Sadly Over-hyped

Good story, Not enough for a whole film

Brilliant and touching

It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

Why would someone glorify Mc Donalds and fast food. He talks about weight the whole time but does he mention quality of life, heart attacks, etc. You don't get quality of life at Mc Donalds or any fast food place. He doesn't even discuss all the chemicals , GMOs , trans fat , gluten, that come with fast food that can harm your health. This movie is ridiculous. The only people who gave him good ratings are probably overweight unhealthy fast food lovers.

A great movie that proves that we should all be skeptical of what 'experts' tell us and especially skeptical of what documentary filmmakers tell us. I never saw Super Size Me, but I know all too well what its conclusions were. Our media gobbled up SSM as gospel now its conclusions are part of our "conventional wisdom".This movie does a great job of reminding us to use our brains and think for ourselves. These facts alone (revealed in Fat Head) should make you question Spurlock's conclusions: - To this day Spurlock still refuses to disclose his food diary - The movie was backed by a lawyer who's suing McDonald's for billions - Spurlock's numbers of 5,000 calories a day don't add upThe movie may be a little corny and a little heavy-handed in its approach, but as believer in personal responsibility I feel it hits the mark.

There are a lot of things I could have liked about this movie, such as the silly humor of it. I was even excited that someone was motivated enough to propose a response to Supersize Me, unfortunately, this film doesn't do it. The key difference between Fathead and Supersize Me, was a background in social sciences. If the idea was to show that there was a compelling deficiency in Spurlock's theory, an equally compelling argument is not, "I have a brain," that's a logical fallacy called reductio ad absurdam - reduction to the absurd. This is no documentary, it's a comedy - if it was science, the film maker would have been motivated to repeat the experiment to document any changes in his findings from the original study. Instead, the film maker changed all of the original variables to give him a very predictable outcome and he is left with about %90 of empirical and biased data forming the overall structure of this comedy; what's funny about it is how it pretends to be scientific yet has absolutely no scientific merit whatsoever.

Mr. Naughton was not justifying his "obesety" with this film, nor is he on a crusade to inspire people to eat nothing but fast food from McDonald's. He was merely pointing out the fallacies inherent with the current standards of health and fitness in the United States as well as addressing the doom and gloom in regard to healthy eating. Essentially it came down to this; Eating out isn't the end of the world, Government regulation isn't the answer, and whichever path you choose to healthy living, just be satisfied with your choices and accept the consequences of your actions.In response to the review from dkinem regarding nutrition in human evolution: http://cast.uark.edu /local /icaes /conferences /wburg /posters /sboydeaton /eaton.htm (Delete space to follow the link) I genuinely think that most doctors have their patient's health in mind, but the best of intentions don't always equal what's best for people.Consider the fact that Veterinarians seem to be consistently at odds with holistic nutritionists. Veterinarians are told all throughout their training that Science Diet is an acceptable brand to feed your dog. However, that particular brand is nothing but corn meal and grain with beef flavoring; ingredients which Dogs are unable to digest and ingredients which have a deeply negative impact on the the overall health of the animal. Meanwhile holistic nutritionists consider canine evolution when suggesting dog food, which, from my experience has had a profoundly positive impact on the quality of my dog's health.It's not the fault of the veterinarians that they are unaware of the negative impact of science diet, as is it not the fault of doctors that they may not have considered taking human dietary evolution into account when they write guidelines on what is best for us. It just seems that while they haven't necessarily been fed false information, they haven't been properly conditioned to be as skeptical as they could be in regard to what constitutes a healthy diet.