. While I loved Supersize me, I agreed with the general message of both movies: Take responsibility for your own health. Do your own investigating. Keep yourself knowledgeable. Use common sense. Make good choices. See it for yourself...
 Poisoning the well, literally and figuratively February 11, 2010
Noah Fence (the moon & antarctica)
3 out of 12 found this review helpful
This film strikes me as a attempt to validate an assortment of preconceived notions using flawed reasoning. The basis of the validity of this film seems to be the contradiction of "Supersize Me" at every turn. It is riddled with a slew of fallacies and anecdotes that are at times so painfully obvious I'm not sure if I should feel embarrassed for the narrator or frightened that he is serious.
The film begins with its core premise, namely that "nobody forces anyone to eat fast food" (4:44) and "fast food restaurants don't force anybody to overeat" (5:14). These are both true statements, but so is the statement "nobody forces anyone to drink water". While the analogy I have presented is admittedly extreme (and prime fodder for being taken out of context), it serves to demonstrate that irreducible facts often have no indication of the validity of the argument they are used to support.
In one of the film's numerable appeals to authority it is said that, "the U.S. department of agriculture has estimated that in order to get people to consume more leafy green vegetables, we would basically have to pay people to eat them." (34:40) While I'd love to see the references for that statement, it does touch on one of the more subtle yet key aspects of the health debate, namely the addictive qualities of fast/junk food.
The pleasure we experience from food is facilitated by the same neurological mechanisms responsible for the pleasure we experience from sex, drugs, or rock & roll. The reason people prefer a Big Mac to a carrot (34:45) is more than just a psychological preference; it is a physiological one. From the first time we are exposed to junk food at an early age, the pleasure centers of our brains undergo a neuroadaptive change similar to those experienced by drug addicts. (Society for Neuroscience (2009, October 27). Junk Food Diet Causes Rats' Brain Pleasure)
The hunger drive is undoubtedly the strongest urge anyone experiences, which is why junk food is so insidious. When the desire for natural foods is superseded by a desire for junk food, it throws a devastating wrench into the body's processes and wreaks havoc on long-term health. While it is true that "fast food restaurants don't force anybody to overeat," overeating is usually not the cause of obesity. The composition of calorie dense fast foods alters the body's perception of satiety, and it is therefore easy for someone to consume hundreds more calories than they require simply by eating until they are full (i.e. as nature intended).
In addition to being bereft of convincing reasoning, references, or scientific rigor, I was also put off by the condescending tone and insensitive remarks about drug addiction and suicide. Anyone seeking the truth about the health debate will not find it in this film.
 Good Information Mixed with Political Bias and Questionable Sources February 7, 2010
Michael D. Sepesy (Cleveland, OH USA)
7 out of 13 found this review helpful
Tom Naughton's FAT HEAD is a fairly good primer on
how the body processes food and how Americans have
been misled about issues relating to their weight and diets.
The documentary is a low-budget affair with some funny
bits, but has both positives to recommend it and negatives
that viewers should be aware of.
Positives:
+ Naughton's explanations and the accompanying animations
demystify biological information about bodily processes,
and frequently do so in an entertaining way.
+ Most of the sources he relies on appear legitimate.
+ His argument seems sound and he convincingly debunks
a number of preconceptions about diet. For example, he
explains how the BMI (body mass index) works (or doesn't work).
+ He does the math for you, and the results of his experiment
seem to uphold many of his conclusions.
Negatives
- Naughton, a former comedian, adopts the too familiar
"I'm the only guy with a brain" posture that most comedians
rely on and that seeks to make people who don't agree
with him out to be devious idiots. This tactic undermines
his argument by making him seem not entirely fair and by making
him seem like a know-it-all, when, in fact, he only knows as
much as "experts" can tell him, which is the same position those
he mocks are in.
- He doesn't really address any studies that
may go against his argument, suggesting that
under overwhelming evidence, someone would have to be
stupid to have a dissenting opinion. This tactic undermines
his argument, since a thinking person knows that
there are usually arguments or studies that go against
most hypotheses, and that science,
like the Bible, can be used many ways by many people;
one can find a study to support many unsound hypotheses.
- Naughton is a free market conservative, a fact that mars his
presentation because he exhibits bias in his argument. He
would like to blame the government and a vegetarian organization
most people have never heard of (Center for Science in the Public Interest)
for most everything and protects large corporations as if they
have somehow been maligned, their freedoms violated.
- This bias causes him to not play fair at times, to make false
assumptions, and to misinform the viewer.
1) While discussing CSPI, he implies that one red flag that
should make people distrust the group is the fact that
the head of it worked for Ralph Nader and that Ralph Nader
is crazy; therefore, the CSPI guy must be crazy. Ralph
Nader, more than any individual in the past half century
has made more contributions to the public good than
any single American. He's the reason you have seat belts
and airbags in your car, why drug companies have to list
side effects of their drugs on the packages, why workers have
to be warned when they are using dangerous chemicals, etc.
The characterization of him as crazy (through the use of
a "cuckoo" noise when his name is mentioned) makes
Naughton look bad, not Nader.
2) The math that Naughton does not do for you is tell you
how much feces he consumed during his diet by eating
fast food burgers tainted by it. He attempts to make fast food
companies seem harmless, when in fact they contribute to
factory farming, which causes the poisoning of waterways
and soil as well as the unhealthy condition of livestock--animals
often have growths and sores and are treated with antibiotics
that consumers then ingest (yummy!)--and the speed at which these animals
are processed causes them not to be adequately cleaned.
The sheer number of animals processed means that you can
have as many as one thousand cows, with whatever diseases they
may carry, in one burger. The demand of fast food companies for
the amount of meat they need is a major culprit. And their
"anything for the market" attitude causes them to rely on cheap corn-based
feed. Since Naughton is so knowledgeable about what a creature
naturally eats, he should know that cows don't eat corn naturally,
and the diet has caused a new strain of e-coli to develop that
results in burger recalls and deaths.
3) Naughton wants to blame individuals for being fat, yet tries to
"empower" them as agents of free choice, completely ignoring
the economic factors in food choice. Low income people don't
eat well, not because they are stupid about nutrition (which is what
Naughton blames liberals for thinking) or genetically predisposed to fat,
but because junk food is cheaper than good food.
Naughton's own argument explains how
eating carbohydrate based diets causes people to want to eat more
by making their bodies feel starved. It doesn't take a genius to
see that junk food and fast food, rich in carbohydrates, help
make people fat by making them crave more food since they don't
feel full. What do people do when their body tells them they're starving?
They eat. This dynamic neutralizes freedom of choice.
- Naughton dismisses the role that the media play in encouraging children
to get their parents to buy fast food and junk food. Outrageously, his ONLY source
on this matter is his own mom, which is supposed to prove his point.
Strangely,considering that he is so fond of studies, he neglects the research that shows that
ad companies research child psychology and employ techniques that encourage
children to nag their parents until they get their own way. Studies show that children
have an immense amount of influence on purchasing decisions, a phenomenon
that has increased in the past twenty-five years, long after Naughton was a child.
The Reagan administration lifted bans on advertising to children, and since then,
advertisers have found more scientifically sophisticated ways to prey on kids.
Studies also demonstrate that such companies rely on the "nag factor" to sell
products: parents tend to buy what their kids nag them to get. Therefore, kids
DO affect what food comes into the house.
- Naughton uses a couple of questionable sources, a fact that undermines his presentation.
Jacob Sullum of Reason Magazine has long been a flak for the tobacco
industry, using tainted tobacco industry research to back his claims against the
harmful effects of cigarettes, specifically second hand smoke. He also
advocates the legalization of illegal drugs, which seems both unwise and demonstrates
a disinterest in people's health. His "expertise"
being industry influenced in other areas makes his presence in this film a
detriment rather than an asset.
Gary Taubes, author of Good Calories, Bad Calories, has been outed
as an Atkins devotee and charged by some journalists as having
disregarded "hundreds of refereed scientific studies published during the last
three decades that contradicted his position" (Michael Fumento of Reason-dot-com).
The Weston A. Price Foundation (where source Sally A. Fallon comes from)
is an organization primarily devoted to encouraging the consumption of
raw milk, suggesting that drinking such milk is a return to man's "natural diet"
when if fact, like grain (maligned in the film due to its more recent
inclusion in human diets), milk is a relative newcomer to the human digestive
system and may be linked to calcium deficiency. Her testimony then, while not
necessarily invalidated, loses some of its credibility.
- Naughton touts his "new scientific" ideas over the silly "old scientific" ideas, not
acknowledging that knowledge about how the body works is not set in stone.
Researchers find out new contradictory information all the time as to our level
of understanding about the body. Why are his scientists' ideas better than those of
other scientists? He rightly calls out researchers for mouthing the opinions
of their granting sources. Where do the grants to Naughton's experts come from? These issues don't come up.
If you watch this film, just remember to exercise healthy skepticism about its own claims.
Excellent movie that speaks to your intelligence. December 31, 2009
Sandi Shores (Quebec, Canada)
1 out of 4 found this review helpful
I always enjoy humor, but more than that I enjoy clarity and logic and this movie delivered both for me.
The whole "Super Size Me" thing never really rang true for me, and seeing Spurlock on blaming everything on McDonald's was ridiculous but people ate it up. And that crazy factory known as CSPI have always been hiding their true vegetarian agenda behind slants statistics and bogus science. Soy is bad for you, carbs are bad for you, meat and fat are good for you, yet you will never hear that from the vegetarian sect because they make choices based on emotion rather than science and logic. I have seen a woman cry over someone else eating meat because it "upset here so much".
Much like finally having Keith Oberman finally make a stand against the Bush/Cheney Whitehouse I am happy to have Tom Naughton to speak for all of us who see that the low-fat vegetarian emperor's have no clothes and are telling us nothing but a pack of lies that are ruining the health of everyone.
There is no low-fat vs low-carb war, there is only bad science and good science and anyone with a brain should be able to figure it out by now, but if they haven't then I highly recommend this DVD because it breaks it down to such simple concepts that even a child can understand it.
There was only one thing that I would take issue with in this DVD, and that was him promoting that we let out kids walk home from school. I am a parent and I never let my children walk home alone, or with other kids, yes I picked them up every day and I would do so forever in order to keep them safe from all the crazy people out there. It only takes one lapse in supervision for a pervert to have a chance at a kid, and I'd rather error on the side of caution when it comes to my kids and their safety.
Other than that the entire DVD was wonderful, so much so that I bought a copy for a friend to help them.
 Fun and informative December 12, 2009
kricka
4 out of 5 found this review helpful
After recently learing of the evils of carbs and grains in particular, I was looking for more information. This movie was recommended to me, and it was great! Funny and chock full of actual science, instead of the corporate backed science our government seems intent on shoving down our throats. Highly recommended, especially to the dubious among us.
Showing reviews 1-5 of 34
|
|
|
CERTAIN CONTENT THAT APPEARS ON THIS SITE COMES FROM AMAZON SERVICES LLC. THIS CONTENT IS PROVIDED ‘AS IS’ AND IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE OR REMOVAL AT ANY TIME. | |
