This movie will change your life...SERIOUSLY

Interesting.

trying to stay on a low carb diet, is not realistic. Not to mention not very healthy. Yes, it will take it off pretty fast, but low carbing is not a healthy lifestyle. My friend has been on it for several years. To my eye, the last 5 years, she looks the same. Your body adjusts. Our body is ment to have all the nutrients. Moderation is the key.

well the evils really depend on what kind of life style you have. for someone who does serious workouts everyday (i'm talking intervals, 600 calories in 60 minutes or less type.) then carbs are not really evil, though protein is of course the better choice.

i feel much better when i am low carb\hi protien, more energy and just feel better, if i eat carbs i just feel crappy and it makes me want to eat constantly, and screws around with my blood sugar level.
i stay away from them everything is good. oh and i drop pounds too

Maybe low in calories and a way to lose some weight but it's not a healthy lifestyle. What you give up in calories fast food will kill you with cholesterol and the fat. Just not sold on this type of diet.

I couldn't make it past the first 15-20 minutes due to the filmmaker/narrator being such an annoying pompous *kitten*. But some MFPals recommended that I tough through it or at least watch the last 30 minutes or so when he stops talking bologna and starts talking science. Might give it another try in the next few days.

I didn't realize it was a pro low-carb thing at first. I don't see what the fuss is about. I'm doing just fine with full-carb.

Bottom line: Carbs are the evil not fat.

This type of thinking is probably what the real problem is. Neither carbohydrates nor fats are evil, and both are essential for good health.

Of course not all carbs are the same, just as not all fats are the same. If you get most of your carbs from soda, candy, fast food, sugary bread, pizza, ketchup... then you're doing yourself a disservice. Same if you get most of your fats from candy, deep fried whatever (eg donoughts, french fries...), fast foods, crisps...
Its not the carbs or the fats that are the problem. Its the habit of eating **** food.

On the other hand, if you get your carbs from fruit, whole grains, peas, beans, lentils, and vegetables and you get your fats from nuts, beans, fruits (like avocado), and seeds, then you're almost definitely going to be healthy. If you get your carbs and fats from these sources, you're pretty much guaranteed to get a good amount of very healthy protein in the mix as well.

Bottom line: Carbs are the evil not fat.

This type of thinking is probably what the real problem is. Neither carbohydrates nor fats are evil, and both are essential for good health.

Of course not all carbs are the same, just as not all fats are the same. If you get most of your carbs from soda, candy, fast food, sugary bread, pizza, ketchup... then you're doing yourself a disservice. Same if you get most of your fats from candy, deep fried whatever (eg donoughts, french fries...), fast foods, crisps...
Its not the carbs or the fats that are the problem. Its the habit of eating **** food.

On the other hand, if you get your carbs from fruit, whole grains, peas, beans, lentils, and vegetables and you get your fats from nuts, beans, fruits (like avocado), and seeds, then you're almost definitely going to be healthy. If you get your carbs and fats from these sources, you're pretty much guaranteed to get a good amount of very healthy protein in the mix as well.

Now that is it down to brass tax. Great explanation. That is what it is all about. Thank you. I am a nutrition major, and thank goodness for someone with an educated answer.

Another good one to watch is Super Size Me, if you haven't seen it yet you should.

the way I have read it in my Low Glycemic Index books is that there are "good" carbs like those that come from fruits and vegetables and there are "bad" carbs, but those bad carbs can come into the good category when you start adding stuff to them. Like a baked potato. It is naturally high glycemic. add a little butter and sour cream to it and it falls into the low glycemic range because most dairy is naturally low glycemic. Therefore, carbs are not evil, you just have to watch how you eat them and how many of them you eat.

Any food that grows from the ground, is fed by sunshine, and nourished by rain is good food. Fear is not in my diet. And I don’t subscribe to any system of eating that suggests there are foods we need to be afraid of, or that breaks them into categories of “good”, “bad”,or “avoid”, “consume”. If fear-based eating works for others, they are welcome to it. I pass no judgement.

Haven't watched the movie, but I just read the section on the website called "No-Bologna Facts"
http://www.fathead-movie.com/index.php/no-bologna-facts/

Its jam-packed with misinformation.

There’s never been a single study that proves saturated fat causes heart disease.

This is an irrelevant conclusion. Science doesn't "prove" things, it disproves them. Failure to disprove a theory may lead to the theory being accepted, but it wont be proven. But 'Fat-Head' implies that because there is study that proves saturated fat causes heart disease, saturated fat does not cause heart disease.

Asian Indians – half of whom are vegetarians – have one of the highest rates of heart disease in the entire world. Yup, that fatty meat will kill you, all right.

Firstly, WTF! "Asian Indians"?
Secondly, this is a non sequitur. It observes a high rate of heart disease in Indians and the rate of vegetarianism and implies vegetarianism causes heart disease.
A more generous interpretation is that 'Fat-Head' is using a straw-man. The argument is "vegetarians have low saturated fat. Many Indians are vegetarian and many Indians have heart disease. Therefore saturated fat cannot cause heart disease". The straw-man is misrepresenting vegetarians as having diets low in saturated fat. In fact, Indians have diets that are very high in saturated fat, even vegetarian Indians.
Read this interview with a renowned Indian cardiac surgeon, which touches on saturated fat in Indian diets: http://www.rediff.com/news/2009/feb/02-highest-rates-of-heart-diseases-in-india.htm

When Morgan Spurlock tells you that a McDonald’s salad supplies almost a day’s allowance of fat, he’s basing that statement on the FDA’s low-fat/high-carbohydrate dietary guidelines, which in turn are based on … absolutely nothing. There’s no science behind those guidelines; they were simply made up by a congressional committee.

It is simply not true that these guidelines are based on absolutely nothing. If you want to know where these came from, read this paper, Harper, A. (1985) "Origin of recommended dietary allowances", The American Journal of Clinaical Nutrition, v41, pp140-148. Link: http://www.ajcn.org/content/41/1/140.full.pdf

Kids who were diagnosed as suffering from ADD have been successfully treated by re-introducing natural saturated fats into their diets. Your brain is made largely of fat.

These statements are both true.
The next points are about epileptics being treated with low sugar, high fat diets; the statistical link between saturated fat and cancer being weak; the link between sugar and cancer being strong; and the possibility of being both fat and healthy, or think and having type II diabetes and heart disease.
I don't have much to say on these except that I haven't heard much about saturated fat being linked to cancer, and 'Fat-Head's' assertion that I have, and that this is false, is an attempt to lead me to the conclusion that other things I've heard about saturated fats are also false. This would be a fallacy of hasty generalisation: I would be saying, "this belief about saturated fats is false, therefore all beliefs about saturated fats are false".

Finally:

Saturated fat and cholesterol help produce testosterone. When men limit their saturated fat, their testosterone level drops. So, regardless of what a famous vegan chef believes, saturated fat does not impair sexual performance.

I don't know about the first two statements, but the third statement contains an appeal to prejudice as well as a red herring.
The appeal to prejudice is this: "So, regardless of what a famous vegan chef believes". Its the opposite of an appeal to authority. The reader is meant to conclude if a famous vegan chef believes x, then x must be false.
The red herring occurs when 'Fat-Head' builds an argument about saturated fat causing testosterone, and concluding that saturated fat does not impair sexual performance. Of course its possible for something to both raise testosterone levels and impair sexual performance. To illustrate, consider being injected with a kilogram of testosterone. Your testosterone levels would be very high, but you'd probably be dead.
'Fat-Head' also invites the listener to make another hasty generalisation. The supposed link between a source of testosterone and sexual performance is based on our knowledge of the male sexual hormone. But there would be no link, fallacious or otherwise, for females. We're invited to make that generalisation on our own.

Conclusion:
'Fat-Head' may be shocking and entertaining and thought-provoking, but if the official website is any indication of the type of arguments offered, it's seriously flawed and shouldn't be considered a source of knowledge so much as a source of inspiration for your own research.