younngl As somebody who did enjoy watching Spurlock's documentary I wanted to watch this documentary because I thought it would make some informative rebuttals. I was hugely disappointed when it failed to do so. The few minor points it made were grossly overshadowed with ridicule directed towards Spurlock's. it got to the point were he made leaps from what was said in "super size me" to huge insulting blanket statements(racism, poor people, etc.). There is simply more to nutrition than caloric intake and they did not touch on that at all.The reality of the situation is that our choices, specifically for very busy people(note: i am not limiting this to poor people) have become small. So nobody is physically forced to eat McDonalds, however, there simply are less options available. Not everybody who eats fast food is going to have a heart attack, just like not everybody who smokes is going to die of lung cancer. That doesn't mean that smoking is any less bad for us. Another issue I had was that he made some "point" about advertisement not being responsible, but he fails to realize that places like McDonalds are in it for the money, if advertisements didn't work they would not spend as much money on it. I don't agree with lawsuits aimed at the fast food companies for obesity as I do believe that is personal responsibility and perhaps even leading back to the parents. Again it doesn't mean that the fast food companies have no stake in obesity.Bottom line is that if they had simply presented as a rebuttal without trying to ridicule and make blanket statements then I do feel they could have had some interesting points, but to me it was obvious that Naughton just wanted to capitalize on someone else's notoriety. I'm sure I could lose weight on fast food by being careful, but losing weight does not equate to being healthy.

tonedox Congratulations Tom Naughton! You just led everyone whom has watched your documentary to believe that Fast Food is "OK"! I feel sorry for anyone without a sense of knowledge about nutrition and watched this show, taking away 'any' information from it.Not to say that I cant agree with certain information that is in the show, but you have to dig through with a fine tooth comb to grab what is useful. I'll face it any day of the week, Facts are strictly Facts. But when you only cut skin deep, the message here is land-slided that it its OK to eat Fast Food.Here's some useful facts for everyone. Calories-in vs. Calories-out = weight loss. Portion control with properly balanced macro-nutrients will result in a healthier lifestyle. And be prepared to increase your chances of "earlier death, cancer, heart disease, etc." or all of the above when you consume Processed foods, refined foods, enriched foods, or pesticides. Exercise or not.I like how he even mentions that Mexicans and African Americans are "genetically" predisposed to have higher BMI's... Its the American cultural diets that "genetically predispose" an individuals outcome. "How come African-Americans in Africa don't look like the African-Americans in America?" "Would a group of Obese Mexicans from America still be obese if they moved and lived in France for the rest of their lives?" (the answer is NO! Because it would be just plain silly to ship processed, fried, and refined foods from America) What a joke this documentary is... "waste of time and space"

geniusman7 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.

mycotropic-1-481744 I'll click "contains spoilers" because the movie is a load of garbage (from the perspective of science) so pointing that out will probably spoil if for you. Sorry.I agree wholeheartedly with the other reviewer; this is the worst example of biased junk science I've seen in quite a while. Not a single person actually working in research related to diet is involved in this movie in any way. ALL of the "experts" are diet gurus hawking their books (most of which also misuse the literature). As an "expert" is introduced it is always with the cover of their book prominently displayed. The film maker apparently doesn't know what "peer review" means. There are many experts that could address his pithy little comments but they are probably off doing actual science.Sprinkled throughout this movie are weird tangents hinting at an Ayn Rand-esque philosophy. The film maker completely ignores the behavioral science literature showing connections between advertising and education level and social position and making poor personal choices in health care decisions. He spends quite a lot of time standing outside fast food restaurants waiting to be "forced to eat their food" in an attempt to show that personal responsibility is the ONLY thing effecting obesity in our country. But he's a comedian with a camera and I guess he thought that those scenes would sound the death knell for... oh who knows, it's just ridiculous.Also increasing HDL by increasing lipid consumption happens at the cost of increased triglycerides which are pro-atherogenic. If he'd read any actual science he might have known that. He certainly didn't mention his triglyceride levels which are part of the lipid panel his doctor discussed.All of that said; "Supersize Me" also had huge problems from the perspective of his thesis compared to what he actually did. Both of these movies are comedies in my opinion, unfortunately they're popular comedies that some people take seriously.