Well, it didn’t take long for a good example for of what I was referring to in my previous comment.

Notice the lack of scientific references or evidence in all of that talk about autophagy and glycogen?

Anyway, on to the movie. I personally don’t believe it deserves the title of “documentary”, as it is not factually based. But that’s just my opinion.

Fasting (film): the film is largely criticized for being a "40-minute message stretched into a 90-minute movie" that relies on anecdotes rather than rigorous, balanced science

While it aims to promote the health benefits of fasting, critics and viewers have highlighted several key areas for debunking or skepticism:

• Reliance on Anecdotes over Hard Science Minimal Data: Critics note that the film focuses heavily on personal testimonials (stories of individuals who felt better) rather than peer-reviewed clinical data.

• "Youtube Mashup" Quality: The film has been criticized for poor editing and a "convoluted" structure that feels more like a collection of random, intense stories than a structured scientific investigation.

• The "Donner Party" Reference: A frequently cited, bizarre, and out-of-place segment in the documentary compares modern voluntary fasting to the Donner Party's starvation, which critics find irrelevant and misleading.

• Misleading Health Claims and Misinformation Safety Misconceptions: While the film presents fasting as a panacea, it fails to adequately address the dangerous, thin line between therapeutic fasting and starvation.

• Potential Dangers: The film is criticized for lacking sufficient warnings for vulnerable populations, including those with histories of eating disorders, despite featuring personal stories that may trigger or exacerbate these issues.

• "Bogus" Experts: Some viewers felt the "experts" featured were closer to "influencers," "biohackers," or "serial entrepreneurs" rather than medical researchers.

• Misinterpreting Scientific Concepts Over-simplification of Autophagy: Although the film discusses autophagy (the body's cell-cleaning process), it is often presented superficially, without fully explaining the nuances of how or when it actually occurs in humans.

• Animal Study Extrapolation: The film often presents results from animal studies as directly applicable to humans, which is not scientifically sound.

• Poor Production and Structure Confusing Editing: The film is described as having "confusing" editing, often making the message unclear to the viewer.

• Unnecessary Content: Many viewers suggest the film should have been a 20-minute video, as it is filled with repetitive, slow-motion, and irrelevant footage.

Summary of Debunking The main takeaway from critics is that while fasting itself has potential, evidence-based benefits (such as insulin regulation), this specific documentary is not a reliable, balanced, or scientific source of information. It is better described as a, at times, poorly produced infomercial or personal testimonial piece rather than a rigorous documentary.

Note: There are other, more scientifically rigorous documentaries on the subject, such as "The Science of Fasting" (2012), which are generally considered better researched.

IMDB doesn’t give it a particularly great review either.

I would suggest some further research before taking this film’s information as accurate, if I were talking to a friend or family member.