Some "comedian" decides that his job as a computer programmer wasn't interesting enough so he makes a "documentary" to answer a movie that is already wholly irrelevant to most of its original viewers. I turned on this movie with an open mind hoping to be enlightened by a satirist looking to take an idea to its extremes. For this I blame the description on Hulu. What I did get was an overly preachy movie about all of the scientific and logical flaws that Super Size Me made. Of course Spurlock had an agenda, he made a documentary, but at least he had an agenda. This movie doesn't really find a focus on a message and really just dumps on things that Tom Naughton dislikes, like Super Size Me or the government or lawyers (and boy does he hate the government and lawyers). What's funny is that he ignores the possibility that paternalism may actually be the cause of the public's awareness of the public's negative perceptions about the health effects of fast food, which is the opposite of the premise of his movie to begin with.So if you just want someone making uneducated critiques of another documentary or of the government, I'd watch this movie. But if you'd actually like to see a (real) comedian (not just some computer programmer wanna-be comedian) take the premise of Super Size Me to an interesting and focused direction, maybe watch Super High Me. In addition, this movie doesn't really offer any sort of answers or thesis, which is unsurprising if this guys only formal education was in the science of computers and not social sciences/hard sciences (which actually look to accomplish something with a degree of focus). What this movie does a good job at is railing against government and paternalism without actually offering a reasonable model to oppose those models. Government is paternalistic because Americans, yes Americans, want our society to be inherently paternalistic. So if you want someone to blame, blame democracy, or our uneducated and uncritical public (which would seem to include Naughton since his critical analyses don't go much further than what I've mentioned. Really, it's a wonder that he was able to scrounge up $150,000 for this movie from the get-go because of its inherent flaws. What is more surprising is that he doesn't seem to even make good use of that. I could make a better food documentary for 1/100 of that budget.

This film is everything that a Documentary should be...accurate, educational, entertaining; even funny in parts (i.e. some of the animated scenes). You know, everything that most modern documentaries aren't. So many documentaries today are really more docu-ganda films than documentaries. Often times we get only half of the facts or the facts are conveniently re-arranged to suit the needs of the person behind the camera so that they can spew it out at us and have us just simply follow them like the lemmings that they treat us like.Obviously Tom Naughton isn't a doctor or a scientist, he is a comedian. As a comedian, he puts a funny spin on the facts that he presents. He backs those facts up by calling in actual experts. I like also how he quickly deflates the common denominator myths on the streets of major cities. He interviews random people from all different walks of life and asks them the basic questions. Each and every one of them overwhelmingly knew the dangers of eating bad things in excess. I would wager a guess that not each and every one of them just happened to be wealthy so the "poor people are dumb" argument very quickly falls apart.He openly admits a number of things in the making of this film. He goes into how we are all classified as certain things on the BMI scale. He is technically classified as obese even though he certainly doesn't look like it to me. He is also active, he works out regularly.The idea is very simple, he eats McDonald's three times a day, every day for 28 days but he continues to do a lot of walking. The end result is that he has lost weight, his HDL/LDL Triglycerides are all well within the normal range as was his cholesterol. He also goes on to point out that Morgan Spurlock would've had a hard time eating all of the calories that he said he did based on the (by the way very openly available) dietary information provided by McDonald's. No one pressured Tom into ordering more food; I believe that one McDonald's asked him if he wanted a large something and he said no, it was over, that's it! Morgan pointed out that he was asked numerous times in Supersize Me if he wanted to have his meal Supersized and he goes on to say that the bulk of those times was in Texas. I don't live in Texas but I visit there once a year. In all the times I've gone (back when they had a supersize) I was never once asked if I wanted a meal supersized. There is another fast food chain where I live that constantly asks however.I really enjoyed how we are told in Supersize me that 25% of adults are obese. We see Tom on the city streets filming and it took him days to find all of these obese people. It seems logical to me that if there were that many overweight adults, he would have seen them a lot sooner.He also comes up with an interesting question, challenging the number of calories that Spurlock actually consumed. When he attempted to get a food log from him, his people said they'd get it to him but they never did. I think it would've been interesting to see what was in it. Fat Head is pretty informative and a whole lot of fun. Take the time to watch it and it will amuse you at the very least. I like that it tries to make people accountable for their own health and well-being. It isn't the job of the U.S. Government or society in general to police what your children eat…it is your job!

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.