I would just like to say Thank You to Tom for FINALLY putting a film out there that shows the truth about grains and saturated fat. I have been eating a high fat low carb primal diet for about a year now and over the course of that year I have combated all of the sat fat haters with by telling them "i dont know how.... but its just better for you". I refer them to literature but everyone is too damn lazy to read it! Now all I have to say is "here watch Fat Head!!"
@lpr5269 if this is true i should have gained weight, i have been 120lbs since i was 15, i am now 20 i eat well over 2000 calories a day, and i do absolutely no exercise. i've done this for 5 years gained no weight i just proved that calories aren't everything it's what your body does with extra energy, mine burns it or throws it away.
@usrevenge What does that prove? I do not understand what you are talking about. If you ate 10,000 calories a day and no weight gain, OK great you have something. Otherwise, you are just managing your calories like everybody else and saying that the reason you are not gaining weight is because of limiting carbs. I am simply saying that you have to moderate all macronutrients to achieve long term weight control.
@lpr5269 It is virtually impossible to sufficiently run at a caloric deficit. If you can, however, it's called starvation. The body will find a natural energy equilibrium. If you exercise excessively you only get hungrier because your body needs to replenish the energy used. Calories have a context. What type of food you eat is far more important than how much you eat. Hormones play a huge part in health and fitness. It's really about controling hormonal responses...particularly insulin.
@lpr5269 You my good sir are in fact made of bologna. I switched to a high fat low carb diet and while maintaining the same caloric intake, I lost 51 pounds in 2.5 months. So.... Riddle me that
I made an observation once, I have run out of oil and decided to fry some eggs with real butter. the butter melted and became oily. Then sometime later(while trying to start eating 'healthy') I used a 'manufactured butter' as soon as i placed it on the hot pan it just fizzled and disappeared. i wonder how many chemicals were used to produce the butter. Also i only use palmoil to prepare meals now, and i can instantly see a difference in my health
@memthrows No, I'm not aware of any vegan populations. There are vegans within populations, of course, but no vegan populations per se that I've come across.
Its sad that this only has 45,000 views. Most everything that explains any falsified spoon feed misinformation in a proper scientific context seems to be dismissed so fast online anymore.
Maybe if you edited the speech a bit and yelled "get er done" every few minutes it would get more views :(
i started my "no sugar all fat(and veggies) diet" about 8 months ago. That was after i watched your movie. I weigh 120 lbs now n_n and feel great(im 5'3''). I also had a rash that would develop after i ate certain foods and i found out that the sugar content in bread and pasta was making me have serious outbreaks. NOW i never get it! Thankyou for your information, it REALLY helped. I dont even get sweet tooths anymore, i just never crave sugar. n_____n<33333 FatHeadMovie
Technically sugar is a low GI food (but high in fructose). Steel-milled whole wheat is high GI, but stone ground and sprouted whole wheat bread aren't, but I'd just as soon give up the wheat.
I live outside of America and I can't watch Fat Head on Hulu. I really want to watch this movie but I have no access to netflicks or any extra money to spend on purchasing a dvd.
@Keon994 If you want the DVD bad enough, give up a purchase for a month or so (don't buy coffee, or something you don't need) so you can afford it. Otherwise, just stop eating carbs, and stop eating "low fat." Read the Atkins diet book at your local library and follow that.
I went to Hulu.com and saw that they had the Fat Head Documentary available! So I zipped on over and then noticed the comments section. Boy is your film makin' a WHOLE bunch of people so angry they're foaming at the mouth! You can even see it in their comments.
They misquote the facts and then state how stupid you are. Too bad. I'd imagine most of 'em probably have a picture of your face taped to a dartboard in their garage.
Well, anyway. Thank you for the film. It's been a big help.
@KanineKruizer Aw, I knew that would happen when I made the film. There are some people in the world who think McDonald's is Darth Vader. I don't worry about what misinformed people with anger issues say about me. As I told my daughter when some doofus at school started making fun of her, "Honey, you're smart. Smart people don't concern themselves with what idiots think." She got that.
I loved the experiment you did with your daughters, and I like how you explain the different between good science and bad science--it isn't a quick 'whatever' sort of explanation.
And on a different note, thank you for 'FatHead'. Like any documentary, I feel like I should be taking it with a grain of salt. You know...is all the right information there--not that I'm an expert (but sometimes it's hard to know who to trust). All the same, I loved it and I love how you explain yourself.
@FatHeadMovie I think grivs is referring to Dr. Mac Donald, who relentlessly criticizes bad science and foolish dietary habits, notoriously zapping the ignorant with his Protein-Powered Laser Pistol of Truth. Or maybe he was an advocate of proper spelling who was easily annoyed by incoherent sentence fragments. Only grivs knows for sure, and he's unable to properly articulate whatever it is he's thinking.
Well done with the science bit; I recently did a video on Psychology, saying the same thing.
Scientific experiments should attempt to DISPROVE the theory. Finding confirmatory evidence is easy, for almost any hypothesis; if you aren't specifically looking for black swans, then your experiment is worthless.
Interestingly enough, while it may not be animal fat PER SE that causes clogged arteries, this may not necessarily be true today, because a lot of cattle are fed grains instead of grass, which may cause THEIR arteries to be clogged and causes excessive fat in the cow which may clog OUR arteries, because we also eat what the animal ate. The reason chickens aren't affected by grain feeding is because most birds have evolved to eat them.
@rpmangin Excess fat in beef doesn't clog our arteries. Fat is not what causes arteries to become clogged. Analyze the fatty acids in beef, nearly half is monosaturated and most of what's left will raise your HDL. When humans hunted wild, leaner animals, they ate the fatty organs preferentially.
Many birds, chickens included, are omnivores. They'll eat grains, but also worms and bugs whenever they can get their little beaks on them.
@FatHeadMovie Still, you have to admit that the way meat is produced has changed so much in the last 50 years that the meat, especially the red meat, we eat today isn't exactly the same as the meat our ancestors ate before cooking was invented.
@rpmangin Absolutely. We should be feeding livestock their natural diets, not force-feeding them corn. The way someone (can't remember exactly who) I heard interviewed described the health effects was this: grain-fed meat won't hurt you, but you're not deriving the full benefits you'd get from grass-fed meat.
Cooking did provide an evolutionary benefit, however, and it's been around for probably 200,000 years or more, so I don't have anything against cooking food.
@FatHeadMovie Unfortunately, the sad reality is, if all livestock were fed their natural diets, a lot of meat would get to be too expensive for the average consumer, due to too many people in the world. It's getting that way even with the force-fed cattle. As I've said before, if the whole world strictly went on a true all-natural diet of raw fruits, raw vegetables, and raw meat (or cooked meat and vegetables, assuming they could be eaten raw anyways), 90% of the world would starve to death.
So does that mean stop grazing cattle in fields? It seems to me that if you have a field and want some beef you should raise some cattle on the field.
ScienceDaily (Jan. 19, 2009) It's predicted that by 2010 India's pop. will suffer approx. 60% of the world's heart disease. Today, a team of 25 scientists from 4 countries provides a clue to why: 1% of the world's population carries a mutation almost guaranteed to lead to heart problems and most of these come from the Indian subcontinent, where the mutation reaches a frequency of 4%.
There is one group of Indians with a genetic predisposition to develop heart disease. It's not diet related but this may be influencing the total numbers.
New research published in The Lancet finds that India will bear 60% of the world's heart disease burden in the next two years. In addition, researchers have determined that compared to people in other developed countries, the average age of patients with heart disease is lower among Indian people and Indians are more likely to have types of heart disease that lead to worse outcomes.
@awesome220 You're correct, I simply made up the statement that people in India have high rates of heart disease and diabetes. I admit it here and now. Same for the obese populations who live on little food. As you've surmised, I don't actually put any research into my documentaries, speeches, or blog posts. I thank you for sharing your superior knowledge of biology, endocrinology, metabolism, and Gary Taubes' resume. Your beliefs are 100% correct and I urge to keep them.
@awesome220 Like I said, I don't actually do any research. I just make stuff up, as you've surmised. Do a little googling and I'm sure you'll instantly confirm your belief that heart disease, obesity and diabetes are low in India. Since you believe it, it has to be true. If only I'd known someone with your deep understanding of biochemistry before producing my documentary and my speech, I could've saved myself a lot of trouble.
@FatHeadMovie Oh yes, the good old "Google it for yourself and find out!"
You made a claim that Indians suffer high rates of diabetes and heart disease. It is up to you, the claimant, to provide proof. All I am asking for is one link to a study that support your claim.
@awesome220 1) Can't post links. 2) This isn't a court, and I don't really care what you believe or don't believe. 3) If you do happen to care about actual facts, you can do your own Google searches. 4) You obviously already know everything there is to know about biology, metabolism, and heart disease and diabetes rates in India, so you don't need any sources.
@awesome220 You seem to believe I feel some need to prove it to you. I don't. If you want to learn about rates of heart disease and diabetes in India, you can easily look them up. If you aren't that motivated or curious, that's your problem.
@awesome220 Like I said, the claim was pure drivel, all made up. I do no research whatsoever and simply make up everything in my speeches and posts. So instead of troubling yourself with spending, say, 20 seconds doing Google research, I urge you to cease your relentless open-mindedness and try very hard to simply accept that you already know everything. I know it'll be difficult, but try, man, try.
@FatHeadMovie You made the claim. I am waiting for evidence for you claim. If it only takes 20 seconds to retreive, then it should be no trouble for you.
@awesome220 You're right. I suddenly feel an overwhelming need and obligation to convince you. Please sit there staring at your screen, and I'll provide you with sources as soon as I can. Do not leave your chair until you hear back from me.
If carbs and so evil than why are so many chinese and japanese and indians, who eat white rice on a daily basis, thinner and healthier than americansky?
@awesome220 Their thinness is partly hereditary; Asians have higher levels of osteoporosis because their bones are thinner. Thin-boned people also tend to be more resistant to becoming obese.
As for the carbs, they actually consume fewer of them than a typical American. They eat rice, yes. We consume rice, pasta, french fries, donuts, sodas, frappucinos, bagels, breakfast cereals, deli sandwiches, Snickers bars, Little Debbie Snack Cakes and ice cream.
@awesome220 If only it were as simple as that. By eating fewer carbs and (especially) a lot less fructose, they are less likely to become insulin resistant and therefore less likely to go into fat-accumulation mode. It's not just about how much you eat; it's about the hormonal changes produced by what you eat. If hormones signal your body to store more fat, yes, you will likely eat more because you're storing more calories and therefore running short of fuel for your cells.
@awesome220 He averaged 173 carbohydrates per day, which is less than half of what a typical American consumes. By his own estimation, he reduced his carb intake by over 100 grams per day on the "junk" diet.
His food log is online, so I ran the numbers. "Mainly junk food" was media hype. He ate many meals consisting of steak, chicken, protein shakes, etc., then tossed in some donuts and twinkies. It wasn't a junk food diet, it was a diet that included some junk food.
@FatHeadMovie So on one hand you say sugar and carbs are evil, but when I point out about this nutrition professor you counter by saying that he simply was not eating too many carbs, which is exactly what I have been saying. You can eat anything: as long as you less calories than you need, you will lose weight!
@awesome220 No, I'm saying if you restrict calories AND keep your insulin low enough to allow your body to burn fat, you'll lose weight. Professor Haub ate twinkies and donuts but still consumed a LOW number of carbohydrates while restricting calories, same as I did in my documentary. That means his insulin likely dropped. If insulin stays high, your body reacts to calorie restriction by slowing your metabolism, eliminating or reducing the calorie deficit. That's why so many diets fail.
@awesome220 Duh, do you think? First off, that's 125 carbohydrates, second, your body would suck up every calorie so there'd be no need for insulin to convert carbohydrates to fat and store them, which is what happens on high-carb diets, and third, you'd also become sick and lose muscle mass. That has zip to do with anything in my speech.
@awesome220 Dude, watch the lecture. You're not grasping the concept. You are assuming your metabolism stays relatively constant, therefore it's all about counting calories. You metabolism can vary wildly depending on signals from your hormones. Food affects those hormones. Simply restrict calories without a change in hormonal balance, and your metabolism can slow way down, so you stop losing weight. So no, it's not as simple as eating fewer calories.
@awesome220 You didn't see any healthy people in concentration camps either. If you starve people, duh, they'll lose weight. They'll lose muscle mass and eventually digest their own organs, too. That isn't the point. The question is whether you can burn body fat without sacrificing your muscles and wrecking your metabolism simply by restricting calories without changing your hormonal balance, and the answer is no. That's why people who starve themselves on diets usually end up fatter.
@FatHeadMovie you don't have to starve yourself; you can just eat less. instead of eating and 8 inch grinder and bag of chips for lunch, you can eat a 6 in grinder and an apple.
@awesome220 Thank you for sharing your superior biological knowledge and research into metabolism with me. I appreciate it. You're right and I'm wrong. Weight loss is purely about counting calories, hormones have nothing to do with it, diabetics don't become emaciated and die without insulin, and there's never been a poor population that became obese despite living on less than 2000 calories per day. None of that ever happened. You're clearly correct, and I thank you.
@awesome220 By the way, I just read a study in which researchers put obese mice on a calorie-restricted diet for a month. At the end of the month, the mice had lost lean body tissue and GAINED body fat. They lost weight but were fatter. Get the concept? Simply restricting calories didn't make them leaner.
@awesome220 Yes, I see. The calories in / calories out equation is sancrosanct, based on the laws of physics and indisputable ... but only in humans. For mice, the laws of physics and biology suddenly change. Like I said, this is like talking to a child.
@awesome220 Go to YouTube, search 'Taubes science weightloss,' watch the lecture on the actual science, pay close attention to the sections about populations where food intake was low, malnutrition was rampant, yet a high proportion of adults were obese. Then see if you still believe it's all about simply counting calories.
@awesome220 Really, all the scientists disagree? That must be news to the many scientists whose articles I've read, whom I've interviewed or corresponded with, who agree very much with Taubes. As for him being "just a journalist," he's a journalist with a degree in physics from Harvard and a master's in engineering from Stanford. He's won the science writer of the year award twice. Try coming up with something besides a weak appeal to authority to prove your point.
@FatHeadMovie many of them do. the majority. sugar is bad for you, no doubt, but taube's takes his reasoning too far. and he doesn't have a masters in engineering.
@awesome220 This is like talking to a child. Yes, he has a master's in aerospace engineering and another in journalism. Look it up. And by the way, science has nothing to do with majority opinion. Good scientists know that. The majority opinion has been wrong countless times.
Appeals to authority or majority opinions are weak debating tactics, but if you want to keep embarrassing yourself by using them, please continue.
@awesome220 If you're more psychologically comfortable deciding you already know how metabolism and fat accumulation work than with looking into the actual science, be my guest. I really don't care if you choose to stick with your current beliefs.
@awesome220 Well, that explains the fabulous success rate of the diets they've designed. Nearly 2% lose weight and keep it off -- can't argue with those credentials! Like I said, if you want to simply declare that already know how metabolism works and avoid looking into the science for yourself, I don't really care.
@FatHeadMovie you thesis is completely wrong. plenty of people eat carbs and sugar and are thin. it's because they simply don't eat more than they need. you even admitted it, so i am not even sure what point you are trying to make
@awesome220 Yes, because plenty of people are what they call "metabolically gifted," which means they don't become insulin resistant. Most people don't fall into that category. Plenty of people smoke two packs per day and never develop lung cancer, so I guess to your way of thinking, that proves smoking isn't a cause of lung cancer.
@awesome220 If you consider having one of the highest rates of heart disease and diabetes in the world, "healthy," okay, yeah. You might want to do some research on this stuff before popping off.
@awesome220 Watch the lecture, or don't. Read Taubes' book, or don't. I don't really care. You're clearly more concerned with maintaining your current beliefs and declaring them correct than with actually looking into the science and perhaps accidentally learning something, so like I said, be my guest.
I'd like to thank you for this video. There are a lot of complicated nutritional issues involved here, but you've managed to distill them into a presentation that is both easy to understand and interesting. I feel confident in sending this video to friends and family who don't currently know much about nutrition, but who would like to make some better eating choices.
The "MyPyramid" food pyramid is absolute rubbish. "Milk" is not a food-group. "Grains" are way too dominant. Fat is required for daily living, and it's not even listed on the pyramid. The three fundamental food groups ARE: carbohydrates, proteins, and fats. This "MyPyramid" looks like it was designed to cater primarily to people who are too ignorant to understand basic nutritional principles, and perhaps also to the country's own over-subsidized industries (who probably sponsored the thing).
@FatHeadMovie Your explanation of the difference between observational studies and clinical studies, how to institute proper controls, and the difference between correlation and causation, was so well articulated and lucid that I wish I had you as a science instructor when I was going through school. In all my years of schooling, all the way through post graduate work, I never encountered a clearer and engaging presentation of these basic scientific principles as you have explained them.
@FatHeadMovie I absolutely adore how you used the analogy from the British advertisement about saturated fat against itself. That advertisement demonstrates how stupid the media and the government think we, in the general public, are. Their analogy doesn't even merit the critical thinking skills of a child, and I am glad you treated it with the sarcasm and condescension that such an advertisement deserves. Great job!
@inuyashaspet Agreed. I had a doctor in California tell me my cholesterol was too high ... that's with total cholesterol 203, HDL of 61 and triglycerices of 70. He should have been congratulating me.
@FatHeadMovie My most recent lipid profile reported total cholesterol at 220, HDL at 84, and triglycerides at 32. I was advised to go on a low-fat diet because my LDL was 130. It's amazing how my doctor and I could interpret the same 4 numbers in such radically opposite ways.
@Sinisterene "This is the Austrian Economics of health/hutrition" ...and that's what makes it both awesome and correct. --An austrian economist paleo man
@Nickonomics101 Austrian Economics? The school that selectively publishes studies of government failure and ignores market failure? The school whose ideas exist in a fantasy world and are only promoted because they favor the rich and corporate? You think a free market is a market where corporations are free to fuck anyone over? There isn't any evidence in its favor, only a history of utter failure.
Again, a great piece of work, Tom, and I've already added a link to this to my "rotation" of information I provide to others who are interested in the paleo diet or similar. Thanks for your work on this!
Fantastic lecture! The fact that you have not yet been crowned emperor of the world proves that there is still a lot of ignorance and false propaganda to overcome.
@FatHeadMovie :) Yes, I know. I have libertarian leanings myself. It's interesting how many libertarians there are among folks eating ancestral-type diets. I'd like to think we have better BS detectors.
@FatHeadMovie :) Yes, I know. I have libertarian leanings myself. It's interesting how many libertarians there are among folks eating ancestral-type diets. I'd like to think we have better BS detectors.
@fuzzwarmy That is, of course, my preferred explanation. It's interesting, though: in a book about genetics titled The 10,000 Year Explosion, the authors contend that after grain farming led to city life and governments, being docile in the face of authority became an evolutionary advantage. In hunting tribes, there usually was no clear authority.
@FatHeadMovie It's true that docility serves modern civilization well, but does it serve humans well biologically and in terms of longer run survival? I haven't read the book, but my guess is that rapid evolution and social necessity will be two of the last bastions of scientists who oppose ancestral-type nutrition when they finally realize that folks like you have refuted all their other arguments.
@fuzzwarmy It would depend on the definition of survival. The foods that are killing us - -grains, sugars, etc. -- kill us after our reproductive years, so natural selection doesn't remove grain-eaters from the gene pool.
@FatHeadMovie Sure that's what gave us civilization and massive population growth. I was thinking beyond the story up to now; the long term future--continuing physical degeneration including shrinking brain size, declines in sexual potency and fertility requiring more and more viagra-type drugs and fertility clinics, extinction of high quality food sources like large wild game animals and fish and wild and heirloom plant foods and even bees, loss of topsoil, environmental degradation, etc.
Tom my coach let me borrow this movie and I watched it 3 times over the weekend before I had to give it back! lol phenomenal work! very informative and well done, I need to get my own copy :)
this be damn right
tcozzol 3 weeks ago
I would just like to say Thank You to Tom for FINALLY putting a film out there that shows the truth about grains and saturated fat. I have been eating a high fat low carb primal diet for about a year now and over the course of that year I have combated all of the sat fat haters with by telling them "i dont know how.... but its just better for you". I refer them to literature but everyone is too damn lazy to read it! Now all I have to say is "here watch Fat Head!!"
thanks again Tom!!
buteredtoast72 3 weeks ago
Just watched FatHead over on Hulu. Great job!! Do you have food logs available? :)
DanaReale 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@DanaReale The food log is linked on the FatHead-movie blog, left sidebar under Helpful Links.
FatHeadMovie 1 month ago
Comment removed
lpr5269 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@lpr5269 if this is true i should have gained weight, i have been 120lbs since i was 15, i am now 20 i eat well over 2000 calories a day, and i do absolutely no exercise. i've done this for 5 years gained no weight i just proved that calories aren't everything it's what your body does with extra energy, mine burns it or throws it away.
usrevenge 2 months ago 3
@usrevenge What does that prove? I do not understand what you are talking about. If you ate 10,000 calories a day and no weight gain, OK great you have something. Otherwise, you are just managing your calories like everybody else and saying that the reason you are not gaining weight is because of limiting carbs. I am simply saying that you have to moderate all macronutrients to achieve long term weight control.
lpr5269 2 months ago
@lpr5269 It is virtually impossible to sufficiently run at a caloric deficit. If you can, however, it's called starvation. The body will find a natural energy equilibrium. If you exercise excessively you only get hungrier because your body needs to replenish the energy used. Calories have a context. What type of food you eat is far more important than how much you eat. Hormones play a huge part in health and fitness. It's really about controling hormonal responses...particularly insulin.
spalmer718 1 month ago
@lpr5269 You my good sir are in fact made of bologna. I switched to a high fat low carb diet and while maintaining the same caloric intake, I lost 51 pounds in 2.5 months. So.... Riddle me that
buteredtoast72 3 weeks ago
I made an observation once, I have run out of oil and decided to fry some eggs with real butter. the butter melted and became oily. Then sometime later(while trying to start eating 'healthy') I used a 'manufactured butter' as soon as i placed it on the hot pan it just fizzled and disappeared. i wonder how many chemicals were used to produce the butter. Also i only use palmoil to prepare meals now, and i can instantly see a difference in my health
social05 3 months ago in playlist More videos from FatHeadMovie
I wish someone would do this with global warming.
rofyle 4 months ago 3
@rofyle -- Google these terms: robert carter global warming
A Youtube link to his speech should appear near the top.
FatHeadMovie 4 months ago 3
@rofyle check out "not evil, just wrong". They debunk most of the "science" regarding man-made global warming.
dogsmumm 2 months ago
@rofyle They did.. its called "Cool it"
sutherrc 1 month ago
Comment removed
Nyamzz01 4 months ago in playlist diet stuff
was just curious, in your research did you happen to come across a population of cradle to grave vegans who are thriving?
memthrows 4 months ago
@memthrows No, I'm not aware of any vegan populations. There are vegans within populations, of course, but no vegan populations per se that I've come across.
FatHeadMovie 4 months ago
I say the hell with people who refuse to learn, let them get fat, become diabetic and die, more meat for me.
vincentninja68 6 months ago 3
@vincentninja68 Could not have said it better!
aetcm8 3 months ago
Its sad that this only has 45,000 views. Most everything that explains any falsified spoon feed misinformation in a proper scientific context seems to be dismissed so fast online anymore.
Maybe if you edited the speech a bit and yelled "get er done" every few minutes it would get more views :(
TeamVortex 6 months ago 3
i started my "no sugar all fat(and veggies) diet" about 8 months ago. That was after i watched your movie. I weigh 120 lbs now n_n and feel great(im 5'3''). I also had a rash that would develop after i ate certain foods and i found out that the sugar content in bread and pasta was making me have serious outbreaks. NOW i never get it! Thankyou for your information, it REALLY helped. I dont even get sweet tooths anymore, i just never crave sugar. n_____n<33333 FatHeadMovie
ryuu901 7 months ago 2
Tom you are awesome, i show this to as many people as i can!
AMRAP20 7 months ago
Technically sugar is a low GI food (but high in fructose). Steel-milled whole wheat is high GI, but stone ground and sprouted whole wheat bread aren't, but I'd just as soon give up the wheat.
epiphoney 8 months ago
5:10 sounds a lot like religious people
GovnaBuckingham 9 months ago
Can you post a download link to the PowerPoint Slide Show? If you could that would be great.
techbeast34 9 months ago
I live outside of America and I can't watch Fat Head on Hulu. I really want to watch this movie but I have no access to netflicks or any extra money to spend on purchasing a dvd.
Keon994 10 months ago
@Keon994 If you want the DVD bad enough, give up a purchase for a month or so (don't buy coffee, or something you don't need) so you can afford it. Otherwise, just stop eating carbs, and stop eating "low fat." Read the Atkins diet book at your local library and follow that.
skpicky 9 months ago
I went to Hulu.com and saw that they had the Fat Head Documentary available! So I zipped on over and then noticed the comments section. Boy is your film makin' a WHOLE bunch of people so angry they're foaming at the mouth! You can even see it in their comments.
They misquote the facts and then state how stupid you are. Too bad. I'd imagine most of 'em probably have a picture of your face taped to a dartboard in their garage.
Well, anyway. Thank you for the film. It's been a big help.
KanineKruizer 10 months ago 29
@KanineKruizer Aw, I knew that would happen when I made the film. There are some people in the world who think McDonald's is Darth Vader. I don't worry about what misinformed people with anger issues say about me. As I told my daughter when some doofus at school started making fun of her, "Honey, you're smart. Smart people don't concern themselves with what idiots think." She got that.
FatHeadMovie 10 months ago 28
That vile enemy: spuriousness!
WickerVideos 11 months ago
Hopefully government science will catch up with you within the next few years..........well we can hope.
Keep spreading the word.
stvbabes 11 months ago
I loved the experiment you did with your daughters, and I like how you explain the different between good science and bad science--it isn't a quick 'whatever' sort of explanation.
And on a different note, thank you for 'FatHead'. Like any documentary, I feel like I should be taking it with a grain of salt. You know...is all the right information there--not that I'm an expert (but sometimes it's hard to know who to trust). All the same, I loved it and I love how you explain yourself.
WingedCurses 11 months ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
MAC DONALD PROPAGANDA
grivs 11 months ago
@grivs Geez ... I wrote the whole speech myself, but can't remember the section where I referred to McDonald's. Can you please point it out to me?
FatHeadMovie 11 months ago 23
@FatHeadMovie I think grivs is referring to Dr. Mac Donald, who relentlessly criticizes bad science and foolish dietary habits, notoriously zapping the ignorant with his Protein-Powered Laser Pistol of Truth. Or maybe he was an advocate of proper spelling who was easily annoyed by incoherent sentence fragments. Only grivs knows for sure, and he's unable to properly articulate whatever it is he's thinking.
uncamilty 10 months ago
Well done with the science bit; I recently did a video on Psychology, saying the same thing.
Scientific experiments should attempt to DISPROVE the theory. Finding confirmatory evidence is easy, for almost any hypothesis; if you aren't specifically looking for black swans, then your experiment is worthless.
Aurini 11 months ago
Interestingly enough, while it may not be animal fat PER SE that causes clogged arteries, this may not necessarily be true today, because a lot of cattle are fed grains instead of grass, which may cause THEIR arteries to be clogged and causes excessive fat in the cow which may clog OUR arteries, because we also eat what the animal ate. The reason chickens aren't affected by grain feeding is because most birds have evolved to eat them.
rpmangin 1 year ago
@rpmangin Excess fat in beef doesn't clog our arteries. Fat is not what causes arteries to become clogged. Analyze the fatty acids in beef, nearly half is monosaturated and most of what's left will raise your HDL. When humans hunted wild, leaner animals, they ate the fatty organs preferentially.
Many birds, chickens included, are omnivores. They'll eat grains, but also worms and bugs whenever they can get their little beaks on them.
FatHeadMovie 1 year ago 5
@FatHeadMovie Still, you have to admit that the way meat is produced has changed so much in the last 50 years that the meat, especially the red meat, we eat today isn't exactly the same as the meat our ancestors ate before cooking was invented.
rpmangin 1 year ago
@rpmangin Absolutely. We should be feeding livestock their natural diets, not force-feeding them corn. The way someone (can't remember exactly who) I heard interviewed described the health effects was this: grain-fed meat won't hurt you, but you're not deriving the full benefits you'd get from grass-fed meat.
Cooking did provide an evolutionary benefit, however, and it's been around for probably 200,000 years or more, so I don't have anything against cooking food.
FatHeadMovie 1 year ago 4
@FatHeadMovie Unfortunately, the sad reality is, if all livestock were fed their natural diets, a lot of meat would get to be too expensive for the average consumer, due to too many people in the world. It's getting that way even with the force-fed cattle. As I've said before, if the whole world strictly went on a true all-natural diet of raw fruits, raw vegetables, and raw meat (or cooked meat and vegetables, assuming they could be eaten raw anyways), 90% of the world would starve to death.
rpmangin 1 year ago
Comment removed
StabbyRaccoon 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rpmangin
So does that mean stop grazing cattle in fields? It seems to me that if you have a field and want some beef you should raise some cattle on the field.
StabbyRaccoon 11 months ago
Hey I just watched the documentary on netflix. My wife and I got a kick out of it. Thanks for making it.
P.S.-It created an intense craving for McD's. We don't go that often so right after watching your movie we went there lol.
smttysmth02gt 1 year ago
ScienceDaily (Jan. 19, 2009) It's predicted that by 2010 India's pop. will suffer approx. 60% of the world's heart disease. Today, a team of 25 scientists from 4 countries provides a clue to why: 1% of the world's population carries a mutation almost guaranteed to lead to heart problems and most of these come from the Indian subcontinent, where the mutation reaches a frequency of 4%.
ALucas73 1 year ago
There is one group of Indians with a genetic predisposition to develop heart disease. It's not diet related but this may be influencing the total numbers.
ALucas73 1 year ago
People literally think atheromas are made of the fats you swallow. The Brit PSAs don't help at all.
SigmaXVirus 1 year ago
@SigmaXVirus Nope, that perpetuated the misconception.
FatHeadMovie 1 year ago
@FatHeadMovie I meant "the PSAs didn't help with this problem"... a figure of speech
SigmaXVirus 1 year ago
@SigmaXVirus what they getclogged with then, isnt the more probably reason they get clogged due to excessive homocysteine or something?
dionstrezlecki 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Horrible speech, by trying to make it fun and edgy you oversimplified it and dumbed it down.
zoquibax 1 year ago
Here is the opening paragraph of the article.
New research published in The Lancet finds that India will bear 60% of the world's heart disease burden in the next two years. In addition, researchers have determined that compared to people in other developed countries, the average age of patients with heart disease is lower among Indian people and Indians are more likely to have types of heart disease that lead to worse outcomes.
hornetdave 1 year ago
3w (dot) medicalnewstoday (dot) com articles 105302 (dot) php
Just to paraphrase it says 60% of ALL heart disease will occur in India over the next two years. Doesn't sound very low to me!
hornetdave 1 year ago
@hornetdave It's certainly not low. The ignoramus claiming otherwise was just trying to egg me on.
FatHeadMovie 1 year ago
Comment removed
hornetdave 1 year ago
Indians have a high rate of heart disease and diabetes?? Where is your source? Remember, I am stalking about people from India, not Native Americans.
Also, what group of peolple were obese despite eating less than 2000 calories a day?
So how exactly does your diet work? All meat and vegetables with no fruit and no grains?
awesome220 1 year ago
@awesome220 You're correct, I simply made up the statement that people in India have high rates of heart disease and diabetes. I admit it here and now. Same for the obese populations who live on little food. As you've surmised, I don't actually put any research into my documentaries, speeches, or blog posts. I thank you for sharing your superior knowledge of biology, endocrinology, metabolism, and Gary Taubes' resume. Your beliefs are 100% correct and I urge to keep them.
FatHeadMovie 1 year ago
@FatHeadMovie So you can't provide one source to back up the claim about heart disease in India?
awesome220 1 year ago
@awesome220 Like I said, I don't actually do any research. I just make stuff up, as you've surmised. Do a little googling and I'm sure you'll instantly confirm your belief that heart disease, obesity and diabetes are low in India. Since you believe it, it has to be true. If only I'd known someone with your deep understanding of biochemistry before producing my documentary and my speech, I could've saved myself a lot of trouble.
FatHeadMovie 1 year ago
@FatHeadMovie Oh yes, the good old "Google it for yourself and find out!"
You made a claim that Indians suffer high rates of diabetes and heart disease. It is up to you, the claimant, to provide proof. All I am asking for is one link to a study that support your claim.
awesome220 1 year ago
@awesome220 1) Can't post links. 2) This isn't a court, and I don't really care what you believe or don't believe. 3) If you do happen to care about actual facts, you can do your own Google searches. 4) You obviously already know everything there is to know about biology, metabolism, and heart disease and diabetes rates in India, so you don't need any sources.
FatHeadMovie 1 year ago
@FatHeadMovie Then message me a link.
awesome220 1 year ago
@awesome220 You seem to believe I feel some need to prove it to you. I don't. If you want to learn about rates of heart disease and diabetes in India, you can easily look them up. If you aren't that motivated or curious, that's your problem.
FatHeadMovie 1 year ago
@FatHeadMovie You made the claim. So provide support for your claim.
awesome220 1 year ago
@awesome220 Like I said, the claim was pure drivel, all made up. I do no research whatsoever and simply make up everything in my speeches and posts. So instead of troubling yourself with spending, say, 20 seconds doing Google research, I urge you to cease your relentless open-mindedness and try very hard to simply accept that you already know everything. I know it'll be difficult, but try, man, try.
FatHeadMovie 1 year ago
@FatHeadMovie You made the claim. I am waiting for evidence for you claim. If it only takes 20 seconds to retreive, then it should be no trouble for you.
awesome220 1 year ago
@awesome220 You're right. I suddenly feel an overwhelming need and obligation to convince you. Please sit there staring at your screen, and I'll provide you with sources as soon as I can. Do not leave your chair until you hear back from me.
FatHeadMovie 1 year ago
@FatHeadMovie I just googled it. Heart disease and diabetes are far far lower in India than in America or Europe.
awesome220 1 year ago
If carbs and so evil than why are so many chinese and japanese and indians, who eat white rice on a daily basis, thinner and healthier than americansky?
awesome220 1 year ago
@awesome220 Their thinness is partly hereditary; Asians have higher levels of osteoporosis because their bones are thinner. Thin-boned people also tend to be more resistant to becoming obese.
As for the carbs, they actually consume fewer of them than a typical American. They eat rice, yes. We consume rice, pasta, french fries, donuts, sodas, frappucinos, bagels, breakfast cereals, deli sandwiches, Snickers bars, Little Debbie Snack Cakes and ice cream.
FatHeadMovie 1 year ago
@FatHeadMovie they consume fewer?
Hmmm,,,,,eating LESS seems to be the determining factor, hein?
awesome220 1 year ago
@awesome220 If only it were as simple as that. By eating fewer carbs and (especially) a lot less fructose, they are less likely to become insulin resistant and therefore less likely to go into fat-accumulation mode. It's not just about how much you eat; it's about the hormonal changes produced by what you eat. If hormones signal your body to store more fat, yes, you will likely eat more because you're storing more calories and therefore running short of fuel for your cells.
FatHeadMovie 1 year ago
@FatHeadMovie how about the nutrition professor who lost 27 pounds eating mainly junk food?
awesome220 1 year ago
@awesome220 He averaged 173 carbohydrates per day, which is less than half of what a typical American consumes. By his own estimation, he reduced his carb intake by over 100 grams per day on the "junk" diet.
His food log is online, so I ran the numbers. "Mainly junk food" was media hype. He ate many meals consisting of steak, chicken, protein shakes, etc., then tossed in some donuts and twinkies. It wasn't a junk food diet, it was a diet that included some junk food.
FatHeadMovie 1 year ago
@FatHeadMovie So on one hand you say sugar and carbs are evil, but when I point out about this nutrition professor you counter by saying that he simply was not eating too many carbs, which is exactly what I have been saying. You can eat anything: as long as you less calories than you need, you will lose weight!
awesome220 1 year ago
@awesome220 No, I'm saying if you restrict calories AND keep your insulin low enough to allow your body to burn fat, you'll lose weight. Professor Haub ate twinkies and donuts but still consumed a LOW number of carbohydrates while restricting calories, same as I did in my documentary. That means his insulin likely dropped. If insulin stays high, your body reacts to calorie restriction by slowing your metabolism, eliminating or reducing the calorie deficit. That's why so many diets fail.
FatHeadMovie 1 year ago
@FatHeadMovie Right, he restricted CALORIES
If i eat 100% sugar everyday, but only eat 500 calories I will lose weight.
awesome220 1 year ago
@awesome220 Duh, do you think? First off, that's 125 carbohydrates, second, your body would suck up every calorie so there'd be no need for insulin to convert carbohydrates to fat and store them, which is what happens on high-carb diets, and third, you'd also become sick and lose muscle mass. That has zip to do with anything in my speech.
FatHeadMovie 1 year ago
@FatHeadMovie So you admit that to lose weight, you need to eat less calories?
awesome220 1 year ago
@awesome220 Dude, watch the lecture. You're not grasping the concept. You are assuming your metabolism stays relatively constant, therefore it's all about counting calories. You metabolism can vary wildly depending on signals from your hormones. Food affects those hormones. Simply restrict calories without a change in hormonal balance, and your metabolism can slow way down, so you stop losing weight. So no, it's not as simple as eating fewer calories.
FatHeadMovie 1 year ago
@FatHeadMovie No, you are wrong. There may be mulitple ways to lsoe weight, but eating less calories will result in weight loss.
I didn't see any fat people in the concentration camps.
awesome220 1 year ago
@awesome220 You didn't see any healthy people in concentration camps either. If you starve people, duh, they'll lose weight. They'll lose muscle mass and eventually digest their own organs, too. That isn't the point. The question is whether you can burn body fat without sacrificing your muscles and wrecking your metabolism simply by restricting calories without changing your hormonal balance, and the answer is no. That's why people who starve themselves on diets usually end up fatter.
FatHeadMovie 1 year ago
@FatHeadMovie you don't have to starve yourself; you can just eat less. instead of eating and 8 inch grinder and bag of chips for lunch, you can eat a 6 in grinder and an apple.
awesome220 1 year ago
@awesome220 Thank you for sharing your superior biological knowledge and research into metabolism with me. I appreciate it. You're right and I'm wrong. Weight loss is purely about counting calories, hormones have nothing to do with it, diabetics don't become emaciated and die without insulin, and there's never been a poor population that became obese despite living on less than 2000 calories per day. None of that ever happened. You're clearly correct, and I thank you.
FatHeadMovie 1 year ago
@awesome220 By the way, I just read a study in which researchers put obese mice on a calorie-restricted diet for a month. At the end of the month, the mice had lost lean body tissue and GAINED body fat. They lost weight but were fatter. Get the concept? Simply restricting calories didn't make them leaner.
FatHeadMovie 1 year ago
@FatHeadMovie There are also studies that show the opposite. Not to mention, those are mice. I don't know about you, but I am a human.
awesome220 1 year ago
@awesome220 Yes, I see. The calories in / calories out equation is sancrosanct, based on the laws of physics and indisputable ... but only in humans. For mice, the laws of physics and biology suddenly change. Like I said, this is like talking to a child.
FatHeadMovie 1 year ago
@awesome220 Go to YouTube, search 'Taubes science weightloss,' watch the lecture on the actual science, pay close attention to the sections about populations where food intake was low, malnutrition was rampant, yet a high proportion of adults were obese. Then see if you still believe it's all about simply counting calories.
FatHeadMovie 1 year ago
@FatHeadMovie then why do all scientists disagree with taubes, who is a journalist?
awesome220 1 year ago
@awesome220 Really, all the scientists disagree? That must be news to the many scientists whose articles I've read, whom I've interviewed or corresponded with, who agree very much with Taubes. As for him being "just a journalist," he's a journalist with a degree in physics from Harvard and a master's in engineering from Stanford. He's won the science writer of the year award twice. Try coming up with something besides a weak appeal to authority to prove your point.
FatHeadMovie 1 year ago
@FatHeadMovie many of them do. the majority. sugar is bad for you, no doubt, but taube's takes his reasoning too far. and he doesn't have a masters in engineering.
awesome220 1 year ago
@awesome220 This is like talking to a child. Yes, he has a master's in aerospace engineering and another in journalism. Look it up. And by the way, science has nothing to do with majority opinion. Good scientists know that. The majority opinion has been wrong countless times.
Appeals to authority or majority opinions are weak debating tactics, but if you want to keep embarrassing yourself by using them, please continue.
FatHeadMovie 1 year ago
@awesome220 If you're more psychologically comfortable deciding you already know how metabolism and fat accumulation work than with looking into the actual science, be my guest. I really don't care if you choose to stick with your current beliefs.
FatHeadMovie 1 year ago
@FatHeadMovie not just my beliefs, but the beliefs of the majority of nutrition scientists
awesome220 1 year ago
@awesome220 Well, that explains the fabulous success rate of the diets they've designed. Nearly 2% lose weight and keep it off -- can't argue with those credentials! Like I said, if you want to simply declare that already know how metabolism works and avoid looking into the science for yourself, I don't really care.
FatHeadMovie 1 year ago
@FatHeadMovie you thesis is completely wrong. plenty of people eat carbs and sugar and are thin. it's because they simply don't eat more than they need. you even admitted it, so i am not even sure what point you are trying to make
awesome220 1 year ago
@awesome220 Yes, because plenty of people are what they call "metabolically gifted," which means they don't become insulin resistant. Most people don't fall into that category. Plenty of people smoke two packs per day and never develop lung cancer, so I guess to your way of thinking, that proves smoking isn't a cause of lung cancer.
FatHeadMovie 1 year ago
@FatHeadMovie So how do devout hindus who don't eat meat and eat rice and lentils and such be healthy? or are they really unhealthy?
awesome220 1 year ago
@awesome220 If you consider having one of the highest rates of heart disease and diabetes in the world, "healthy," okay, yeah. You might want to do some research on this stuff before popping off.
FatHeadMovie 1 year ago
@awesome220 Watch the lecture, or don't. Read Taubes' book, or don't. I don't really care. You're clearly more concerned with maintaining your current beliefs and declaring them correct than with actually looking into the science and perhaps accidentally learning something, so like I said, be my guest.
FatHeadMovie 1 year ago
I'd like to thank you for this video. There are a lot of complicated nutritional issues involved here, but you've managed to distill them into a presentation that is both easy to understand and interesting. I feel confident in sending this video to friends and family who don't currently know much about nutrition, but who would like to make some better eating choices.
Jforsyth89 1 year ago 4
@Jforsyth89
Stop believing this bullshit. The fact that it's simple and easy is because it's dumb and stupid
ethositachi 1 year ago
@ethositachi
You're a vegetarian, aren't you?
Sully1111 1 year ago
@ethositachi What an uncalled insult. Now do a favor to everyone and go inform yourself a little more.
Enzan55 1 year ago
The "MyPyramid" food pyramid is absolute rubbish. "Milk" is not a food-group. "Grains" are way too dominant. Fat is required for daily living, and it's not even listed on the pyramid. The three fundamental food groups ARE: carbohydrates, proteins, and fats. This "MyPyramid" looks like it was designed to cater primarily to people who are too ignorant to understand basic nutritional principles, and perhaps also to the country's own over-subsidized industries (who probably sponsored the thing).
Te3k 1 year ago 2
@FatHeadMovie Your explanation of the difference between observational studies and clinical studies, how to institute proper controls, and the difference between correlation and causation, was so well articulated and lucid that I wish I had you as a science instructor when I was going through school. In all my years of schooling, all the way through post graduate work, I never encountered a clearer and engaging presentation of these basic scientific principles as you have explained them.
alphacause 1 year ago
@FatHeadMovie I absolutely adore how you used the analogy from the British advertisement about saturated fat against itself. That advertisement demonstrates how stupid the media and the government think we, in the general public, are. Their analogy doesn't even merit the critical thinking skills of a child, and I am glad you treated it with the sarcasm and condescension that such an advertisement deserves. Great job!
alphacause 1 year ago
This must be said and you are doing and excellent job keep up the good work !!!!! May all the Gods be with you :P
ThegnThrand 1 year ago
It's so sad to know that you're more well-informed about nutrition and health than so many Phd's and MD's out there.
inuyashaspet 1 year ago 31
@inuyashaspet Agreed. I had a doctor in California tell me my cholesterol was too high ... that's with total cholesterol 203, HDL of 61 and triglycerices of 70. He should have been congratulating me.
FatHeadMovie 1 year ago
@FatHeadMovie My most recent lipid profile reported total cholesterol at 220, HDL at 84, and triglycerides at 32. I was advised to go on a low-fat diet because my LDL was 130. It's amazing how my doctor and I could interpret the same 4 numbers in such radically opposite ways.
Jforsyth89 1 year ago
@Jforsyth89 Amazing and also a shame. You understand how to interpret the numbers, but the supposed expert on your health doesn't.
FatHeadMovie 1 year ago
@inuyashaspet This is the Austrian Economics of health/nutrition
Sinisterene 10 months ago
@Sinisterene "This is the Austrian Economics of health/hutrition" ...and that's what makes it both awesome and correct. --An austrian economist paleo man
Nickonomics101 7 months ago 4
@Nickonomics101 Austrian Economics? The school that selectively publishes studies of government failure and ignores market failure? The school whose ideas exist in a fantasy world and are only promoted because they favor the rich and corporate? You think a free market is a market where corporations are free to fuck anyone over? There isn't any evidence in its favor, only a history of utter failure.
SketchyBack 5 months ago
@SketchyBack You're so right, because the further a society gets from free markets the better off the average man is. Right?
flyoverjoe 5 months ago
This was a very good presentation.
dahlenu 1 year ago
Brilliant presentation!!!
Goinglite 1 year ago
Again, a great piece of work, Tom, and I've already added a link to this to my "rotation" of information I provide to others who are interested in the paleo diet or similar. Thanks for your work on this!
gcbragg 1 year ago
Fantastic lecture! The fact that you have not yet been crowned emperor of the world proves that there is still a lot of ignorance and false propaganda to overcome.
fuzzwarmy 1 year ago
@fuzzwarmy I appreciate that, but being emperor would clash with my libertarianism. I had to revolt against myself.
FatHeadMovie 1 year ago
@FatHeadMovie :) Yes, I know. I have libertarian leanings myself. It's interesting how many libertarians there are among folks eating ancestral-type diets. I'd like to think we have better BS detectors.
fuzzwarmy 1 year ago
@FatHeadMovie :) Yes, I know. I have libertarian leanings myself. It's interesting how many libertarians there are among folks eating ancestral-type diets. I'd like to think we have better BS detectors.
fuzzwarmy 1 year ago
@fuzzwarmy That is, of course, my preferred explanation. It's interesting, though: in a book about genetics titled The 10,000 Year Explosion, the authors contend that after grain farming led to city life and governments, being docile in the face of authority became an evolutionary advantage. In hunting tribes, there usually was no clear authority.
FatHeadMovie 1 year ago
@FatHeadMovie Wow... that's a really interesting coincidence. I guess my medium carb diet coincides with my centrism then XD lol.
XxPnuemaxX 1 year ago
@FatHeadMovie It's true that docility serves modern civilization well, but does it serve humans well biologically and in terms of longer run survival? I haven't read the book, but my guess is that rapid evolution and social necessity will be two of the last bastions of scientists who oppose ancestral-type nutrition when they finally realize that folks like you have refuted all their other arguments.
fuzzwarmy 1 year ago
@fuzzwarmy It would depend on the definition of survival. The foods that are killing us - -grains, sugars, etc. -- kill us after our reproductive years, so natural selection doesn't remove grain-eaters from the gene pool.
FatHeadMovie 1 year ago
@FatHeadMovie Sure that's what gave us civilization and massive population growth. I was thinking beyond the story up to now; the long term future--continuing physical degeneration including shrinking brain size, declines in sexual potency and fertility requiring more and more viagra-type drugs and fertility clinics, extinction of high quality food sources like large wild game animals and fish and wild and heirloom plant foods and even bees, loss of topsoil, environmental degradation, etc.
fuzzwarmy 1 year ago
Count De Monet: Sir, the peasants are revolting!
King Louis: You said it. They stink on ice.
F5ur9TRa 1 year ago
Great stuff thank you so much for making this available.
buddahbeast 1 year ago
@buddahbeast My pleasure.
FatHeadMovie 1 year ago
Well done!!
dre857 1 year ago
Tom my coach let me borrow this movie and I watched it 3 times over the weekend before I had to give it back! lol phenomenal work! very informative and well done, I need to get my own copy :)
digismash 1 year ago
@digismash Three times? I'm flattered, thanks!
FatHeadMovie 1 year ago
Comment removed
AcePro 1 year ago
@AcePro I appreciate the compliment very much.
FatHeadMovie 1 year ago
@FatHeadMovie Wow I thought I had posted that comment twice and deleted it on accident, my mistake =p
AcePro 1 year ago
You have a very distinctive voice. It was a little eerie to hear that voice from the documentary doing a live speech. :)
nine9s 1 year ago
@nine9s All that echo in the room no doubt adds to the eerie effect.
FatHeadMovie 1 year ago
WELL DONE TOM!!!! LOVING YOUR VIDEOS!!! PLEASE CHECK OUT MY FRIEND ZOE HARCOMBE'S VIDEOS TOO!!! I TOLD HER ABOUT YOURS!!! GREETINGS FROM LONDON..
mokugin81 1 year ago
@mokugin81 I'll give 'em a look, thanks.
FatHeadMovie 1 year ago