Childhood obesity: the deconstruction

Over at the Rocky Mountain News, Paul Campos has posted a brilliant response to some of the hyped-up points made in the Washington Post's current (and ridiculously overblown) series on childhood obesity--and issued a challenge. A $10,000 challenge, to be exact, to the lead author of the 2005 study that predicts a two-to-five-year drop in life expectancy "unless aggressive action manages to reverse obesity rates."

Campos rebuts some of the war-on-childhood-obesity's usual points with elegance and clarity. For instance, to put some of the current hyperbole in context, he points out, "Ever since public health records began to be compiled in America in the mid-19th century, the following statement has always been true: Today's children are both larger and healthier, on average, than those of a generation ago."

One of the most commonly repeated predictions by fervent generals in the war on childhood obesity is that because children are fatter today, their lives will be shorter. What could possibly strike more fear into a parent's heart? I think this prediction is at the heart of the current hype, and clearly Campos agrees, because his challenge to the author of the 2005 study involves a more thorough examination of the data:

If, at any decennial census going forward, obesity rates have risen or remained the same, and life expectancy in America has declined, I'll pay [the author] $10,000. If we don't get any thinner but life expectancy has risen, he'll pay me the same sum.

I look forward to Round 2.

A little question of semantics

When I showed my daughter the NYT piece on the fatosphere the other day, her only comment was, "But you're not fat."

What she meant, of course, was "You're not that fat."

Put me next to, say, Ellen Pompano, and I certainly look fat. Put me next to someone who weighs 400 pounds and I don't look fat. Or I don't look as fat.

Fat and thin are words that exist mainly in relation to each other. At the extremes of each range we can certainly identify them correctly. But in the vast middle, our judgment becomes much more relative.

Semantics plays a role in the current anti-obesity hysteria. For starters, the definitions and rules changed in 1998, when the cutoff for overweight was lowered from 27.3 to 25 on the BMI chart. Bingo--instant overnight overweight for millions.

As Paul Campos has pointed out in The New Republic, the way we talk about fat and thin, oveweight and obese and underweight, is something of a shell game.

Fat qua fat is not the problem. Because, after all, we all have fat on our bodies. What's more, we need fat. Without it, your body doesn't work well and your brain sure as hell doesn't work right. I've seen the evidence up close and personal, and it's not pretty.

Think about it the next time you find yourself saying, "But I'm so fat!" or the next time you look in the mirror. Come back and tell me how it changed your perception.

The war on fat, in someone else's words

I won't say where I found this, but this post was written in response to someone raising the question of whether, perhaps, obesity might not be a completely evil phenomenon:

"Obesity is unhealthy. There is no doubt about it. It increases the risk of high blood pressure, heart disease, diabetes (and subsequent problems with high blood pressure, kidney disease, and major foot problems, including multiple surgeries and amputations), stroke (partly secondary to the high blood pressure), arthritis (from the sheer weight on the joints), plus other medical and psychological problems. When it is also combined with smoking, which it often is, there is even more disaster.

It is a huge expense to society to have so many obese people with their medical problems. It is a preventable disease. People just need to eat less and exercise. They need more self-control.

To flaunt it as a nonpreventable problem is just not true. What has changed during the past 50 years is that people eat more and move less. Obese people want respect for their eating problems and acceptance. I think that as long as other people are able to control themselves and discipline themselves to exercise, then there will be contempt for those that cannot.

Also, I think that a lot of people resent the high cost of obesity. Health care would be a lot less if people just didn't eat double bacon cheeseburgers, fries and a Coke, then go out for ice cream or beer, and then sit and watch TV (or drink more beer, which has a lot of calories.)

Personally, I resent so much money being spent for accomodations and gastric stapling/bypass surgery because people want to gorge themselves constantly with fatty food!"

It's rare to see so many misconceptions and such hatred right out there in the open. Next you'll be telling us that fat people are responsible for global warming.

Personally, I resent the millions of dollars being wasted on ill-directed and ineffective "wellness" campaigns in schools and offices. And I resent the hell out of the ignorant assumptions behind your words.

So I'm going to exercise tremendous self-restraint (and you know how hard self-restraint is for a fat person!) and recommend that you educate yourself rather than simply parrot the anti-obesity rhetoric of our time. Start by reading Gina Kolata's new book, Rethinking Thin. Kolata is a well-respected New York Times science writer. She is also, if it matters to you--and I think it does--a thin person.

Then I'd suggest reading a little Paul Campos--he's also a thin person, though formerly fat. Then read this post at Kate Harding's fantastic blog.

Then come back and tell me how you feel about fat.