All language subtitles for Fat.Head.2009.720p.WEBRip.x264.AAC-[YTS.MX]

Downloaded from
YTS.MX

[SILENCE]

Official YIFY movies site:
YTS.MX

>> EVERY TIME THERE'S ANOTHER

NEWS STORY ABOUT THE OBESITY

EPIDEMIC, TV AND FILM CREWS RUN

OUT AND SHOOT FOOTAGE LIKE THIS,

IN CASE YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT FAT

PEOPLE LOOK LIKE.

FRANKLY, THIS ANNOYS ME.

HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO SIT DOWN

TO WATCH THE EVENING NEWS AND

FIND OUT SOME CAMERA CREW PICKED

YOU TO REPRESENT FAT PEOPLE

EVERYWHERE?

BUT THERE'S AN EVEN BIGGER

REASON IT ANNOYS ME.

WHEN THEY SHOW FOOTAGE LIKE THIS

AND THEN TELL YOU THAT ONE

QUARTER OF AMERICAN ADULTS ARE

OBESE, YOU PROBABLY THINK A

QUARTER OF US LOOK LIKE THIS.

AND THAT'S BALONEY, BECAUSE I

SHOT THIS FOOTAGE IN THREE

DIFFERENT LOCATIONS, AND IT TOOK

ME HOURS TO GET IT.

IF THERE'S SUCH AN EPIDEMIC OUT

THERE, IT SHOULD HAVE TAKEN ME

10 MINUTES.

THE NEXT TIME YOU HEAR THAT ONE

QUARTER OF AMERICAN ADULTS ARE

OBESE, HERE'S SOMETHING TO KEEP

IN MIND.

SEE THAT GUY RIGHT THERE?

ACCORDING TO THE GOVERNMENT,

HE'S OBESE.

I KNOW BECAUSE THAT GUY IS ME.

>> WHEN I STARTED LOOKING INTO

THE SO-CALLED OBESITY EPIDEMIC,

ALONG WITH WHAT SUPPOSEDLY

CONSTITUTES A GOOD OR A BAD

DIET, DIDN'T TAKE LONG TO FIGURE

OUT WE'VE BEEN FED A LOAD OF

BALONEY.

GOVERNMENT AGENCIES HAVE BEEN

FEEDING US BALONEY.

RESEARCHERS AND SCIENTISTS HAVE

BEEN FEEDING US BALONEY.

EVEN A MUCKRAKING DOCUMENTARY

FILMMAKER FED US A LOAD OF

BALONEY.

IN FACT, LET'S START WITH HIM.

A FEW YEARS AGO, FILMMAKER

MORGAN SPURLOCK CALLED UPON HIS

SEVERAL DAYS OF EXPERIENCE AS A

NUTRITION EXPERT TO IDENTIFY THE

EVIL CULPRIT WHO'S MAKING PEOPLE

FAT -- FAST FOOD.

AND TO PROVE HIS POINT, HE ATE

NOTHING BUT McDONALD'S FOR A

MONTH AND SHOWED US HOW HIS

ONCE-BEAUTIFUL BODY DETERIORATED

AS HE GAINED 25 POUNDS.

WE ALSO HEARD AN INTERESTING

THEORY ABOUT SATURATED FAT AND

SEXUAL PERFORMANCE THAT WE'LL

JUST FILE UNDER THE CATEGORY OF

"TOO MUCH INFORMATION."

[ ZIP! ]

[ CRASH! ]

OF COURSE, A MOVIE ABOUT A GUY

WHO GOES TO MICKEY D's AND GAINS

FOUR OR FIVE POUNDS PROBABLY

WOULDN'T MAKE A BIG SPLASH ON

THE FILM-FESTIVAL CIRCUIT.

[ CROWD GROANS ]

SO SPURLOCK DIDN'T JUST EAT AT

McDONALD'S, HE McSTUFFED HIMSELF

ON PURPOSE FOR A SOLID MONTH,

CONSUMING MORE THAN 5,000

CALORIES PER DAY, INCLUDING

NEARLY A GALLON OF SODA.

[ CHEERS AND APPLAUSE ]

THAT'S ONE WAY TO GET A BIG, FAT

BOX OFFICE.

"SUPER SIZE ME" WAS AN AMUSING

DOCUMENTARY, BUT IT WAS FULL OF

BALONEY.

I MEAN, COME ON, 5,000 CALORIES

PER DAY OF PRETTY MUCH ANYTHING

IS GONNA MAKE YOU FAT AND SCREW

UP YOUR HEALTH.

ISN'T IT ALSO POSSIBLE TO LIVE

ON FAST FOOD AND ACTUALLY LOSE

WEIGHT?

OR WOULD ALL THAT FATTY FOOD

MAKE LOSING WEIGHT IMPOSSIBLE?

MAKE LOSING WEIGHT IMPOSSIBLE?
I DECIDED TO FIND OUT.

I DECIDED TO FIND OUT.

>> ♪ PEOPLE SAY I'M PLAYING

GAMES ♪

♪ BUT I SAY I'M A FATHEAD

♪ FATHEAD, FATHEAD, YEAH

♪ I'M GONNA START THINKING

SMARTER ♪

♪ FATHEAD, FATHEAD, YEAH

♪ I'M GONNA START THINKING

SMARTER ♪

♪ FATHEAD, FATHEAD, YEAH

>> SINCE SO MANY PEOPLE WANT TO

BLAME FAST-FOOD RESTAURANTS FOR

MAKING PEOPLE FAT, I THOUGHT I

SHOULD HANG AROUND McDONALD'S

AND SEE IF ANYONE WOULD DRAG ME

INSIDE AND MAKE ME EAT THEIR

FOOD.

IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.

I WAS ALSO IGNORED BY THE STAFF

AT TACO BELL, CARL'S JR., AND

POPEYES CHICKEN.

BACK AT McDONALD'S, I STARTED TO

FEEL HUNGRY AND SLIGHTLY

REJECTED AND WENT INSIDE FOR A

DOUBLE CHEESEBURGER.

AFTERWARDS, I WROTE DOWN MY

AFTERWARDS, I WROTE DOWN MY
FIRST NO-BALONEY CONCLUSION...

FIRST NO-BALONEY CONCLUSION...

NEXT, I VISITED A HALF-DOZEN

DIFFERENT McDONALD'S TO SEE IF

ANYONE WOULD FORCE ME TO CONSUME

A BIG, SUGARY SODA OR A LARGE

ORDER OF FRIES.

>> TOTAL IS $4.10 AT THE FIRST

WINDOW.

>> OKAY.

HEY, IF I DON'T ORDER FRIES,

YOU DON'T TRY TO MAKE ME EAT

THEM, DO YOU?

>> I'M SORRY?

>> IF I DON'T ORDER FRIES, YOU

DON'T TRY TO MAKE ME EAT THEM,

DO YOU?

>> NO.

>> OKAY. JUST CONFIRMING THAT.

THANK YOU.

THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN, EITHER.

SO I WROTE DOWN MY NEXT

SO I WROTE DOWN MY NEXT
NO-BALONEY CONCLUSION...

NO-BALONEY CONCLUSION...

BUT JUST TO BE SURE, I PRACTICED

STEELING MY RESOLVE.

>> WOULD YOU LIKE A HOT APPLE

PIE?

>> NO.

>> WOULD YOU LIKE A HOT-FUDGE

SUNDAE?

>> NO.

>> WOULD YOU LIKE A LARGE ORDER

OF FRIES?

>> THOSE SMELL PRETTY GOOD.

[ ELECTRICITY ZAPS ]

>> WOULD YOU LIKE A LARGE ORDER

OF FRIES?

>> NO.

I NOW FELT SAFE TO BEGIN MY OWN

FAST-FOOD DIET.

OKAY, HERE ARE MY RULES.

FOR THE NEXT 30 DAYS, I'M GOING

TO LIVE ON A FAST-FOOD DIET,

MOSTLY McDONALD'S.

BUT INSTEAD OF EATING EVERYTHING

ON THE MENU OR ANYTHING SOME

COUNTER CLERK SUGGESTS, I'M

GOING TO OPERATE UNDER A

GOING TO OPERATE UNDER A
SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT PREMISE.

SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT PREMISE.

>> YOU WANT TO HEAR SOMETHING

PRETTY COMPELLING?

>> WHEW.

THAT'LL MAKE YOU TELL YOUR

SECRETS.

>> YEAH. RIGHT.

I'M LOOKING AT YOUR BRAIN WHEN I

DO THAT.

>> OKAY. IT'S THERE.

>> YEAH, IT'S THERE.

>> YEAH, IT'S THERE.
COUPLE OF ROCKS.

COUPLE OF ROCKS.

HAVE YOU EVER BEEN TOLD YOU HAD

A MURMUR?

>> MNH-MNH.

>> THAT'S BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE

ONE.

>> YOU SCARED THE HELL OUT OF

>> YOU SCARED THE HELL OUT OF
ME.

ME.

>> NOW, ON CAMERA, TELL ME HOW

GOOD THAT WAS.

>> I DIDN'T FEEL A THING.

>> THERE YOU GO.

>> A JUNKIE COULDN'T HAVE DONE

THAT ANY BETTER.

>> [ LAUGHS ]

THAT'S NOT THE ANALOGY I WAS

HOPING FOR.

>> OH. OKAY.

>> AND WHAT DO YOU DO FOR

PHYSICAL ACTIVITY, TOM?

>> WALK.

>> DAILY?

>> USUALLY TWO, THREE TIMES A

WEEK.

>> BRISKLY?

>> YEAH. FOR ABOUT FIVE MILES.

>> GOOD. GOOD. GOOD.

AND I'M GLAD THAT YOU DON'T RUN

'CAUSE I'M NOT A BIG FAN OF

THAT.

AND OUT.

>> [ EXHALES ]

>> OKAY.

YOU DIDN'T TELL ME THAT YOU WORK

OUT, BUT I'M FEELING LOTS OF

MUSCLE HERE.

ARE YOU JUST BLESSED WITH THIS?

SERIOUSLY?

>> UH, THAT'S THE GOOD NEWS.

NOW FOR THE BAD NEWS.

ARE WE DONE?

>> YEAH, WE'RE DONE.

WE'RE DONE.

>> I'M AFRAID TO LOOK.

>> IT'S HARD. IT'S HIGH.

>> 31.

>> .2.

>> 31.2.

MM. [ WHISTLES ]

>> YEAH.

SO, THAT IS HIGH.

>> I KNEW GOING IN I WAS

OVERWEIGHT, BUT ACCORDING TO

THE CURRENT MEDICAL DEFINITION,

I'M OBESE.

OBESE?

YOU MEAN AT 5 FOOT 11,

206 POUNDS, I'MPART OF THE

OBESITY EPIDEMIC?

WELL, APPARENTLY SO, BUT WE'LL

COME BACK TO THAT.

>> YOUR DIET SHOULD BE ONE THAT

YOU CAN LIVE ON AND LIVE WITH

FOREVER.

>> OKAY.

>> IT SHOULDN'T BE SOMETHING

THAT'S SO DRASTIC THAT YOU CAN'T

POSSIBLY LIVE WITH, BECAUSE AS

SOON AS YOU'RE OFF OF IT, YOU

WILL -- AND STUDIES SHOW THIS

OVER AND OVER AGAIN -- YOU WILL

JUST REVERT TO YOUR OLD WAYS,

AND THE WEIGHT WILL COME BACK,

IF NOT MORE.

IF NOT MORE.
>> OKAY.

>> OKAY.

OKAY.

CAN YOU GIVE ME THE NUMBERS,

PLEASE?

>> YES.

WELL, YOUR CHOLESTEROL WAS A

LITTLE BIT HIGH, BUT NOT BAD.

IT WAS 231, BUT...

>> WHAT WAS THE HDL AND LDL?

>> THE HDL WAS INCREDIBLE.

IT'S 61.

>> NOW, IS THAT GOOD OR BAD?

>> THAT'S VERY GOOD.

>> IT'S GOOD?

>> YES.

EXCELLENT, INCREDIBLY SO.

>> WHAT'S CONSIDERED THE, LIKE,

THE GOOD?

>> 39.

>> OVER 39.

>> YOUR TRIGLYCERIDES WERE

GREAT.

THEY WERE 70.

>> THAT'S ALL RIGHT.

WHAT'S CONSIDERED GOOD FOR

TRIGLYCERIDES?

>> UNDER 150.

>> UNDER 150.

SO, BASICALLY HDL AND

TRIGLYCERIDES ARE GOOD.

THE LDL IS A LITTLE HIGHER THAN

WE'D LIKE TO SEE IT.

WE'D LIKE TO SEE IT.
>> YES.

>> YES.

>> SO, WHAT ARE WE HAVING?

>> WE'RE HAVING QUINOA WITH

PINEAPPLE-TERIYAKI TOFU AND

CHICKEN-FLAVORED SOY DRUMLETS

WITH SWEET-AND-SOUR SAUCE.

>> AND THIS?

>> CARROT JUICE.

>> CARROT JUICE.
>> HUH.

>> HUH.

YEAH, PEPPERONI, MUSHROOM,

ONION, AND GREEN PEPPER.

CASH.

AND HOW LONG?

AND HOW LONG?
HOW LONG IF I COME PICK IT UP?

HOW LONG IF I COME PICK IT UP?

SO, IT'S DAY 1.

IT'S ABOUT QUARTER TO 9:00.

MY DAUGHTER IS IN BED.

I'M HEADING OUT FOR DINNER.

I'VE HAD A LITTLE FEWER THAN

1,200 CALORIES.

OKAY.

THERE IT IS -- THE MOST HATED

SYMBOL IN THE ENTIRE INDUSTRY BY

SYMBOL IN THE ENTIRE INDUSTRY BY
THE FAST-FOOD HATERS.

THE FAST-FOOD HATERS.

FINALLY FOUND A PLACE WHERE

THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF LIGHT,

BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE A LOT OF

NIGHT-SHOOTING EQUIPMENT.

AND I KNOW BY NOW YOU WERE

PROBABLY THINKING, "OKAY, HE'S

GONNA LOSE WEIGHT EATING FAST

FOOD.

HE'S GONNA GO GET ALL THOSE

GRILLED-CHICKEN SALADS.

AND THAT'S HOW HE'S GONNA DO

IT."

WELL, THIS IS A DOUBLE

QUARTER POUNDER WITH CHEESE.

AND I'M STILL GONNA BE UNDER

2,000 CALORIES FOR THE DAY.

MMM.

GROWING UP IN IOWA, I WAS AN

ACTIVE KID AND SKINNY AS A

RAIL, BUT WHEN MY FAMILY MOVED

TO ILLINOIS, IT TOOK ME A LONG

TIME TO MAKE NEW FRIENDS, SO I

SAT AROUND AND GOT FAT, AND I'VE

BEEN FIGHTING THAT FAT MY WHOLE

LIFE.

IN MY 20s, I HAD SOME

VEGETARIAN FRIENDS WHO TOLD ME

IF I GAVE UP MEAT, I'D LOSE

WEIGHT, AND I DID, BUT IT WAS

ALL IN MY MUSCLES.

MY BELLY ACTUALLY GOT BIGGER,

AND AFTER A COUPLE OF YEARS, I

FELT WEAK AND TIRED ALL THE

TIME.

>> I WAS A VEGETARIAN FOR ABOUT

NINE YEARS WITH ABOUT THREE

YEARS OF BEING VERY

STRICT VEGETARIAN, WHERE I

CONSUMED NO ANIMAL PRODUCTS.

AND I WAS ALSO A STRENGTH COACH

AT THE TIME, AND THAT WAS A BAD

COMBINATION BECAUSE I LOST MY

STRENGTH.

>> NEXT I TRIED THE PRITIKIN

DIET, WHERE YOU LIMIT YOUR FAT

TO NO MORE THAN 10% OF YOUR

TOTAL CALORIES.

IN FACT, I TRIED IT TWICE, AND

BOTH TIMES I GOT DEPRESSED.

THAT'S NOT A NATURAL CONDITION

FOR ME.

>> IT'S FUNNY YOU SHOULD SAY YOU

GOT DEPRESSED ON THE PRITIKIN

DIET, BECAUSE I ALSO TRIED A

DIET SIMILAR TO THAT, AND IT IS

THE ONLY TIME I'VE EVER BEEN

DEPRESSED IN MY LIFE.

>> PRITIKIN, BY THE WAY, CAME

DOWN WITH LEUKEMIA AND

COMMITTED SUICIDE.

NEXT I TRIED THE FIT FOR LIFE

DIET, WHICH IS ALL ABOUT

FOOD-COMBINING.

YOU EAT PROTEINS AND

CARBOHYDRATES AT SEPARATE

MEALS, AND IN THE MORNING, YOU

CONSUME NOTHING BUT JUICE AND

FRUIT UNTIL NOON.

I STARTED USING A JUICER, AND I

FELT GREAT FOR ABOUT TWO HOURS.

WHEN THE SUGAR BUZZ FROM THE

JUICE WORE OFF, I COULD BARELY

STAND UP.

SO, HOW CANPEOPLE LOSE WEIGHT?

THE STORY WE'VE ALL HEARD ABOUT

WEIGHT CONTROL GOES LIKE THIS.

IF YOU EAT MORE CALORIES THAN

YOU BURN, THE EXTRA CALORIES

TURN TO FAT, BUT IF YOU JUST

CONSUME FEWER CALORIES OR BURN

MORE CALORIES BY EXERCISING,

YOU CREATE A CALORIE DEFICIT

AND YOU AUTOMATICALLY LOSE

WEIGHT.

IT'S A NICE, SIMPLE STORY, AND

IT'S A LOAD OF BALONEY.

>> BUT IT'S MORE COMPLICATED

THAN THAT, BECAUSE IT'S ALSO

IMPORTANT WHAT YOUR BODY DECIDES

TO DO WITH THE CALORIES THAT YOU

EAT.

>> IN HIS GROUND-BREAKING BOOK

"GOOD CALORIES, BAD CALORIES,"

SCIENCE WRITER GARY TAUBES

EXPLAINS THAT PEOPLE WHO TRY TO

STARVE THEMSELVES THIN ALMOST

NEVER LOSE AS MUCH WEIGHT AS

THIS EQUATION SAYS THEY SHOULD.

AND IN STUDIES WHERE NATURALLY

THIN PEOPLE ATE AN EXTRA

1,000 CALORIES PER DAY FOR

SEVERAL MONTHS, THEY BARELY

GAINED ANY WEIGHT AT ALL.

AFTER EXAMINING DECADES OF

RESEARCH THAT OBESITY EXPERTS

SEEM TO HAVE COMPLETELY

IGNORED, TAUBES CONCLUDED THAT

YOUR BODY'S TENDENCY TO STORE

FAT IS DETERMINED BY HORMONES,

MOST IMPORTANTLY INSULIN.

>> ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL,

IF YOU CONSUME THE SAME NUMBER

OF CALORIES, THE HIGHER YOUR

INSULIN IS, THE LARGER

PROPORTION OF THOSE CALORIES YOU

WILL DIVERT TOWARDS STORED BODY

FAT.

>> IF INSULIN IS UP AND YOU'RE

NOT EATING VERY MUCH, OR YOU'RE

EATING EVEN THE WRONG KINDS OF

FOODS, THE KIND OF FOODS THAT

KEEP INSULIN UP, INSULIN HOLDS

THE FAT IN THE FAT CELL AND

DOESN'T LET IT OUT.

>> WHAT RAISES INSULIN --

INDEPENDENT OF ANY OTHER

METABOLIC HORMONES, WHAT RAISES

INSULIN IS CARBOHYDRATES.

STARCH AND SUGAR, PURE AND

SIMPLE.

>> SO, HERE'S MY PLAN.

USING MY FUNCTIONING BRAIN, I

DID A FEW MINUTES OF RESEARCH

AND FOUND THAT A MAN OF MY SIZE

AND ACTIVITY LEVEL BURNS ABOUT

2,500 CALORIES PER DAY.

TO CREATE A CALORIE DEFICIT,

I'M SETTING A TARGET OF

2,000 CALORIES PER DAY.

I'LL ALSO BURN A FEW EXTRA

CALORIES BY WALKING SIX NIGHTS

PER WEEK INSTEAD OF MY USUAL

THREE.

BUT HERE'S THE REALLY IMPORTANT

PART.

TO MAKE SURE MY BODY CAN BURN

ITS OWN FAT FOR FUEL, I'M

GOING TO KEEP MY INSULIN DOWN

BY LIMITING MY CARBOHYDRATES TO

ABOUT 100 PER DAY.

ABOUT 100 PER DAY.
BREAKFAST.

BREAKFAST.

>> ♪ SOMETHING HERE JUST DOESN'T

ADD UP ♪

♪ SOMETHING HERE JUST DOESN'T GO

DOWN ♪

♪ SOMETHING HERE JUST DOESN'T

ADD UP ♪

♪ SOMETHING HERE JUST DOESN'T GO

DOWN ♪

>> OKAY. I ADMIT IT.

AS A COMPUTER PROGRAMMER, I KIND

OF LIKE MATH.

SO LET'S DO SOME, AND I PROMISE

IT WON'T BE HARD.

EVEN THE REVIEWERS WHO LOVE

"SUPER SIZE ME" COULD DO THIS

MATH IF THEY WANTED TO.

>> MORGAN SPURLOCK ATE AT

McDONALD'S FOR 30 DAYS USING

THESE RULES.

"I WILL EAT THREE SQUARE MEALS

PER DAY.

"I WILL EAT EVERYTHING ON THE

MENU AT LEAST ONCE.

I WILL ONLY SUPER-SIZE A MEAL

IF THEY ASK ME."

THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS A

SUPER-SIZED BREAKFAST, SO THAT

LEAVES 60 LUNCHES AND DINNERS,

BUT SPURLOCK WAS ONLY ASKED TO

SUPER-SIZE NINE TIMES, WHICH

MEANS, ACCORDING TO HIS RULES,

51 LUNCHES AND DINNERS WERE NOT

SUPER-SIZED.

SO LET'S PUT TOGETHER THREE

MEALS A DAY USING LARGE

COMBINATIONS AND SEE WHAT WE

GET.

FOR BREAKFAST, WE'LL GO WITH A

BACON-EGG-CHEESE BISCUIT,

HASH BROWNS, AND A LARGE ORANGE

JUICE, FOR LUNCH, A BIG MAC,

LARGE FRIES, AND LARGE COKE,

AND FOR DINNER, A QUARTER

POUNDER WITH CHEESE, LARGE

FRIES, AND LARGE COKE.

WAIT A SECOND.

THAT'S NOT EVEN 3,600 CALORIES.

IN "SUPER SIZE ME," SPURLOCK'S

NUTRITIONIST TOLD HIM NOT ONCE,

BUT TWICE, THAT HE WAS CONSUMING

MORE THAN 5,000 CALORIES EVERY

DAY.

OKAY.

LET'S TRY AGAIN.

THIS TIME WE'LL HAVE AN EGG

McMUFFIN, LARGE ORANGE JUICE,

AND HASH BROWNS, A BIG N' TASTY,

LARGE COKE, AND LARGE FRIES,

AND FOR DINNER, WE'LL GO WITH

THE FILET-O-FISH, LARGE FRIES,

LARGE COKE, AND WHAT THE HECK,

A HOT-FUDGE SUNDAE FOR DESSERT.

ISN'T THAT STRANGE?

EVEN WITH A DESSERT, I'M AT JUST

OVER 3,600 CALORIES.

SOMETHING DOESN'T ADD UP.

WELL, LET'S TRY A SUPER-SIZE

DAY.

WE'LL HAVE A SAUSAGE-EGG-CHEESE

McGRIDDLE, LARGE O.J., AND

HASH BROWNS, FOLLOWED BY A

BIG MAC, SUPER-SIZED FRIES,

SUPER-SIZED COKE, AND FOR

DINNER, A DOUBLE QUARTER POUNDER

WITH CHEESE, SUPER-SIZED FRIES,

SUPER-SIZED COKE.

THAT'S A LOT OF CALORIES, BUT

I'M STILL 800 CALORIES SHORT OF

WHAT SPURLOCK CONSUMED EVERY

DAY.

AND I JUST SUPER-SIZED TWO

MEALS.

TO GET MY CALORIE COUNT EVEN

CLOSE TO SPURLOCKIAN

PROPORTIONS, I HAVE TO

SUPER-SIZE MY LUNCH, SUPER-SIZE

MY DINNER, THEN THROW IN TWO

DESSERTS.

SO, HOW DID A GUY WHO CLAIMED

TO EAT THREE MEALS PER DAY AND

ONLY SUPER-SIZE NINE MEALS IN

AN ENTIRE MONTH MANAGE TO

CONSUME MORE THAN 5,000 CALORIES

EACH AND EVERY DAY?

HI.

I'M WORKING ON A DOCUMENTARY

THAT'S SORT OF A FOLLOW-UP TO

"SUPER SIZE ME."

I WAS WONDERING IF THERE WAS

SOME WAY I COULD GET AHOLD OF

MORGAN SPURLOCK.

I NEED TO SEE HIS FOOD LOG.

HI.

I'M DOING SORT OF A DOCUMENTARY

FOLLOW-UP TO "SUPER SIZE ME."

I WAS WONDERING IF THERE'S A

CONTACT NUMBER FOR THE CON,

MORGAN SPURLOCK'S PRODUCTION

COMPANY.

I WAS HOPING TO SEE HIS FOOD

LOG.

OKAY.

WHAT'S YOUR E-MAIL ADDRESS?

I WOULD LIKE TO GET AHOLD OF THE

FOOD DIARY THAT SPURLOCK KEPT

DURING THAT MONTH.

SEVERAL JOURNALISTS HAVE

ASKED SPURLOCK TO LET THEM SEE

HIS SUPER-SIZED FOOD LOG.

THE ANSWER IN EVERY CASE WAS NO.

ONE OF SPURLOCK'S AGENTS ASKED

ME TO PUT MY REQUEST IN WRITING,

SO I DID.

AND I NEVER GOT A RESPONSE.

AT THE END OF "SUPER SIZE ME,"

SPURLOCK CALLED UPON McDONALD'S

TO GET RID OF THOSE SUPER-SIZED

MEALS.

THIS ANNOYS ME.

YOU KNOW, IF McDONALD'S WANTS TO

SELL ME A BUCKET OF FRENCH FRIES

FOR 50 CENTS AND I WANT TO BUY

THEM, THAT'S BETWEEN ME AND

McDONALD'S.

IT'S REALLY NONE OF HIS

BUSINESS.

AND BY THE WAY, McDONALD'S DID

STOP SUPER-SIZING A COUPLE YEARS

AGO, AND I DON'T REMEMBER SEEING

THIS HEADLINE.

AND SPURLOCK SOMEHOW MANAGED TO

GAIN 25 POUNDS IN 30 DAYS IN

SPITE OF THE FACT THAT HE ONLY

SUPER-SIZED AN AVERAGE OF TWICE

A WEEK, WHICH MEANS SUPER-SIZING

WAS NOT THE PROBLEM, NOT IF HE

FOLLOWED HIS OWN RULES, WHICH

COMMON SENSE AND A LITTLE BASIC

MATH SAYS HE DIDN'T.

>> ♪ SOMETHING HERE JUST DOESN'T

ADD UP ♪

♪ SOMETHING HERE JUST DOESN'T GO

DOWN ♪

♪ SOMETHING HERE JUST DOESN'T

ADD UP ♪

>> SO, HOW DID SPURLOCK MANAGE

TO KEEP SUCH A DETAILED FOOD

LOG, ANYWAY?

IN "SUPER SIZE ME," HE DELIVERED

THE SHOCKING NEWS THAT HE

COULDN'T FIND ANY NUTRITION

INFORMATION AT ONE QUARTER OF

THE McDONALD'S RESTAURANTS IN

MANHATTAN.

OF COURSE, HE ALSO SHOWED US

THAT MANHATTAN IS PRACTICALLY

LITTERED WITH McDONALD'S, WHICH

MEANS YOU COULD JUST WALK A

COUPLE OF BLOCKS TO ANOTHER

McDONALD'S AND LOOK AT THEIR

NUTRITION MENU.

YOU'D EVEN GET A LITTLE

EXERCISE THAT WAY.

NUTRITION INFORMATION IS ALSO

AVAILABLE ON THE McDONALD'S

WEBSITE.

YOU CAN EVEN DOWNLOAD IT AND

PRINT IT FROM YOUR HOME

COMPUTER.

BUT WAIT.

USING A LARGE, UGLY BUILDING TO

REPRESENT POOR PEOPLE, SPURLOCK

TOLD US THAT ONLY HALF OF ALL

AMERICANS HAVE INTERNET ACCESS

AT HOME AND WONDERED, "WHAT ARE

THESE PEOPLE SUPPOSED TO DO?"

WELL, I SUPPOSE THEY COULD GO

TO A LIBRARY OR A SCHOOL OR AN

INTERNET CAFé OR ONE OF THE

THOUSANDS OF OTHER PLACES WITH

INTERNET ACCESS.

OR HERE'S ANOTHER IDEA.

YOU KNOW, BACK BEFORE COMPUTERS

AND THE INTERNET, A LOT OF US

WERE PRETTY ADEPT AT USING THESE

LOW-TECH, COMPACT DATA

REPOSITORIES, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS

BOOKS.

I WENT TO THE SMALLEST

BOOKSTORE IN MY AREA AND FOUND

SEVEN BOOKS THAT LIST FULL

NUTRITION INFORMATION FOR ALL

THE FAST-FOOD CHAINS.

THERE IT IS -- EVERYTHING FROM

ARBY'S TO PIZZA HUT TO WENDY'S.

SO IT TURNS OUT NUTRITION

INFORMATION IS ACTUALLY PRETTY

EASY TO FIND.

AND IF YOU REALLY WANT TO LOSE

WEIGHT, YOU WILL FIND IT.

BUT EVEN WITHOUT ALL THAT

INFORMATION, ARE PEOPLE REALLY

GETTING FAT ON FAST FOOD

WITHOUT KNOWING WHY?

I HAVE HERE A DOUBLE QUARTER

POUNDER WITH CHEESE, A LARGE

ORDER OF FRIES, AND A LARGE

COKE.

>> RIGHT.

>> NOW, IS THAT A HIGH-CALORIE

MEAL OR A LOW-CALORIE MEAL?

>> DEFINITELY I'D SAY A

HIGH-CALORIE MEAL.

>> I WOULD SAY THAT'S A HELL OF

A LOT OF CALORIES.

>> A HELL OF A LOT.

>> VERY HIGH.

>> VERY HIGH?

>> VERY HIGH.

>> I BELIEVE, HONEST, IT'S

HIGH-CALORIE.

>> HIGH-CALORIE.

>> I KNOW IT'S A HIGH-CALORIE

MEAL.

>> GIVE ME A ROUGH GUESS.

HOW MANY CALORIES HERE?

>> I WOULD SAY MAYBE -- BOTH

CARROTS?

>> JUST IN THE CARROTS, YEAH.

COMBINED.

LARGE ORDER OF CARROTS.

>> I WOULD SAY MAYBE 25

CALORIES.

>> OKAY.

HOW MANY CALORIES IN THERE?

>> I'D SAY MAYBE 500.

>> DEFINITELY HIGH-CALORIE.

>> DEFINITELY HIGH-CALORIE?

>> YEAH.

>> OH, THAT'S HIGH CALORIES --

AS MANY CALORIES AS YOU CAN GET

INTO A MEAL.

>> A LOT.

>> IT'S A LOT OF CALORIES?

>> A LOT.

>> AND HOW DID YOU KNOW THAT?

>> I JUST KNOW.

>> ACTUALLY, JUST COMMON SENSE

PRETTY MUCH.

>> COMMON SENSE?

>> I'D HAVE TO SAY SO, YEAH.

>> UH, IT'S A CHEESEBURGER AND

FRIES.

>> UM, COMMON SENSE.

>> COMMON SENSE?

>> COMMON SENSE.

>> LIKE THE STUFF UP HERE?

>> YEAH.

>> NOW, HOW DID YOU KNOW THAT?

DID RONALD McDONALD TELL YOU?

>> NO, NO CLOWN HAS EVER TOLD ME

THAT IT'S A HIGH-CALORIE MEAL.

>> WITH THE FRIES AND THE BURGER

AND THE DRINK, IT JUST SEEMS

LIKE A HIGH-CALORIE MEAL.

>> IF YOU ATE LIKE THIS ALL THE

TIME AND THEN SAT AROUND ALL

DAY, WHAT DO YOU THINK WOULD

HAPPEN?

>> I WOULD BE VERY FAT.

>> UM...

>> IF YOU ATE LIKE THIS FOUR OR

FIVE TIMES A DAY AND THEN SAT

AROUND ALL DAY, WHAT WOULD

HAPPEN TO YOU?

>> YOU'D GET FAT!

>> YOU WOULD LOOK LIKE OPRAH

BACK IN THE '80s.

>> I DIDN'T EVEN SEE YOUR MOUTH

MOVE.

IN FACT, THIS ABILITY TO

RECOGNIZE HIGH-CALORIE FOOD

SEEMS TO BE NEARLY UNIVERSAL.

>> AND WHERE ARE YOU FROM?

>> LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA.

>> I'M ORIGINALLY FROM

SOUTH CAROLINA, ACTUALLY.

>> WE'RE FROM HOLLAND.

>> MASSACHUSETTS.

>> WHERE ARE YOU FROM?

>> JAPAN.

>> MY NAME IS NATASHA.

>> NATASHA?

>> NATASHA. YES.

>> WHERE ARE YOU FROM?

>> RUSSIA.

>> CAN YOU SAY "MOOSE AND

SQUIRREL"?

>> WHAT?

>> WHERE ARE YOU FROM?

>> BULGARIA.

>> BULGARIA?

>> MOOSE AND SQUIRREL.

>> OKAY.

OKAY, SURE.

YOU AND I KNOW HIGH-CALORIE FOOD

WHEN WE SEE IT, BUT WHEN I'VE

DISCUSSED THE MERITS OF

"SUPER SIZE ME" WITH MY FRIENDS

AND ASSOCIATES, I'VE NOTICED A

CURIOUS PATTERN.

ALMOST EVERYONE WHO REALLY LIKES

THAT MOVIE SHARES A COMMON AND

DEARLY HELD BELIEF.

[ BOING! ]

>> ONE OF THE THINGS THAT STRUCK

ME MOST ABOUT "SUPER SIZE ME"

WAS THAT THERE ARE THESE IMAGES

OF THESE AFRICAN-AMERICAN TEENS,

AND THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT HOW

MUCH THEY LIKED McDONALD'S.

AND THERE'S THIS IMPLICATION OF,

LIKE, "OH, LOOK HOW STUPID THESE

KIDS ARE.

THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT'S GOOD

FOR THEM," AND THAT, YOU KNOW,

WE HAVE TO REALLY PUT THE ONUS

ON McDONALD'S TO TAKE CARE OF

THEM BECAUSE THESE KIDS CAN'T

MAKE DECISIONS FOR THEMSELVES.

WELL, YOU KNOW, WHO IS

MORGAN SPURLOCK OR ANY OF US TO

SORT OF DETERMINE WHAT SOMEBODY

ELSE CAN AND CANNOT EAT, OR TO

KNOW WHAT OTHER PEOPLE KNOW IS

GOOD OR NOT GOOD FOR THEM?

ENGENDERED IN THAT IS ALSO A

CERTAIN KIND OF PATERNALISM.

AND ONCE AGAIN, IT'S A

PATERNALISM THAT'S DIRECTED AT

THE POOR, AT MINORITIES,

SOMEHOW OR ANOTHER THAT THOSE

PEOPLE CAN'T MAKE DECISIONS FOR

THEMSELVES AND THAT THERE'S SOME

OTHER FORCE THAT NEEDS TO COME

IN AND MAKE DECISIONS FOR THEM,

WHEN IN FACT, THEY'RE VERY HAPPY

TO MAKE DECISIONS FOR

THEMSELVES.

IN FACT, WHAT THE LAST THING

THEY WANT IS FOR SOMEBODY ELSE

TO COME IN AND MAKE DECISIONS

FOR THEM.

>> NO, I'M A LEADER, NOT A

FOLLOWER.

[ DING! ]

>> HI.

>> HI. CAN I HELP YOU, SIR?

>> YEAH, I'D LIKE A FIVE-PIECE

CHICKEN SELECT AND A MEDIUM DIET

COKE.

OKAY, SIR.

WOULD YOU LIKE SOME FRIES WITH

THAT?

>> NO, THANK YOU.

>> OKAY.

THAT'LL BE FOR HERE OR TO GO,

SIR?

>> THAT'S FOR HERE.

>> OKAY.

>> DID YOU SEE HOW EASY THAT

WAS?

"DO YOU WANT SOME FRIES WITH

THAT?"

"NO, THANK YOU."

WHEN I WAS A STAND-UP COMEDIAN,

I HEARD THE HACK JOKE OVER AND

OVER, "WHAT PART OF A CHICKEN

DOES A McNUGGET COME FROM?"

YES, WE ALL KNOW THERE ARE NO

McNUGGETS ON A CHICKEN.

THERE ARE ALSO NO SAUSAGES ON A

PIG.

>> ♪ EVERYBODY'S GOT A LAWYER

♪ AND THE LAWYERS NEED TO MAKE

THEIR FEES ♪

♪ THEY SAY THEY USE THEIR LEGAL

MIND ♪

>> TO MOST OF US, THE IDEA THAT

PEOPLE ARE TOO STUPID TO KNOW

THAT SODAS AND FRENCH FRIES ARE

FATTENING SOUNDS LIKE A LOAD OF

BALONEY.

BUT IF YOU SUE PEOPLE FOR A

LIVING, THAT SOUNDS MORE LIKE AN

OPENING ARGUMENT.

IN "SUPER SIZE ME," SUPER

SUE-MEISTER JOHN BANZHAF, WHO

DESPERATELY WANTS TO SQUEEZE

GOLD OUT OF THE GOLDEN ARCHES,

EXPLAINED WHY IT'S McDONALD'S

FAULT WHEN PEOPLE GET FAT.

IT'S A SUDDEN CHANGE.

MOST OF THIS OBESITY EPIDEMIC

HAS OCCURRED SINCE LAST JANUARY.

NOW, WHAT'S CAUSING IT?

WELL, IT CAN'T BE THE

MOM-AND-POP RESTAURANTS.

THEY'VE BEEN AROUND FOR HUNDREDS

OF YEARS.

IT CAN'T BE THE FOOD WE'RE

EATING AT HOME.

WE'VE BEEN EATING AT HOME FOR

HUNDREDS OF YEARS.

I THINK IT'S FAIR TO POINT THE

BIG GUN AT McDONALD'S.

THEY'RE THE ONES WHO LURE KIDS

IN.

THEY'RE THE ONES WITH THE

PLAYLANDS.

YOU KNOW, IN A LOT OF AREAS,

THERE ARE NO PLAYGROUNDS.

YOU HAVE TO GO TO McDONALD'S.

>> DON'T YOU JUST LOVE LAWYER

LOGIC?

WELL, LET'S TAKE THEM ONE BY

ONE.

"WE CAN'T BLAME THE SIT-DOWN

RESTAURANTS.

THEY'VE BEEN AROUND FOR

HUNDREDS OF YEARS."

WHEN MY PARENTS WENT OUT TO A

RESTAURANT, IT WASN'T FOR

LOW-CALORIE FOOD.

THEY WENT OUT FOR A CREAMY

SALAD, STEAK, LOBSTER, A BAKED

POTATO WITH BUTTER AND SOUR

CREAM, ALL WASHED DOWN WITH A

BOTTLE OF WINE, AND PROBABLY A

DESSERT TO FOLLOW.

THE DIFFERENCE IS, THEY ONLY

WENT OUT FOR A BIG DINNER 10 OR

15 TIMES A YEAR.

AND IF I WENT WITH THEM, IT WAS

PROBABLY MY BIRTHDAY.

TODAY, AMERICANS EAT OUT MORE

THAN ANYBODY IN THE WORLD, AND

THE WHOLE FAMILY GOES ALONG.

THE RESTAURANT BUSINESS IS

BOOMING.

THE ONLY INDUSTRY THAT EMPLOYS

MORE PEOPLE IS GOVERNMENT, AND

WE GIVE RESTAURANTS OUR MONEY

ON PURPOSE.

IN FACT, A STUDY CONDUCTED BY

THE UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI'I

CONCLUDED THAT WHEN KIDS GO TO

A TRADITIONAL SIT-DOWN

RESTAURANT, THEY END UP

CONSUMING MORE CALORIES THAN

WHEN THEY GO TO McDONALD'S OR

ANY OTHER FAST-FOOD JOINT.

"WE CAN'T BLAME MEALS AT HOME.

WE'VE BEEN EATING MEALS AT HOME

FOREVER."

RIP VAN WINKLE, CALL YOUR

OFFICE.

SOMEBODY'S BEEN SLEEPING UNDER

YOUR TREE.

>> WITH OVER 40% OF AMERICAN

WOMEN NOW WORKING FULL- OR

PART-TIME, PLUS HAVING KIDS,

SIMPLY, WOMEN'S ROLE AS FOOD

PROVIDERS AND FOOD PREPARERS HAS

CHANGED.

MOST WOMEN SIMPLY DO NOT HAVE A

LOT OF TIME AND ENERGY TO

PREPARE THE TYPES OF MEALS THAT,

SAY, JUNE CLEAVER DID IN THE

1950s.

FOOD MANUFACTURERS RECOGNIZING

THIS FACT STARTED PUTTING

TOGETHER MORE PRE-PACKAGED TYPES

OF FOOD, AND THE LARGEST GROWTH

IN THE FOOD INDUSTRY HAS COME IN

THESE PRE-PREPARED DINNERS AND

PRE-PREPARED MEALS.

>> IN 1978, ONLY 8% OF ALL HOMES

HAD A MICROWAVE OVEN.

TODAY, NEARLY EVERYBODY DOES.

WHEN DINNERTIME ROLLS AROUND,

WE BUY IT AND NUKE IT, OR WE

PICK IT UP AND TAKE IT HOME.

THE RESTAURANT AND FOOD

INDUSTRIES DIDN'T CAUSE THIS

TREND, THEY'RE JUST RESPONDING

TO IT.

OH, AND BY THE WAY, THEY'RE

GIVING US MORE OF WHAT WE

WANT -- FREE TIME.

AND NOW FOR MY FAVORITE BIT OF

LAWYER LOGIC.

THEY'RE THE ONES WHO LURE KIDS

IN.

THEY'RE THE ONES WITH THE

PLAYLANDS.

YOU KNOW, IN A LOT OF AREAS,

THERE ARE NO PLAYGROUNDS.

YOU HAVE TO GO TO McDONALD'S.

IS THAT SUPPOSED TO MAKE ME

MAD AT McDONALD'S?

LISTEN TO WHAT HE JUST SAID.

IN SOME AREAS, THE FEDERAL

GOVERNMENT DIDN'T PROVIDE A

PLAYGROUND, STATE GOVERNMENT

DIDN'T PROVIDE A PLAYGROUND,

LOCAL GOVERNMENT DIDN'T PROVIDE

A PLAYGROUND...

RONALD McDONALD DID.

WHERE I LIVE, IT CAN BE

105 DEGREES IN AUGUST.

PARENTS FLOCK TO THE McDONALD'S

PLAYLAND BECAUSE IT'S

AIR-CONDITIONED AND IT'S SAFE.

I TALKED TO THE OTHER PARENTS,

AND WE ALL HAVE THE SAME

PROBLEM.

>> NO, I DON'T WANT IT.

NO!

>> THE KIDS ARE SO ANXIOUS TO

PLAY, THEY DON'T WANT TO EAT.

OF COURSE, THE REAL REASON WE

CAN BLAME THE FAST-FOOD

RESTAURANTS IS THAT THEY'RE

GIVING US TOO MUCH FOOD FOR TOO

LITTLE MONEY.

>> I'M FORCED TO EAT THIS

FOOD...

>> YEAH?

>> ...ALL WEEK LONG BECAUSE I

HAVE BEEN BRAINWASHED SINCE I

WAS LIKE 5.

>> I MEAN, IT TAKES YEARS TO

LOOK LIKE THIS.

>> IT DOES.

>> AND I'VE WORKED ON IT.

I JUST GOT DONE EATING THREE HOT

DOGS.

>> THE REASON WHY AMERICANS HAVE

GAINED AN AVERAGE OF 8 TO 10

POUNDS OVER THE PAST 20 YEARS IS

NOT BECAUSE McDONALD'S IS

SUPER-SIZING THEIR VALUE MEALS.

IT'S HOW MUCH THEY'RE EATING IN

BETWEEN MEALS.

IT'S HOW MUCH THEY'RE EATING IN

THEIR CARS.

IT'S HOW MUCH THEY'RE EATING

WHILE THEY'RE WATCHING TV.

IT'S THE MOCHA FRAPPUCCINOS.

IT'S THE BEN & JERRY'S ICE CREAM

AT 10:00 AT NIGHT.

THESE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR ABOUT

25% OF THE AVERAGE AMERICAN'S

CALORIC INTAKE.

THE EXPANSION OF THE BEVERAGE

MARKET IN THIS COUNTRY AND THE

NUMBER OF HIGH-CALORIE BEVERAGES

THAT MOST AMERICANS CONSUME ARE

PROBABLY MORE RESPONSIBLE FOR

AMERICA'S WEIGHT GAIN OVER THE

PAST 20 OR 30 YEARS THAN

ANYTHING HAVING TO DO WITH OUR

ACTUAL MEAL SIZES.

>> IF THERE'S ONE THING

MORGAN SPURLOCK AND I WOULD

AGREE ON, IT'S THIS -- DRINKING

A 44-OUNCE GLASS OF

HIGH-FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP TWO OR

THREE TIMES A DAY IS NUTS.

SO, HOW MUCH SUGARY SODA AM I

CONSUMING ON MY FAST-FOOD DIET?

NONE.

IN FACT, I ALMOST NEVER DRINK

THE STUFF BECAUSE I FEEL LOUSY

THE STUFF BECAUSE I FEEL LOUSY
WHEN I DO.

WHEN I DO.

>> AND FURTHERMORE, IF YOU LOOK

AT THOSE, YOU KNOW, THE

RELIGIOUS DRY ACTIVISTS -- THEY

MADE ALL THE SAME ARGUMENTS

ABOUT IT WAS BAD FOR YOUR

FAMILY, AND IT WAS BAD FOR YOUR

HEALTH.

AND, YOU KNOW, THEY MADE ALL THE

KINDS OF PRACTICAL ARGUMENTS THE

PUBLIC-HEALTH PEOPLE MAKE.

IT'S REALLY ABOUT THE SAME

THING, WHICH IS LOOKING AT

PEOPLE'S RISKY BEHAVIOR,

DECIDING PEOPLE OUGHT NOT TO

BEHAVE THAT WAY, AND THEN TRYING

TO ENLIST THE GOVERNMENT TO GET

THOSE PEOPLE TO CHANGE THEIR

BEHAVIOR.

>> THE MODERN-DAY EQUIVALENTS OF

THE WOMEN'S TEMPERANCE LEAGUE

ARE GROUPS LIKE THE CENTER FOR

SCIENCE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.

JUST LIKE THE RELIGIOUS DRY

ACTIVISTS, CSPI BELIEVES PEOPLE

ARE TOO WEAK AND TOO STUPID TO

RESIST GIVING IN TO TEMPTATION.

>> WHETHER THEY CALL IT

KING-SIZING, SUPER-SIZING,

OR A COMBO DEAL, FOR MANY

AMERICANS, IT'S AN OFFER THAT'S

HARD TO REFUSE.

>> SO, WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE,

ANYWAY?

CSPI IS USUALLY IDENTIFIED IN

THE MEDIA AS A CONSUMER-ADVOCACY

GROUP, BUT THEY'RE A LITTLE MORE

THAN THAT.

>> THE CENTER FOR SCIENCE IN THE

PUBLIC INTEREST IS A VERY

WELL-INTENTIONED ORGANIZATION,

BUT I THINK THEY MISREPRESENT

THEMSELVES IN THAT THEY PICK AND

CHOOSE THE TYPE OF SCIENCE THAT

THEY CHOOSE TO ENDORSE IF IT

CORRESPONDS WITH THEIR

ORGANIZATION'S MISSION.

>> THEY'RE PUSHING VEGETARIANISM

TO A LARGE EXTENT.

>> THEY ARE A VEGETARIAN

ORGANIZATION, AND THAT'S THEIR

REAL INTEREST.

IT'S NOT BASED ON PUBLIC

INTEREST OR REAL SCIENCE.

>> THEY'RE PROMOTING

MISINFORMATION FOR THE BENEFIT

OF CERTAIN INDUSTRIES.

>> ACTUALLY, THEY'RE NOT REALLY

GOOD SCIENTISTS AT ALL.

>> CSPI WAS FOUNDED BY

MICHAEL JACOBSON, A VEGETARIAN

ACTIVIST WHO USED TO WORK FOR

RALPH NADER.

OVER THE YEARS, JACOBSON AND

CSPI HAVE WARNED US ABOUT ALL

KINDS OF DANGEROUS FOODS.

>> THE CENTER FOR SCIENCE IN THE

PUBLIC INTEREST, THE SAME GROUP

THAT RECENTLY CAME DOWN HARD ON

THE CALORIES IN CHINESE

COOKING...

>> FIRST THEY SAID THAT CHINESE

FOOD WAS LOADED WITH FAT, THEN

ITALIAN, NOW IT IS MEXICAN.

>> ...HAS A NEW STUDY ON THE

PERILS OF FAT AND CALORIES IN

DINING OUT ITALIAN-STYLE.

>> THEY DO NOT HOLD BACK.

NO, THEY DO NOT SPEAK IN

MEASURED TERMS.

THEY PUSH THINGS TO THE LIMIT

ALL THE TIME.

>> THIS IS A HEART ATTACK IN A

BUN.

>> SO STAY AWAY FROM FETTUCCINE

ALFREDO.

HURLEY CALLS IT "HEART ATTACK ON

A PLATE."

>> HAVE YOU EVER EATEN

FETTUCCINE ALFREDO?

>> I HAVE.

>> HOW MANY TIMES?

>> IN MY LIFE?

>> SURE.

GIVE ME A ROUGH GUESS.

>> 50.

>> YOU'VE EATEN 50 SERVINGS OF

FETTUCCINE ALFREDO?

>> MM-HMM.

>> 50.

>> OF COURSE. I'M ITALIAN.

I LOVE FETTUCCINE ALFREDO.

>> THERE YOU GO.

>> I HAVE. LAST NIGHT.

>> LAST NIGHT.

>> THAT IS BIZARRE.

>> MAYBE 200.

>> 200?

AND HOW MANY HEART ATTACKS HAVE

YOU HAD?

>> NONE.

>> ARE YOU SURE?

>> I THINK SO, YEAH.

>> NO, NO HEART ATTACKS,

ACTUALLY.

>> NO HEART ATTACKS.

>> NONE.

>> ARE YOU HAVING CHEST PAINS

TODAY?

>> NO.

>> ANY POSSIBILITY YOU HAD A

HEART ATTACK AND DIDN'T KNOW IT?

>> NO.

>> IS THERE ANY CHANCE YOU HAD A

HEART ATTACK AND JUST SAID, "OH,

I SHOULDN'T HAVE HAD THE CHILI?"

>> POSSIBLY, I GUESS.

>> IF ALL THEY DID WAS NAG US

ABOUT THE FOODS THEY DON'T LIKE,

THEN GROUPS LIKE CSPI WOULD JUST

BE ANNOYING AND OCCASIONALLY

LAUGHABLE, BUT THEY DON'T JUST

WANT TO NAG US.

THEY WANT BIG GOVERNMENT TO STEP

IN AND HELP US MAKE BETTER

CHOICES.

WHEN McDONALD'S BEGAN PUTTING

OUT NUTRITION MENUS, CSPI SAID

THAT WASN'T GOOD ENOUGH BECAUSE

PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO GET OUT OF

LINE TO READ THEM.

"BOY, I REALLY SHOULD COUNT MY

CALORIES AND LOSE SOME WEIGHT,

BUT I'D HAVE TO WALK ALL THE WAY

OVER THERE.

EH, HECK WITH IT."

SO NOW CSPI WANTS THE GOVERNMENT

TO FORCE RESTAURANTS TO PUT

NUTRITION INFORMATION RIGHT ON

YOUR FAST-FOOD PACKAGE, BECAUSE

THEN YOU'D FINALLY GET SMART AND

STOP EATING THE STUFF, WHICH IS

A LOAD OF BALONEY.

>> NO, I DON'T THINK ANYONE

WOULD ARGUE WITH THE IDEA THAT

HAVING MORE INFORMATION ABOUT

WHAT WE EAT AND ABOUT ITS

NUTRITIONAL CONTENT IS A GOOD

THING, BUT THE IDEA THAT SOMEHOW

OR ANOTHER, IF I WAS CONFRONTED

WITH THE FACT THAT MY BIG MAC IS

600 CALORIES WOULD CHANGE THE

LIKELIHOOD THAT I ATE THAT

BIG MAC, I THINK, IS A LOT OF

WISHFUL THINKING.

>> NOW, IF YOU KNEW THAT THESE

WERE 400, 450 CALORIES, WOULD

YOU JUST GIVE UP FRIES?

>> NO.

>> NO.

>> NO. PROBABLY NOT.

>> IF THERE WAS A WARNING LABEL

ON HERE THAT SAID "400

CALORIES," THEN WOULD YOU STOP

EATING FRIES?

>> NO.

>> YOU WOULDN'T?

>> NO.

>> WHAT THE CRITICS OF THE

FAST-FOOD RESTAURANTS MISS, AS

USUAL, IS THE ELEMENT OF

CONSUMER DEMAND AND CONSUMER

CHOICE, BECAUSE FROM McDONALD'S

PERSPECTIVE, THEY DON'T CARE IF

PEOPLE ARE EATING, YOU KNOW,

BACON DOUBLE CHEESEBURGERS OR

SALADS.

THEY WILL GIVE PEOPLE WHAT

PEOPLE WANT.

>> THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF

AGRICULTURE HAS ESTIMATED THAT

IN ORDER TO GET PEOPLE TO

CONSUME MORE LEAFY GREEN

VEGETABLES, WE WOULD BASICALLY

HAVE TO PAY PEOPLE TO EAT THEM.

>> IF McDONALD'S SOLD CARROTS,

WOULD YOU STOP EATING FRIES AND

EAT THE CARROTS?

>> NO.

>> I'M NOT A BIG FAN OF CARROTS.

>> SO YOU WOULDN'T ORDER THEM?

>> NO.

>> NO, 'CAUSE I DON'T LIKE

CARROTS.

I HATE CARROTS.

>> I ACTUALLY JUST HAD

VEGETABLES IN MY BLOODY MARY,

THOUGH, SO MAYBE THAT COUNTS.

>> YEAH, YOU DON'T GO TO

McDONALD'S FOR CARROTS.

YOU GO TO McDONALD'S FOR FRIES.

>> I DON'T GO TO McDONALD'S FOR

THE BROCCOLI.

>> YOU DON'T GO TO McDONALD'S

FOR THE BROCCOLI?

>> YOU GO TO McDONALD'S FOR THE

HAMBURGERS AND THE FRIES.

>> IF McDONALD'S SOLD BROCCOLI

IN, LIKE, A NICE, LITTLE RED

PACKAGE LIKE THIS, WOULD YOU GO

IN AND SAY, "I WANT THE

McBROCCOLI"?

[ BOTH LAUGH ]

>> MAYBE IF THEY FRIED IT OR PUT

CHEESE ON IT.

>> I'M WITH YOU ON THE CHEESE

PART.

YEP.

WE JUST KEEP ON EATING THE FOODS

THE EVANGELISTS SAY WE

SHOULDN'T.

AND THEY HAVE A PLAN TO FIX IT.

[ GUNFIRE ]

[ SIRENS WAILING ]

IT WAS JUST AN AVERAGE, PEACEFUL

DAY IN WASHINGTON, D.C., WHEN

SUDDENLY, A CRISIS EMERGED.

>> HELP! HELP!

SOMEBODY, HELP!

[ ZIP! ]

>> WHAT SEEMS TO BE THE PROBLEM,

MA'AM?

>> THERE'S AN INNOCENT MAN OVER

THERE IN MORTAL DANGER.

>> YOU DON'T MEAN --

>> YES!

HE'S ORDERING A DOUBLE

CHEESEBURGER!

>> GADZOOKS!

THIS IS A JOB FOR THE GUY FROM

CSPI.

>> YES, THESE ARE THE ADVENTURES

OF THE GUY FROM CSPI, A TIRELESS

PROMOTER OF JUNK SCIENCE AND

DEDICATED TO LAWSUITS, PRESS

CONFERENCES, AND THE VEGETARIAN

WAY.

[ ZIP! ]

>> AND WOULD YOU LIKE FRIES WITH

THAT?

>> YEAH, LET ME HAVE A LARGE --

>> STOP!

STOP TEMPTING THIS INNOCENT MAN

WITH YOUR FATTY FOODS.

>> WHO ARE YOU?

>> I'M THE GUY FROM CSPI, AND

I'M HERE TO SAVE YOU.

>> UH, LOOK, I'M NOT REALLY INTO

THE WHOLE JESUS THING, SEE --

>> NO, NO, NO.

YOU'RE CHOOSING BAD FOOD BECAUSE

IT'S CHEAP, SO I'M GOING TO

DOUBLE THE PRICE ON THAT DOUBLE

CHEESEBURGER.

>> BUT I DON'T WANT TO CHARGE

HIM DOUBLE FOR THE DOUBLE.

>> AND I DON'T WANT TO PAY

DOUBLE FOR THE DOUBLE.

>> THAT'S BECAUSE YOU'RE EVIL,

AND YOU'RE STUPID.

>> USING HIS TWIN POWERS OF

TAXATION AND REGULATION, CSPI

GUY QUICKLY DOUBLED THE PRICES

ON BURGERS, FRIES, AND DESSERTS,

AND FORCED THE EVIL RESTAURANT

TO OFFER THE CUSTOMER A VARIETY

OF MUNCHY, DELICIOUS VEGETABLES

AT A CHEAP AND SUBSIDIZED PRICE.

>> THERE. THAT OUGHT TO DO IT.

IT IS NOW SAFE TO ORDER LUNCH.

>> BUT I ONLY HAVE THREE BUCKS

ON ME.

>> YOU CAN GET THE TOFU

BROCCOLI SALAD FOR $2.75.

>> A DELICIOUS AND HEALTHY

CHOICE, SIR.

>> YEAH. RIGHT.

THANKS, CSPI GUY.

FREAKIN' JACKASS.

>> CSPI GUY, YOU'RE MY HERO.

>> THANK YOU, MA'AM.

BUT IT'S ALL IN A DAY'S WORK FOR

BUT IT'S ALL IN A DAY'S WORK FOR
THE GUY FROM CSPI.

THE GUY FROM CSPI.

>> AND SINCE WE CAN'T BE TRUSTED

TO MAKE DECISIONS FOR OURSELVES,

WE CERTAINLY CAN'T BE TRUSTED TO

MAKE DECISIONS FOR OUR KIDS, SO

THE EVANGELISTS WANT TO GET RID

OF THAT WHOLE ANNOYING

FREEDOM-OF-SPEECH CONCEPT AND

PUT A STOP TO MARKETING EFFORTS

THAT ARE DIRECTED AT CHILDREN.

>> IF DOOR-TO-DOOR SALESMAN WERE

GOING AROUND, RINGING THE BELL,

AND THE DOOR IS ANSWERED BY A

4- OR 5-YEAR-OLD, AND

THEY'RE SELLING THEM ICE CREAM

AND CANDY AND COOKIES, THERE

WOULD BE A LEGITIMATE COMPLAINT

THERE, BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT'S

GOING ON, AND WE SHOULDN'T

PRETEND THAT'S WHAT'S GOING ON.

THERE IS THIS INTERVENING FORCE

KNOWN AS PARENTS.

>> BUT THE GUY FROM CSPI SAYS

KIDS SEE SO MANY ADVERTISEMENTS

FOR JUNK FOODS, PARENTS ARE

POWERLESS TO SAY NO.

CAN THAT BE TRUE, OR IS THAT

ALSO A LOAD OF BALONEY?

TO FIND OUT, I CONSULTED WITH A

LEADING EXPERT IN THE FIELD OF

CHILD-REARING.

SO, WHEN I WAS, SAY, 13, 14,

HOW OFTEN DID I WANT TO EAT AT

McDONALD'S?

>> WELL, YOU PROBABLY WANTED TO

EAT IT EVERY NIGHT IF YOU HAD A

CHANCE.

>> HOW OFTEN DID YOU ACTUALLY

LET US EAT AT McDONALD'S?

>> OH, PROBABLY MAYBE ONCE A

WEEK I'D LET YOU SPLURGE.

>> SO, LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT.

I WOULD HAVE EATEN THERE EVERY

NIGHT.

>> RIGHT.

>> YOU ONLY LET ME EAT THERE

MAYBE ONCE A WEEK.

>> RIGHT.

>> WHAT IF I HAD HELD MY BREATH

UNTIL I TURNED BLUE?

>> WELL, YOU PROBABLY WOULD

HAVE PASSED OUT.

>> THIS IS 1,450 CALORIES OF

BEEF, BACON, BUN, AND CHEESE.

HARDEE'S CALLS IT THE MONSTER

THICKBURGER.

THEIR SISTER COMPANY CARL'S JR.

CALLS IT THE DOUBLE SIX DOLLAR

BURGER.

THE CENTER FOR SCIENCE IN THE

PUBLIC INTEREST CALLS IT...

>> THE HEART ATTACK IN A BUN.

>> AFTER I EAT THIS, MY CALORIE

COUNT FOR THE DAY WILL STILL BE

ABOUT 2,200.

IF I DIE AFTER I EAT IT, I'LL

HAVE MY WIFE CONTRIBUTE, I DON'T

HAVE MY WIFE CONTRIBUTE, I DON'T
KNOW, SIX BUCKS TO CSPI.

KNOW, SIX BUCKS TO CSPI.

IT'S ABOUT 1:15 IN THE MORNING,

AND I'M AWAKE 'CAUSE I, UH -- I,

UH -- I FEEL GREAT.

REALLY, I FEEL GREAT.

YOU KNOW, IF I THOUGHT I WAS

HAVING A HEART ATTACK OR

SOMETHING, I PROBABLY WOULDN'T

BOTHER SETTING UP A CAMERA.

"HONEY, I HAVE CHEST PAINS.

QUICK, GET A TRIPOD."

"I THINK I'M DYING.

I-IS THERE ENOUGH LIGHT IN HERE

TO SHOOT?"

"OH, GOD, I CAN BARELY BREATHE.

"OH, GOD, I CAN BARELY BREATHE.
SWITCH THE MIC TO MINUS-10 dB."

SWITCH THE MIC TO MINUS-10 dB."

IN 2004, THE CENTERS FOR

DISEASE CONTROL RELEASED A

PowerPoint PRESENTATION THAT

SHOWED OBESITY GROWING AND

SPREADING LIKE A CONTAGIOUS

DISEASE.

THE MEDIA ATE IT UP.

SPURLOCK FEATURED IT IN

"SUPER SIZE ME."

>> AND AT THE TIME, THERE WERE

HEADLINES TRUMPETING EVERYWHERE

THAT OBESITY WAS SOON TO

OVERTAKE SMOKING AS THE

NUMBER-ONE CAUSE OF PREVENTABLE

DEATH IN THIS COUNTRY.

THE HEAD OF THE CDC,

JULIE GERBERDING, WENT BEFORE

CONGRESS AND ISSUED BIG

WARNINGS.

AND THERE WAS A BIG UPROAR OVER

THE NUMBER OF DEATHS THAT WOULD

OCCUR.

BASICALLY, WHAT THEY DID WAS

DIVIDE THEIR SURVEY SAMPLES

BETWEEN PEOPLE WHO WERE OBESE

AND PEOPLE WHO WERE NOT OBESE,

AND THEN BASICALLY LOOKED AT

RATES OF DEATH.

NOW, IF YOU ARE OBESE, AND YOU

DIED FROM A SNAKEBITE, THEY

WOULD SAY THAT IT WAS YOUR

OBESITY THAT WAS CAUSING YOUR

DEATH, NOT THE SNAKEBITE.

AND THIS WAS PART OF A LITTLE

STATISTICAL HANKY-PANKY ON THEIR

PART.

>> IN OTHER NEWS TODAY, THE

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL SAID

IT MADE A MISTAKE ABOUT THE

SCOPE OF THE OBESITY EPIDEMIC IN

THE COUNTRY.

>> ROUGHLY A YEAR LATER, ANOTHER

SET OF RESEARCHERS FROM THE CDC

OFFERED A MUCH, MUCH LOWER SET

OF ESTIMATES.

ACCORDING TO THEIR ESTIMATES, IT

WAS ROUGHLY 25,000 PEOPLE A YEAR

WHO WERE DYING FROM WEIGHING TOO

MUCH.

>> RESEARCHERS SAY THAT

MATHEMATICAL ERRORS EXAGGERATED

THE DEATH TOLL.

>> WHY DID THE CDC INFLATE THE

NUMBERS OF DEATHS ATTRIBUTABLE

TO OBESITY?

>> FOLLOW THE MONEY.

>> I THINK IT'S ALL ABOUT

FUNDING AND BUREAUCRATIC

MISSION.

WHEN I TALKED TO A FEW CDC

OFFICIALS, THEY WERE CONSTANTLY

PREOCCUPIED ABOUT HOW MUCH MONEY

THE GOVERNMENT OR CONGRESS IS

GONNA ALLOT FOR THEM FOR THE

NEXT YEAR, AND THEY'RE

CONSTANTLY WORRIED ABOUT GETTING

THEIR FUNDING CUT.

>> FOLLOW THE MONEY.

>> ALL OF THIS MIGHT HAVE GONE

UNNOTICED EXCEPT FOR THE

ANTI-TOBACCO PEOPLE, WHO SEE

THIS AS A ZERO-SUM GAME, SO THEY

SEE THAT IF OBESITY BECOMES A

BIG PUBLIC-HEALTH ISSUE, IT'S

GONNA CROWD OUT FUNDING TO

TACKLE SMOKING AS A

PUBLIC-HEALTH ISSUE.

SO THEY WERE AMONG THE FIRST

PEOPLE TO POINT OUT A LOT OF THE

METHODOLOGICAL PROBLEMS IN THE

ESTIMATES RELATING OBESITY TO

PUBLIC-HEALTH OUTCOMES.

>> SO THE QUESTION IS WHAT

HAPPENS ONCE YOU'VE ELIMINATED

MOST OF THE TRUE EPIDEMICS?

YOU START TO COME UP WITH

METAPHORICAL EPIDEMICS --

EPIDEMICS OF SMOKING, EPIDEMICS

OF OBESITY.

>> AND IT WOULD BE A-OKAY IF

THERE WEREN'T SECONDHAND

OBESITY.

SECONDHAND OBESITY --

>> SECONDHAND OBESITY?

>> RULE NUMBER ONE WHEN YOU'RE

COMPETING FOR TAXPAYER MONEY IS

TO WILDLY EXAGGERATE THE SIZE OF

THE PROBLEM.

AT A RECENT MEETING OF

GOVERNMENT HEALTH OFFICIALS FROM

AROUND THE WORLD, THEY CALLED

OBESITY A PANDEMIC THAT WILL

OVERWHELM THE WORLD'S

HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS.

APPARENTLY, FAT PEOPLE ARE

STAMPEDING THE WORLD'S EMERGENCY

ROOMS, CHOKING ON THEIR OWN FAT.

OR MAYBE NOT.

SO, HOW FAT ARE WE, ANYWAY?

I KEEP HEARING THESE STATISTICS

LIKE TWO-THIRDS OF AMERICAN

ADULTS ARE OVERWEIGHT AND 25%

ARE OBESE.

I DEFINITELY SEE A LOT MORE

PEOPLE WHO LOOK LIKE THIS THAN I

USED TO, BUT IT'S NOT EVEN CLOSE

TO 25%.

MOST OF THE PEOPLE I SEE LOOK

PRETTY NORMAL.

>> THE WAY THE HEALTH STATISTICS

ARE BANTERED ABOUT, YOU WOULD

THINK THAT MOST AMERICANS HAVE

GAINED ANYWHERE FROM 50 TO 100

POUNDS.

IN FACT, THAT'S NOT THE CASE.

MOST AMERICANS HAVE ONLY GAINED

BETWEEN 8 AND 10 POUNDS.

IT'S JUST THE STATISTICS AND THE

NUMBERS HAVE MADE THOSE NUMBERS

SEEM VERY LARGE.

>> 8 OR 10 POUNDS?

I GAINED THAT MUCH ON MY

HONEYMOON.

HOW DOES AN EXTRA 10 POUNDS

CREATE AN EPIDEMIC?

>> YOU HAVE TO GO BACK TO 1998,

WHERE THE NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF

HEALTH ISSUED A REPORT WHERE

THEY SAID THAT BMI, THE BODY

MASS INDEX, WOULD BE THE

STANDARD OF HOW WE EVALUATE

PEOPLE'S WEIGHT, AND THAT PEOPLE

WITH A BMI OF 25 OR MORE WOULD

BE CONSIDERED OVERWEIGHT AND

PEOPLE WITH A BMI OF 30 OR MORE

WOULD BE CONSIDERED OBESE.

THAT DECISION, OVERNIGHT,

SUDDENLY MEANT MILLIONS AND

MILLIONS OF AMERICANS WERE

CONSIDERED OVERWEIGHT --

FOR EXAMPLE, ME.

I'M 6 FEET TALL, 190 POUNDS,

AND I AM TECHNICALLY OVERWEIGHT.

>> YOU ARE?

>> I AM TECHNICALLY OVERWEIGHT.

>> COULD YOU STAND UP AND TURN

AROUND?

IS THAT TOO EMBARRASSING?

>> NO, NO, NO, NO, NO. SEE.

THIS IS MY WRINKLED SHIRT.

>> YOU'RE CONSIDERED OVERWEIGHT?

>> I'M CONSIDERED OVERWEIGHT BY

CONTEMPORARY STANDARDS.

I'M IN GOOD COMPANY.

GEORGE BUSH, MICHAEL JORDAN, ANY

NUMBER OF FIGURES WHO ARE

CONSIDERED TO BE VERY FIT ARE

ALSO CONSIDERED OVERWEIGHT.

>> BMI IS A RATIO OF YOUR HEIGHT

TO WEIGHT, PERIOD.

IF YOU'RE 6 FEET TALL AND

WEIGH 225, YOU HAVE A BMI OF

OVER 30, AND ACCORDING TO THE

GOVERNMENT, YOU'RE OBESE.

IT DOESN'T MATTER IF THE EXTRA

WEIGHT IS IN YOUR BELLY OR YOUR

BICEPS.

SO, IN SPITE OF ALL THE MEDIA

HYPE, WE DON'T HAVE A SUDDEN

EPIDEMIC OF OBESITY.

WE HAD A SUDDEN CHANGE IN THE

DEFINITION OF OBESITY.

BUT WHY WOULD OUR OWN GOVERNMENT

WANT TO TELL SO MANY OF US THAT

WE'RE OBESE?

FOLLOW THE MONEY.

>> NOW, MOST OF THESE PEOPLE,

INCLUDING THE CHAIR,

XAVIER PI-SUNYER, ARE HEAVILY

SUBSIDIZED BY THE WEIGHT-LOSS

INDUSTRY.

MOST OF THEM RECEIVE NUMEROUS

RESEARCH GRANTS, SERVE ON

VARIOUS BOARDS, HAVE RECEIVED

VARIOUS TYPES OF FUNDING OR

AWARDS FROM VARIOUS

PHARMACEUTICAL AND OTHER

WEIGHT-LOSS COMPANIES.

THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST BETWEEN

OBESITY RESEARCHERS AND THE

WEIGHT-LOSS INDUSTRY IS LARGE

AND PROBLEMATIC.

>> HERE ARE SOME NO-BALONEY

FACTS THAT THE CDC DOESN'T

MENTION.

IN 1970, THE MEDIAN AGE IN

AMERICA WAS 27.

TODAY, IT'S 36.

IS IT REALLY A BIG SHOCK THAT A

POPULATION THAT'S NEARLY

10 YEARS OLDER WOULD ALSO BE

10 POUNDS HEAVIER?

ALSO IN 1970, BLACKS AND

HISPANICS MADE UP ABOUT 15% OF

THE POPULATION.

TODAY THAT'S MORE THAN 25% AND

STILL GROWING.

WELL, GUESS WHAT.

BLACKS AND HISPANICS ARE MUCH

MORE LIKELY TO HAVE A BMI OF

OVER 30.

AND IT'S NOT BECAUSE THEY'RE

LAZY OR STUPID.

THEY'RE JUST GENETICALLY

PREDISPOSED TO BE THICKER THAN

WHITE PEOPLE.

THIS ISN'T AN EPIDEMIC,

IT'S A POPULATION SHIFT.

AND IT MAKES SOME PEOPLE VERY

UNCOMFORTABLE.

>> I THINK A LOT OF OUR

APPREHENSION ABOUT OBESITY IS

TIED UP WITH AN AVERSION TOWARDS

RACE.

WHITE PEOPLE SEE HIGHER

PERCENTAGES OF LATINOS OR

AFRICAN-AMERICANS BEING OBESE,

AND IT GETS TIED UP WITH A LOT

OF THESE ISSUES ABOUT INDIVIDUAL

SELF-CONTROL, AND WE END UP

FINDING THAT, FOR EXAMPLE, A LOT

OF THE SAME TYPES OF WORDS AND

DESCRIPTIONS THAT ARE USED TO

DENIGRATE MINORITIES AND

DENIGRATE THE POOR ARE ALSO USED

TO DENIGRATE FAT PEOPLE.

ONE OF THE MOST INTERESTING

THINGS I FOUND ON THIS WAS WHEN

I GO TO CONFERENCES OF OBESITY

RESEARCHERS.

EVERYONE IS A THIN WHITE PERSON.

>> IT'S NOT JUST A PERSONAL

CHOICE.

THE REST OF US PICK UP THE TAB.

THE NEXT GENERATION'S FAT.

WE SEE THAT OBESITY COMPROMISES

EDUCATIONAL POSSIBILITIES.

>> AND IT'S ALL OF THESE THIN

WHITE PEOPLE WHO ARE FRETTING SO

MUCH ABOUT THE WEIGHT OF, YOU

KNOW, BLACK AND BROWN PEOPLE.

>> TO BE PERFECTLY HONEST, I

WISH I COULD WEAR A SWIMSUIT IN

PUBLIC WITHOUT FEELING

EMBARRASSED, WHICH I HAVEN'T

DONE SINCE I WAS MAYBE 13, BUT

THAT'S NOT WHAT REALLY MATTERS.

MY FIRST DAUGHTER WAS BORN THE

SAME WEEK I TURNED 45.

I WAS 46 WHEN HER LITTLE SISTER

CAME ALONG.

I WANT TO LIVE LONG ENOUGH TO

SEE THEM GROW UP AND BECOME

WHOEVER THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE.

I WANT TO DANCE AT THEIR

WEDDINGS.

I WANT TO PLAY WITH MY

GRANDCHILDREN.

SO, IS THE EXTRA 20 POUNDS I'M

CARRYING AROUND GOING TO KILL ME

BEFORE MY TIME?

WELL, LET'S LOOK AT A COUPLE

MORE NO-BALONEY FACTS THE CDC

DOESN'T TALK ABOUT.

PEOPLE THE GOVERNMENT CLASSIFIES

AS OVERWEIGHT ACTUALLY HAVE

LONGER AVERAGE LIFE-SPANS THAN

PEOPLE CLASSIFIED AS NORMAL

WEIGHT.

AND MEN WHO ARE CLASSIFIED AS

OBESE BUT GET REGULAR EXERCISE

ARE ONLY HALF AS LIKELY TO DIE

PREMATURELY AS THIN MEN WHO

DON'T EXERCISE.

>> ONE OF THE BIG PROBLEMS OF

MAKING WEIGHT A BAROMETER OF

HEALTH AND FITNESS IS THAT IT

SIMPLY SAYS THAT IF SOMEONE IS

THIN, NO MATTER HOW FIT THEY

ARE, THEY'RE HEALTHIER THAN

SOMEBODY WHO IS FAT, WHEN IN

FACT, THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE IS

OVERWHELMINGLY CONCLUSIVE THAT

PEOPLE WHO ARE FIT AND ACTIVE

ARE HEALTHIER NO MATTER WHAT

THEIR BODY SIZE IS.

>> OKAY.

YOU DIDN'T TELL ME THAT YOU WORK

OUT, BUT I'M FEELING LOTS OF

MUSCLE HERE.

AND WHAT DO YOU DO FOR PHYSICAL

ACTIVITY, TOM?

>> WALK.

>> DAILY?

>> THE HDL IS INCREDIBLE.

IT'S 61.

AND YOUR TRIGLYCERIDES WERE

GREAT.

THEY WERE 70.

>> THE PROBLEM WITH LINKING

OBESITY TO MOST DISEASES IS MUCH

LIKE SAYING THAT, "WELL, THE

REAL PROBLEM WITH LUNG CANCER IS

BAD BREATH OR SMELLY CLOTHES,"

RATHER THAN BLAMING CIGARETTES.

I.E., WE'RE BLAMING AN

ASSOCIATED SYMPTOM RATHER THAN

AN UNDERLYING CAUSE OF THESE

HEALTH CONDITIONS.

AND WHY ARE WE BLAMING THE

SYMPTOM?

>> FOLLOW THE MONEY.

>> WELL, IT'S VERY PROFITABLE

FOR CERTAIN GROUPS IN OUR

SOCIETY TO TREAT THESE SYMPTOMS.

>> AND THAT'S ALL OBESITY IS.

IT'S A SYMPTOM.

IF YOU HAVE CHRONICALLY HIGH

BLOOD SUGAR, THERE'S A VERY GOOD

CHANCE IT'LL MAKE YOU FAT, BUT

THERE ARE PLENTY OF THIN PEOPLE

WHO ALSO HAVE HIGH BLOOD SUGAR,

AND THERE ARE PLENTY OF FAT

PEOPLE LIKE ME.

I'M OVERWEIGHT.

IN FACT, I'M TECHNICALLY OBESE,

BUT I'M PERFECTLY HEALTHY, AND

MY BLOOD SUGAR IS NORMAL.

AND IF ANYTHING IS GOING TO KILL

YOU, IT'S HIGH BLOOD SUGAR.

>> YEAH, I THINK THE MOST

DIFFICULT GROUP OF PEOPLE TO

WORK WITH AS A PHYSICIAN ARE THE

PEOPLE WHO HAVE THE METABOLIC

PROBLEMS -- THEY HAVE HIGH BLOOD

PRESSURE, THEY HAVE TYPE-2

DIABETES -- AND YET THEY DON'T

GAIN WEIGHT, 'CAUSE IT'S VERY

DIFFICULT FOR A PHYSICIAN TO

MAKE THAT PERSON UNDERSTAND THAT

THEY HAVE TO CHANGE THE WAY THEY

EAT.

>> OVER THE PAST 30 YEARS,

MILLIONS OF AMERICANS HAVE

DEVELOPED A CONDITION THAT

DOCTORS CALL METABOLIC SYNDROME.

IT BEGINS WITH HIGH BLOOD SUGAR

AND CAN EVENTUALLY CAUSE INSULIN

RESISTANCE, TYPE-2 DIABETES, AND

HEART DISEASE.

AND THAT'STHE REAL EPIDEMIC.

SO, WHAT'S CAUSING IT?

WELL, A BIG PART OF THE PROBLEM

MIGHT JUST BE THE VERY ADVICE

THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO MAKE US

HEALTHY.

>> ♪ AND YOU ASK IF I'VE GOT THE

FAT ♪

♪ THAT JUST MIGHT HAVE A HEART

ATTACK ♪

>> NOW, IT'S PROBABLY NOT GOING

TO MAKE MY DOCTOR VERY HAPPY TO

HEAR THIS, BUT I RAN AN ANALYSIS

ON MY FAST-FOOD DIET SO FAR.

I'M ABOUT TWO WEEKS INTO IT, AND

I'M GETTING ABOUT 54% OF MY

CALORIES FROM FAT AND ABOUT 22%

OF MY CALORIES FROM SATURATED

FAT.

ACCORDING TO ALL THE USUAL

DIETARY ADVICE, THAT MEANS MY

CHOLESTEROL IS PROBABLY SHOOTING

UP.

I'M PUTTING MYSELF AT RISK FOR A

HEART ATTACK DOWN THE LINE IF I

KEEP DOING THIS.

>> THE USUAL ADVICE FOR AVOIDING

HEART DISEASE IS TO EAT A

LOW-FAT DIET WITH PLENTY OF

WHOLE GRAINS, AND SUBSTITUTE

VEGETABLE OILS FOR SATURATED

ANIMAL FATS.

BUT DOES THAT ADVICE REALLY FIT

WITH HUMAN BIOLOGY?

LET'S START WITH ONE SIMPLE

IDEA.

MOTHER NATURE ISN'T STUPID.

SHE DIDN'T MAKE HUMAN BEINGS THE

ONLY SPECIES ON EARTH WHO

PREFERS FOODS THAT WILL KILL

US.

SO, WHAT DO HUMAN BEINGS

NATURALLY LIKE TO EAT?

>> YOUR NATURAL PREFERENCE IS

FOR THINGS THAT ARE SALTY,

THINGS THAT ARE SWEET, AND

THINGS THAT ARE FATTY.

YOU HAVE THOSE THREE NATIVE

DESIRES FOR GOOD REASON.

THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT ARE

GOOD FOR YOU.

THAT'S WHERE THE NUTRIENTS THAT

YOU NEED ARE LOCATED.

>> IN NATURE, SWEET MEANS FRUIT,

ALONG WITH CERTAIN VEGETABLES

LIKE CARROTS.

AND THOSE ARE GOOD FOR YOU.

FATS OCCUR NATURALLY IN FOODS

LIKE OLIVES AND NUTS, BUT FOR

MOST OF HUMAN HISTORY, THE

BIGGEST SOURCE OF FAT WAS

SATURATED ANIMAL FAT, WHICH IS

FATTY AND SALTY.

YUM, YUM.

AND FOR MILLIONS OF YEARS, THIS

IS EXACTLY HOW WE ATE.

WE ATE NO SUGAR, ALMOST NO

STARCH, A LITTLE BIT OF

VEGETABLE FAT, AND A WHOLE LOT

OF SATURATED ANIMAL FAT, UP TO

5 OR EVEN 10 TIMES AS MUCH AS

THE EXPERTS SAY WE SHOULD.

BUT ALMOST NOBODY GOT HEART

DISEASE.

>> IF YOU LOOK AT

PRE-AGRICULTURAL HUMANS, AT

THEIR SKELETAL REMAINS, THE

CORTICAL THICKNESS OF THEIR

BONES, THEY'RE ROBUST, THEY'RE

TALL, THEY HAD GOOD TEETH.

WHEN SOCIETIES BECAME

AGRICULTURAL, AND WE BECAME

SHORT OF STATURE, YOU KNOW,

TOOTH DECAY BECAME RAMPANT,

INFECTIONS WERE RAMPANT --

HUMAN HEALTH DEVOLVED WHEN WE

ADOPTED AGRICULTURE.

>> IF YOU COULD PACK ALL OF

HUMAN HISTORY INTO ONE YEAR,

WE'VE ONLY BEEN FARMING AND

EATING GRAIN SINCE ABOUT

YESTERDAY, WHICH IS WHEN WE

BECAME SHORTER AND FATTER.

WE ONLY STARTED CONSUMING

PROCESSED VEGETABLE OILS ABOUT

10 MINUTES AGO, WHICH IS WHEN

HEART DISEASE BECAME OUR

NUMBER-ONE KILLER.

SO, AFTER EXAMINING ALL THIS

HUMAN HISTORY, THE EXPERTS CAME

TO THE OBVIOUS CONCLUSION -- WE

NEED TO EAT A LOT MORE OF THESE.

AND SO THEY CONVINCED US THAT

HUMAN HEALTH DEPENDS ON FOODS WE

DIDN'T EAT FOR MORE THAN 99% OF

OUR ENTIRE EXISTENCE.

HOW DID THIS HAPPEN?

>> ♪ SHE-DO-DO-DO

♪ SHE-DO-DO-DO

♪ SHE-DO-DO-DO, WOW-WOW

>> IN THE 1950s, A BIOCHEMIST

NAMED ANCEL KEYS PUBLISHED A

STUDY THAT COMPARED HEART

DISEASE AND FAT CONSUMPTION IN A

HALF-DOZEN COUNTRIES --

THE MORE FAT, THE MORE HEART

DISEASE.

THE TREND LINE WAS UNMISTAKABLE.

JUST ONE LITTLE PROBLEM --

KEYS LEFT OUT COUNTRIES WHERE

PEOPLE EAT A LOT OF FAT BUT HAVE

VERY LITTLE HEART DISEASE, LIKE

HOLLAND AND NORWAY.

HE ALSO LEFT OUT COUNTRIES WHERE

PEOPLE DON'T EACH MUCH FAT BUT

DO HAVE A LOT OF HEART DISEASE,

LIKE CHILE.

IN FACT, KEYS HAD RELIABLE DATA

FROM 22 COUNTRIES, AND THE

RESULTS WERE ALL OVER THE PLACE,

BUT YOU CAN'T MAKE A BIG SPLASH

IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY WITH

A TREND LINE THAT LOOKS LIKE

THIS.

SO KEYS DID WHAT ANY DEDICATED

RESEARCHER WOULD DO.

HE THREW OUT THE DATA THAT

DIDN'T FIT AND PUBLISHED HIS

RESULTS.

HIS PUNISHMENT FOR THIS BIT OF

SCIENTIFIC CHICANERY WAS TO GET

HIS PICTURE ON THE COVER OF

TIMEMAGAZINE.

KEYS BECAME KNOWN AS THE FATHER

OF THE LIPID HYPOTHESIS, WHICH

SAYS THAT EATING SATURATED FAT

RAISES THE CHOLESTEROL IN YOUR

BLOOD, AND HIGH CHOLESTEROL IN

YOUR BLOOD CLOGS YOUR ARTERIES

AND CAUSES HEART DISEASE.

>> THE HYPOTHESIS THAT WHEN YOU

EAT HIGH FAT THAT THEN THAT

PRODUCES HIGH CHOLESTEROL, AND

THE CHOLESTEROL PRODUCES HEART

DISEASE, IS WRONG IN EVERY ONE

OF THOSE LINKS.

>> THIS WHOLE IDEA THAT DIETARY

FAT CAUSES CHOLESTEROL PROBLEMS

IS SORT OF A MYTH.

THE WHOLE IDEA THAT CHOLESTEROL

PROBLEMS LEAD TO HEART DISEASE

IS A MYTH.

>> THE THEORY IS COMPLETELY AND

TOTALLY WRONG.

IT WAS A THEORY THAT WAS MADE

OUT OF WHOLE CLOTH AND THEN

PUSHED.

>> THE TERM "ARTERY-CLOGGING

SATURATED FAT," IT'S AS THOUGH

IT'S ALL ONE WORD.

[ WOMAN SCREAMS ]

>> IT'S BECOME PART OF THE

ZEITGEIST.

EVERYBODY KNOWS SATURATED FAT IS

BAD FOR YOU, BUT WHEN YOU GET

BACK AND YOU START LOOKING AT

THE MEDICAL LITERATURE, AND YOU

ROOT BACK THROUGH TO FIND OUT

WHERE THIS WHOLE IDEA CAME FROM,

IT'S BOGUS.

>> THREE AUTHORS WHO DID ROOT

THROUGH THE MEDICAL LITERATURE

ARE SCIENCE WRITER GARY TAUBES,

SWEDISH DOCTOR UFFE RAVNSKOV,

AND BRITISH DOCTOR

MALCOLM KENDRICK.

WHEN THEY EXAMINED THE DATA FROM

ALL THE BIG STUDIES ON HEART

DISEASE, THEY DISCOVERED SOME

PRETTY INTERESTING FACTS.

HERE'S MY FAVORITE.

GUESS HOW MANY STUDIES ACTUALLY

PROVE THAT A HIGH-FAT DIET

CAUSES HEART DISEASE.

THE ANSWER -- ZERO.

THAT'S RIGHT. NONE.

IN SOME OF THE LARGEST STUDIES

EVER CONDUCTED, RESEARCHERS PUT

THOUSANDS OF VOLUNTEERS ON A

LOW-FAT DIET AND THEN TRACKED

THEIR HEALTH HISTORY FOR SEVERAL

YEARS.

THE RESULTS -- NOTHING.

THEY HAD JUST AS MANY HEART

ATTACKS AS PEOPLE WHO WEREN'T ON

A LOW-FAT DIET.

SINCE 1948, THE HARVARD MEDICAL

SCHOOL HAS BEEN FOLLOWING THE

DIETS AND DEATH RATES OF THE

ENTIRE POPULATION OF

FRAMINGHAM, MASSACHUSETTS.

ONE OF THE RESEARCHERS INVOLVED

IN THE FRAMINGHAM STUDY CALLED

IN THE FRAMINGHAM STUDY CALLED
THE LIPID HYPOTHESIS...

THE LIPID HYPOTHESIS...

AND AFTER MORE THAN 40 YEARS,

EVEN THE DIRECTOR OF THE STUDY

MADE A RATHER STARTLING

ADMISSION ABOUT WHAT THE STUDY

ADMISSION ABOUT WHAT THE STUDY
DATA ACTUALLY SHOWS.

DATA ACTUALLY SHOWS.

IN OTHER WORDS, A HIGH-FAT DIET

DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY RAISE

YOUR CHOLESTEROL.

WELL, WHAT ABOUT THE SECOND HALF

OF THE LIPID HYPOTHESIS?

WHETHER IT COMES FROM YOUR DIET

OR NOT, DOESN'T HIGH CHOLESTEROL

CAUSE HEART DISEASE?

AFTER ALL, THAT'S WHAT THE

EXPERTS HAVE BEEN TELLING US FOR

50 YEARS.

>> LOTS OF PEOPLE HAVE BAD HEART

ATTACKS AND HAVE LOW

CHOLESTEROL.

THERE'S NOT REALLY A HUGE

CORRELATION THERE.

>> YOU'VE GOT PEOPLE WHO HAVE

HEART ATTACKS AND WHO DEVELOP

PLAQUE WHO HAVE HIGH

CHOLESTEROL, PEOPLE WHO HAVE LOW

CHOLESTEROL.

THERE'S REALLY NOT ANY

CORRELATION.

>> MICHAEL DeBAKEY, THE FAMOUS

HEART SURGEON, COMPARED THE

MEDICAL RECORDS OF MORE THAN

1,700 OF HIS OWN PATIENTS.

HE FOUND NO RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN

CHOLESTEROL LEVELS AND HEART

DISEASE.

WHEN DWIGHT EISENHOWER HAD HIS

FIRST HEART ATTACK, HIS

CHOLESTEROL WAS ONLY ABOUT 165.

WOW!

THAT'S A NICE, HEALTHY LEVEL

THERE, GENERAL.

[ RECORD SCRATCHES ]

SO, IF HIGH CHOLESTEROL DOESN'T

ACTUALLY CAUSE HEART DISEASE,

WHAT DOES?

>> THE NEWEST THEORIES IN HEART

DISEASE DEVELOPMENT DON'T HAVE

ANYTHING TO DO WITH CHOLESTEROL,

THEY HAVE TO DO WITH

INFLAMMATION.

>> CHOLESTEROL DOES NOT CAUSE

HEART DISEASE.

CHOLESTEROL IS THE THING THAT

HEART DISEASE ACTS UPON.

THE HEART DISEASE IS THE

INFLAMMATION AND THE OXIDATION,

THE PLAQUING OUT OF CHOLESTEROL

ONCE IT BECOMES OXIDIZED.

>> SO MANY PEOPLE HAVE BEEN

FOUND THAT HAD LOW, NORMAL OR

LOW CHOLESTEROL, AND THEY STILL

HAD BAD HEART DISEASE, BUT MOST

OF THOSE PEOPLE, WHEN THEY'RE

CHECKED CAREFULLY, WILL HAVE

SIGNS OF INFLAMMATION.

>> TO UNDERSTAND HOW

INFLAMMATION CAN CAUSE HEART

DISEASE, LET'S LOOK AT WHAT

CHOLESTEROL ACTUALLY DOES.

CHOLESTEROL IS ONE OF THE MOST

IMPORTANT SUBSTANCES IN YOUR

BODY.

WITHOUT IT, YOU WOULD BE DEAD.

YOUR BRAIN AND YOUR NERVOUS

SYSTEM ARE FULL OF CHOLESTEROL.

THE WALLS OF YOUR CELLS DEPEND

ON CHOLESTEROL.

NEARLY ALL OF YOUR HORMONES ARE

MADE FROM CHOLESTEROL.

THIS STUFF IS SO IMPORTANT,

ALMOST EVERY CELL IN YOUR BODY

CAN MAKE ITS OWN CHOLESTEROL IF

IT HAS TO.

THE HEART-DISEASE STORY WE ALL

KNOW GOES LIKE THIS.

IF YOU HAVE TOO MUCH LDL, OR BAD

CHOLESTEROL, IT BUILDS UP IN

YOUR ARTERIES AND MAKES THEM

NARROW.

BUT IF YOU'RE LUCKY, HDL, OR

GOOD CHOLESTEROL, GOBBLES IT UP

AND CLEARS IT AWAY.

IT'S A NICE, SIMPLE STORY, AND

IT'S A LOAD OF BALONEY.

FOR ONE THING, LDL AND HDL ARE

NOT CHOLESTEROL.

THEY'RE PROTEINS THAT CARRY

CHOLESTEROL THROUGH YOUR BLOOD.

LDL CARRIES CHOLESTEROL FROM

YOUR LIVER TO YOUR TISSUES, AND

HDL CARRIES OLD CHOLESTEROL BACK

TO YOUR LIVER, WHERE IT'S

RECYCLED.

IF YOU WANT MORE HDL, THE LAST

THING YOU NEED IS A LOW-FAT

DIET.

>> WHAT MAKES HDL GO UP?

FAT IN THE DIET.

THAT'S WHAT RAISES HDL.

SO YOU INCREASE THE FAT IN YOUR

DIET, AND YOUR HDL, DEEMED BY

EVEN THE MOST FERVENT

ANTI-CHOLESTEROL PERSON AS THE

GOOD CHOLESTEROL, HDL GOES UP.

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

IN SPITE OF WHAT THE EXPERTS

TOLD US, 27 DIFFERENT STUDIES

HAVE SHOWN THAT EATING SATURATED

FAT RAISES YOUR HDL.

AND DESPITE ITS BAD REPUTATION,

NOT ALL LDL IS ACTUALLY BAD.

>> LDL COMES IN DIFFERENT SIZE

PACKAGES.

THERE ARE LITTLE SMALL, DENSE,

B.B.-LIKE PACKAGES, AND THERE

ARE BIG, ROUND, FLUFFY,

COTTON-BALL-LIKE PACKAGES.

AND THE SMALL, DENSE ONES, IT

TURNS OUT, WHAT'S CALLED THE

TYPE-B LDL, ARE THE MOST HARMFUL

ONES, AND THE BIG, FLUFFY ONES

AREN'T PARTICULARLY HARMFUL AT

ALL.

>> HEART DISEASE DOESN'T BEGIN

WHEN YOUR CHOLESTEROL GOES UP.

IT BEGINS WHEN YOUR ARTERIES

BECOME DAMAGED OR INFLAMED.

LDL THEN DOES EXACTLY WHAT IT'S

SUPPOSED TO DO -- IT BRINGS IN

CHOLESTEROL TO HELP THE HEALING

PROCESS.

BUT IF SMALL LDL BECOMES DAMAGED

BY OXIDATION, IT CAN PENETRATE

THE WALL OF THE ARTERY.

IF THE INFLAMMATION AND

OXIDATION CONTINUE, A PLAQUE

BEGINS TO FORM.

NOW YOU'VE GOT HEART DISEASE.

SO, DOES A HIGH-FAT DIET PRODUCE

TOO MUCH SMALL LDL?

NOPE.

SMALL LDL IS THE RESULT OF

EATING TOO MANY CARBOHYDRATES.

>> THAT'S BEEN SHOWN IN

THE MEDICAL LITERATURE PROBABLY

A DOZEN TIMES, AT LEAST, IN

PAPERS, THAT REDUCING

CARBOHYDRATE IN THE DIET SHIFTS

FROM A SMALL, DENSE PATTERN TO A

BIG, FLUFFY PATTERN.

>> HAVING AN LDL THAT'S 120 OR

130 OR 100 OR 145 DOESN'T MATTER

AS MUCH AS THE KIND OF LDL THAT

IT IS.

>> IF THE NUMBERS ALONE DON'T

MEAN VERY MUCH, THEN WHY DOES

HIGH CHOLESTEROL GET ALL THE

BLAME?

RESEARCH CONSISTENTLY SHOWS THAT

SMOKING, ELEVATED BLOOD SUGAR,

AND EMOTIONAL STRESS CAN CAUSE

INFLAMMATION, DAMAGE YOUR

ARTERIES, AND LEAD TO HEART

DISEASE.

THEY ALSO HAPPEN TO RAISE YOUR

CHOLESTEROL.

SO, BY BLAMING CHOLESTEROL FOR

CAUSING HEART DISEASE, THE

EXPERTS RELIED ON LOGIC THAT

MAKES ABOUT AS MUCH SENSE AS

THIS.

IN HIGH-CRIME AREAS, THERE ARE

MORE CALLS TO THE POLICE.

THEREFORE, WE CAN ASSUME THAT

CALLING THE POLICE PRODUCES AN

INCREASE IN CRIME.

TO GET RID OF CRIME, THE ANSWER

IS SIMPLE -- STOP CALLING THE

POLICE.

BUT IN SPITE OF ALL THE EVIDENCE

THAT CHOLESTEROL IS JUST AN

INNOCENT BYSTANDER, THE EXPERTS

KEEP TRYING TO BRING IT UP ON

CHARGES.

IN 1988, THE SURGEON GENERAL'S

OFFICE SET OUT TO PROVE THE

LIPID HYPOTHESIS BY REVIEWING

THE DATA FROM ALL THE MAJOR

STUDIES, BUT AFTER 11 YEARS AND

MORE THAN $100 MILLION, THE

RESULTS WERE NOT SUPPORTING THE

THEORY, SO THEY DID WHAT ANY

DEDICATED GOVERNMENT RESEARCHERS

WOULD DO -- THEY SHUT DOWN THE

ENTIRE PROJECT, SAYING IT WAS

BECOMING TOO COMPLICATED.

AND AS KENDRICK, TAUBES, AND

RAVNSKOV DISCOVERED, THAT'S BEEN

A DISTURBINGLY COMMON PATTERN.

RESEARCHERS ROUTINELY IGNORE

EVIDENCE THAT THE LIPID

HYPOTHESIS IS WRONG AND

SOMETIMES EVEN MANIPULATE THEIR

DATA FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF

SUPPORTING IT.

WHAT COULD POSSIBLY CAUSE SUCH

RAMPANT DISHONESTY?

[ BOING! ]

IN THE 1970s, THE LIPID

HYPOTHESIS WAS STILL VERY MUCH

IN DISPUTE.

THEN A SENATE COMMITTEE HEADED

BY GEORGE McGOVERN DECIDED TO

SETTLE THE ISSUE.

McGOVERN AT THE TIME WAS

FOLLOWING THE PRITIKIN DIET AND

BELIEVED EVERYONE SHOULD BE

CUTTING BACK ON FAT AND

CHOLESTEROL.

>> THE COMMITTEE'S ORIGINAL

REPORT URGED AMERICANS TO REDUCE

THEIR RISK OF HEART ATTACKS BY

REDUCING THEIR INTAKE OF

CHOLESTEROL DOWN TO THE

EQUIVALENT OF ABOUT ONE EGG A

DAY, BUT DOCTORS TOOK ISSUE WITH

THAT AT THE HEARING, SAYING THAT

EIGHT STUDIES, INVOLVING 5,000

PATIENTS, FAILED TO SHOW HARD

MEDICAL EVIDENCE THAT DIET HAS

ANYTHING TO DO WITH HEART

ATTACKS.

>> HMM.

LET'S LISTEN TO THAT PART AGAIN.

>> EIGHT STUDIES, INVOLVING

5,000 PATIENTS, FAILED TO SHOW

HARD MEDICAL EVIDENCE THAT DIET

HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH HEART

ATTACKS.

>> I HAVE PLEADED IN MY REPORT

AND WILL PLEAD AGAIN ORALLY HERE

FOR MORE RESEARCH ON THE PROBLEM

BEFORE WE MAKE ANNOUNCEMENTS TO

THE AMERICAN PUBLIC.

>> YOU KNOW, THERE WERE EMINENT

SCIENTISTS AT THE TIME SAYING

"THIS IS NONSENSE.

THERE IS NO GOOD SCIENTIFIC

EVIDENCE THAT EITHER FAT OR

CHOLESTEROL, YOU KNOW, IS AT THE

ROOT OF HEART DISEASE."

>> I SAID TO THE PROFESSOR THAT

I WAS WORKING WITH, "THIS IS NOT

RIGHT.

ANIMAL FAT'S NOT CAUSING THIS,

AND THIS IS NOT WHAT THE DATA

SAYS."

>> SO THE McGOVERN STAFF DID

WHAT ANY DEDICATED STAFF WORKING

FOR McGOVERN WOULD DO -- THEY

DECIDED THOSE SCIENTISTS MUST

HAVE BEEN PAID OFF BY THE BIG,

BAD DAIRY AND EGG INDUSTRIES.

>> WELL, I WOULD ONLY ARGUE THAT

SENATORS DON'T HAVE THE LUXURY

THAT A RESEARCH SCIENTIST DOES

OF WAITING UNTIL EVERY LAST

SHRED OF EVIDENCE IS IN.

>> THEY WENT TO GREAT LENGTHS TO

OVERLOOK ANYTHING THAT DID NOT

FALL IN TO LOCK STEP WITH THAT

BELIEF, AND BASICALLY JUST

UNLEASHED WHAT AMOUNTED TO A

SEVERAL-DECADE LONG EXPERIMENT

IN WHICH ALL OF US WERE

UNWITTING PARTICIPANTS.

>> THE McGOVERN COMMITTEE'S

REPORT WAS WRITTEN BY A YOUNG

STAFF MEMBER WHO HAPPENED TO BE

A VEGETARIAN AND HAD NO

BACKGROUND IN MEDICINE OR HEALTH

RESEARCH.

THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED A

LOW-FAT, LOW-CHOLESTEROL DIET

FOR EVERYONE AND OFFERED SOME

IDEAS THAT COULD ONLY SPRING

FROM THE MIND OF A POLITICIAN.

>> BUT SENATOR SCHWEIKER OF

PENNSYLVANIA SUGGESTED THAT

INSTEAD OF DISCREDITING THE

COMMITTEE'S REPORT, THE EGG MEN

SHOULD BE OUT DEVELOPING HENS

THAT WOULD LAY LOW-CHOLESTEROL

EGGS.

[ CHICKEN CLUCKS ]

>> SOON AFTER THE McGOVERN

REPORT WAS ISSUED, THE USDA GOT

INTO THE ACT.

CAROL TUCKER-FOREMAN, THE

ASSISTANT SECRETARY AT THE TIME,

BELIEVED IN THE LOW-FAT DIET

THEORY AND WANTED TO ISSUE

OFFICIAL GUIDELINES TO TELL

EVERYBODY HOW TO EAT.

TO MAKE SURE SHE WAS ON SOLID

SCIENTIFIC GROUND, SHE CONSULTED

WITH PHILIP HANDLER, THE HEAD

OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF

SCIENCES.

JUST ONE LITTLE PROBLEM --

HANDLER TOLD HER THE McGOVERN

COMMITTEE'S REPORT WAS NONSENSE,

SO SHE DID WHAT ANY DEDICATED

GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL WOULD DO --

SHE IGNORED HIM, SHOPPED AROUND

FOR A SCIENTIST WHO AGREED WITH

HER, THEN ISSUED THE GUIDELINES.

THANKS TO A HANDFUL OF

POLITICIANS WITH NO BACKGROUND

IN SCIENCE, THE HEART-HEALTHY

BENEFITS OF A LOW-FAT DIET

BECAME OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT

POLICY, AND REAL SCIENTISTS GOT

THE MESSAGE LOUD AND CLEAR --

TELL US WHAT WE ALREADY BELIEVE,

OR YOU CAN SAY GOODBYE TO YOUR

LUCRATIVE GOVERNMENT FUNDING.

>> THERE IS INFLUENCE THAT GOES

ON, STARTING WITH THE USDA,

WHICH IS PROMOTING COMMODITY

AGRICULTURE, SO THERE IS A LOT

OF ECONOMIC PRESSURE ON THE

PEOPLE AT NIH, ON THE PEOPLE IN

THE UNIVERSITIES WHO CARRY OUT

THE STUDIES FOR NIH.

>> THEY LIVE BY THEIR GRANTS.

NO GRANTS, NO WORK, NO JOB.

>> DR. KILMER McCULLY, A

RESEARCHER AT HARVARD, WENT

AGAINST THE PREVAILING THEORY

AND PUBLISHED A STUDY CONCLUDING

THAT SOMETHING OTHER THAN

CHOLESTEROL WAS CAUSING HEART

DISEASE.

HIS REWARD FOR THIS BIT OF

SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY WAS TO BE

DENIED TENURE, LOSE ALL HIS

RESEARCH GRANTS, AND GET SHOVED

INTO A LITTLE LABORATORY IN THE

BASEMENT.

IN ACADEMIA, THAT'S A POLITE WAY

OF SAYING, "YOU'RE FIRED."

HE ALSO ENDED UP ON AN

UNOFFICIAL BLACKLIST, AND IT

TOOK HIM TWO YEARS TO FIND

ANOTHER JOB AS A RESEARCHER.

>> A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE BUILT

CAREERS ON THIS, AND THESE ARE

CAREERS BUILT ON A VERY SHAKY

FACTUAL FOUNDATION.

>> THERE'S A REASONABLE REASON

TO BELIEVE THAT FROM THE

BEGINNING, BUT TO PERSIST IN THE

FACE OF SO MUCH OVERWHELMING

EVIDENCE REALLY CAN'T BE BASED

ON SCIENCE, AND YOU HAVE TO

THINK THAT THERE WERE OTHER

FACTORS INVOLVED.

IT BECAME AN INDUSTRY.

>> IN THE 1980s, THE NATIONAL

CHOLESTEROL EDUCATION PROGRAM

RELEASED NEW GUIDELINES THAT

SAID EVERYONE'S CHOLESTEROL

SHOULD BE BELOW 200, WHICH WAS

ABOUT 20 POINTS BELOW NORMAL.

AND HERE'S A STRANGE

COINCIDENCE -- MOST OF THE

SCIENTISTS WHO WROTE THOSE

GUIDELINES JUST HAPPENED TO HAVE

A FINANCIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH

THE COMPANIES THAT MAKE

CHOLESTEROL-LOWERING DRUGS

CALLED STATINS.

MANY OF THE STUDIES THAT CLAIMED

A LOW-FAT DIET IS GOOD FOR YOUR

HEART WERE FUNDED BY THE

AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION,

WHICH EARNS MILLIONS OF DOLLARS

LICENSING ITS HEART-CHECK

LOGO TO HEALTHY, LOW-FAT FOODS

LIKE COCOA PUFFS.

IF THE LIPID HYPOTHESIS EVER

GOES AWAY, THAT LOGO JUST BECAME

WORTHLESS.

>> GIVE THIS ANOTHER DECADE, AND

THAT HYPOTHESIS WILL BE ON THE

JUNK PILE OF HISTORY BECAUSE

IT'S NOT TRUE.

>> OKAY, SO MAYBE THE LIPID

HYPOTHESIS ISN'T TRUE.

SO WHAT?

WHAT COULD POSSIBLY BE WRONG

WITH CUTTING BACK ON SATURATED

FAT AND GETTING YOUR CHOLESTEROL

AS LOW AS POSSIBLE?

>> WE NOW HAVE THIS TERRIBLE

PHOBIA OF FAT -- OF ANIMAL FAT

WHICH THE BODY NEEDS TO BE

NORMAL, TO BE HEALTHY.

>> YOUR IMMUNE SYSTEM IS

FAT-DEPENDENT.

YOUR BRAIN IS FAT-DEPENDENT.

YOUR SKIN, YOUR HAIR, YOUR

NAILS -- ALL THESE THINGS ARE

FAT-DEPENDENT.

YOUR SEX HORMONES ARE

FAT-DEPENDENT, ARE

CHOLESTEROL-DEPENDENT.

THEY'RE MADE SORT OF ON A

CHOLESTEROL MOLECULE.

>> IF YOU ARE ELDERLY, OVER THE

AGE OF 60, AND IF YOU'RE A WOMAN

OF ANY AGE, THE CHOLESTEROL IS A

COMPLETE NON-ISSUE.

IN FACT, THE HIGHER YOUR

CHOLESTEROL, THE LONGER YOU

LIVE, AND THIS SHOWS UP IN STUDY

AFTER STUDY.

>> AND YET, IN SPITE OF THOSE

STUDIES, DRUGS THAT LOWER

CHOLESTEROL ARE BEING MARKETED

TO WOMEN.

BUT TAKE A GOOD LOOK AT THAT

LITTLE DISCLAIMER.

IF IT DOESN'T PREVENT HEART

DISEASE, WHY ON EARTH WOULD YOU

TAKE SUCH A POWERFUL DRUG?

>> THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO

BENEFIT FOR WOMEN OF ANY AGE IN

TAKING STATINS.

I MEAN, STATINS ARE A WASTE OF

MONEY FOR WOMEN.

>> THERE ARE SOME REAL PROBLEMS

WITH TAKING STATINS -- MEMORY

LOSS, MUSCLE PROBLEMS,

OSTEOPOROSIS IN WOMEN.

I MEAN, THERE ARE A LOT OF

REASONS THAT YOU WOULDN'T WANT

TO TAKE STATIN DRUGS.

>> AND LOW CHOLESTEROL IS A

PREDICTOR FOR DEPRESSION,

SUICIDE, VIOLENT BEHAVIOR,

STROKES, AND CANCER.

IT'S MUCH BETTER TO HAVE HIGH

CHOLESTEROL THAN LOWER

CHOLESTEROL.

>> LIKE MOST PEOPLE, I LOVE THE

TASTE OF FAT.

HUMAN BEINGS CAN'T LIVE WITHOUT

PROTEIN, AND IN NATURE, PROTEIN

IS USUALLY SURROUNDED WITH FAT.

MAYBE MOTHER NATURE ACTUALLY

KNEW WHAT SHE WAS DOING.

MAYBE THERE'S A REASON LOW-FAT

DIETS ALWAYS MADE ME FEEL

DEPRESSED.

>> THE BRAIN IS BASICALLY MADE

OF FAT.

THEY SAY YOU'RE A FAT HEAD.

THEY WERE NOT KIDDING.

AND WHEN YOU GO ON A DIET THAT

ELIMINATES MOST FAT, TAKES YOU

DOWN TO, SAY, 10% OF FAT, YOU

HAVE BASICALLY ROBBED THE BODY

OF THE RAW MATERIALS THAT ARE

NECESSARY FOR IT TO BE HAPPY.

>> THERE'S PROBABLY NO

COINCIDENCE THAT BACK A COUPLE

OF DECADES AGO, WHEN THE LOW-FAT

DIET WAS THE REAL RAGE, IF YOU

WENT TO BOOKSTORES, WHAT YOU

SAW IS ALL THESE BOOKS ON

LOW-FAT DIETING, AND YOU SAW ALL

THESE BOOKS ON DEPRESSION

BECAUSE EVERYBODY WAS DEPRESSED.

>> WHEN I LOAD UP ON PROTEINS

AND ANIMAL FATS, I DON'T FEEL

HUNGRY AND I DO FEEL GOOD, SO

ON THIS DIET, I'M IGNORING THE

EXPERTS.

EXPERTS.
LOOK AT ALL THAT SATURATED FAT.

LOOK AT ALL THAT SATURATED FAT.

THIS IS MY PASSOVER DINNER

FROM JACK IN THE BOX.

FROM JACK IN THE BOX.
SOURDOUGH CHICKEN SANDWICH.

SOURDOUGH CHICKEN SANDWICH.

HERE'S THE GOOD THING ABOUT

BEING MIDDLE-AGED.

DO I KNOW THESE SUNGLASSES LOOK

RIDICULOUS?

YES.

DO I CARE? NO.

MY 2-YEAR-OLD DIDN'T FEEL LIKE

SLEEPING LAST NIGHT, SO I HAD TO

GET UP WITH HER A FEW TIMES, AND

I ENDED UP SLEEPING IN TOO LATE

TO GET BREAKFAST.

THAT'S THE BAD NEWS.

THE GOOD NEWS IS, IT'S GONNA BE

A BIG LUNCH.

>> WELCOME TO JACK IN THE BOX.

HOW CAN I HELP YOU?

>> A BACON ULTIMATE CHEESEBURGER

AND A DIET SODA, PLEASE.

MEDIUM DIET COKE, MAKE THAT.

>> A BACON ULTIMATE CHEESEBURGER

AND A MEDIUM DIET COKE?

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

>> PLEASE COME TO THE NEXT

WINDOW.

>> GO ON A SHOPPING TRIP AT YOUR

LOCAL NATURAL-FOOD STORE, AND

YOU'LL FIND THE SHELVES

JAM-PACKED WITH PROCESSED

VEGETABLE OILS, BUT WHAT EXACTLY

IS NATURAL ABOUT THEM?

WOULD HUMAN BEINGS LIVING IN THE

WILD EVER CONSUME OILS THAT CAME

FROM SOYBEANS OR CORN?

>> WE'VE NEVER HAD THESE IN THE

HUMAN DIET IN THE HISTORY OF THE

WORLD.

>> WHERE DO YOU GET FAT FROM

CORN?

IF YOU TAKE CORN AND PUT IT IN A

THING AND SQUEEZE IT, YOU DON'T

GET CORN FAT OUT OF IT, YOU

DON'T GET CORN OIL.

YOU'VE GOT TO CHEMICALLY EXTRACT

THE OIL FROM CORN TO GET IT.

>> UNTIL THAT PROCESS WAS

DEVELOPED, YOU DIDN'T HAVE ALL

OF THESE VEGETABLE -- SOYBEAN

OIL AND CORN OIL AND COTTONSEED

OIL AND ALL THESE THINGS.

HUMANS DIDN'T EAT THAT STUFF.

>> THE STUDIES THAT CAME IN ON

THE CORN OIL SHOWED THAT IT WAS

A DISASTER, THAT IT CAUSED

CANCER.

IF YOU GAVE CARCINOGENS TO RATS

WHO WERE FED CORN OIL, THEY

DEVELOPED CANCER.

IF THE RATS WERE FED COCONUT OIL

OR TALLOW, THEY DIDN'T GET

CANCER.

>> AND IT'S NOT JUST CANCER.

AFTER THE EXPERTS CONVINCED

MILLIONS OF AMERICANS TO SWITCH

FROM BUTTER AND LARD TO

MARGARINE AND VEGETABLE OILS,

HEART DISEASE WENT UP.

HOW CAN THAT BE?

AFTER ALL, VEGETABLE OILS ARE

CHOLESTEROL FREE.

>> WE, AS HUMANS, ARE NOT USED

TO EATING THOSE FATS IN THE

QUANTITIES THAT WE'VE BEEN

EATING THEM.

I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT'S CALLED AN

OMEGA-6 FAT.

OMEGA-6 FATS ARE

PRO-INFLAMMATORY -- THEY CAUSE

INFLAMMATION.

WE NEED SOME OF THEM, BUT WE

DON'T NEED A WHOLE LOT OF THEM.

>> BUT WE DO EAT A WHOLE LOT OF

THEM, AND THOSE UNNATURAL FATS

CAN CAUSE THE INFLAMMATION THAT

LEADS TO HEART DISEASE,

ESPECIALLY THE MOST UNNATURAL

FAT OF ALL -- PARTIALLY

HYDROGENATED VEGETABLE OILS,

OTHERWISE KNOWN AS TRANS FATS.

>> IT GIVES YOU THE COOKING

PROPERTIES YOU NEED, THE

FLAKINESS IN BISCUITS AND THE

CHEWINESS IN BREAD AND THE

THINGS THAT YOU LOOK FOR FROM A

SATURATED FAT, BUT IT DOESN'T

BEHAVE AS A SATURATED FAT IN THE

BODY.

AND THE BODY ACTUALLY WILL TAKE

IT OUT VERY READILY AND PACK IT

INTO THE CELL MEMBRANES, WHICH

THEN BECOME STIFF AND INFLEXIBLE

AND CAN'T DO THEIR JOB.

>> THE CENTER FOR SCIENCE IN THE

PUBLIC INTEREST RECENTLY FILED A

LAWSUIT AGAINST KFC FOR USING

TRANS FATS TO FRY CHICKEN, AND

PRETTY MUCH EVERYONE AGREES THAT

TRANS FATS ARE BAD NEWS, SO WHY

DO THE RESTAURANTS EVEN USE

THEM?

>> THE OLD McDONALD'S FRENCH

FRIES, FOR EXAMPLE, WERE COOKED

IN BEEF TALLOW, WHICH IS A

SATURATED FAT THAT'S GOT LOTS OF

STEARIC ACID IN IT.

STEARIC ACID IS A LONG-CHAIN

SATURATED FAT THAT'S BEEN SHOWN

TO ACTUALLY EITHER LOWER OR HAVE

NO EFFECT ON CHOLESTEROL.

IT'S A PRETTY INNOCUOUS FAT.

>> THEY HAD VERY

WELL-PUBLICIZED, VERY CAREFULLY

ORCHESTRATED PROTESTS OUTSIDE OF

McDONALD'S AND THE OTHER

FAST-FOOD CHAINS.

>> TOOK OUT PETITIONS AND WENT

AFTER THEM, AND THEY MADE THEM

CHANGE.

AND WHAT THEY MADE THEM CHANGE

TO, OF COURSE, WAS PARTIALLY

HYDROGENATED VEGETABLE FAT.

AND HE CAME UP WITH ONE OF HIS

PAPERS WHICH SAID, "TRANS FATTY

ACIDS -- NOT GUILTY AS CHARGED,"

AND DISTRIBUTED ALL OF THIS.

HE WAS THE HEAD OF THE CSPI, AND

THEY'RE STILL IN THEIR JOURNALS.

IN OTHER WORDS, ALL YOU HAVE TO

DO IS GO TAKE A LOOK AT IT, AND

THEY SAID, "TRANS FATTY ACIDS --

NOT GUILTY AS CHARGED."

>> SO, THEIR BIG JIHAD TO GET

RID OF SATURATED FAT ENDED UP

MAKING EVERYBODY SWITCH TO TRANS

FATS.

>> SOMEBODY EVIDENTLY SAID TO

THEM, "YOU'RE WRONG.

THERE'S SOMETHING WRONG WITH THE

TRANS FATTY ACIDS."

AND THEY DID AN ABOUT-FACE.

>> NOW THE SAME GROUP, THE CSPI,

IS GOING AFTER PEOPLE FOR USING

TRANS FATS, AND THEY'RE ONLY

USING THE TRANS FATS BECAUSE

THEY WENT AFTER THEM FOR USING

THE SATURATED FATS IN THE FIRST

PLACE.

>> AND THEY LIED, AND THEY SAID,

"OH, WE'VE BEEN TELLING YOU ALL

ALONG THAT THE TRANS FATTY ACIDS

WERE A PROBLEM."

AND THEY JUST SIMPLY LIED.

>> APPARENTLY, BELIEVING THAT

PEOPLE WERE BASING THEIR DIETS

ON $10 BUCKETS OF MOVIE

POPCORN, CSPI SCARED PEOPLE AWAY

FROM A PERFECTLY NATURAL,

HEALTHY FAT.

>> THE STUDY FOUND 70% OF ALL

THEATERS TESTED STILL POPPING

WITH HIGH-FAT COCONUT OIL.

>> THE SCARE WAS INVENTED BY

CENTER FOR SCIENCE IN THE PUBLIC

INTEREST, WHO, BY THEIR OWN

ADMISSION, WAS BEING SUPPORTED

BY THE SOY INDUSTRY.

>> IT'S A SATURATED FAT, BUT

IT'S A GOOD KIND OF SATURATED

FAT.

IT'S GOT LAURIC ACID IN IT,

WHICH IS A GOOD SORT OF

IMMUNE-ENHANCING SATURATED FAT.

I MEAN, THERE'S NOTHING IN THE

WORLD WRONG WITH COCONUT OIL.

>> THEY WANTED THE MOVIE

THEATERS TO USE PARTIALLY

HYDROGENATED SOYBEAN OIL

INSTEAD OF COCONUT OIL.

>> AND WHAT DOES IT GET REPLACED

WITH?

TRANS FATS THAT ARE MUCH WORSE.

>> THANKS TO THE EXPERTS, THE

POLITICIANS, AND THE RADICAL

VEGETARIAN NUTCASES, WE'VE BEEN

SCARED AWAY FROM PERFECTLY

NATURAL ANIMAL FATS THAT KEPT US

HEALTHY FOR MILLIONS OF YEARS.

WE SCARED MEN AWAY FROM

SATURATED FAT, WHICH HELPS TO

PRODUCE TESTOSTERONE, AND NOW WE

TAKE VIAGRA.

WE SCARED PARENTS INTO GIVING

THEIR KIDS SKIM MILK WHILE THEIR

BRAINS ARE GROWING, AND NOW

WE'VE GOT KIDS WHO CAN'T

CONCENTRATE AND TAKE DRUGS FOR

A.D.D.

AND WORSE, THE EXPERTS CONVINCED

US TO SWITCH TO HIGHLY PROCESSED

AND COMPLETELY UNNATURAL FATS

THAT CAUSE INFLAMMATION, WEAKEN

OUR CELLS, AND MAKE US SICK.

>> THIS WAS ALL BEING PUSHED AND

ADVOCATED BY PEOPLE THAT

AMERICANS TRUSTED -- BY OUR

GOVERNMENT, BY PEOPLE WEARING

WHITE COATS, SCIENTISTS AND

DOCTORS.

AND THEY WERE WRONG.

THEY WERE SIMPLY WRONG, AND WE

ARE REAPING THE WHIRLWIND OF THE

ARE REAPING THE WHIRLWIND OF THE
CONSEQUENCES TODAY.

CONSEQUENCES TODAY.

>> WHAT ARE YOU DOING?

>> WELL, I THOUGHT PEOPLE WOULD

WANT TO HEAR THE DETAILS ON

EXACTLY HOW THIS DIET IS

AFFECTING OUR SEX LIFE.

I WAS KIND OF HOPING YOU COULD

TALK ABOUT THAT.

>> ARE YOU A MORON?

>> ARE YOU A MORON?
>> [ LAUGHS ]

>> [ LAUGHS ]

>> ♪ SUGAR, SUGAR

♪ MAKES ME WANT TO BE WITH YOU

♪ WHEN I SEE YOU, MY DREAMS COME

TRUE ♪

>> THE RISE IN HEART DISEASE AND

ESPECIALLY THE RISE IN OBESITY

AND DIABETES IS VERY CLEARLY

ABOUT ONE THING -- IT'S ABOUT

CARBOHYDRATES.

>> THAT'S THE BIG PROBLEM THAT

ALL THESE LOW-FAT PEOPLE HAVE

HAD WITH THE LOW-FAT DIET

BECAUSE A LOW-FAT DIET IS A

HIGH-CARBOHYDRATE DIET, OKAY,

'CAUSE YOU'VE GOT TO EAT

SOMETHING, AND FAT AND

CARBOHYDRATE ARE KIND OF

INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL.

WHEN ONE GOES DOWN, THE OTHER

GOES UP.

>> WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT THE

EXPERTS TOLD US TO DO.

THE USDA FOOD PYRAMID RECOMMENDS

A LOW-FAT DIET THAT INCLUDES UP

TO 11 SERVINGS PER DAY OF

GRAINS.

>> TO BE BASED ON GRAINS IS NOT

THE NATIVE DIET FOR ANY MAMMAL.

THERE'S ONLY ONE GROUP OF

ANIMALS THAT LIVES WELL ON

GRAINS, AND THAT'S BIRDS.

>> YOU KNOW, THE USDA FOOD

PYRAMID IS MORE ABOUT SELLING

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS THAN IT IS

ABOUT SELLING HEALTH.

>> THEY'RE TOTALLY COMMITTED TO

WHAT CAN BE SOLD IN THE

COMMODITY MARKETS, SO THAT'S

WHEAT, CORN, SOYBEANS, SUGAR.

>> A FEW YEARS AGO, I WENT BACK

AND PULLED SOME LABELS OFF OF

FEED SACKS IN A FARMERS'

CO-OP AND RAN THEM THROUGH MY

LITTLE NUTRITIONAL COMPUTER, AND

THERE'S VIRTUALLY NO DIFFERENCE

IN THE MACRONUTRIENT COMPOSITION

THAT FARMERS USE TO FEED ANIMALS

TO FATTEN THEM UP AND THAT THE

USDA USES TO TELL US HOW TO

SUPPOSEDLY SLIM DOWN.

>> IN THE 1990s, THE FOOD AND

DRUG ADMINISTRATION DECIDED IT

WAS TIME TO HELP US SLIM DOWN,

SO THEY ORDERED FOOD

MANUFACTURERS TO ADOPT A

STANDARDIZED NUTRITION LABEL

THAT INCLUDES RECOMMENDED

SERVINGS OF PROTEIN,

CARBOHYDRATES, AND FAT.

FDA COMMISSIONER DAVID KESSLER

SAID IT WAS THE MOST IMPORTANT

BATTLE FOR PUBLIC HEALTH HE'D

EVER WAGED.

STORIES IN THE MEDIA WERE FULL

OF HAPPY PREDICTIONS ABOUT HOW

MUCH SMARTER AMERICANS WERE

GOING TO EAT THANKS TO ALL THAT

GOOD GOVERNMENT ADVICE.

GOOD GOVERNMENT ADVICE.
AND SINCE THEN...

AND SINCE THEN...

WELL, MAYBE WE'RE NOT FOLLOWING

THOSE GUIDELINES, OR MAYBE WE

ARE.

THE NUTRITION LABEL THE FDA MADE

EVERYBODY ADOPT RECOMMENDS 300

CARBOHYDRATES PER DAY ON A

2,000-CALORIE DIET.

IF YOU ATE FOUR CUPS OF

BROCCOLI, THREE CUPS OF SPINACH,

TWO CUPS OF PEAS, FIVE CARROTS,

AND TWO APPLES, YOU WOULD

CONSUME ABOUT 100 GRAMS OF

CARBOHYDRATE.

SO HOW DO YOU GET TO 300?

>> IT WOULD TAKE A LOT OF

CAULIFLOWER AND BROCCOLI AND

CABBAGE AND THOSE KIND OF THINGS

TO EVER GET YOU TO 300 GRAMS OF

CARBOHYDRATE.

YOU CAN DO IT WITH STARCH.

>> YOU CAN DO IT, YOU KNOW, WITH

POTATOES, WHICH ARE BASICALLY A

PURE STARCH.

YOU CAN DO IT WITH A WHOLE LOT

OF CORN OR RICE, BUT THOSE ARE

REALLY STARCHY FOODS.

AND THE STARCH IN THOSE BREAKS

DOWN IN THE G.I. TRACT BASICALLY

TO SUGAR.

>> THE SPEED AT WHICH A

PARTICULAR FOOD RAISES YOUR

BLOOD SUGAR IS MEASURED BY

SOMETHING KNOWN AS THE GLYCEMIC

INDEX.

TABLE SUGAR HAS A GLYCEMIC INDEX

OF 64.

COCA-COLA HAS A GLYCEMIC INDEX

OF 63.

THE FOODS WE ATE FOR MILLIONS OF

YEARS ALMOST ALL HAD A LOW

GLYCEMIC INDEX.

SO, WHAT ABOUT ALL THOSE WHOLE

GRAINS THE EXPERTS TELL US

SHOULD BE THE FOUNDATION OF A

HEALTHY HUMAN DIET?

RAISIN BRAN HAS A GLYCEMIC INDEX

OF 61.

SHREDDED WHEAT LOGS IN AT 67,

WHICH MEANS IT SPIKES YOUR BLOOD

SUGAR FASTER THAN SUGAR DOES.

AND DEPENDING ON THE BRAND,

WHOLE-WHEAT BREAD RAISES THE BAR

TO AROUND 70.

>> ♪ SUGAR

>> SO, WHETHER THEY INTENDED TO

OR NOT, THE FDA AND USDA ARE

TELLING YOU TO LOAD UP ON

SUGAR...AND LOTS OF IT.

>> THE AMOUNT OF BLOOD SUGAR IN

YOUR BLOOD IF YOU HAVE A NORMAL

BLOOD SUGAR IS A LITTLE BIT LESS

THAN ONE TEASPOON.

300 GRAMS OF CARB THAT COMES AS

POTATO OR PASTA -- EVEN IF IT'S

WHOLE-GRAIN PASTA OR WHOLE-GRAIN

BREAD, THAT CONVERTS TO A CUP

AND A HALF OF SUGAR.

IF YOU WERE TO PUT A CUP AND A

HALF OF SUGAR DIRECTLY INTO YOUR

BLOOD, YOU'D BE DEAD.

YOUR BLOOD SUGAR WOULD GO

SKY-HIGH.

>> SINCE HIGH BLOOD SUGAR CAN

KILL YOU, YOUR BODY HAS TO BRING

IT DOWN, AND THAT'S HOW

IT DOWN, AND THAT'S HOW
METABOLIC SYNDROME BEGINS.

METABOLIC SYNDROME BEGINS.

MOST OF US THINK WE ONLY PUT FAT

IN OUR FAT CELLS WHEN WE EAT TOO

MUCH, BUT, AS GARY TAUBES

EXPLAINS IN "GOOD CALORIES, BAD

CALORIES," YOUR FAT CELLS ARE

LIKE RECHARGEABLE FUEL CELLS.

EVERY TIME YOU EAT, YOUR STORE

SOME FAT.

IN BETWEEN MEALS, FAT COMES OUT

OF YOUR FAT CELLS TO PROVIDE THE

FUEL FOR YOUR MUSCLES AND

ORGANS.

IF YOU'RE NATURALLY THIN, IT'S

BECAUSE YOU HAVE EFFICIENT FAT

CELLS.

FAT GOES IN QUICKLY, AND IT

COMES OUT EASILY.

YOUR BODY DOESN'T NEED MUCH FAT

BECAUSE THE LITTLE BIT OF FAT

YOU DO HAVE IS A RELIABLE SOURCE

OF FUEL.

IF YOU'RE PREDISPOSED TO BE FAT,

IT'S BECAUSE YOU HAVE GREEDY FAT

CELLS.

WHEN YOU EAT, YOU TEND TO STORE

CALORIES AS FAT INSTEAD OF

BURNING THEM, AND WHEN YOUR

OTHER TISSUES NEED THOSE

CALORIES, THE FAT COMES OUT

SLOWLY IF IT COMES OUT AT ALL.

>> WHAT ARE THEY DOING?

>> DID ONE OF YOU GUYS FORGET TO

PAY THE FOOD BILL?

>> ARE YOU GOING TO EAT ALL

THAT?

>> THE END USER OF FOOD THAT WE

EAT ARE OUR INDIVIDUAL CELLS.

IT DOESN'T MATTER IF IT GOES IN

OUR MOUTH.

IF IT DOESN'T GET TO THOSE

CELLS, WE STARVE.

WE STARVE AT THE CELLULAR LEVEL.

>> AND SO YOU DO EXACTLY WHAT

YOUR BODY IS TELLING YOU TO DO.

>> COME ON! EAT SOMETHING!

>> EAT A STEAK, WILL YA?

>> YOU EAT MORE.

IN OTHER WORDS, YOU'RE NOT

GETTING FAT BECAUSE YOU'RE

EATING MORE, YOU'RE EATING MORE

BECAUSE YOU'RE GETTING FAT.

REMEMBER, MOTHER NATURE ISN'T

STUPID.

IF YOUR FAT CELLS ARE SLOW TO

RELEASE THEIR FUEL, YOUR BODY

ACTUALLY WORKS TO MAKE THEM

BIGGER.

AND THEY KEEP ON GETTING BIGGER

UNTIL THEY CAN RELEASE THE

ENERGY THAT YOUR BODY NEEDS.

THAT COULD MEAN GAINING A LITTLE

WEIGHT, OR IT COULD MEAN GAINING

A LOT.

IT ALL DEPENDS ON HOW SLOWLY

YOUR FAT CELLS RELEASE THEIR

FAT.

MOST OF US WEREN'T BORN WITH

GREEDY FAT CELLS, BUT WE CAN

CERTAINLY MAKE THEM THAT WAY.

WHEN YOU EAT TOO MANY

CARBOHYDRATES, YOU RAISE YOUR

BLOOD SUGAR.

SINCE HIGH BLOOD SUGAR IS TOXIC,

YOUR BODY RELEASES INSULIN TO

BRING IT DOWN.

BUT YOUR BODY CAN ONLY BURN A

LITTLE BIT OF SUGAR AT A TIME.

SO, WHAT HAPPENS TO THE REST OF

IT?

>> YOUR STORAGE SITES FOR

CARBOHYDRATE ARE LIMITED, AND

WE'VE GOT UNLIMITED STORAGE

PLACES FOR FAT.

SO THE BODY ENDS UP JUST

CONVERTING THE CARBOHYDRATE TO

FAT.

>> AND AFTER BRINGING DOWN YOUR

BLOOD SUGAR, INSULIN DOES ITS

OTHER JOB.

IT TELLS YOUR BODY TO STORE FAT.

>> INSULIN STIMULATES AN ENZYME

CALLED LIPOPROTEIN LIPASE THAT

SENDS FAT INTO THE FAT CELLS.

SO IF INSULIN IS ELEVATED, THIS

LIPOPROTEIN LIPASE IS REALLY

ACTIVATED, AND IT'S SENDING FAT

LIKE CRAZY INTO THE FAT CELLS.

SO IF YOU EAT A LOT OF

CARBOHYDRATES, YOUR INSULIN GOES

UP, YOU'RE STORING FAT IN THE

FAT CELL.

>> WHEN YOU HAVE A HEALTHY

METABOLISM, IT ONLY TAKES A

LITTLE BIT OF INSULIN TO BRING

YOUR BLOOD SUGAR DOWN, AND THEN

EVERYTHING GOES BACK TO NORMAL.

BUT OVER TIME, THAT CAN CHANGE.

>> THE CELLS CAN BECOME

RESISTANT TO THE EFFECTS OF

INSULIN.

IN ESSENCE, WHEN THAT HAPPENS,

INSULIN IS TALKING, BUT THE

CELLS JUST AREN'T LISTENING.

AND SO THEY DON'T GET THE

MESSAGE FROM INSULIN, SO THEY

DON'T DO WHAT THEY'RE SUPPOSED

TO DO.

>> HELLO?

>> STOP HITTING ME.

>> I'M NOT HITTING YOU.

>> STOP HITTING ME.

>> I'M NOT HITTING YOU.

>> AND SO YOUR BODY DOES WHAT IT

HAS TO DO.

IT STARTS PRODUCING MORE

INSULIN.

>> YOU FINALLY REACH THE POINT

TO WHERE YOUR INSULIN IS HIGH

JUST TO KEEP YOUR SUGAR NORMAL,

EVEN IF YOU'RE NOT EATING ANY

SUGAR.

AND THEN, WHEN THAT HAPPENS,

THEN IT'S STARTING TO DRIVE

STUFF INTO THE FAT CELLS.

AND THEN YOU'VE REACH THIS POINT

WHERE, ALL OF A SUDDEN -- BAM --

YOU GET FAT.

>> AND YOU GET FAT EVEN THOUGH

YOU'RE EATING THE SAME NUMBER OF

CALORIES YOU ALWAYS DID, BECAUSE

NOW YOU HAVE GREEDY FAT CELLS.

SO YOU DO WHAT THE EXPERTS HAVE

ALWAYS TOLD US TO DO.

YOU GO ON A LOW-FAT, LOW-CALORIE

DIET SO YOU CAN BURN YOUR OWN

BODY FAT FOR FUEL.

JUST ONE LITTLE PROBLEM --

IF TOO MANY CARBOHYDRATES ARE

KEEPING YOUR INSULIN HIGH, THE

INSULIN IS TELLING YOUR BODY TO

STORE THE FAT INSTEAD OF BURNING

IT.

NOW YOU'RE REALLYSTARVING

INSIDE.

>> ...ALL THAT FOR YOURSELF FOR?

COME ON, YOU BIG DICK, WHAT DO

YOU THINK YOU'RE DOING?

WHAT'S THE MATTER WITH YOU?

I'M HUNGRY DOWN HERE.

>> SO, ONCE AGAIN, YOUR BODY

DOES WHAT IT HAS TO DO.

IT SLOWS DOWN YOUR METABOLISM.

YOU STOP LOSING WEIGHT.

YOU GET TIRED, AND THEN YOU DO

THINGS LIKE DRIVE AROUND THE

PARKING LOT, LOOKING FOR A CLOSE

PARKING SPACE.

>> SO, YOU KNOW, SO MANY OF MY

PATIENTS COME IN FOLLOWING THAT

ADVICE, WHERE THEY SAY, "WELL, I

KNOW IT CAN'T BE ABOUT MY DIET,

BECAUSE I'M EATING A GOOD DIET."

AND I SAY, "WHAT DID YOU HAVE

FOR BREAKFAST THIS MORNING?"

AND THEY SAY, "WELL, I ATE A

BOWL OF SPECIAL K, AND I USED

LOW-FAT MILK.

AND THEN I HAD TWO PIECES OF

WHOLE-WHEAT TOAST."

AND TO BREAK YOUR FAST IN THE

MORNING WITH ALL OF THAT

INSULIN-PRODUCING, HIGH-GLYCEMIC

DIET IS GONNA SHUT DOWN YOUR

METABOLISM AND IS THE

PRESCRIPTION FOR MAKING YOU

FAT.

>> AND THEN THEY END UP BEING,

IN MOST CASES, LARGER THAN THEY

WERE WHEN THEY STARTED OUT,

WITH A LOWER METABOLIC RATE.

>> AND IT FRUSTRATES SO MANY

PEOPLE BECAUSE THEY DO IT

AND THEY FAIL, AND THEN THEY

THINK THEYFAILED.

AND THEY DIDN'T FAIL.

THE DIET FAILED.

>> THE NEXT TIME YOU FEEL LIKE

INDULGING IN THE USUAL PREJUDICE

AGAINST FAT PEOPLE, HERE'S

SOMETHING TO KEEP IN MIND.

MY WIFE HAS ALWAYS BEEN THIN,

AND SHE'S THE FIRST TO ADMIT IT

HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH

DISCIPLINE.

WHEN SHE AND I SIT DOWN FOR A

MEAL, WE BOTH DO EXACTLY THE

SAME THING -- WE EAT UNTIL WE'RE

NOT HUNGRY ANYMORE.

I GOT FAT AND STAYED FAT BECAUSE

I WAS LIVING ON FOODS THAT TOLD

MY BODY TO STORE THE CALORIES IN

MY FAT CELLS, WHICH JUST MADE ME

HUNGRIER.

IN SOME PEOPLE, THE FAT CELLS

AND THE OTHER TISSUES BECOME

INSULIN-RESISTANT AT ABOUT THE

SAME RATE.

THE GOOD NEWS IS, THEY DON'T

GAIN WEIGHT.

THE BAD NEWS IS, INSULIN

RESISTANCE CAN KILL YOU EVEN IF

YOU'RE SKINNY.

>> DEMANDING OF YOUR PANCREAS

THAT IT PRODUCE EVER-GREATER

AMOUNTS OF INSULIN TO KEEP YOUR

BLOOD SUGAR NORMAL IS ULTIMATELY

GOING TO CAUSE WHAT'S CAUSED

BETA CELL BURNOUT.

FINALLY, THE PANCREAS IS

PRODUCING ALL IT CAN PRODUCE,

AND THAT'S NOT ENOUGH ANYMORE.

AND WHEN THAT HAPPENS, THE

BETA CELLS GET DAMAGED, THEY

CAN'T PRODUCE ANYMORE, AND YOUR

BLOOD SUGAR GOES UP.

AND NOW YOU'VE BECOME, FRANKLY,

DIABETIC.

>> AND ONCE YOUR BLOOD SUGAR

GOES OUT OF CONTROL, IT CAN

DAMAGE YOUR ARTERIES AND LEAD TO

HEART DISEASE.

AND YET THE EXPERTS KEEP TELLING

US TO STAY AWAY FROM FAT AND

LOAD UP ON CARBOHYDRATES.

ON THEIR WEBSITE, CSPI

ENCOURAGES PARENTS TO CUT THE

FAT FROM THEIR KIDS' DIETS AND

FEED THEM STARCHY FOODS, LIKE

WHOLE-WHEAT CRACKERS AND

GRAPE-NUTS.

>> GRAPE-NUTS HAVE A GLYCEMIC

INDEX OF 64...

>> ♪ SUGAR

>> ...WHICH MAKE THEM MORE

FATTENING.

IF YOU WERE TO EAT A BOWL OF

GRAPE-NUTS, THE CALORIES ARE

ABOUT THE SAME AS EATING AN

EXTRA-LARGE SNICKERS BAR.

>> ♪ SUGAR

>> WE WERE ALL SUBJECTS IN A

GIANT EXPERIMENT, THE HYPOTHESIS

OF WHICH WAS THAT FAT IS BAD

FOR US.

AND NOW HERE WE ALL ARE, AT THE

END OF THIS GIANT EXPERIMENT.

TYPE-2 DIABETES IS AT A

SCREAMINGLY HIGH RATE, AND WAY,

WAY MORE PEOPLE ARE OVERWEIGHT

THAN USED TO BE.

>> GRANDMOTHER COULD TELL YOU

THAT THAT DIET WOULD MAKE YOU

FAT.

SHE KNEW THAT POTATOES AND BREAD

WERE FATTENING.

WE ALL KNEW IT UNTIL MODERN

NUTRITION TOLD US OTHERWISE.

>> WHICH IS WHY I'M

INTENTIONALLY IGNORING WHAT

MODERN NUTRITION SAYS.

I'M EATING LOTS OF PROTEIN AND

PLENTY OF FAT, BUT I'M LIMITING

MY CARBOHYDRATES TO ABOUT 100

MY CARBOHYDRATES TO ABOUT 100
GRAMS PER DAY.

GRAMS PER DAY.

BECAUSE MY DOCTOR WAS GOING ON

VACATION, I SHORTENED MY 30-DAY

DIET TO 28 DAYS AND WENT TO MY

POST-DIET CHECKUP.

I SHOWED MY DOCTOR WHAT I'D BEEN

EATING, WHICH INCLUDED 15 DOUBLE

OR TRIPLE CHEESEBURGERS,

19 SAUSAGE PATTIES, 52 EGGS, AND

A DOZEN SERVINGS OF FRIED

CHICKEN.

HE WAS NOT EXACTLY HAPPY WITH MY

CHOICES.

>> LET'S STEP UP HERE AND SEE

WHAT DAMAGE YOU'VE DONE.

OKAY, I HAVE NO IDEA WHY THIS

IS.

YOU LOST WEIGHT.

[ CHUCKLES ]

YOU LOST WEIGHT.

194, I BELIEVE, AND A QUARTER.

>> MM-HMM.

>> IF YOU MOVE AWAY, I CAN SEE

BETTER.

YEP.

>> SO, I LOST ALMOST 12?

>> LET ME SEE.

THINK SO.

12 1/4.

WHAT DID YOU DRINK?

>> EITHER DIET COKE OR ICED TEA

OR WATER.

>> OKAY.

YOUR TOTAL CHOLESTEROL WAS 231.

>> MM-HMM.

>> IT'S NOW 222.

NOW, BEFORE YOU THINK THAT

THAT'S A DECREMENT, IF I WOULD

CHECK THE SAME SAMPLE TWO AND

THREE TIMES, WE WOULD HAVE THAT

KIND OF VARIANCE.

>> OKAY.

>> OKAY, SO, THAT, TO ME, DIDN'T

CHANGE.

>> WHAT'S THAT LOOK?

>> IT'S 28.2.

I DON'T LIKE WHAT YOU'RE PROVING

HERE.

>> I-I DIDN'T WRITE IT THE LAST

TIME, BUT I BELIEVE YOU -- 31.2,

WHICH WAS HIGH.

>> MM-HMM.

>> AND, UH, YOU WENT TO 28.2.

AND THAT'S EATING A LOT OF JUNK.

>> MM-HMM.

>> SO, YOU -- I BELIEVE YOU'VE

PROVED YOUR POINT.

SEE, BUT YOU DID IT WITH AN EYE

TOWARDS AN END.

>> MM-HMM.

>> OKAY?

YOU HAD AN IDEA WHAT YOU WERE

DOING.

YOU KNEW WHAT YOU WERE DOING,

AND IN SPITE OF THAT, YOU WERE

ABLE TO DO SOMETHING.

I'M IMPRESSED.

AND I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU.

THERE'S MORE TO IT THAN JUST,

YOU KNOW, NO FAST FOOD.

>> DO YOU EVER WAKE UP IN THE

MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT AND GO,

"CHEESEBURGER, CHEESEBURGER"?

>> YEAH, EVERY NIGHT -- ALMOST

EVERY NIGHT.

I GET, LIKE, THE SHAKES AND

WITHDRAWALS, THEN I START, LIKE,

HITTING PEOPLE.

>> I'VE DONE THAT.

>> I NEED CHICKEN NUGGETS OR --

>> NOW, SEE, I THOUGHT I WAS THE

ONLY ONE.

>> YEAH. NO.

>> DON'T GET ME WRONG.

A FAST-FOOD DIET IS NOT A GOOD

DIET.

A GOOD DIET WOULD INCLUDE A LOT

MORE FRUITS AND VEGETABLES.

BUT IF I CAN EAT FAST FOOD EVERY

MEAL FOR 28 DAYS AND LOSE

WEIGHT, THEN MOST PEOPLE CAN

CERTAINLY EAT FAST FOOD A FEW

TIMES A WEEK WITHOUT BECOMING

OBESE.

I WAS HAPPY TO LOSE THE 12

POUNDS, BUT I WASN'T QUITE

FINISHED WITH DIETS.

WHILE RESEARCHING THIS FILM, I

WAS SURPRISED TO LEARN THAT THE

LIPID HYPOTHESIS MIGHT BE A LOAD

OF BALONEY.

SO, WITH A LITTLE ENCOURAGEMENT

FROM DR. EADES, I DECIDED TO

CONDUCT A ONE-MAN EXPERIMENT.

FOR A SOLID MONTH, I CUT ALL THE

SUGAR AND STARCH OUT OF MY DIET,

AND I WENT ON A SATURATED-FAT

PIG-OUT.

FOR BREAKFAST, I ATE TWO OR

THREE EGGS FRIED IN BUTTER EVERY

DAY, WITH PLENTY OF BACON.

WHEN I WAS TRAVELING, I ATE

SAUSAGE McMUFFINS WITHOUT THE

MUFFINS.

FOR LUNCH, I HAD CHEESEBURGERS

WITHOUT BUNS, COVERED WITH

PLENTY OF ONIONS FRIED IN -- YOU

GUESSED IT -- COCONUT OIL.

FOR DINNER, I HAD NICELY MARBLED

STEAKS OR POLISH SAUSAGES.

MY FAVORITE SNACK WAS SHREDDED

CHEESE FRIED IN COCONUT OIL.

I ALSO ATE PLENTY OF FRUIT

COVERED WITH HEAVY CREAM AND

LOTS OF GREEN VEGETABLES

PRACTICALLY SWIMMING IN BUTTER.

DURING THAT SAME MONTH, I HAD A

BIG PROGRAMMING PROJECT WITH A

TIGHT DEADLINE, SO I SPENT A LOT

OF NIGHTS WORKING UNTIL 2:00 IN

THE MORNING.

BUT I NEVER FELT EXHAUSTED.

IN FACT, MY ENERGY AND MY MOOD

WERE GREAT.

AT THE END OF THAT MONTH, I HAD

YET ANOTHER CHOLESTEROL TEST.

THE RESULTS?

WELL, LET'S JUST SAY SOMEBODY

HAS SOME EXPLAINING TO DO.

MY OVERALL CHOLESTEROL DROPPED,

AND MY HDL SHOT UP.

THE EXPERTS WHO THINK

CHOLESTEROL IS IMPORTANT TELL US

TO WATCH OUR CHOLESTEROL RATIO,

WHICH IS CALCULATED BY DIVIDING

YOUR TOTAL CHOLESTEROL BY YOUR

HDL.

AFTER A SOLID MONTH OF EATING

EVERYTHING THE EXPERTS SAY IS

BAD FOR YOUR HEART, MY

CHOLESTEROL RATIO DROPPED TO

3.27.

ACCORDING TO THE EXPERTS, THAT'S

OUTSTANDING.

WHEN I THINK OF ALL THE TIMES I

HAD LOW-FAT CEREAL WHEN I REALLY

WANTED BACON AND EGGS, OR A

SKINLESS CHICKEN BREAST WHEN I

REALLY WANTED A JUICY STEAK,

WELL, IT KIND OF PISSES ME OFF.

SO, LET'S REVIEW.

WHO TOLD AMERICANS TO AVOID

SATURATED FATS, WHICH MAKE YOU

FEEL FULL AND HAPPY AND DON'T

SPIKE YOUR BLOOD SUGAR, AND TOLD

US INSTEAD TO EAT LOTS AND LOTS

OF CARBOHYDRATES, WHICH DO SPIKE

YOUR BLOOD SUGAR AND MAKE YOU

HUNGRY AGAIN SOON AFTER EATING

THEM?

YOUR GOVERNMENT.

WHO CUT FUNDING FOR P.E.

PROGRAMS AND EVEN, ACCORDING TO

JOHN BANZHAF, DOESN'T PROVIDE

ENOUGH PLAYGROUNDS IN MANY

AREAS?

YOUR GOVERNMENT.

WHO PUSHED TRANS FATS INTO THE

FAST-FOOD RESTAURANTS RIGHT

AROUND THE TIME MORE AMERICANS

WERE EATING FAST FOOD?

THE GUY FROM CSPI!

SO, WHO DOES MORGAN SPURLOCK

BLAME FOR AMERICA'S GROWING

WAISTLINE?

RONALD McDONALD.

AND WHO DO THE FOOD EVANGELISTS

WANT TO SWOOP IN AND SOLVE THIS

PROBLEM?

[ BOING! ]

YOUR GOVERNMENT.

>> THAT REMINDS ME THAT THE ONLY

SAVING GRACE OF GOVERNMENT IS

THAT THEY'RE INCOMPETENT,

BECAUSE IF THEY COULD DO WHAT

THEY REALLY WANTED, IT WOULD BE

HORRIBLE FOR ALL OF US.

>> AND NOW FOR THE ONE QUESTION

THAT REALLY MATTERS.

WHO DECIDES TO DRINK 44-OUNCE

SODAS AND EAT BIG BOWLS OF

SUGARY CEREAL AND LARGE ORDERS

OF FRIES, AND THEN GO HOME AND

SIT IN FRONT OF THE TV AND EAT

MORE SUGAR AND MORE STARCH

INSTEAD OF TAKING UP A SPORT OR

JUST GOING FOR A LONG WALK?

YOU DO.

AND IF THAT'S YOUR CHOICE...

>> SO IT IS -- AND I THINK, FOR

THE MOST PART -- A VERY SINCERE

BLINDNESS...

TO THE POSSIBILITY THAT OTHER

PEOPLE MIGHT JUST HAVE DIFFERENT

VALUES AND PREFERENCES THAN THEY

DO...

>> I LOVE HAMBURGERS.

I LOVE FRENCH FRIES.

I LOVE COKE.

I LOVE TO GO IN THERE.

AND YOU KNOW, THERE ARE TIMES

WHEN I EAT THESE MEALS, EVEN

THOUGH I KNOW THAT THIS IS NOT

THE HEALTHIEST FOOD FOR ME TO BE

EATING.

>> ...AND THAT, IN A FREE

SOCIETY, THAT'S OKAY.

YOU KNOW, IT'S ALL RIGHT.

>> ♪ WELL, I'M LYSINE, BROMIDE,

VAR-- ♪

[ RECORD SCRATCHES ]

>> WAIT A MINUTE.

THAT WAS THREE YEARS AGO, SO

LET'S DO SOME CATCHING UP.

BY THE TIME I FINISHED MAKING

THIS DOCUMENTARY, I WAS

FASCINATED WITH NUTRITION AND

HEALTH, SO I KEPT ON

RESEARCHING.

I'VE READ DOZENS OF BOOKS AND

HUNDREDS OF STUDIES, AND I'VE

INTERVIEWED QUITE A FEW MORE

DOCTORS AND RESEARCHERS WHO SAY

THE LOW-FAT, HIGH-CARBOHYDRATE

DIET RECOMMENDED BY THE USDA IS

A LOAD OF BALONEY.

YES, A LOT OF THE SO-CALLED

EXPERTS STILL BELIEVE IN THE

LIPID HYPOTHESIS, BUT EVERY

YEAR, THERE'S MORE AND MORE

EVIDENCE THAT THEY'RE WRONG.

HERE'S WHAT ONE GROUP OF

RESEARCHERS HAD TO SAY AFTER

GOING BACK AND EXAMINING ALL THE

RELEVANT STUDIES.

THERE'S NO SIGNIFICANT EVIDENCE

FOR CONCLUDING THAT DIETARY

SATURATED FAT IS ASSOCIATED WITH

AN INCREASED RISK OF CORONARY

HEART DISEASE OR CARDIOVASCULAR

DISEASE.

MEANWHILE, THERE HAVE BEEN

SEVERAL CLINICAL STUDIES

COMPARING DIETS THAT ARE LOW IN

CARBOHYDRATES VERSUS DIETS THAT

ARE LOW IN BOTH CALORIES AND

FAT.

AND GUESS WHAT.

THE LOW-CARBOHYDRATE DIETS KEEP

COMING OUT ON TOP.

PEOPLE NOT ONLY LOSE MORE WEIGHT

WITHOUT COUNTING CALORIES, THEY

ALSO IMPROVE THEIR RISK FACTORS

FOR HEART DISEASE AND METABOLIC

SYNDROME MORE THAN PEOPLE WHO GO

ON LOW-FAT DIETS.

AS A RESULT, MORE DOCTORS AND

SCIENTISTS ARE COMING AROUND TO

THE SAME CONCLUSION -- DIETARY

FAT WAS NEVER THE PROBLEM.

THE PROBLEM IS TOO MANY REFINED

CARBOHYDRATES.

AND THAT MESSAGE IS FINALLY

STARTING TO SHOW UP IN THE

MAINSTREAM MEDIA.

SO, AM I STILL ON A LOW-CARB

DIET?

YES, BUT WITH SOME IMPORTANT

CHANGES.

WHEN I WAS SHOOTING "FAT HEAD,"

MY MAIN FOCUS WAS ON LIMITING MY

CARBOHYDRATES TO AROUND 100

GRAMS PER DAY.

SO IF I COULD EAT A HAMBURGER

BUN OR SOME FRIED-CHICKEN STRIPS

WITHOUT GOING OVER THE LIMIT,

THAT WAS OKAY WITH ME.

AND FOR SOME TIME AFTER

FINISHING "FAT HEAD," I

CONTINUED EATING WHAT I NOW CALL

LOW-CARB JUNK FOODS --

LOW-CARB BREAD, LOW-CARB

ICE CREAM, LOW-CARB PASTA,

LOW-CARB DESSERT BARS, AND

SO ON.

WELL, NOT ANYMORE.

IN THE PAST COUPLE OF YEARS,

I'VE BECOME AWARE OF RESEARCHERS

AND AUTHORS WHO PROMOTE WHAT

THEY CALL A PRIMAL DIET, OR A

PALEO DIET.

THE IDEA BEHIND THESE DIETS IS

BASED ON EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY.

AND IN A NUTSHELL, IT GOES LIKE

THIS.

YES, YOU MAY TALK ON A CELLPHONE

AND SURF THE INTERNET, BUT,

GENETICALLY, YOU'RE ALMOST

EXACTLY THE SAME AS YOUR CAVEMAN

ANCESTORS.

WHEN YOU EAT MODERN PROCESSED

FOODS THAT YOUR ANCESTORS NEVER

WOULD HAVE EATEN, THERE'S A GOOD

CHANCE THOSE FOODS WILL MAKE YOU

SICK, BECAUSE, GENETICALLY,

WE'RE JUST NOT ADAPTED TO EATING

THEM.

AND BESIDES SUGAR, ONE OF THE

MOST MODERN AND MOST DAMAGING

FOODS WE CONSUME TODAY IS WHEAT.

>> WHAT WE HAVE TODAY CALLED

WHEAT IS NOT WHAT WE THINK OF --

THAT IS, THIS 4 1/2-,

5-FOOT-TALL PLANT THAT STANDS UP

TO YOUR SHOULDERS ON A GROWN

ADULT.

IT IS A 2-FOOT-TALL, SHORT,

STOCKY PLANT THAT HAS A VERY

LARGE SEEDHEAD, A VERY THICK

STALK, BUT YIELDS ABOUT TENFOLD

MORE PER ACRE.

SO, THIS WAS INTRODUCED IN THE

'70s.

IT CAUGHT ON GRADUALLY.

MANY FARMERS, BY THE WAY,

THOUGHT THIS THING LOOKED WEIRD

AND DIDN'T WANT TO GROW IT IN

THE LATE '70s.

BUT ONCE THEY SAW THE INCREDIBLE

INCREASE IN YIELD, THEY RAPIDLY

EMBRACED IT IN THE EARLY '80s,

SUCH THAT, BY 1985, WHEN YOU

WENT TO THE GROCERY STORE AND

BOUGHT BREAD, COOKIES, CAKES,

PRETZELS, CRACKERS -- ANYTHING

MADE OF WHEAT -- VIRTUALLY ALL

OF IT CAME FROM THIS HIGH-YIELD,

SEMI-DWARF STRAIN.

>> OKAY, SO TODAY'S WHEAT ISN'T

THE SAME AS YOUR GRANDMOTHER'S

WHEAT.

SO WHAT?

>> YOU CANNOT CHANGE A PLANT TO

THIS INCREDIBLE DEGREE, OFTEN

USING BIZARRE AND EXTREME

TECHNIQUES, WITHOUT CHANGING ITS

UNDERLYING GENETICS AND

BIOCHEMISTRY.

WE KNOW THAT MULTIPLE PROTEINS

IN WHEAT -- THE GLIADIN

PROTEINS, THE GLUTEN PROTEINS,

THE LECTIN PROTEINS, PROBABLY

THE GLUTENIN PROTEINS -- THERE

ARE A WHOLE LONG LIST OF NEW

PROTEINS THAT ARE JUST

DIFFERENT, PERHAPS BY A FEW

AMINO ACIDS, BUT AS ANY

ALLERGIST WILL TELL YOU, IT JUST

TAKES A SHIFT OF A COUPLE,

THREE, A HANDFUL OF AMINO ACIDS

IN A PROTEIN, AND IT CAN MAKE A

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NO REACTION

AND A FATAL REACTION.

SO WE KNOW THAT THERE HAVE BEEN

EXTENSIVE CHANGES INTRODUCED

INTO THE WHEAT PLANT.

NOW WE'RE SEEING THE DOWNSTREAM

CONSEQUENCE.

WE'RE SEEING THIS INCREDIBLE

SURGE IN DISEASES.

I WOULDN'T HAVE EVEN THOUGHT TO

PUT TWO AND TWO TOGETHER UNTIL

WE SAW WHAT HAPPENED WHEN WE

TOOK WHEAT OUT OF THE DIET.

>> WHEN I STOPPED EATING WHEAT

AND OTHER GRAINS, I WAVED

GOODBYE TO SEVERAL ANNOYING

HEALTH PROBLEMS.

SO I'M STILL ON A LOW-CARB DIET,

BUT IT'S A DIET BASED ON

UNPROCESSED, WHOLE FOODS --

MEATS, EGGS, SEAFOOD, FRUITS,

VEGETABLES, AND NUTS, WITH A

LITTLE BIT OF FULL-FAT DAIRY.

I ONLY EAT FAST FOOD ON RARE

OCCASIONS, AND WHEN I DO, I SKIP

THE HAMBURGER BUNS COMPLETELY.

MY LIFESTYLE HAS ALSO CHANGED.

WHEN I WAS MAKING "FAT HEAD," I

LIVED IN BURBANK, CALIFORNIA,

RIGHT NEXT TO LOS ANGELES.

WHEN MY DAUGHTERS STARTED

SCHOOL, I ASKED MYSELF A

QUESTION.

DO I WANT MY KIDS TO GROW UP TO

BE L.A. KIDS?

WOULD I WANT TO GROW UP HERE?

SO WE MOVED ACROSS THE COUNTRY

TO A SMALL TOWN IN TENNESSEE AND

EVENTUALLY BOUGHT A SMALL FARM.

WE'VE STARTED RAISING MORE OF

OUR OWN FOOD, AND WE SHOP FOR

EGGS IN OUR OWN HENHOUSE.

THE EGGS ARE DELICIOUS.

BOTH OF MY DAUGHTERS LIVE ON

DIETS THAT ARE HIGH IN FAT AND

RELATIVELY LOW IN CARBOHYDRATES.

OF COURSE, THAT MEANS WE'RE

FEEDING THEM ALMOST EXACTLY THE

OPPOSITE OF THE DIET RECOMMENDED

BY THE USDA.

THE RESULT?

BOTH OF MY GIRLS ARE LEAN AND

STRONG AND ENERGETIC, THEY'RE

ALMOST NEVER SICK, AND THEY'VE

NEVER HAD A SINGLE CAVITY.

AND THEY SOMEHOW MANAGE TO GET

STRAIGHT A's IN SCHOOL, EVEN

THOUGH THE EXPERTS SAY KIDS NEED

LOTS OF CARBOHYDRATES TO FUEL

THEIR BRAINS.

I DON'T GO FOR LONG WALKS AT

NIGHT ANYMORE BECAUSE, FRANKLY,

I'M AFRAID, IF I WALK AROUND OUR

FIELDS AFTER DARK, I'LL TRIP

OVER A ROCK OR STEP ON SOMETHING

WITH FANGS.

SO NOW I GET IN MY WALKING BY

PLAYING DISC GOLF ON MY OWN

LAND.

MY DAUGHTER SARA IS GETTING

PRETTY GOOD AT THE GAME, AND

I'M, UH, NOT BAD.

I ALSO GO TO A GYM ONCE A WEEK

AND LIFT WEIGHTS, USING A

SLOW-MOTION TRAINING METHOD

RECOMMENDED BY PEOPLE LIKE

FITNESS TRAINER FRED HAHN AND

DR. DOUG McGUFF.

THANKS TO THE BETTER DIET AND

THE BETTER WORKOUTS, I'M LEANER

AND STRONGER THAN I'VE BEEN IN

DECADES.

I KNOW I'M NEVER GONNA WIN ANY

HOT-BODY COMPETITIONS, BUT

CONSIDERING THAT I'M 54 YEARS

OLD AND SPENT MOST OF MY ADULT

LIFE AS A FAT GUY, I'M PRETTY

HAPPY WHERE I ENDED UP.

I'VE ALSO BEEN EXTREMELY HAPPY

TO READ THE STORIES THAT SOME OF

THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE SEEN

"FAT HEAD" HAVE SHARED WITH ME.

ALMOST EVERY WEEK, I HEAR FROM

VIEWERS WHO TELL ME HOW THEY

WERE INSPIRED TO CUT WAY BACK ON

SUGAR AND STARCH AND GO BACK TO

EATING FOODS THAT ARE HIGH IN

SATURATED FAT -- MEATS, EGGS,

BUTTER, AND SO FORTH.

AFTER CHANGING THEIR DIETS, THEY

ENDED UP LOSING A LOT OF WEIGHT

AND DRASTICALLY IMPROVING THEIR

HEALTH.

TO BE PERFECTLY HONEST, MAKING A

DOCUMENTARY ON A SHOESTRING

BUDGET TURNED OUT TO BE A LOT

HARDER THAN I THOUGHT IT WOULD

BE.

BUT WHEN I SEE PICTURES LIKE

THESE, I KNOW IT WAS WORTH ALL

THE EFFORT.

>> ♪ WELL, I'M LYSINE, BROMIDE,

VARIOUS INSECTICIDES ♪

♪ BLUE DYE NUMBER 9

♪ I'M 20 DIFFERENT ACIDS AND

13 ALKALINES ♪

♪ I'M DEXTROSE, GLYCERIN,

AND SACCHARINE, MONOSODIUM

GLUTAMATE ♪

♪ AND A COUPLE GRAMS OF OAT BRAN

I INGESTED BY MISTAKE ♪

♪ SO PUT ME IN A BEAKER AND

LET HER RUN SOME TESTS ON ME ♪

♪ WITH THE TOXINS IN MY BODY,

I'M A WALKING PHARMACY ♪

♪ I'M SHOPPING FOR MY COFFIN,

BUT DON'T SHED ME ANY TEARS ♪

♪ 'CAUSE ACCORDING TO THE

EXPERTS, I'VE BEEN DEAD FOR

SEVERAL YEARS ♪

♪ NOW, I'M PROBABLY JUST

A VICTIM OF MY WEAK HEREDITY ♪

♪ MY GRANDPA LOVED HIS WHISKEY,

CIGARETTES, AND HAM AND CHEESE ♪

♪ HE HAD BACON, EGGS, AND COFFEE

EVERY DAY HE WAS ALIVE ♪

♪ AND HIS DIET FINALLY KILLED

HIM AT THE AGE OF 95 ♪

♪ SO PUT ME IN A BEAKER AND

LET HER RUN SOME TESTS ON ME ♪

♪ WITH THE TOXINS IN MY BODY,

I'M A WALKING PHARMACY ♪

♪ I'M SHOPPING FOR MY COFFIN,

BUT DON'T SHED ME ANY TEARS ♪

♪ 'CAUSE ACCORDING TO THE

EXPERTS, I'VE BEEN DEAD FOR

SEVERAL YEARS ♪

♪ NOW, MY HEALTH-FOOD FRIEND WAS

NATURAL ♪

♪ IN HIS BODY, MIND, AND SOUL

♪ HE ONLY ATE ORGANIC FOODS

♪ FROM A NATURAL EARTHEN BOWL

♪ BUT THERE WAS BOTULISM IN THAT

NATURAL GARDEN HE HAD PLOWED ♪

♪ HE DIED OF NATURAL CAUSES, AND

HIS FRIENDS WERE VERY PROUD ♪

YOU KNOW WHAT THEY SAID AT HIS

FUNERAL, DON'T YOU?

"BOY, HE SURE LOOKS NATURAL."

♪ NOW, KIM JONG-IL SOLD CHEMICAL

BOMBS TO HIS BUDDIES IN IRAN ♪

♪ BUT IF THEY SHOOT THEM AT OUR

ALLIES, BOY, WE'VE GOT A SECRET

PLAN ♪

♪ THEY'RE GONNA GIVE ME A BIG

OLD CIGAR, PUT ME IN SOME

BOMBER'S LOAD ♪

♪ THEN, THEY'LL LIGHT ME UP AND

KICK ME OUT, AND THEY'RE TOAST

WHEN I EXPLODE ♪

[ EXPLOSION ]

♪ SO PUT ME IN A BEAKER AND

LET HER RUN SOME TESTS ON ME ♪

♪ WITH THE TOXINS IN MY BODY,

I'M A WALKING PHARMACY ♪

♪ I'M SHOPPING FOR MY COFFIN,

BUT DON'T SHED ME ANY TEARS ♪

♪ 'CAUSE ACCORDING TO THE

EXPERTS, I'VE BEEN DEAD FOR

EXPERTS, I'VE BEEN DEAD FOR
SEVERAL YEARS ♪