So here is another documentary that correctly points out the main enemy In our diet from the beginning 'Suger'. It reveals how the industry has been trying to blame fat as an ingredient as we associate it with actually being 'fat'. However once you are thinking "okay so avoid that, now what" the documentary takes a very fictitious turn. To list them all would take too long so here is a short list of things that are strongly suggested if not outright stated.Aspartame causes cancer and soft bones.You can send your subconscious mental images of what you want to look like as it speaks that language and will respond by stop storing fat.Cows milk contains pus.Juicing can actually cure cancer. (And eledgidly did)Only the juicing diet is a good diet. You don't need protein. This is the first documentary on health I've ever paused countless times to research the 'facts' that is being spouted. They talk about naturally eating the way mother nature and evolution intended, then all turn to the camera and tell you to extract the insoluble fiber from fruit and vegetables via Juicing. The fiber that is used to aid digestion, regulate blood suger and keep you feeling full. Another frustrating double standards aspect to this documentary is the attack on the industries for giving unrealistic body goals only to use a skinny actress to portray our every woman who is seen snacking on candy bars and pizza. In one scene she gazes at a photo of herself looking exactly the same as if it was a desperate "I want to look like that again" moment. The actress has very defined cheek bones but they do their best to make her relatable. There are so many good documentaries out there right now with no agenda. This one has an obvious one.

Argh. There is an important message here, but it's obscured behind a horrifically one-sided approach, a lack of credibility from interviewees, and blatant, unacknowledged hypocrisy.Many of the initial messages Hungry for Change tries to convey are not particularly new: sedentary lifestyles combined with excessive carbohydrate are making people fat. Or that companies shamelessly market their food/drink products to dubiously imply all kinds of happier outcomes for customers (one favourite of mine, not mentioned in this documentary, is certain products being helpful in losing weight "as part of a calorie-controlled diet." Surely that's true for pretty much anything!). I doubt many would dispute that this has happened. Unfortunately it's not long before it starts to leave such safe ground and make unsubstantiated generalisations about all kinds of things. Things like food companies deliberately making their foods addictive in order to sell more. Is this backed by scientific research? Is it only in the US? Does it apply to some or all foods? It's not clear. Things like 'sugar is as addictive as cocaine'. Really? I mean, I'm open to believing that, if there's clear scientific evidence presented. But none is presented.Or like the need to 'detox' one's body, which is where my patience really started to be tested, and prompt me to head to IMDb to share my displeasure. Because, the simple truth is that there is no scientific evidence for 'detoxing'. Seriously. Search for 'Ben Goldacre detox' on YouTube. Who's Ben Goldacre? He's a British (medical) doctor who has fought a long war against 'bad science' with a newspaper column and website of the same name. He's also an author: his debut non-fiction book 'Bad Pharma' is a passionate expose about what he sees as the lack of honesty from and undue influence by the pharmaceutical industry when trying to sell their drugs. His book runs to 400 pages, perhaps 200-300 pages of which is dedicated to painstaking description of the scientific method, how research failings can distort results and why drug trials by pharma companies often fall short of an acceptable standard. Reading it can be hard going at times, but one can understand why he sought to be so methodical in his approach: he was after all risking his professional reputation by taking a stand against big companies influential in his field. Consequently he wanted to ensure his defence was watertight (and doubtless litigation-tight too).Hungry for Change however appears to have no such concerns in the projection of its message. The viewer is not taken through the subject's history or a process to help them understand the subject, like proper documentaries such as Inside Job would. Instead, the viewer is simply told 'facts' by 'experts' and expected to believe them. Given how many scientific studies have been conducted in this field, that is hugely irresponsible.Who are these 'experts'? Senior scientists from Government or international organisations (say the World Health Organisation)? Er no. Try 'best-selling authors', people declared to be 'experts' (but who have no Wikipedia pages, suggesting they've hardly been breaking waves in their fields), or, ooh, people with Masters degrees (so what they say MUST be the truth and should be accepted without question). As John McEnroe would say: you cannot be serious.Indeed, there's a yet more questionable aspect to many of the pundits on the programme. Many of them have come up with new weight- losing diets. Meaning, surely, that there's a risk many viewers looking for the answer to their weight-loss goals will take the 'expertise' of these pundits at face value and try the diets espoused by said pundits, to the financial benefit of the pundits. Doesn't that mean Hungry for Change is itself engaging in the very marketing it so despises? This is accentuated by a more minor, but still noticeable act: the shining of bright lights by the camera crew into the faces of the diet-pushing pundits, a commonly-used trick to make the subject appear younger/healthier (and thus those diets they're selling all the more successful). Outrageous.This is a shockingly poor feature that does a disservice to the term 'documentary'. I'm not a fan of absolutes, but in this case it's truly merited. 'Hungry for Change' is without doubt the worst 'documentary' I've ever seen. 1/10 it is.

I'm going to put it like this. i love my fast food and fatty convenience packaged meals. fruit and veg, never touch them. I was so inspired at one hour in, that i paused the video and ended up eating a bowl overloaded with raw veges and fruit.through the beginning I did find it to be dis-interesting. and nearly turned it off. i'm just pleased i stuck it out.the overall message is clear and the point does come across. at times some of the info does seem to be directive at putting down major corporations. and at times a little far fetched. but as i watched i did sift through an take away the vital points i see as worth. which have been of an unparalleled value to me.

I'm a fitness instructor, the information is basic but relevant, and good to be reminded of. More often than it's realized, such basics are not understood, known, are overlooked, or simply ignored by many average people just going through their daily routine. What's most important than a critical opinion of the movie are masses of people "struggling with the basics" and need help with the simplest things, and encouragement to follow through with change, then maintain that change. I've seen some reviews elsewhere that seem a bit critical. However, like all things you take what's useful to you as an individual. If the information is nothing new to you, that's fine, but don't underestimate how new and life changing it might be to those who are not as informed as you. Therefore as I watched this movie I was thinking beyond myself, but rather for the benefit of others in need that are not as informed (regardless of how basic). I say it's a great movie that's worth watching, and the information is relevant enough to refer clients to watch it as well.