Fat as metaphor

Meowser's comment on an earlier post got me thinking. She wrote:
"Whenever I see/hear anyone complaining about fat people walking around, or at the gym (where we're just piddling around and slowing things down for the buff crowd, you see, no fat person could possibly be getting an actual workout there), or dancing, or riding around on bikes, it totally gives the lie to the "unhealthy! unhealthy! diabetes! diabetes!" meme. Because people like that would totally rather we stay home and stuff our fat faces where they can't see us, rather than actually move around. I believe my mother cares about my health. I don't think some random stranger who doesn't know me really gives a damn if I'm "healthy" or not, and in fact, it would really piss them off no end if I had numbers proving that, apart from my weight, there is nothing wrong with me.'

I've been thinking as fat-as-a-symbol, the way it's most often used: as a metaphor for imperialism, greed, overconsumption, etc. Meowser's comment makes me wonder if it's also used as a symbol for questioning authority. Do fat people stick in the craw of the entitled thin establishment because we're not following the rules? Because we aren't doing whatever it takes to get thin, and stay thin? Do we piss them off because we're perceived as thumbing our noses at the authority figures?

I find it interesting that in a time of such extreme individualism, this is one area where being quirky, or not fitting the mold, is perceived as being unacceptable. We've become such a tolerant society in so many other ways. Though I know we have a long way to go on racism, still we've come a long way. When I was in college I was at the center of a near race riot, caused in part by my dating a black man and by the reactions of both whites and blacks on campus. That wouldn't happen today, not even in the deep south. The kind of anti-Semitism I bumped into as a child wouldn't be tolerated today, either.

So what is it about fat that gets people so riled up? Maybe fat people challenge, by our very existence, the marketing economy we can't escape. We're not buying into the pills, creams, products, etc. that are supposed to make us thin. (Though God knows many of us *have* bought those things, in the millions.) Maybe it's that fat people are perceived as not buying into the marketing imperatives about aesthetics, which are used to sell everything to everyone, from cars to cereal. We're not good consumers in the broadest sense of the word.

I wonder.

And what's the point, anyway?

This whole you-can't-be-fat-and-fit, fat-is-always-unhealthy thing is really bugging me. Because really, what's the point?

The debate is beginning to remind me of my second-grade friend Linda Read, who had just learned in catechism that people like me--i.e., Jews--were going to burn in hell forever. And because she was my friend, she tried to convert me, of course, to spare me the suffering she knew was coming my way someday and forever.

Now let's say that guys like Walter Willett and Paul Raeburn (see previous post) are like my friend Linda. They really really believe that people like me--i.e., fat people--are going to health hell. Either we're going to get terrible diseases or we're just going to keel over at a tender age. (I once listened in astonishment to a neighbor talking about a certain fat actress on TV: "I can't even stand to watch her because I just know she's going to drop dead at any second!") So they set out to convert us.

But they know that it's not that simple. They know, for instance, that for most people dieting does not work, for a variety of reasons. Now here's where I really don't get it. Because you'd think the next tactic would be to encourage positive behaviors like fitness. Some fat people will lose weight that way; some won't. But we do know that being fit is a good thing no matter what your weight.

So why, then, do we get drivel like Raeburn's piece in Scientific American on how you can't be fat and fit?

Is the point to to shame us out of getting out there on our bikes and exercising? (I thought the photo at the front of that piece was exploitative.) Is the point to make us throw up our hands and say, "Well, no reason to bother exercising, since the only thing that counts is losing weight."

It feels so disingenuous. It feels like the point, such as it is, is fat bashing. So what if you're a triathlete--if you weigh 300 pounds then you can't possibly be healthy, so don't even bother.

And this bothers me far more than the other kind of health crusaders, the ones who are really like my friend Linda Read. Who worry for our fat souls, as it were, and want to save us.

These guys just want us to go to health hell already. And that makes me mad.

Because he said so, dammit

This article by Paul Raeburn in the September issue of Scientific American, starts out well but quickly goes belly-up. So to speak. Raeburn's burning question--"Can fat be fit?"--is presented as genuine, but it's clear from the second graf that he's got an agenda rather than a genuine curiosity about the question.

He pays lip service to Katherine Flegal's research showing that being overweight (BMI between 25 and 30) may actually lower your risk of mortality. Flegal's drawn a lotta flak since her study came out, of course, and no doubt there's more to understand. But Raeburn doesn't try too hard. He sets Flegal up as a straw man and knocks her down fast with other research that seems less than compelling. He quotes Walter Willett of the Harvard School of Public Health, and writes, "Willett’s research has identified profound advantages to keeping weight down—even below the so-called healthy levels."

Here we have it once more, ladies and gentlemen, the mantra of so much that's being written these days about fat and thin. Flegal's research doesn't count because, as we all know, the lower your weight the better.

I can hear Willett saying, "Fat is too bad for you! [foot stomp] Why? Because I said so!"

I don't know Paul Raeburn's writing, but I do expect better than this paltry effort from Scientific American.

Sandy Szwarc is my hero

If you'd like to know why, see her blog post today on disease vectors at http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2007/08/disease-vectors.html.

Finally, someone with some common sense about fat

And that would be a research team from Penn State University, warning that parents should not deprive their children of fat, despite all the hysteria about obesity.

"The authors said, 'Sufficient fat must be included in the diet for children to support normal growth and development.'

The authors said dietary fat recommendations are higher for children aged four to 18 (25 to 35% of energy) compared with adults (20 to 35% of energy)."

Gee, I could have told you that.

Interestingly, the only news articles I could find on this were published across the pond, in the UK. Hmm. Could there be a reason why this isn't being plastered across CNN?

Read all about it yourself at http://www.inthenews.co.uk/thebigissue/news/health/psu-researcher-sufficient-fat-needed-$1123529$1123528.htm. (Sorry, this remote blogging thing doesn't let me post links. Bummer. Anyone out there know how to fix it?)

Interesting new report on anorexia

In the August 7 issue of the International Journal of Eating Disorders, researchers at Rouen University Hospital in France describe a woman with anorexia who was found to have a brain lesion. When the lesion was treated, the anorexia went away, supporting the notion that AN is indeed a disorder with strong roots in the physical brain.

I'm blogging remotely today, so I can't post a direct link, but you can see the study abstract at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=17683096&itool=pubmed_DocSum.

Not for the humor impaired . . .

. . . but very, very funny is this spoof from the folks who bring you The Onion. (Bragging moment: My neighbor's son is the managing editor of The Onion. Go Pete!)



*Thanks, Kay, for the link!

And now for something beautiful

My amazing husband, Jamie Young, has a simply gorgeous photo featured on this website. It's called "In a Dream" and was taken at Chimney Bluffs State Park in New York.

You gotta love a guy who can do this.

Not just docked but dumped

As a follow-up to my earlier post about being docked for being overweight, now it turns out you can be turned down for health insurance altogether, as reported in this article from the weekly alternative newspaper in my town. And wouldn't ya know it--my new employer's health insurer is Humana. (And so far they, um, are living up to their reputation.)

Please tell me this isn't happening . . .

At least one health insurer (and probably others) will actually be docking your paycheck if your BMI is over 30, starting in 2009.

The article's headline reads "Being Unhealthy Could Cost You--Money," but of course it should have read "Being Fat Can Cost You--Money." And that's on top of it costing you so many other things--the right to adopt a child, a seat on an airplane, a job. . . .

I wish I were a lawyer so I could start researching all the ways in which this is illegal. A nice big lawsuit--maybe a class action suit--might nip this repulsive idea in the bud.




**Thanks to BFB for posting on this first.

And another Leaden Fork award goes to . . .

Apple, for the revolting tagline promoting the new iMac:

You can't be too thin. Or too powerful.

News flash to Steve Jobs and his marketing department: You sure as hell can be too thin. Your hair can fall out. You can be cold all the time. Your heart can slow down. You can become psychotic on the subject of food. In fact, you can be possessed by an illness so powerful that it actually causes you to violate the most basic human instinct: self-preservation. You can be so thin that you actually commit suicide by starving yourself, while in the grip of a delusion so powerful that neither reason nor logic nor love and empathy from others can touch it.

If you want to step inside the mind of someone who is too thin, read this. I hope you weep.


**Thanks to Cynthia for the link.

Leptin babies, redux

Now the New York Times has taken up the idea of lacing baby formula with leptin to create children who are permanently unable to become fat.

I posted about this back in May, when the research on this first appeared. And I haven't changed my mind. Haven't we done enough damage by our relentless pursuit of thinness? Do we really think creating a generation of children whose bodies are permanently and deliberately made inefficient is a step forward? What if those children should find themselves in a situation where they need some nutritional reserves? What if they develop anorexia? Imagine the hell of trying to re-feed a child who is physically unable to gain weight. And what about when those children grow old, at a time in life when being "overweight" is correlated with having the lowest mortality risks? Maybe thin won't look so hot when it's a life--or death--sentence.

Maybe someday we'll stop confusing aesthetics with health. Yeah, right. And maybe someday I'll be president of the United States.

Another step toward mental health parity

From an e-alert sent out by the Eating Disorders Coalition (EDC):

Senate Agrees to Remove Barriers to Mental Health Coverage
Republican senators this morning removed language from the Senate's parity bill that would have made it more difficult for people with eating disorders to get treatment under many health insurance plans. The senators heard from business leaders and insurance companies, who last night decided to strike the preemption section of the Mental Health Parity Act of 2007 (S 558). Mental health advocates believed that the preemption clause would weaken the parity bill, leaving it up to state laws to determine whether eating disordhttp://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gifers would be covered.

"This is a huge step forward," said EDC President Kitty Westin. "It shows that our work is paying off. It appears that the Senate will vote on parity this afternoon before the summer recess begins. If that happens, then mental health parity will probably be on top of the House agenda in early September, when Congress returns."

The EDC has actively supported the House and Senate bills.


What happens next?

The Energy and Commerce Committee of the House of Representatives will probably vote in early September on the House parity bill, the Paul Wellstone Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act of 2007 (HR 1424).

What can you do?

If you are represented by a member who serves on this committee, call, write, or visit the member in August and explain why you think mental health parity is needed. Most members are spending much of August in their home districts, close to where you work or live.

HOUSE ENERGY & COMMERCE COMMITTEE

John D. Dingell (MI), Chairman

Democrats Republicans
Henry A. Waxman, CA Joe Barton, TX, Ranking Member
Edward J. Markey, MA Ralph M. Hall, TX
Rick Boucher, VA J. Dennis Hastert, IL
Edolphus Towns, NY Fred Upton, MI
Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ Cliff Stearns, FL
Bart Gordon, TN Nathan Deal, GA
Bobby L. Rush, IL Ed Whitfield, KY
Anna G. Eshoo, CA Barbara Cubin, WY
Bart Stupak, MI John Shimkus, IL
Eliot L. Engel, NY Heather Wilson, NM
Albert R. Wynn, MD John Shadegg, AZ
Gene Green, TX Charles W. "Chip" Pickering, MS
Diana DeGette, CO, Vice Chair Vito Fossella, NY
Lois Capps, CA Steve Buyer, IN
Mike Doyle, PA George Radanovich, CA
Jane Harman, CA Joseph R. Pitts, PA
Tom Allen, ME Mary Bono, CA
Jan Schakowsky, IL Greg Walden, OR
Hilda L. Solis, CA Lee Terry, NE
Charles A. Gonzalez, TX Mike Ferguson, NJ
Jay Inslee, WA Mike Rogers, MI
Tammy Baldwin, WI Sue Myrick, NC
Mike Ross, AR John Sullivan, OK
Darlene Hooley, OR Tim Murphy, PA
Anthony D. Weiner, NY Michael C. Burgess, TX
Jim Matheson, UT Marsha Blackburn, TN
G. K. Butterfield, NC
Charlie Melancon, LA
John Barrow, GA
Baron P. Hill, IN

No, it's bad news

A couple of days ago I posted about a new study out of Finland showing that anorexia is both--as the media are reporting it--"more common and more transient than previously believed." It took me a few days, but I finally figured out what's bugging me about this: the word transient.

Transient is something that happens for a hour or two and then disappears. Transient is fleeting, momentary, temporary.

Transient is not what happens when the demon of anorexia inhabits someone, body and mind and soul, for three or five or seven years. Transient is not losing most of your adolescence and some of your young adult years to a disease that's like an eclipse of the world-as-you-know-it.

Transient is when they close the street to do construction repairs. Transient is not when the street gets blown up. Even if it gets fixed five years later.

One thing I've learned from Sandy Szwarc is to look behind the rhetoric when it comes to studies and research findings. In this case, it's the interpretation, I suspect, that's bugging me. I don't know if it's the study's authors, or the media reporting it, or both. All I know is that anything that puts a child into hell for longer than an hour or two is not transient. Not at all.

Et tu, Dick Cavett?

My evolution from wannabe-thin-person to fat activist has been a long time coming. And I've lost a fair number of friends along the way, mostly people who for one reason or another could not, cannot accept the fact that people come in all shapes and sizes. Call it fatphobia, call it thin entitlement, call it self-loathing, call it prejudice of the rankest sort. Whatever you call it, it all boils down to judgmentalism.

So I don't know why Dick Cavett's rant in his New York Times blog should feel so especially and particularly mean-spirited and judgmental, but it does. Maybe because I used to like Cavett's TV show. He was witty in a way few other TV hosts were back then. So to have him tell the world now that, 1) it's not OK to be fat, and 2) fat people are "heavily larded folks", and 3) obesity is a "national tragedy," well, it feels like a betrayal.

It's the same feeling you get when you meet one of your favorite writers and he turns out to be an asshat. A nasty asshat who snarls at you, or--and this has happened to me--a sexist asshat who pats you on the head, calls you "doll," and asks for a cup of coffee.

Either way, it's like peeling off the jovial mask and seeing the hard face underneath.

And that's pretty much what Dick Cavett has done. To himself.

Mr. Cavett, you want to see ugly? Take a long, hard look in the mirror. Being thin does not mean being healthy. Being thin doesn't mean being attractive. Especially when such mean-spirited ugliness comes out of a thin person's mouth.

Anorexia: Bad news, good news, bad news

The bad news: A new study from Finland reportedly shows that anorexia is about twice as common as researchers have thought, affecting about 5 percent of the population rather than the 1 to 2 percent incidence rate generally quoted. According to the study's authors, this statistic includes mild and/or subclinical cases not usually counted—people (most of them women) who suffered from "mild symptoms" (the news reports don't say what these are).

The good news: According to this study, about 70 percent of anorexics recover. By contrast, the usual statistics say that about a third of anorexics recover fully, a third remain very ill, and another third stay right on the edge, living a sort of half-life. The mortality rate is 20 percent.

The bad news: That 70 percent of women who recover do it "by age 30," says the study. Given that the average of onset for these women is between 15 and 19, that means they're still sick for many years.

One thing I like about the study is that it describes the arc of recovery in a helpful way: "First, lost weight was regained and menstruation resumed. Attitudes about body shape and weight took a much longer time to resolve. The Finnish study was conducted among pairs of female twins. Twins with anorexia nervosa were compared to their healthy co-twins and to healthy women from the general population. Within five years from weight restoration, women with anorexia nervosa were virtually indistinguishable from their healthy co-twins in terms of psychological symptoms and self-esteem. However, learning to deal with body shape and weight related concerns took usually much longer, 5-10 years."

Still too long. But heartening to know that at least studies on anorexia are starting to funnel down the pipeline.

Maybe the best commentary on the "obesity is contagious" study

And this commentary was published in Poland, where I have no idea what the popular stance is on issues of fat and thin.

Whoever this writer is, s/he gets it and has fun with it. So read up.

Time to spread the love!

My fabulous web designer, Gale Petersen, made a PDF of the I Love My Body! pledge. Yay! So now you, too, can download and disseminate the pledge. Post it at work. Email it to teachers and Girls Scout troop leaders and guidance counselors and parents. It's so easy for us to hate ourselves and our bodies--let's spread a little love instead!

And if you do send the pledge around, I'd love to hear about your experiences with it.

Coming soon: Big Brother is watching you--eat

You've no doubt read about the this article in the New York Times by Gina Kolata, in which she covers the "fat is contagious" study published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

As a fellow journalist, I understand that Kolata had to cover the story. An obesity reporter's gotta cover what an obesity reporter's gotta cover (which is why I left the world of hard news long ago). But the tone of this article is a little too uncritical in my opinion, a little too quick to accept the study's dubious findings as valid research.

The quote that sent me reaching for my keyboard: When a close friend becomes obese, obesity may not look so bad. “You change your idea of what is an acceptable body type by looking at the people around you,” Dr. Christakis said.

In other words, size acceptance causes obesity.

I'm not even going to try to unpack all the assumptions here. Like, for instance,the fact that thin people can become fat, or that fat is always Bad with a capital B, or that it's better to be thin than to be comfortable with yourself, whatever your size is. And then of course there's the fact that these researchers don't seem to understand that--repeat after me, class--correlation does not equal causation.

Kolata certainly didn't try. She appears to have reported all this with a straight face, more or less, despite her considerable knowledge about obesity and scientific research and, well, bullshit.

Gina, Gina, Gina. I may have to take your book off my shelf.

Ellyn Satter's rules for eating

The incomparable Ellyn Satter has posted another newsletter to her website, this one (like the previous two) geared toward helping pregnant women figure out how to eat well despite the growing pressure to not gain much weight during pregnancy.

But these rules apply just as much to those of us who are not (and never will be again!) pregnant, so I'm taking the liberty of summing them up here. Then go read the whole thing yourself.

• Encourage each woman to be positive and reliable about taking care of herself with food
• Emphasize pleasure as a guiding principle in food selection
• Teach and support internal regulation of food intake
• Teach and model body trust

Great rules for mothers-to-be, both to help take care of themselves and to make sure that their attitudes toward food and body image are in good shape as they begin the process of raising the next generation.

If only more clinicians and researchers felt this way.