Fat Head

bcattoes

So, I saw this documentary last night. I don't get it. A skinny comedian does a documentary where he eats nothing but McD for a month and gains weight and his health suffers (shocking!). So, fat comedian retaliates several years later with a long commercial for McD where he eats McD and other fatty foods, but makes sure to keep his calories low and loses weight (again, shocking!). And THIS is what so many people use as their food guide? Comedians? Seriously?

sister_bear

It's business. Business is profitable, not logical, sensible, or healthful.

billsica

How many people get their only news from the Daily show and Colbert?

fitzie63

Sum it up in one word: ignorance.

carriecarrot

I think comedians have an appreciation for irony. I just think the Fat Head guy thinks the documentary "Super Size Me" is ridiculous. He has some points. I do think that some of his other claims are questionable such as his claim of vegetarians influencing the government food pyramid, and his claim that cholesterol and saturated fat doesn't cause heart disease and atherosclerosis. He also points out that Indians are vegetarians and have the highest heart disease in the world, but using that evidence is a fallacy because studies suggest that this cause is genetic.

But the one thing the Fat Head guy does well is expose how stupid SuperSize Me is. If you made hamburgers and deep fried french fries at home, it would be just as bad for you. It's stupid to point fingers at fast food. Personally, I know how to get a reasonably healthy meal at McDonald's but if someone wants to eat a Big Mac and a large fries, then that should be their choice. Another good point he makes is about fat and how it is crucial for your health... He also talks about insulin resistance, but he definitely isn't the first to talk about it... He is incorrect assuming that carbs are all bad and fat is all good... It's about moderation... People shouldnt push carbs or fat, they should promote eating vegetables.

Saksgirl1

How many people get their only news from the Daily show and Colbert?

You say that like there is something wrong there???

KIDDING

idiocracy

Commercials address the subconscious. Unlike people here, on MFP, who took healthy choices, everybody else will let that juicy hamburger image with a "weight loss" tag stick somewhere in a "drawer" inside their mind. Weight loss and diet is what sells better now, so why would McDonalds pass that chance?

Aokark

A comedian that makes fun of something stupid, how shocking!

trainguy917

If you watch the movie closely, you will hear him explain why he did it. He pretty much proved that Spurlock cooked the books, and that's the point. Spurlock couldn't have eaten the number of calories he claimed to have eaten and stayed within his own self-imposed rules. He won't let anyone see his food diary to prove otherwise.

He's attacking the elitist mentality of Spurlock and others like him who have the idea that people are weak idiots and need to be protected from the world. His argument is that what we need to be protected from is the people claiming to be trying to protect us, because they are working on mistaken assumptions about food. He's attacking those underlying assumptions on which the entire diet industry (and the federal government) is built, and he uses compelling, scientifically sound, arguments to prove his point. We've been misled about fat and sugar both and the establishment is sticking by faulty information despite that no good studies bear it out as accurate.

I know I sound like a conspiracy theorist and I'm normally not. But I've done a lot of reading about this and I'm thoroughly convinced that sugar is the major dietary culprit, not saturated fats, as is being espoused by the mainstream diet industry and, indeed, the federal government.

tigersword

I know I sound like a conspiracy theorist and I'm normally not. But I've done a lot of reading about this and I'm thoroughly convinced that sugar is the major dietary culprit, not saturated fats, as is being espoused by the mainstream diet industry and, indeed, the federal government.

The numbers don't lie, however. People are eating less sugar and more fat nowadays, and it's been trending that way for several decades. If sugar is the culprit, then shouldn't people be eating more sugar and less fat? The real culprit is the fact that people are less active then we were 30-40 years ago, and yet we are eating a lot more in general. It's got nothing to do with one particular food type.

bcattoes

How many people get their only news from the Daily show and Colbert?

IDK but John Stewart is hilarious!

ohwhataday

I think comedians have an appreciation for irony. I just think the Fat Head guy thinks the documentary "Super Size Me" is ridiculous. He has some points. I do think that some of his other claims are questionable such as his claim of vegetarians influencing the government food pyramid, and his claim that cholesterol and saturated fat doesn't cause heart disease and atherosclerosis. He also points out that Indians are vegetarians and have the highest heart disease in the world, but using that evidence is a fallacy because studies suggest that this cause is genetic.

But the one thing the Fat Head guy does well is expose how stupid SuperSize Me is. If you made hamburgers and deep fried french fries at home, it would be just as bad for you. It's stupid to point fingers at fast food. Personally, I know how to get a reasonably healthy meal at McDonald's but if someone wants to eat a Big Mac and a large fries, then that should be their choice. Another good point he makes is about fat and how it is crucial for your health... He also talks about insulin resistance, but he definitely isn't the first to talk about it... He is incorrect assuming that carbs are all bad and fat is all good... It's about moderation... People shouldnt push carbs or fat, they should promote eating vegetables.

I really loved this documentary! I've seen both! And Morgan Spurlock can suck it!!!

catwrangler

I know I sound like a conspiracy theorist and I'm normally not. But I've done a lot of reading about this and I'm thoroughly convinced that sugar is the major dietary culprit, not saturated fats, as is being espoused by the mainstream diet industry and, indeed, the federal government.

The numbers don't lie, however. People are eating less sugar and more fat nowadays, and it's been trending that way for several decades. If sugar is the culprit, then shouldn't people be eating more sugar and less fat? The real culprit is the fact that people are less active then we were 30-40 years ago, and yet we are eating a lot more in general. It's got nothing to do with one particular food type.

I tend to agree with this. There are "good fats" and "good sugars" and "bad fats" and "bad sugars" but what all people have in common is NOT MOVING enough!

bcattoes

If you watch the movie closely, you will hear him explain why he did it. He pretty much proved that Spurlock cooked the books, and that's the point. Spurlock couldn't have eaten the number of calories he claimed to have eaten and stayed within his own self-imposed rules. He won't let anyone see his food diary to prove otherwise.

He's attacking the elitist mentality of Spurlock and others like him who have the idea that people are weak idiots and need to be protected from the world. His argument is that what we need to be protected from is the people claiming to be trying to protect us, because they are working on mistaken assumptions about food. He's attacking those underlying assumptions on which the entire diet industry (and the federal government) is built, and he uses compelling, scientifically sound, arguments to prove his point. We've been misled about fat and sugar both and the establishment is sticking by faulty information despite that no good studies bear it out as accurate.

I know I sound like a conspiracy theorist and I'm normally not. But I've done a lot of reading about this and I'm thoroughly convinced that sugar is the major dietary culprit, not saturated fats, as is being espoused by the mainstream diet industry and, indeed, the federal government.

Yeah, I got he didn't like Spurlock. It's been years since I saw Super Size me but everyone at the screening was laughing. I didn't know it was supposed to be taken seriously. Mr. Spurlock was at the film festival where I saw it and he didn't seem elitist (other than he said he only really ate burgers from steak houses "where they were good) or serious. He was making jokes about the film. Anyone that takes a guy eating nothing but McD and suffering for it as serious isn't using much of their brain.

ArizonaBMC

So, I saw this documentary last night. I don't get it. A skinny comedian does a documentary where he eats nothing but McD for a month and gains weight and his health suffers (shocking!). So, fat comedian retaliates several years later with a long commercial for McD where he eats McD and other fatty foods, but makes sure to keep his calories low and loses weight (again, shocking!). And THIS is what so many people use as their food guide? Comedians? Seriously?

If you're not willing to change your lifestyle based on a single documentary (and why would you), please use it as a springboard to spur more of your own research into the science involved. You are doing yourself a disservice if you don't. I recommend two books, "Why We Get Fat" and "Wheat Belly."

BTW...your contention that Fat Head is a commercial for McDonald's in patently dishonest. The movie was funded by....the filmmaker. That's it. By not even mentioning the esteemed doctors who were involved in the scientific aspect of the film, well, it implies you have your own agenda as well.

bcattoes

So, I saw this documentary last night. I don't get it. A skinny comedian does a documentary where he eats nothing but McD for a month and gains weight and his health suffers (shocking!). So, fat comedian retaliates several years later with a long commercial for McD where he eats McD and other fatty foods, but makes sure to keep his calories low and loses weight (again, shocking!). And THIS is what so many people use as their food guide? Comedians? Seriously?

If you're not willing to change your lifestyle based on a single documentary (and why would you), please use it as a springboard to spur more of your own research into the science involved. You are doing yourself a disservice if you don't. I recommend two books, "Why We Get Fat" and "Wheat Belly."

BTW...your contention that Fat Head is a commercial for McDonald's in patently dishonest. The movie was funded by....the filmmaker. That's it. By not even mentioning the esteemed doctors who were involved in the scientific aspect of the film, well, it implies you have your own agenda as well.

What type of agenda would I have?? I've worked in health care for almost 30 years. I already know the science of nutrition. Fat Head wasn't "science" anymore than Supersize Me was. It was just a movie.

lkm111

Personally, I know how to get a reasonably healthy meal at McDonald's

If you knew what was in that hamburger, I don't think you would call it healthy. That goes for the chicken, too.

tigersword

Personally, I know how to get a reasonably healthy meal at McDonald's

If you knew what was in that hamburger, I don't think you would call it healthy. That goes for the chicken, too.

Enlighten me, what's in that hamburger? Keep in mind I've worked for McDonald's and am very familiar with the ingredients they use.

ArizonaBMC

So, I saw this documentary last night. I don't get it. A skinny comedian does a documentary where he eats nothing but McD for a month and gains weight and his health suffers (shocking!). So, fat comedian retaliates several years later with a long commercial for McD where he eats McD and other fatty foods, but makes sure to keep his calories low and loses weight (again, shocking!). And THIS is what so many people use as their food guide? Comedians? Seriously?

If you're not willing to change your lifestyle based on a single documentary (and why would you), please use it as a springboard to spur more of your own research into the science involved. You are doing yourself a disservice if you don't. I recommend two books, "Why We Get Fat" and "Wheat Belly."

BTW...your contention that Fat Head is a commercial for McDonald's in patently dishonest. The movie was funded by....the filmmaker. That's it. By not even mentioning the esteemed doctors who were involved in the scientific aspect of the film, well, it implies you have your own agenda as well.

What type of agenda would I have?? I've worked in health care for almost 30 years. I already know the science of nutrition. Fat Head wasn't "science" anymore than Supersize Me was. It was just a movie.

BOOM! There's your agenda: "I've worked in health care for almost 30 years." You are actually part of the denial machine that supports a high carbohydrate diet as THE healthy way to live. You are set in your old ways of thinking to the tune of 30 years, and you are unwilling to open yourself to new facts. Your so-called "science of nutrition" is suspect. McDonald's didn't get us to where we are now...Ancel Keys' manufactured research did.

tigersword

It's very simple. The average American is much less active than we were in 1970. Also, the average American eats about 600 more calories a day than we did in 1970. It's not eating too much fat, it's not eating too much sugar, it's not eating "refined sugar," it's quite simply that we eat more food and move less. More calories consumed and less calories burned equals much fatter Americans. In 1970, Americans ate an average of 2000 calories a day, in 2010 the average was about 2600.

Acg67

i'll sum up both movies

Supersize me = eat in a consistent caloric surplus and you gain weight

Fathead = eat in a consistent caloric deficit and you lose weight

not something most everyone already knew

questionablemethods

The average American is much less active than we were in 1970.

I'm not necessarily denying this, but could you cite some statistics that we actually are burning fewer calories through movement and exercise than we were in 1970? While we might have more gadgets, I'm guessing we also have more exercise DVDs, more marathons and more gyms on every other street than we did in 1970, so I'm wondering how this all plays out in terms of calories burned.

hyenagirl

Fat Head changed my life. I was eating 1400 calories a day of pasta and bread. I was obese and sad because I was eating the calories I should every day. Heck, I was evening running an hour 3 times a week.. I now eat 1400 calories a day and way less carbohydrates than I did and about 3 times the fat as I used to, and I lost over 30 lbs. I also ditched the cardio too. I'm now not obese, I'm in the healthy BMI weight range, planning on losing more. It's not just about eating more and moving less, it's about what you eat. I also lost a ton of wrinkles in addition to rolls when I upped the saturated fat content in my diet.

Fat Head focuses on why wheat is bad. People were eating meat long before we ate wheat. People are also bigger in frame now than they were in 1970.

tigersword

The average American is much less active than we were in 1970.

I'm not necessarily denying this, but could you cite some statistics that we actually are burning fewer calories through movement and exercise than we were in 1970? While we might have more gadgets, I'm guessing we also have more exercise DVDs, more marathons and more gyms on every other street than we did in 1970, so I'm wondering how this all plays out in terms of calories burned.

It's got nothing to do with gadgets or the number of gyms, it's the fact that over the last 40 years Americans have shifted into more sedentary jobs than active jobs, I don't have a study on me at the moment, but there are many studies out there showing that Americans are much more sedentary than they were several decades ago.

Acg67

The average American is much less active than we were in 1970.

I'm not necessarily denying this, but could you cite some statistics that we actually are burning fewer calories through movement and exercise than we were in 1970? While we might have more gadgets, I'm guessing we also have more exercise DVDs, more marathons and more gyms on every other street than we did in 1970, so I'm wondering how this all plays out in terms of calories burned.

King DE, et al. Adherence to healthy lifestyle habits in US adults, 1988-2006. Am J Med. 2009 Ju; 122(6):528-34

RESULTS:

Over the last 18 years, the percent of adults aged 40-74 years with a body mass index >or=30 kg/m(2) has increased from 28% to 36% (P <.05); physical activity 12 times a month or more has decreased from 53% to 43% (P <.05)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19486715

questionablemethods

I know I sound like a conspiracy theorist and I'm normally not. But I've done a lot of reading about this and I'm thoroughly convinced that sugar is the major dietary culprit, not saturated fats, as is being espoused by the mainstream diet industry and, indeed, the federal government.

The numbers don't lie, however. People are eating less sugar and more fat nowadays, and it's been trending that way for several decades. If sugar is the culprit, then shouldn't people be eating more sugar and less fat? The real culprit is the fact that people are less active then we were 30-40 years ago, and yet we are eating a lot more in general. It's got nothing to do with one particular food type.

For anyone interested, Stephan Guyenet has put together some graphs from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA): http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/12/us-weight-lifestyle-and-diet-trends.html

NHANES shows carbohydrates making up the largest increase in calories (right in line with Food Pyramid recommendations).

questionablemethods

The average American is much less active than we were in 1970.

I'm not necessarily denying this, but could you cite some statistics that we actually are burning fewer calories through movement and exercise than we were in 1970? While we might have more gadgets, I'm guessing we also have more exercise DVDs, more marathons and more gyms on every other street than we did in 1970, so I'm wondering how this all plays out in terms of calories burned.

King DE, et al. Adherence to healthy lifestyle habits in US adults, 1988-2006. Am J Med. 2009 Ju; 122(6):528-34

RESULTS:

Over the last 18 years, the percent of adults aged 40-74 years with a body mass index >or=30 kg/m(2) has increased from 28% to 36% (P <.05); physical activity 12 times a month or more has decreased from 53% to 43% (P <.05)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19486715

Thanks! Why was counted as physical activity?

The Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (via the link I posted above) shows that people's reports of physical activity increasing since 1988. I wonder why there appear such differences.

tigersword

Fat Head changed my life. I was eating 1400 calories a day of pasta and bread. I was obese and sad because I was eating the calories I should every day. Heck, I was evening running an hour 3 times a week.. I now eat 1400 calories a day and way less carbohydrates than I did and about 3 times the fat as I used to, and I lost over 30 lbs. I also ditched the cardio too. I'm now not obese, I'm in the healthy BMI weight range, planning on losing more. It's not just about eating more and moving less, it's about what you eat. I also lost a ton of wrinkles in addition to rolls when I upped the saturated fat content in my diet.

Fat Head focuses on why wheat is bad. People were eating meat long before we ate wheat. People are also bigger in frame now than they were in 1970.

Wheat is not bad. If it was, the rest of the world would be just as obese as the United States, and they aren't.

questionablemethods

Wheat is not bad. If it was, the rest of the world would be just as obese as the United States, and they aren't.

Well, the rest of the world is certainly getting fatter.

Here's an interesting perspective: How Wheat Made the World Fat (http://www.fatfiction.co.uk/fat/wheatpt1/). Not saying it is spot on, I'm just providing links to other viewpoints for those interested in looking into it further.

bcattoes

Wheat is not bad. If it was, the rest of the world would be just as obese as the United States, and they aren't.

Well, the rest of the world is certainly getting fatter.

Here's an interesting perspective: How Wheat Made the World Fat (http://www.fatfiction.co.uk/fat/wheatpt1/). Not saying it is spot on, I'm just providing links to other viewpoints for those interested in looking into it further.

The rest of world is becoming fatter as more countries become "developed" and begin eating processed foods. And that is the real problem. Processed foods in general. Processed carbs is the most consumed and so, naturally and rightfully, gets the worst wrap. But processed meats are just as bad. It's not wheat so much as a lack of natural foods. It's not as if people just started eating wheat.

saajidah93

I think comedians have an appreciation for irony. I just think the Fat Head guy thinks the documentary "Super Size Me" is ridiculous. He has some points. I do think that some of his other claims are questionable such as his claim of vegetarians influencing the government food pyramid, and his claim that cholesterol and saturated fat doesn't cause heart disease and atherosclerosis. He also points out that Indians are vegetarians and have the highest heart disease in the world, but using that evidence is a fallacy because studies suggest that this cause is genetic.

But the one thing the Fat Head guy does well is expose how stupid SuperSize Me is. If you made hamburgers and deep fried french fries at home, it would be just as bad for you. It's stupid to point fingers at fast food. Personally, I know how to get a reasonably healthy meal at McDonald's but if someone wants to eat a Big Mac and a large fries, then that should be their choice. Another good point he makes is about fat and how it is crucial for your health... He also talks about insulin resistance, but he definitely isn't the first to talk about it... He is incorrect assuming that carbs are all bad and fat is all good... It's about moderation... People shouldnt push carbs or fat, they should promote eating vegetables.

Indians may be vegetarians but use a lot of oil while cooking... that's the reason for higher rates in heart disease, just saying :-)