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

[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.