Fathead the Movie - your thoughts?

nikleft

I recently discoverd the movie Fathead - a pseudo-documentary created by comedian Tom Naughton. It starts off by challenging the conclusions drawn by Morgan Spurlock in Super Size Me (that fast food chains are basically the sole reason for America's high rates of obesity) and then moves on to challenging some long held beliefs about saturated fat, calorie-counting and healthy eating (in a very basic nutshell).

Has anyone else seen this film? I found it really interesting myself and it has caused me to do a lot more research into exactly what my body needs to be healthy. I would be really interested to hear people's thoughts/conclusions/critiques about this movie.

albayin

I could not finish it. I felt the guy's tone was pretty offensive, in a way, at the beginning. When you are in argument, it's really easier to list just one example to prove somebody's point wrong; but not vice versa. So I don't take him seriously.

headheldhigh

I watched the movie- also watched supersize me before that. I found it to be very educational. I'm a believer- mostly from personal experience- that carbs are more fattening than fat- and protein. I lose weight easier and feel better if I don't overdue it on carbs. I also find that some carbs just trigger me to want more and more but I seldom, actually never, binge on pork chops and steak. Of course, there was a lot more subject matter covered than that. Truthfully, there is so much brought up and thrown out there in the movie that its really best to research some things further on your own.

I liked the movie very much. I also liked supersize me, even though that sounds contradictory. I just figure, the more information the better. And sometimes opposing view points helps you get a more rounded idea of something.

mad8588

I liked both movies too. Supersize me went after McDonalds's menu being unnutritional. This movie brought up the point of Spurlock eating 5,000 calories on his McDonalds diet. This guy did a similar diet but the snippets of his food log were around 2,000 calories. Really liked how it brought up processed foods and the different types of fats out there. Been awhile since seeing Supersize me but this guy seemed to have more people with a background in research.

JennsLosing

i liked it, i found it very interesting.

mynameisuntz

Terribly wrong in regards to its explanation of insulin. Take that entire section of the movie with a tub of salt.

End6ame

If you get past some of poor attempts at comedy and cheeziness of it, it does contain a lot of really good information. I would say almost the entire first half could be skipped, but the second half is worth watching. There is also a great article on saturated fat that talks about a lot of the same thing.

http://www.coconutoil.com/truth_saturated_fats.htm

mynameisuntz

If you get past some of poor attempts at comedy and cheeziness of it, it does contain a lot of really good information. I would say almost the entire first half could be skipped, but the second half is worth watching. There is also a great article on saturated fat that talks about a lot of the same thing.

http://www.coconutoil.com/truth_saturated_fats.htm

The second half is arguably the worst part.

Everything he says after mentioning "Gary Taubes" can pretty much be ignored. Any time he mentions insulin, just turn on "ignore mode" in your brain.

lizzil0

I thought the guy was a d@uche, and was irritated in the beginning- but halfway though, when the science of it is talked about I really enjoyed. Fascinating stuff. Some other good info if you're interested-

http://www.youtube.com/user/StanfordUniversity#p/search/4/eREuZEdMAVo

http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=mummy-says-john-horgan-is-wrong-abo-2011-05-19

ilsie99

Any time he mentions insulin, just turn on "ignore mode" in your brain.

Why? Not being snarky, I really want to know what was wrong with his explanation.

mynameisuntz

Any time he mentions insulin, just turn on "ignore mode" in your brain.

Why? Not being snarky, I really want to know what was wrong with his explanation.

His ideas regarding the *practical application* of proper nutrition in its effects of insulin are relevant to a very small minority of the population; specifically those who are diabetic or insulin resistant/chronically raised levels of insulin.

He does a poor job at making that fact clear. He makes it sound like everyone should fear insulin, which is just preposterous. He fuels the carbophobia that plagues forums such as these.

JennsLosing

Any time he mentions insulin, just turn on "ignore mode" in your brain.

Why? Not being snarky, I really want to know what was wrong with his explanation.

im curious too.

mynameisuntz

I thought the guy was a d@uche, and was irritated in the beginning- but halfway though, when the science of it is talked about I really enjoyed. Fascinating stuff. Some other good info if you're interested-

http://www.youtube.com/user/StanfordUniversity#p/search/4/eREuZEdMAVo

http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=mummy-says-john-horgan-is-wrong-abo-2011-05-19

Stopped watching after reading the description:

"The case for low-carbohydrate diets is gaining weight."

Scientific research does not support that notion. Low carb is superior in WEIGHT loss (not FAT loss) in the first 1-2 months of dieting. The vast majority of long-term research (6-12+ months) that compare diets show that low carb yields no better results than a more moderate carb diet, assuming protein intake remains consistent.

ilsie99

Any time he mentions insulin, just turn on "ignore mode" in your brain.

Why? Not being snarky, I really want to know what was wrong with his explanation.

His ideas regarding the *practical application* of proper nutrition in its effects of insulin are relevant to a very small minority of the population; specifically those who are diabetic or insulin resistant/chronically raised levels of insulin.

He does a poor job at making that fact clear. He makes it sound like everyone should fear insulin, which is just preposterous. He fuels the carbophobia that plagues forums such as these.

Ok, he explains how insulin works in a healthy individual, what its purpose is, and how cells start to become insulin resistant when you eat too much of the wrong food. What am I missing here?

mynameisuntz

Any time he mentions insulin, just turn on "ignore mode" in your brain.

Why? Not being snarky, I really want to know what was wrong with his explanation.

im curious too.

Here's a fun quote said by Dr. Eames @ 1:48 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNYlIcXynwE):

"Your storage sites for carbohydrates are limited, and we've got unlimited storage places for fat, so the body just ends up converting the carbohydrate to fat."

1) Not true if you eat at a caloric deficit, doc.
2) Did we just skip the fact that carbs are stored as glycogen? Like, do you know how much our glycogen can store?
3) Even if you eat at a caloric surplus, DNL (de novo lipogenesis - the metabolic pathway that converts glucose to fat) is rather inactive in humans. See research study below:

"Glycogen storage capacity in man is approximately 15 g/kg body weight and can accommodate a gain of approximately 500 g before net lipid synthesis contributes to increasing body fat mass. When the glycogen stores are saturated, massive intakes of carbohydrate are disposed of by high carbohydrate-oxidation rates and substantial de novo lipid synthesis (150 g lipid/d using approximately 475 g CHO/d) without postabsorptive hyperglycemia."

-Acheson KJ et al. Glycogen storage capacity and de novo lipogenesis during massive carbohydrate overfeeding in man. Am J Clin Nutr. 1988 Aug;48(2):240-7. Institute of Physiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Lausanne, Switzerland.

So I weigh 84kg, meaning my glycogen capacity is 84 x 15 = 1260g carbs. On top of that, my glycogen stores can do what is known as "supercompensate," and thus another 500g carbs can be fit in. My glycogen can hold 1,760g carbs, which equates to 7,040 calories of pure carbohydrates. Upon reaching this number, which takes DAYS of overfeeding carbs, my body will burn carbs at an unusually high rate while simultaneously converting extra excess carbs to fat.

This movie is leading us to believe that eating an extra 50g carbs will be turned to fat and our body will be resistant to give it up? Give me a break.

ilsie99

Any time he mentions insulin, just turn on "ignore mode" in your brain.

Why? Not being snarky, I really want to know what was wrong with his explanation.

im curious too.

Here's a fun quote said by Dr. Eames @ 1:48 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNYlIcXynwE):

"Your storage sites for carbohydrates are limited, and we've got unlimited storage places for fat, so the body just ends up converting the carbohydrate to fat."

1) Not true if you eat at a caloric deficit, doc.
2) Did we just skip the fact that carbs are stored as glycogen? Like, do you know how much our glycogen can store?
3) Even if you eat at a caloric surplus, DNL (de novo lipogenesis - the metabolic pathway that converts glucose to fat) is rather inactive in humans. See research study below:

"Glycogen storage capacity in man is approximately 15 g/kg body weight and can accommodate a gain of approximately 500 g before net lipid synthesis contributes to increasing body fat mass. When the glycogen stores are saturated, massive intakes of carbohydrate are disposed of by high carbohydrate-oxidation rates and substantial de novo lipid synthesis (150 g lipid/d using approximately 475 g CHO/d) without postabsorptive hyperglycemia."

-Acheson KJ et al. Glycogen storage capacity and de novo lipogenesis during massive carbohydrate overfeeding in man. Am J Clin Nutr. 1988 Aug;48(2):240-7. Institute of Physiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Lausanne, Switzerland.

So I weigh 84kg, meaning my glycogen capacity is 84 x 15 = 1260g carbs. On top of that, my glycogen stores can do what is known as "supercompensate," and thus another 500g carbs can be fit in. My glycogen can hold 1,760g carbs, which equates to 7,040 calories of pure carbohydrates. Upon reaching this number, which takes DAYS of overfeeding carbs, my body will burn carbs at an unusually high rate while simultaneously converting extra excess carbs to fat.

This movie is leading us to believe that eating an extra 50g carbs will be turned to fat and our body will be resistant to give it up? Give me a break.

Oh, basically you're saying that as long as you dont overeat it doesnt matter whether you eat carbs or no carbs, and that the movie doesn't ever make that distinction. Geez, you could have just said that in the first place. :laugh:

mynameisuntz

Oh, basically you're saying that as long as you dont overeat it doesnt matter whether you eat carbs or no carbs, and that the movie doesn't ever make that distinction. Geez, you could have just said that in the first place. :laugh:

That is a major component. However, not the whole picture. If I told you my maintenance was 2,000 calories, and I ate 2,000 calories then ate 100 calories of pure glucose - what would you say happens to that glucose?

You'd probably tell me it turns to fat, right?

That's not true though. Excess carbs rarely get converted to fat except while under extremely long periods of intense overfeeding. For people who are obese, this might be common. For people who are not obese, however, carbs don't get converted to fat all that often; they merely make it more difficult to burn fat as your body has a whole lot of extra glucose to burn before it turns to stored fat as an energy source.

This movie does not explain that. It says that carbs will be converted to fat and subsequently stored without mentioning caloric deficits, surpluses, or glycogen storage. It's just laughable how much they try to water down an intricate process. Basically reminds me of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpJvBuz6ySs

ilsie99

Oh, basically you're saying that as long as you dont overeat it doesnt matter whether you eat carbs or no carbs, and that the movie doesn't ever make that distinction. Geez, you could have just said that in the first place. :laugh:

That is a major component. However, not the whole picture. If I told you my maintenance was 2,000 calories, and I ate 2,000 calories then ate 100 calories of pure glucose - what would you say happens to that glucose?

You'd probably tell me it turns to fat, right?

That's not true though. Excess carbs rarely get converted to fat except while under extremely long periods of intense overfeeding. For people who are obese, this might be common. For people who are not obese, however, carbs don't get converted to fat all that often; they merely make it more difficult to burn fat as your body has a whole lot of extra glucose to burn before it turns to stored fat as an energy source.

This movie does not explain that. It says that carbs will be converted to fat and subsequently stored without mentioning caloric deficits, surpluses, or glycogen storage. It's just laughable how much they try to water down an intricate process. Basically reminds me of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpJvBuz6ySs

Well that (and your "supercompensation" statement of an additional 500g of carbs storage) I don't buy. That's from my own experience as a marathon runner. Carb loading does very little to nothing, even when you start weeks early (I have done lots of experiments to myself on this, mostly it just makes me gain weight during the taper), and this is something that's abundantly obvious to most people who hit the wall at mile 18.

Trust me, if my body could store an additional 500g worth of carb as glycogen, Gu and Hammer would be totally out of business.

mynameisuntz

Well that (and your "supercompensation" statement of an additional 500g of carbs storage) I don't buy. That's from my own experience as a marathon runner. Carb loading does very little to nothing, even when you start weeks early (I have done lots of experiments to myself on this, mostly it just makes me gain weight during the taper), and this is something that's abundantly obvious to most people who hit the wall at mile 18.

Trust me, if my body could store an additional 500g worth of carb as glycogen, Gu and Hammer would be totally out of business.

Feel free to refute the study after you read it, then. You explain how participants can eat at caloric surpluses and see no short-term gains in fat mass.

Immediate energy needs are still relevant for endurance tasks. You can't live off glycogen forever in an endurance event, similarly obese people still need to eat food eventually despite having plenty of stored energy.

ilsie99

Well that (and your "supercompensation" statement of an additional 500g of carbs storage) I don't buy. That's from my own experience as a marathon runner. Carb loading does very little to nothing, even when you start weeks early (I have done lots of experiments to myself on this, mostly it just makes me gain weight during the taper), and this is something that's abundantly obvious to most people who hit the wall at mile 18.

Trust me, if my body could store an additional 500g worth of carb as glycogen, Gu and Hammer would be totally out of business.

Feel free to refute the study after you read it, then. You explain how participants can eat at caloric surpluses and see no short-term gains in fat mass.

Immediate energy needs are still relevant for endurance tasks. You can't live off glycogen forever in an endurance event, similarly obese people still need to eat food eventually despite having plenty of stored energy.

I don't know, they poop it out? All I know is what I know. I don't really feel like arguing a point that I'm not an expert on. Like I said though, I've got plenty of empirical evidence to back up my statement.

mynameisuntz

I don't know, they poop it out? All I know is what I know. I don't really feel like arguing a point that I'm not an expert on. Like I said though, I've got plenty of empirical evidence to back up my statement.

What? Is that serious?

Feel free to produce some of that empirical evidence as I have clearly presented mine. Especially any empirical evidence that supports the claims made in Fathead. THAT would be nice to see.