Today in fat hate

[sebastienne]

What is the "obesity crisis"? Every day I get more and more confused.

Today, I read an article in the Guardian that said "exercise protects against heart disease, type 2 diabetes, osteoperosis and high blood pressure". (Which I think has already been pretty well evidenced, to be honest, but it's still a useful thing to put out in the public domain, encouraging people to adopt healthier lifestyles.) But it said this in paragraph ten. The first nine paragraphs of the article? Maybe the headline alone will give you a clue - Exercise alone 'will not solve obesity crisis'.

So exercise has a positive effect on all of the illnesses commonly correlated with fat bodies, but doesn't erase those fat bodies, so isn't good enough. The mask is slipping; anti-obesity campaigners like to hide behind the idea that their determination to erase my body comes out of concern for my health, but here they show themselves encouraging dangerous behaviour (aggressive food restriction) over healthy behaviour (daily exercise) because the former has a perceived aesthetic benefit while the latter "only" protects against heart disease, diabetes, osteoperosis...

Well, fuck them. They want me to fight to be happy? Then I will fight and fuck and dance and laugh and scream and fight.







I'm just gonna keep calling it out when I see it, because I don't know what else I can do.

Comments

[strangerskies]

This is an awesome post! I'm sorry society is so utterly fail about bodies, and fat or otherwise unacceptable bodies in particular.

[happydork]

That is really stunningly stupid journalism. :(

But on the other hand, you are awesome, and body-positive, hypocrisy-fighting posts like these are a Jolly Good Thing.

[gavagai]

*hugs*

(Sorry, not terribly eloquent atm)

[erindubitably]

Hey - Erin from Edinburgh here. Morag linked me to your post after we discussed it. While I think you have good points, I read the article earlier today and thought it was more about pointing out what food manufacturers/marketers/producers are putting in our food today and how crazy it is that we're eating so many more calories than we used to. I think it is worth pointing out, for people who want to lose weight (for whatever personal reasons), that it's going to be really difficult to exercise enough to burn off all the stuff they stuff in our meals and snacks, and that there's no point in exercising oneself to exhaustion/unhealthiness.

*shrug* Again, a different reading from yours, and it was earlier today so I may be forgetting key phrases. But I think, just as it's not fair to victimize people for being fat, it's not fair to victimize those who would like to lose weight if they want to. And helping them do that in a reasonable way is not to be discouraged.

[sebastienne]

Absolutely, I don't think that anyone's body - or anyone's safe/sane/consensual choices about what they do with their own body - should be criticised or stigmatised in any way.

But that article was not about "how individuals can lose weight if that is what they choose to do". It was, like every other article, about the "obesity epidemic". Illustrated, of course, with a depersonalising headless fatty.

A large part of the bad science that feeds the idea of the "obesity epidemic" is the idea that fat=unhealthy, thin=healthy. A belief which is perpetuated even as studies (like the one described in this article) find that certain behaviours improve general health outcomes without causing weight loss.

So, even though this article may have given you greater insight into approaches to (temporary) weight loss, that's incidental to its main position in cultural discourse - that of shaming and stigmatising fat bodies, positioning them as self-evidently problematic, even in opposition to the evidence being reported.

[marrog]

...approaches to (temporary) weight loss

I'm interested in what you mean here. Reducing calorie consumption, exercising, etc etc - none of those things are in and of themselves going to lead to only temporary weight loss - if you're able (and not everyone is) to lose weight, and one of those methods works for you, it will continue to work for as long as you sustain it.

Fad diets don't not work because they 'don't work' - they do work in a literal, practical sense. They don't work because they're emotionally and mentally unsustainable for anyone with normal levels of self-control or respect for their own contentment. They don't work because they're depressing and soul-destroying - and consequently unsustainable. With a few exceptions (ie: the diets that will actually damage you if you stick at them) a change of diet or lifestyle will result in permanent weight loss if it's sustained.

The trick to health (whether thin or fat health), therefore, is finding the lifestyle changes that you personally can sustain permanently without wanting to kill yourself. Now, you know this. Which makes me wonder (without wanting to seem aggressive at all) what it is you're describing as 'temporary'.

[sebastienne]

it will continue to work for as long as you sustain it is exactly that point that I'm referring to when I say "temporary". Most people do not approach the kind of severe calorie restriction advocated in the article (reducing daily intake by ~33%) with the attitude of "this is a permanent life change" - they approach it with the attitiude of "a diet is a temporary intervention to cause me to lose weight". Which, as we both know, means temporary weight loss and then likely a higher baseline weight.

[marrog]

Well, that's true, but you're overlaying an assumption there. The act of reducing calorie consumption does not cause 'temporary weight loss'. The inevitable failure to maintain said reduction is what makes it temporary. I appreciate that this is a fine distinction, but when you're dealing with the murky world of privilege and subtle prejudice, you have to remember to make those little distinctions.

[sebastienne]

Hmm, I think this is a tricky one.. on the one hand, you are of course right, and scrupulous accuracy is important; on the other hand, I think it's equally important to fight the pervasive ideas that I laid out in my previous comment, and that can be fought by continually flagging up the concept of 'temporary weight loss' (cf "temporarily able-bodied").

I think that the answer is probably a couple of extra sentences that fully explain the issues, rather than using '(temporary)' as a modifier in the way that I did. I'll try to remember this for next time.

[marrog]

*Nod* Fair enough.

I think that for me, the idea that lifestyle changes that you can actually sustain - for anyone, fat, thin or otherwise - is also really important to promote - not least because that idea of sustainability is one that I think is vital to people's understanding that these fad diets are a waste of time from beginning to end. So I'm pretty sensitive about careful wording in that respect.

[raven]

I think you're lovely. In saying such sensible things, and also such lovely pictures. :)

[cannonsatdawn]

Keep on keeping on, please.

x

[chiasmata]

You do know that healthy diet - i.e. one that is not high in saturated fats and refined sugars - also protects against heart disease and type II diabetes at the very least, don't you? Because in this post you seem to be saying that exercise will solve it all, and it, er, doesn't. Diet plays a role, and so does genetics.

(Just to clarify, I don't at all dispute that 'fat' is often incorrectly used as shorthand for 'doesn't exercise and eats a diet high in saturated fat and refined sugar' and that the former does not necessarily mean the latter is the case, or that this article was primarily about weight-loss and not how to avoid getting ill. Just that you seem to be saying that decreasing the number of calories one is eating is bad and wrong when, if one had been consuming more fat and sugar than recommended and in the act of reducing calorific intake the amount of saturated fats and refined sugars goes down, I don't see that it doesn't contribute to a lower chance of developing various conditions and that this is automatically a bad thing.)

[sebastienne]

But blanket guidance like "fat people should reduce their calorie intake by 33%" does not lead to a simple reducation in consumption of sat fats or refined sugars. It leads to:

- skipping lunch in remorse for eating that chocolate bar

- saving up an entire day's "points" for alcohol

- significant cognitive impairment due to constant intrusive thoughts of food

- reduced ability to exercise due to physical exhaustion

(these are real things that people I know have gone through. If anyone wants to be taken off this list - even though you can't be identified - send me a message and I will.)

All that I'm drawing attention to in this post is the way in which a particular study - which found "exercise has health benefits, extreme food restriction causes weight loss" - was reported. The fact that any health benefits of extreme food restriction - if, indeed, the study found benefits from extreme restriction alone anyway - are not reported tells us about the true priorities of the discourse of which this article is a part.

[chiasmata]

But I didn't say it did necessarily or automatically lead to that! Please don't put words in my mouth. Re-read what I said: 'if one had been consuming more fat and sugar than recommended and in the act of reducing calorific intake the amount of saturated fats and refined sugars goes down, I don't see that it doesn't contribute to a lower chance of developing various conditions and that this is automatically a bad thing'. Consuming fewer calories doesn't necessarily or automatically lead to the negative consequences you describe, either, although I will not dispute that in some individuals it does.

There is a difference between "extreme food restriction" and a healthy diet.

You seem to gloss over certain important things in your post, and it's rather uncomfortable-making.

[sebastienne]

There is a difference between "extreme food restriction" and a healthy diet.

Yes, I know. The article advocates the former. And you brought up the fact that, in some cases, that 33% calorie reduction might lead to a healthier diet through the reduction in sat fats and refined sugars.

My point is that the possible incidental consequence which you have raised is not mentioned in the article I am discussing and is not a reason to advocate extreme calorie restriction anyway.

[chiasmata]

In your reading, yes, but not in mine. Both are equally valid.

Look, I'm going to stop this discussion here, because I don't think it's productive or changing anyone's mind.

[sebastienne]

I accept that you don't want to continue this discussion, and will not judge you for leaving the thread at this point.

But unless I've misunderstood your position quite drastically, I'm afraid I'm not happy to leave the discussion on a "both are equally valid".

For clarity's sake, I read you as saying that it's a good idea to advocate extreme calorie restriction because it might have the side effect of reducing the intake of saturated fat and refined sugars. Perhaps I've read you wrong, and we do just have different approaches to the issue at hand, in which case I'm sorry.

But I keep pushing the point, because I can't quite believe that's really what you're saying. If that's the outcome you want, why not just advocate the reduced intake of saturated fat and refined sugars? Why choose the option that approaches obliquely, through reference to calories, and causes so much collateral damage? It just makes no sense to me, and so I can't accept it as a "difference of opinion" point - I'm sure there must be something I'm missing that makes your argument make logical sense to you!

I am, however, happy to end the discussion here if you cannot see any way that our opinions could be reconciled.

[chiasmata]

No, restrict saturated fat and refined sugar intake (i.e. the highly-processed foods the article talks about), which might have the effect of decreasing an individual's calorific intake and will have every bit as much of a positive effect on health as exercise. The article seems (lazily) to be using calorific intake to mean intake of highly-processed foods.

Exercise isn't enough to protect against disease, so advocating a reduction in the amount of processed food is still advocating a healthier lifestyle, and not just the attempt to erase your body that you describe it as.

(And now I really am leaving it here.)

[sebastienne]

So, in fact, we both think that the article misrepresents things, and says "eat fewer calories!" when it should have a more nuanced message?

I have no idea how we've managed to get a flame war out of that agreement, but I'm sorry for my part in it!

[chiasmata]

Ha! (To the flame war, that is *grin*)

I'm sorry, too - I am thesis-ing madly, so am doubtless making even less sense than usual...

[annalytica]

There is a difference between "extreme food restriction" and a healthy diet.

Absolutely. And the article is recommending extreme food restriction.

[annalytica]

this article was primarily about weight-loss and not how to avoid getting ill.

Up until the final paragraph, the article is not just primarily, but *exclusively* about weight loss as a goal in it's own right.

you seem to be saying that decreasing the number of calories one is eating is bad and wrong

Reducing the number of calories one is eating is not bad per se. Reducing by *one third* - as the article recommends, and which sebastienne accurately describes as "aggressive" food restriction - I'd have to agree that would be a bad thing.

[annalytica]

Reducing the number of calories one is eating is not bad per se.

Actually, having just read sebastienne's comment, scratch that.

[sebastienne]

Well, it depends; someone can make an informed choice to reduce the number of calories they are eating for a variety of reasons. In general, though, I'd suggest that lots of people are choosing "calorie-reduction" when they should be choosing "less bread products" or "more green vvegetables" or "less refined sugar" or whatever (not that anyone has a duty to self-police in this way, but if they're looking for a particular health outcome..) But it's very difficult to make that informed choice when we're bombarded with the idea that calorie-reduction = good.

[chiasmata]

1. Yes, I know. The first nine paragraphs exclusively; the article as a whole (including that final paragraph) primarily. What's your point? :)

2. Does that rather depend on how many calories one is eating in the first place, and the period of time over which the restriction occurs? Reducing from 3000 to 2000 gradually over a period of weeks or months is scarcely aggressive, and as far as I remember, the article doesn't advocate immediate dramatic reductions.

[sebastienne]

1. My post was about the construction of the "obesity epidemic", and what exactly makes it an "epidemic" (ie huge-scale health problem) when the commonly-scaremongered negative health outcomes are repeatedly shown to correlate with diet and exercise rather than body type per se

2. As a result, your comment that calorie restriction for purposes of weight loss, as advocated in the article, could have the side-effect of positive health outcomes either reinforces my point, or is a pointless and offensive derail. I haven't decided what kind of mood I'm in yet this morning..

[chiasmata]

Um, all I did was describe the article - accurately - as being primarily about weight-loss. I was asking annalytica what her point was, because the first part of her comment seemed unnecessary. I know what your post is about!

[annalytica]

1. My point is that sebastienne's original post doesn't seem to me to be denying that a healthy diet does protects against illness. It's about a particular article which focuses entirely on the goal of weight loss, and on the comparative efficacy of exercise and food restriction in achieving that goal. Sebastienne claims that aggressive food restriction is dangerous, but doesn't say anything about the benefits of a healthy diet - because the author of the article doesn't say anything about that, either. The issue as I see it is not whether there are health benefits to changing your eating habits, but whether those health benefits are presented as being at all important in this article.

2. TBH I don't know what would be the physiological effects of going from 3000 to 2000 calories in a few weeks, assuming it were possible to do that in some kind of vacuum that protected you from the psychological effects. Perhaps if we regard the human body as a physical object with only physical needs, such a reduction would be healthy. But making calorie reduction - especially calorie reduction of that magnitude - a goal in itself has all kinds of psychological - and consequently physical - health problems, which I won't repeat because S has already done so.

[chiasmata]

1. And mine was that sebastienne seemed to be ignoring the benefits of a healthy diet. Healthy diet was not mentioned as a protective factor against illness in the article, and that is a weakness of it, in my opinion. Sebastienne also seemed to be ignoring its benefits, in my understanding of the matter because her reading of this article was different to mine.

2. I still know that, thank you :) I'm not saying it's necessarily a good idea, but nor will I agree that it's any more necessarily a bad idea.

As I said above, I'm going to stop replying to comments on this thread because it's getting frustrating and isn't at all productive.

[threadbarewolf.livejournal.com]

Thank you for writing this. I just read that article and got so confused and upset and flailed around, thinking, "I have two degrees! Why do I feel confused and upset about this?" And then I remembered that most things are irritating and wrong. But you're good.