"You're a big-fat-meany!" I overhear my six-year-old yelling at his older brother. Somehow, their peaceful game of chess has deteriorated into a power struggle. My nine-year-old is quick to fire back: "Yeah, we'll you're a big-fat-meany too! And who cares if we never play again!"
They're in the living room, and I'm in the kitchen, separating chicken bones and gristle from meat to use for soup, so I holler to them: "hey guys, please work it out without name-calling." After a short silence, I hear their voice tones start to soften. Still, I feel a mix of sadness and horror. While neither of them is overweight, studies suggest that a growing number of their peers are, or will be. And no doubt many of these kids face a lifetime of ridicule and derision as labels like "big," "fat," and the like become some of the most powerful put-downs.
The power of such insults is rooted in a culture that has declared war on obesity. To be sure, there are good reasons to think this war is "just." As is well-known, the past several decades has witnessed a increasing number of U.S. citizens, including children, carrying considerably more poundage on their bodies. By some counts, as many as two-thirds of adult Americans are "overweight," and nearly a third of them could be classified as "obese." Given the multiple ways that excessive heft can compromise one's physical well being, and given the financial toll obesity takes on our nation's health care system, it's not surprising that institutions from various corners of our society -- from the medical establishment to the federal government -- have joined forces to combat this perceived evil. Beyond institutions, ordinary folks from all walks of life concur that weight-loss is a cause worth fighting for. Indeed, the necessity of downsizing our bodies may be the one thing upon which a nation that is otherwise deeply divided can readily agree.
I share many Americans' concern about the growing girth of our population. However, I question some of the presuppositions that have turned this concern into a culture-wide crusade. In previous blogs, for example, I have challenged the all-too-facile assumptions that health = thinness and that fitness comes in only one slender size. Here, I want to ask whether the bellicose approach to resolving the obesity "crisis" is, in the long run, an effective strategy.
A combative approach is apparent both in the explicit language used to describe the war on obesity, and in the implicit notion this battle conveys, namely, that fat is the enemy. The trouble with this approach is the trouble with most wars: it exacerbates the very conflicts it is supposed to resolve, while it fails to address the underlying conditions that give rise to the problems in the first place.
The war-like mentality that pervades America's "battle with the bulge" adds fuel to the fire by fostering an antagonistic attitude towards the body. Most weight-loss diets, for example, foster this antagonism. Based on the principle of regulating your appetite, they instruct you to eat certain foods, in restricted amounts, at particular times, in a calculated manner--regardless of what your body wants and/or needs. Some fitness programs reinforce this regimented approach by establishing standard measures of time, distance, and/or calories burned as the markers of a "successful" workout. Unfortunately, this externally-driven, controlling approach to exercise and eating erodes our internal capacity to listen to the cues our bodies send us (i.e., feelings of hunger, satiety, a need for movement, etc.), which only reinforces the dissociation many people who struggle with their weight already experience.
Another problem with treating fat (and the urge to eat) as the "enemy" is that it leads to the demonization of fat people. This compounds the sense of shame many large-bodied people already feel and may try to escape through unhealthy eating patterns. Indeed, the health problems that some people who are obese experience may be exacerbated by the self-loathing they feel as the result of living in a culture that views them not only as unhealthy but immoral. In the U.S. today, and in white-western culture in particular, the "fat" body is the antithesis of the "good" body. And the presumed virtue of the "good" (read: thin) body is not merely a matter of health or aesthetics. Rather, the tight and trim form has come to symbolize an inner state of self-control -- a quality akin to saintliness in a world that often feels like it's spinning out of control.
Yet even a cursory glance at history reveals the relativity of the thin body's "goodness" (and, correspondingly, of the fat body's "badness"). Just over a hundred years ago, plump was considered a desirable, healthy, attractive form, while thinness was seen as scraggily and even sickly. In fact, if one considers late nineteenth-century female body ideals, one would be forced to conclude that, like happiness and beauty, fitness comes in more than one size.
In addition to perpetuating the assumptions and dynamics that tacitly fuel the obesity epidemic, a war-like approach to resolving this crisis fails to adequately address this problem at its roots. Insofar as the "war on obesity" focuses primarily on making people thinner, it runs the risk of ignoring why so many have gained weight in the first place.
There are both social and personal forces that fuel the trend towards bigness, and these forces are intimately connected. On a societal level, we live in an era where cheap, nutritionally-bankrupt, calorie-dense food is abundant. As food journalist Michael Pollan has pointed out (see In Defense of Food), this abundance, itself unprecedented in human history, is deeply rooted in conventional agricultural methods. These methods center on the production of a few basic crops (i.e., corn, wheat, soy), which are grown in large monocultures (wreaking havoc on the planet) and manufactured into "edible substances" (i.e., items that have been so heavily processed that they no longer resemble real food -- think Twinkies). With the help of additives, fats, sugars, and artificial flavors, these food-like products contain tastes that, according to former FDA Commissioner David Kessler, can be highly addictive (see The End of Overeating, as well as a recent study that underscores the addictive quality of fatty foods (http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nn.2519.html)
The social and personal roots of the obesity epidemic intersect in this commercially-driven system of production, since for many people, fast, cheap, highly processed food functions as a "drug of choice." At least temporarily, eating such food can make your problems disappear. For a few fleeting moments, chewing and swallowing a candy bar (or a bag of chips, box of cookies, order of fries, bowl of macaroni and cheese, etc.), can numb the pain, provide immediate comfort, and generate instant pleasure. Such a fix is not only quick and easily available; it's also legal. No one has ever been arrested for possession of Oreos, gummy bears, or Cheetos. Yet for a lot of folks, these edible substances function in a manner similar to narcotics: they take the edge off of life. And like most addictions, food cravings make certain companies very rich.
At a time when a historic number of people are out of work; when our political divisions seem deeper than the Grand Canyon; when the deteriorating state of our ecosystems mirrors the worsening health of our minds and bodies; when we're still spending billions fighting wars abroad even though public schools at home are grossly under-funded; when social ills like racism, sexism, and homophobia continue to infect our relationships and communities; when the pressures of balancing work and family engender feelings of depression and isolation, leaving fewer citizens who care about the common good...in short, in a time of great national stress, is it any wonder that more and more people are turning to food as a way to check out?
There are other factors (beyond those I have already mentioned) that contribute to a culture that is making us fatter. These range from our sedentary life styles, to the relatively higher cost of healthy (i.e., unprocessed) foods, to our mindless eating habits, to our fast-paced work days that leave little time for cooking and savoring nutritious meals. All of these (and more) contribute to an overarching pattern that disconnects our "minds" from our "bodies," makes food a viable means of escape, and turns "fat" into an opponent that must be destroyed for us to be saved.
If we are to move in the direction of greater overall health as a nation -- including our physical, mental, and spiritual well being--we need to dig deeper than the current "war on obesity" encourages us to do. We need to infuse this battle with some loving-kindness by understanding the complex causes of obesity and by envisioning a broader, more peaceful path to the wholeness we seek. Such a path would require us to rethink our relationship to the earth (i.e., how food is produced), to our appetites (i.e. what it feels like to be hungry or full), and to our suffering (i.e., how we handle the stresses and pain of our lives). Ultimately, it would encourage us to see that the real enemy is not fat, but fear, apathy, and ignorance.
David Wallinga, M.D.: Challenging the Obesity System
Rajiv Narayan: Lose 10 Pounds Instantly
However, if you pair feed animals with a genetic predisposition to obesity they become obese. If you let them eat all they want they become even bigger. Appetite is under strict genetic control. People who tell us to "listen to the cues our bodies send us" don't understand that part of the genetic predisposition is a huge appetite.
The other part of genetic predisposition is reduced fat burning or thermogenesis. The modern environment interacts with these genetic factors and produces obesity. It is a pipe dream to think we can ignore the genetic side of the coin and alter our environment sufficiently to stop this interaction.
There are many reasons why someone becomes obese, and a significant one has to do with how you feel about yourself, way deep down. Somewhere along life's path, something triggered the beginning of an unhealthy sense of self, and over time this causes a cascading effect. With an impaired self image, most every negative happenstance winds up underscoring this altered view of self.
This can and does happen to everyone to one degree or another, but with multiple manifestations. Those who react to it by indulging in excessive comfort food, get heavy and that becomes obvious. For others, the manifestation isn't physical, so it's not as apparent. But along the way, many of need to deal with something that keeps us from expressing our full potential.
If you're obese and were given today your ideal body, there's a good chance that in a year or two, it would again be obese. The body doesn't do this -- your self concept does.
To reinvent yourself, begin by learning who/what you are apart from a physical form. Get whole inside. Then you'll be empowered to change the physical stuff.
My 2 cents.
jgarma
www.GarmaOnHealth.com
Thin can be healthy or unhealthy
Overweight can be fairly healthy or unhealthy.
Obese is NEVER healthy. Never. I've seen plenty of thin and overweight 90 year olds, but no obese ones.
The big issue is children. We can sugar coat it all we want, but so many parents are abusing their children by letting them eat whatever they want.
Do you think putting fat people in jail would solve the obesity problem?
No?
Then why do we continue to put drug users in jail and expect that to work?
Certainly, anything is more easily achieved with a light heart. Meaning, feeling good about yourself irrespective of your outward situation is key to implementing change. Nonetheless, however you wish to frame it psychologically/emotionally, if you're too heavy (and you know what that is for you), be kind enough to yourself to find a way lose weight.
It's not a superficial, look good situation, but a quality of life issue. This current generation of kids may wind up being the first that is unhealthier than their parents, which is what has catalyzed Michelle Obama's Let's Move campaign: http://www.garmaonhealth.com/2010/02/lets-move/”
Good luck to her and to us.
That's useless. In my case, I found I had a food "addiction". Eating certain foods, like a donut made me "feel good", exactly like smoking a cigarette makes a cigarette addict feel good. Frame this as an "addiction".
The way to lose weight is to fight the addiction. It needs to be fought in many cases exactly like a cigarette smoker's addiction to smoking. From a person who has kicked both addictions, kicking the food addiction is a *lot* easier, once it is properly framed. So...
1.) Frame it as an addiction.
2.) Get rid of HFCS in case it's aggravating the problem. Don't use it. Get rid of it. Don't know if it's a factor or not.
http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/
3.) Something that has helped me is isometric exercise. It's not the best exercise, but you can incorporate it into your daily activities, especially at work. Flex those arms, and legs. Suck in that stomach, when walking to the car, or into the supermarket. All of it is isometric exercise.
I hope that my weight loss is not from illness. It is much greater than I had expected.
The problem I had with the post was "be kind enough to yourself to find a way lose weight."
Come up with a suggestion. People need answers. And I'm aware that one answer doesn't fit all.
Thus, when studies suggest that people with lower bmis have more heart attacks, the headline is "Study shows we don't understand connection between obesity and heart disease." When studies show people in the normal bmi range are more likely do die from cancer or infection, we gloss over it. Fat is immoral, therefore it must be unhealthy, so we can justify our judgments.
I believe the study lmo913 was referring to doesn't say that people with lower BMIs have more heart attacks, but that they are twice as likely to die from heart attacks. And here's your citation: http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/2010/03/healthy_weight_people_twice_as_likely_as_the_obese.html
Though the reason isn't understood, it seems that obesity has a protective property against heart disease.
Peace,
Shannon
The thing is, and can't be sugar-coated so to speak, is that obesity is unhealthy. And obviously so. Thin people can disguise unhealthiness. We aren't talking about a few extra pounds, but obesity. The demonization of really fat people is no different than the demonization of other unhealthy lifestyles: smokers are demonized, drunkards are demonized, drug users are demonized, promiscuity is demonized, etc.
Because there is so much obesity in the US, attempts are made to make everyone OK with it. It's not OK, the many illnesses and diseases as a result of obesity are devastating to not only the person and their family, but to the country's health. Affordable healthcare will not be attainable with no preventative health measures.
When corporations run a country this is what happens. A healthy populace means less profit for them.
You say drunkards are demonized, but not the extent that fat people are in this country. And nobody is proposing the draconian measures against drinking that are being proposed to combat obesity.
And obesity does not equal unhealthy. You can be obese and healthy, if you make positive lifestyle choices. Odds are you'll lose some weight, but not enough to get out of the Obese BMI. But taking positive steps toward your health (especially with regards to physical activity) will go along way toward preserving your health.
Peace,
Shannon
I'm not trying to excuse the prevailing attitude toward the obese, but I do want to point out they are not the only ones who are discriminated against.
I can't imagine how bad it would be to be an obese smoker. Yikes.
a) Behavior A is no worse than Behavior B.
b) You can have behavior A and not suffer the consequence X.
These are both false and/or meaningless.
Regarding your comparisons of obesity and alcoholism you need to keep in mind 2 things: your data is static, and you choose to ignore the rate of change of obesity-related deaths and societal costs compared to rates of change in alcohol-related deaths and costs. You will discover that in the last 15 years obesity, obesity-related deaths, and obesity-related health costs in this country has skyrocketed and shows no signs of stopping. You cannot say the same about alcoholism. Therefore the comparison fails.
But it also fails because of the vague, subjective claim of relative "demonization" of the two conditions. How is "demonization" measured? Is there a metric you are using?
As for the "you can be obese and healthy" argument, I counter you with the law of large numbers. There is always that smoker who seems to live forever, smoking cigarettes well into his 90s. William Burroughs spent 50 years of his life addicted to heroin, but he still lived to be 83. But these statistical outliers don't counter the law of large numbers. In fact, you may find that there are mitigating factors that explain "healthy obesity" in some people, and you simply cannot rationalize the condition society-wide based on the existence of outlying data points.
No wonder there's so much hatred toward fatties.
Peace,
Shannon
Atchka.com
FierceFatties.com
Thanks for asking. The answer is simple and would require very little change from our current efforts. Part of it is in your comment, "I do think obesity is a public health issue." The best way I've heard it described is that if you were to take the current War on Obesity and apply it to our attempts to reduce smoking, then you would have written something like, "I do think yellow teeth is a public health issue."
Obesity is a symptom, not a cause. Actually, I should say that significant weight gain is the symptom. It can be a symptom of poor lifestyle, yes, but also of disease (PCOS and insulin resistance) or psychological distress or lack of sleep or just plain stress, or any combination of those factors. Dr. Arya Sharma has a great summation of the origins of obesity here: http://www.drsharma.ca/etiological-assessment-of-obesity.html
It's a very complex issue.
But the solution is simple... stop focusing on obesity. All the messages we're getting about improving our lifestyles by eating well and exercising are positive ones. But when you tie that message to obesity, then you oversimplify the issue and you give thin people with poor lifestyles a free pass.
Furthermore, if your metric for success is reducing society's weight, then you're going to be disappointed in all of these efforts.
(continued)
You want to improve people's health? Cool, I'm all for it.
You want to get us all to the Normal BMI range? You're on your own.
You hit the nail on the head, though... this "epidemic" is more about an assault on our aesthetic ideals than any threat to our national health. The health canard is simply there to provide a smokescreen for bigotry and hatred.
They make fun of fat people and attack fat people for their own good. Well, we've seen what happens when you use hatred "for their own good" and it's never good. People who are shamed for being fat are LESS likely to pursue healthy lifestyles. They are LESS likely to feel comfortable working out in public because they face ridicule. They are LESS likely to feel comfortable working out in private because they are ashamed of how their bodies look and feel when they move them. And physical fitness (not thinness) is the key to health.
It is an important issue and I'm glad that the discussion (with all it's hatred and misinformation) is becoming so mainstream. Maybe we can finally start injecting some honesty into the debate.
Peace,
Shannon
Atchka.com
FierceFatties.com
The food industry has a huge role to play in exponentially increasing obesity throughout the world, but we are not prisoners of the food industry. Our purchasing habits dictate the state of the food industry. Large conglomerates are now rushing to become organic, because of social pressure -- Walmart being one.
Yes, there should be variations of bodies, but overweight for the size of the body is unhealthy. Period. Dr. Oz is a great role model. He puts his patients in the truth tube and minces no words about the state of their health. Yet he's gentle and kind. As he says, he would not be doing his job or helping anyone if he minced words. Many would say he's being mean to fat people.
By the way I struggle to keep my weight down as well, but blaming the food industry or whining that people are being mean to me are not going to prevent the onset of chronic diseases, if I don't control my weight with exercise and healthy eating habits.
Eating healthy and exercising are daily goals for me -- often not accomplished, but accomplished more than many, I think.
It's not super complex, or inter-connected, it's very simple. Calories in = calories out (stay the same weight) calories in>calories out (gain weight). Calories in