Fat Head

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.

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.

I totally agree, which is why I am so confused that, for example, not only is low fat milk typically the recommendation, even for children (http://www.eatright.org/Public/content.aspx?id=6751) but, in fact whole raw milk is prohibited by more than half of the US.

I also don't understand why pasta, crackers, etc. tend to get a free pass. The link I just posted encourages parents to "Give kids whole-grain cereals for breakfast, kid-friendly “white” whole-wheat bread for sandwiches, crunchy whole-grain crackers for snacks and whole-grain pastas for dinner."

Yes, fine, they are whole-grain cereals, bread, crackers, and pasta and I get that, if you're going to be giving your kids those foods, then there are are reasons for recommending whole grain over refined grain products, but I don't believe that's how the recommendations are being interpreted (or really even how they are being communicated). I'm not saying that these foods will kill anyone, but I haven't seen a strong nutrition-based reason that I ought to feed my children crackers and bread, whole-grain or not.

I agree. I think the intent, to replace white grains with whole grains is good and important. But too much empahsis has been placed on it, making it seem more important than simply eating less of overly processed products made from flour such as pasta, crackers and bread even if they are whole grain.

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?

Considering everything else people do regarding food and dieting, are you really surprised by this?

:laugh: Good point. But I am constantly surprised at the stuff people believe about food, nutrition and health. How did something so simple as eating food become so screwed up? Aren't we (humans) supposed to be the smart species?

Maybe it all does go back to our ancestors. But it would seem to me that their diets would vary a lot by region. Surely those that lived in warm climates where edible plants were available year round would have eaten a much higher percentage of them than those that lived in cold climates where plants were only available part of the time. Why would anyone spend time chasing, killing, and butchering animals when there was food that doesn't fight back everywhere you look?

Opportunistic people like Taubes preyed on this mentality and made a lot of money from it.

Documentaries should not be mistaken for science or news reporting. They are entertainment, nothing more.

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.

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.

I totally agree, which is why I am so confused that, for example, not only is low fat milk typically the recommendation, even for children (http://www.eatright.org/Public/content.aspx?id=6751) but, in fact whole raw milk is prohibited by more than half of the US.

I also don't understand why pasta, crackers, etc. tend to get a free pass. The link I just posted encourages parents to "Give kids whole-grain cereals for breakfast, kid-friendly “white” whole-wheat bread for sandwiches, crunchy whole-grain crackers for snacks and whole-grain pastas for dinner."

Yes, fine, they are whole-grain cereals, bread, crackers, and pasta and I get that, if you're going to be giving your kids those foods, then there are are reasons for recommending whole grain over refined grain products, but I don't believe that's how the recommendations are being interpreted (or really even how they are being communicated). I'm not saying that these foods will kill anyone, but I haven't seen a strong nutrition-based reason that I ought to feed my children crackers and bread, whole-grain or not.

I agree. I think the intent, to replace white grains with whole grains is good and important. But too much empahsis has been placed on it, making it seem more important than simply eating less of overly processed products made from flour such as pasta, crackers and bread even if they are whole grain.

And, for me, a lot of what I got out of Fat Head was that a lot of the (allegedly) flawed saturated fat research and subsequent (allegedly) rushed/ill-advised governmental dietary recommendations have driven the American food system into preferring more processed foods. The relatively unprocessed (but "evil" saturated-fat laden) beef tallow, leaf lard or bacon grease that were used were replaced with vegetable shortening, corn oil, soybean oil, etc. I can, and have, rendered beef tallow in a crock pot. I can't say the same about soybean oil.

The (supposedly unjustified) vilification of saturated fat also gave us all kinds of low-fat dairy products. Of course, because fat is tasty, when it is removed it is frequently replaced with sugar (or fake sugar, these days).

One of my pet peeves is when people equate "low-fat" diet suggestions with low saturated fat diet recommendations. They are two very different things. Low fat is unhealthy, low saturated fat is not.

There is quite a bit of clinical evidence that people who eat diets high in saturated fat have greater incidence of disease (though less directly linking the two). That, plus the fact that I dislike fatty meat and whole fat milk products leave an unpleasant phlegm in my throat, is enough to keep me away from it.

Honestly, the more I read these boards the more I understand why research on nutrition is often so conflicting. Some people claim to feel healthier and have less digestive problems when eating mega portions of animal protein and fat and cutting out grains. Others, like me, claim to feel better when eating whole grains and limiting animal products.

I don't eat overly processed grains because I've been told they are bad for me, but honestly when I did eat a lot of white bread and pasta I never had problems with weight gain or bloating. I've always had a pretty healthy digestive system. The only time I've had problems is when eating too much greasy meat. A large mabled steak, bacon, sausage, baby back ribs all seem to shoot through my gut quickly with unpleasant consequences.

Maybe it all does go back to our ancestors. But it would seem to me that their diets would vary a lot by region. Surely those that lived in warm climates where edible plants were available year round would have eaten a much higher percentage of them than those that lived in cold climates where plants were only available part of the time. Why would anyone spend time chasing, killing, and butchering animals when there was food that doesn't fight back everywhere you look?

The point of Super size me seems to have gone over some peoples heads