Weight of the Nation Serves Up More Fat-Shaming

LR_Marilyn_Wann_by_Mark_Richards.jpg
photo by Mark Richards
Marilyn Wann
Today our nation relapses into what might be our worst case of fat fearmongering yet. The current source of our infection with pseudoscientific sensationalism is something called Weight of the Nation, a highly contagious conference/book/series/website onslaught backed by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and delivered tonight and Tuesday (May 14-15) via ocular injection on HBO.

I attended the first, government-sponsored Weight of the Nation conference in 2009. I didn't pay or anything self-defeating like that. I just walked in (with a brave friend or two) and delivered plastic-wrapped fortune cookies to the fancy luncheon tables where major stakeholders were about to chew on the alleged "obesity" problem. If the professional food scolds took a cookie, they got messages like these:

  • The war on "obesity" is a war on PEOPLE!
  • The No. 1 threat to fat people? Your unexamined prejudice.
  • What's the word for science that serves bigotry? Hint: It starts with "you."
  • If you can't imagine fat people being healthy...that's YOUR pathology!
  • Tell people to lose weight if you want to endanger public health AND civil rights!
  • How many fat people must you starve, poison, slice up? Celebrate weight diversity now!

And the Orwellian:

  • Weight ≠ Health. Diversity ≠ Disease. Hate ≠ Help.

The wisdom of the fortune cookie didn't deter them from three more years of scheming, so now we've got, Weight of the Nation.

On the Weight of the Nation website, the CDC calls its new hatefest "an unprecedented public health campaign." Really? Let me list on my pudgy fingers a few of the more obvious public health campaigns attempting to herd us around this same mulberry bush:

LR_Shape_of_Things_to_Come_01.jpg
• 1956: President Eisenhower establishes the President's Council on Youth Fitness in response to fears that Americans are getting "soft." The program celebrates its 50th anniversary in 2006, when people were still "soft."

• 1994: The National Institutes of Health establishes WIN, the Weight-control Information Network. Because being fat is caused by lack of information.

• 1994: U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop launches "Shape Up America!" Eighteen years later, his campaign's budget is in great shape.

• 2003: The CDC launches a $125 million anti-"obesity" ad campaign called "Verb, it's what you do." Because fat children, who are too stupid to understand nutrition labels, must surely obey the rules of grammar.

CDC_verb_poster.jpg
• 2010: Michelle Obama says, "Let's Move!" That's code for "solving the problem of obesity within a generation." Creepy! Also, given the track record of previous campaigns, she's smart to set a deadline long after anyone will hold her accountable.

This list doesn't include the plentiful state and local efforts to eradicate fat people. Clearly, for at least the past 60 years, fat people have not been welcome in America. Officially. The weight blame goes either to fat people personally, to the environment, or both. Either way, two-thirds of us (and at least a fifth of our children) aren't welcome here. Though unwelcome, we're sure useful as easy targets.

When the initial frenzy of Weight of the Nation has calmed down -- after everyone has enjoyed this round of hating fat people and there's been a healthy boost to budgets, profits, viewership, and ad revenue -- I predict we'll hit the same wall that every dieter encounters: the return to reality.

I suggest that reality is not so bad. To keep a grip, ask yourself:

  1. Would you question the motives behind any other national PR campaign designed "for your own good" by major media, corporations, and the government?
  2. If it were any topic other than weight (where you might feel vulnerable), would you be so quick to believe the numbers they cite to justify a "War on [Whatever]"? (Most egregious exaggerations: "Fat people cost 'us' billions!" "Everyone's going to be really fat!" "Our children won't live as long!")
  3. Would you rather trust your own judgment about what's good for you or get swept along by the latest fruitless panic?
  4. Do you want to connect with other people who are saying, "WTF" about Weight of the Nation?

Here are some:

Debate the Weight is a suite of data-supported arguments from the Association for Size Diversity and Health that controvert what they call "one of the most misleading and misguided public health campaigns -- ever."

Here's a video from that group that's way more fun than anything HBO will show. In it, one person confesses, "Health At Every Size liberates us from so much bullshit. It's the big secret that I feel very smug to know and I want to spread it all around and not have it be a secret at all, ever again."

Health At Every Size pioneer Deb Burgard offers a brilliant viewer's guide on how to take care of yourself during the current hate campaign. She writes, "Blaming fatness keeps us from addressing the root causes of our problems and is clearly unfair to fat people. Many powerful people understand this but find it expedient to frame a problem in terms of fat in order to bring attention to it. They don't think people will just attend to the real issue unless they whip up the fat panic. ... I say, have the courage to make your argument about the real issues and stop doing it on the backs of fat people."

Fall Ferguson lists the top 10 reasons to be concerned about the Weight of the Nation documentary on the Health at Every Size blog. Among other things, Ferguson writes, "Few things are as destructive to health and well-being as fear. I also question whether health professionals who use fear to influence people are behaving ethically."

Nutrition professor Linda Bacon compares Weight of the Nation to bear-baiting in ancient Rome's coliseum in today's HuffPo. She writes, "Proponents may think they mean well by deploring the size of roughly half our nation, but it's easier to rail about fat than examine the commercial and class motives that create the real health and wellness divides we live (and die) with."

Dr. Deah's Tasty Morsels blog critiques the media barrage. She writes, "If your position about obesity is based on concern for our health or presumed financial burden on society, I just ask you to read more than the one side of the story that you are being told over and over and over. Then, just as you would for an election, make your decision based on being informed."

Jezebel editor Lindy West says "being mean to fat people is pointless." And elaborates: "The assumption that you have a right to legislate another person's body 'for their own good,' or 'for the children,' or even 'because they're gross,' is its own kind of crazy -- but to inflate that assumption to apocalyptic proportions, railing against the nation-obliterating medical bills of nebulous future straw-fatties, is fucking bonkers."

Michele Simon, public health lawyer, gives great reasons why she is not attending or watching Weight of the Nation Including this one: "Scientific evidence shows that fat people have enough problems dealing with discrimination, bullying, etc., and the last thing they need is more fearmongering brought to you by the federal government and cable television."

Slink magazine calls out weight-shaming as wholly unhelpful to health. Its rallying cry: "Because obesity, BMI, and all the other fad words you throw at plus-size women don't stick or mean anything, and the moment we manage to hold off ridiculing women and our bodies long enough and alter the way we talk about plus size, fat, and our bodies to talking about healthy diet and exercise, the better off we will be."

And isn't that supposed to be the point? Y'know ... wellbeing (and maybe even a bit of welcome) for all of us.

Follow us on Twitter at @ExhibitionistSF and like us on Facebook.

My Voice Nation Help
263 comments
mtt_rosenberg
mtt_rosenberg

A hunger emergency? Someone on here called it a " hunger emergency" when she has to go get to burgers from Micky dees. There are people literally starving, TO DEATH, in Africa right now. Right this very minute. Shit call 911 this lady is having an emergency!

mtt_rosenberg
mtt_rosenberg

A hunger emergency? Someone on here called it a " hunger emergency" when she has to go get two burgers from Micky dees. There are people literally starving, TO DEATH, in Africa right now. Right this very minute. Shit call 911 this lady is having an emergency! Man, if it were not for you people I would be bored all day long.

Pashfit
Pashfit

Guess what, it's not OK to be fat.  It's not healthy - despite convoluted arguments about causation of disease.  A recent study noted that it cost millions of dollars every day to transport overweight and obese people. Whether it be public transportation, personal vehicles or commercial airplanes, fat people cost society money in more ways than just healthcare costs. This flag waiving by misguided fat people who want to justify their failure to control their intake and/or reluctance to lead a health, active lifestyle is pathetic.  It gives children heading down an unhealthy path the wrong signals.

Tori
Tori

Firstwise, I highly doubt that you are a doctor, another or otherwise.  BMI is completely worthless.  My "BMI" is 48.  70% of that is muscle, so I suppose my actual BMI is 14, so if anything I'm underweight.    Being fat doesn't cause diabetes.  Ignorance does.  If everyone just accepted each other for the way they were, diabetes wouldn't exist.  If there weren't hateful people in this world, people wouldn't have stress in their lives.  Stress zaps the body of essential nutrients that guard our bodies from disease.   It's called cortisol, which you'd probably know about if you were a real doctor. 

mtt_rosenberg
mtt_rosenberg

70 percent? What steroids are you taking because I'd love to use them. Typically humans are made up of 40-45 percent muscle. Athletes 50-55 percent.

Another Doctor
Another Doctor

Paul, Your points are fundamentally wrong on every count.  Let me point out the ways: 1. Your argument that Type II DM is totally a genetic disease and not related to obesity - Recent New England Journal of Medicine article randomized obese patients to medical management or weight loss surgery and found that people with weight loss surgery (who go figure lost a ton of weight) also had an increibly high liklihood of completely resolving their diabetes.  Coincidence?  So are you saying that the sugery changed their genetics?  Could be, or it could be that they are no longer obese.  Ponder that my friend. It is true that a portion is genetic, but being fat will predispose you to that phenotype (see below for more). 2. Your argument that weight gain is a symptom of diabetes:  This does not make any sense. Let me break it down for you friend.  Insulin is a molecule that floats around the body (produced by the pancreas in response glucose) and helps with getting sugar into your cells.  When you are obese, this molecule no longer works properly.  Your fat actually (this has been proven) inhibits it from working (insulin resistance).  You have plenty of it (insulin), but it doesn't work.  How do we know that?  Because losing that fat causes the insulin to work again.  I have patients who lose weight, and guess what, they come off of their insulin.  WOW!  Secondly, the obesity precedes the onset of these symptoms.  It is true there is a genetic predisposition to DM-II, but being fat greatly increases the chances of it being phenotypically fulfilled (much akin to someone who has a family history of alcoholism having a greater chance of being an alcoholic, but if they do not take a drink (i.e. a prone DM does not become fat) that phenotype will not come to be.  I know this must be hard for you to understand given the gross misinformation you have been living under.  You are welcome.  3. Regarding your argument #3.  Please see said, randomized clinical trial of weight loss and its affect on DM.  Please share this information with all of your poorly informed, medically illiterate friends.  You are very welcome. Another Doctor

Paul Ernsberger
Paul Ernsberger

1. The concept that all fats are unhealthy and all thins are healthy" is not only assumed by lay people, but also by health professionals of all stripes. Obese patients are told that their weight is responsible for all their problems and often dismissed without treatment other than advice to lose weight. Thin patients with identical problems get valid treatments. There are no diseases unique to obese people. There are thin patients with every so-called obesity-related disease. 2. Type 2 diabetes is a genetic disease. If one identical twin has it, there is a 95% chance the other will have it too. Granted, the thinner twin will develop diabetes a few years later than the fatter twin on average. But diabetes is a genetic disease with a propensity to gain weight as an early symptom. (During the phase of insulin resistance.) 3. Losing weight has a 95% failure rate. How many "gold standard" treatments have that high a failure rate? The failure rate is so high that no double-blind clinical trial data exist to support the efficacy of weight loss. Yet medical journals present weight loss as a near-panacea for every imaginable condition. 

Dr. Chan
Dr. Chan

Dear Marilyn Wann, As a physician of internal medicine, I must take issue with most of your assertions. To the extent that you oppose discrimination against fat people, I support you.  But simply stating facts about the consequences of obesity is not an act of discrimination.  The following are my responses to some of your more egregious claims: 1.  You can't tell someone is unhealthy just because they are fat This statement is true in a way, but it is a straw man argument.  No one of any credibility is saying that EVERY fat person is unhealthy and that EVERY thin person is.  We're talking about risk.  No one debates that smoking causes cancer.  Simply pointing to your uncle Larry who smoked a pack a day and lived to 100 does not prove otherwise.  We're talking about risk.  We can't say that smoking will cause cancer in uncle Larry.  We can say that, if uncle Larry is a smoker, his risk of cancer is higher than if he were a nonsmoker.  The same can be said for obesity and the multitude of illnesses it causes.  It doesn't cause them in every individual.  But we know that overweight and obese individuals are at significantly greater risk for diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, obstructive sleep apnea, stroke, and cancer.  2.  The link between obesity and diabetes is not causal. You're right in asserting that correlation does not equal causation.  The best way to definitively assign causation is with a randomized control trial.  One would have to design an experiment in which people were randomly assigned to being obese or staying at a normal weight.  Obviously, this experiment would be unethical. What we have instead is data on hundreds of thousands of people over decades that show that people with greater BMIs are at greater risk for the above-mentioned diseases. Those without diabetes who lose weight are able to decrease their risk.  Those with diabetes who lose weight are able to bring their diabetes into better control and forestall the need for insulin. While the above does not prove beyond a sliver of doubt that the relationship is causal, it's every bit as good as our evidence for the link between smoking and cancer, which rests entirely on epidemiological data. An oft-mentioned theory is that yo-yo dieting is to blame.  This is not unlike blaming yo-yo attempts at quitting smoking as the cause of lung cancer.  It's possible, I suppose, but far from the most likely explanation.  3.  Most people can't keep weight off, so it's irresponsible to suggest that anyone should try. No one is debating that sustained weight loss is difficult.  Most of my patients aren't able to sustain significant weight loss.  Most of my patients with alcohol/drug addictions aren't able to sustain sobriety.  Are you suggesting that I stop encouraging my patients to make healthy behavioral changes just because many of them will fail?  You accuse people who counsel weight loss as being irresponsible.  I can't think of anything more irresponsible than what you are doing.  Armed with a blog and a complete lack of medical training, you cherry-pick a few studies that support your preconceived notions and have the gall to advise people on life and death medical decisions.  But if the persistence of the global warming deniers, birthers, and 911 truthers is any indication, you'll have no want of an audience. 

Laura77433
Laura77433

It's sad to me that you do not care enough about yourself and your family to want to be healthier and live a longer life. You can continue to live in denial and see where that gets you.

Jvsierra81
Jvsierra81

I'm fat and this show is not about the fat people. You can't debate that broccoli is healthier than a big MAC, but who would buy broccoli when it's far more expensive than a big mac? I have. I don't care if I'm fat all my life, I just want that life to be longer.

Haldoo
Haldoo

There's the worst of the excuses for being fat right there. Acting as though healthy food is more expensive. You have to be a special kind of retard to think that broccoli is more expensive than any sort of fast food.

A big Mac is just over three bucks. Broccoli is around a buck thirteen a POUND. A big Mac weighs what? Maybe 8-9 ounces? Do the math fat people. That's like four pounds of broccoli for the price of a big Mac. Do you have any idea how much broccoli that is? Even if broccoli was three bucks a pound you'd still get twice as much of it for the same cost. A pound of broccoli is enough for three meals at least.

You can get a pound of chicken breast for the price of a big Mac. Twice as much food and it's actually good for you.

My point is that being poor is no excuse for being fat. If anything it's the exact opposite. If you buy eggs, milk, chicken, broccoli, oats, beans, and cheap fruit like apples and bananas you will have an extremeky healthy diet and you will lose weight and feel better and have more energy. And you will be spending the same amount of money per week as you would in a day if eating at McDonald's. With that money you save you could get a gym membership and be well on your way to becoming an actual person.

mtt_rosenberg
mtt_rosenberg

A hunger EMERGENCY? An actual emergency?! There are people, literally starving TO DEATH in Africa right now. Your a pussy

Alice
Alice

Haldoo, How much weight did you lose eating that way?

I eat that way 90-95% of the time. Banana, apple juice and berry smoothie.Bran flakes or oatios, soymilk.Natural peanut butter sandwiches on whole grain.Tuna, mayo and celery sandwiches with lettuce on whole grain or sourdough.Apples, oranges, pears, strawbs.Almonds, walnuts, unsalted raw peanuts.Eggs, cheese, veggies.Homemade whole grain banana nut muffins or blueberry muffins.Homemade green salads with cuke and avocado, with homemade vinaigrette of olive oil, red wine vinegar, garlic, and basil.Baked chicken, skin removed, fat drained, with whole yam and brown rice and broccoli.Tofu-walnut-veg stir fry w/ brown rice.Tomato sauce with a tiny amount of ground round, with whole wheat pasta.Oat bran, almonds, soymilk, and sliced peaches canned in pear juice for evening snack.

And I'm curious, do you never eat out?

Broccoli is not a substitute for a craving for a meat sandwich. It does not provide the calories, protein, quantity of starch, or fat to satisfy the need for a meal.When I eat fast food, it is only because I'm out without food, am low-income, and have gone too many hours without eating. I then buy 2 plain hamburgers with nothing else, no special sauce; instead of 1 hamburger with fries and soda. (Buying 2 plain hamburgers, in a hunger emergency, instead of 1 with fries and soda is a nutrition trick from my nutrition prof: filling, while keeping the fat quantity down and avoiding the empty calories in soda.)

Marilyn, may I suggest asking the publisher to close the comments, as it seems that most of the comments are the dregs from people who haven't read the comments above, and are a waste of time to respond to.

SK
SK

Actually, Patsy Nevins, a prominent commenter in the fatosphere, recently tried to argue that chocolate cake is more healthy than cauliflower.

http://joannadw.wordpress.com/...

Kathryn
Kathryn

The most disturbing thing about this article? Calling the conclusions reached by the CDC pseudoscientific. These conclusions were reached after an extensive and objective lit review of obesity and overweight related health effects. This means ALL science, even the science that didn't find a relationship between weight and health that is cited by the author and others in the comment thread. The reason the CDC reached these conclusions is because the MAJORITY of the literature has found a link between adverse health effects and obesity and overweight.

Just because they reached a conclusion you didn't like doesn't make it pseudoscience.

Pseduoscience is when unsubstantiated claims are made that did not go through the rigorous peer review process. The author acts like the proposed link between weight and health was pulled out of the sky when that is not the case. These studies have been vetted by the scientific community and determined to be good science. And they were replicated, further legitimizing the findings. There is a scientific consensus that weight is related to health. Scientific consensus is a powerful thing, because as anyone who is familiar with science knows, it is extremely difficult to get scientists to agree on anything. So when scientists agree, it must mean that the evidence for the claim is pretty strong.

The author should read "Merchants of Doubt." What she's doing is very similar to the tobacco industry and deniers of global warming - rejecting legitimate science and scientific consensus by calling it bad science because it doesn't support her self-interests.

Marilyn Wann
Marilyn Wann

I suggest you read Laura Fraser's excellent muckraking journalism, in her book, "Losing it: False Hopes and Fat Profits in the Diet Industry," especially the chapter on "obesity" research, called "Thinking Disorders." I'd also recommend reading Linda Bacon's description of the politics behind baseless lowering of BMI cutoffs in her book, "Health At Every Size: The Surprising Truth About Your Weight," and her description of how peer-reviewed journals currently refuse to publish research with data and conclusions that don't support a weight and weight-loss focus. Objective, legitimate, rigorously peer reviewed...mebbe not.

Kathryn
Kathryn

Obviously journals have published studies that have found no relationship between weight and health or else you wouldn't have these studies to cite. These studies that journals have refused to publish probably weren't published more for flawed methodology than their findings.

Studies that aren't published have failed the peer-review process. It's ridiculous to assume that there's some worldwide conspiracy in the scientific community to suppress findings that debunk the relationship between health and weight.

Scientists react to replicated findings and adjust their hypotheses accordingly. The fact that this hasn't happened speaks more to the validity of the evidence that supports a relationship between health and weight and that the evidence that debunks this relationship is not well-regarded in the scientific community.

Paul Ernsberger
Paul Ernsberger

Most epidemiological show that BMI's in the "overweight" range (25-30) are associated with INCREASED longevity. This is well known to epidemiologists. Unfortunately, the "obesity experts" consist mainly of people who run weight loss clinics, not statisticians and epidemiologists. The data for BMI in the 30-35 range is mixed, but there is clear increase in mortality for BMI values over 25. However, the risk of being male is greater than the risk of even extreme obesity (BMI over 40). Thus, a "morbidly obese" female has a longer life expectancy than a lean male.

SK
SK

Would that be the same Laura Fraser who once described 1,800 calories a day as a "starvation diet"?

Annabelle
Annabelle

Deb -'weight suppressed people'. Really? This is at the heart of HAES? That anybody who maintains a normal weight should be suspected of being weight suppressed? That they're seeing the world through 'anorexic eyes', as Paul Campos put it? And it's these people who can't resist the siren call of bad food? While, meanwhile, all the non-weight suppressed people and their children find themselves able to resist the multi-billion dollar food advertising industry with no problems. I wonder who, then, it is who is pouring so much profit into these junk food purveyors, since the weight suppressed are an ever-smaller group.

Interesting, if you think about it. FA insists that anybody who 'restricts' is going to diet themselves into fatness, no question. Yet apparently there are all these weight suppressed people walking about. How do they do it, I wonder. Do all the people in the countries where the obesity epidemic haven't reached yet realise that they're weight suppressed? What a relief for them when they can drop this burden and become fat too.

You're right that it's not the duty of obese people alone to overturn bad working practices. Bad workplaces affect thin people too - by making them fat and sick

 

Deb Burgard, PhD
Deb Burgard, PhD

 Annabelle, clearly what is true, and what I said, is that there are people below their setpoint, at their setpoint, and above their setpoint, at any given weight.  I am not saying that any thin person is weight-suppressed, I am saying that anyone who is weight-suppressed is going to find the current food environment even harder to manage.  Those people come in all sizes, as I said.  Then there are people at all sizes who are within their setpoint range who, all other things being equal, can make decisions with more attention to whether they are hungry or not, or have reached satiety or not.  That "all other things being equal" is a big caveat - because we agree that there are a lot of other forces at work too.

This is obviously more complicated than one factor, and I have appreciated your thoughtfulness, and would appreciate you not twisting my words.  I think you are arguing with a starting model of people being much closer in weight than I am, but we both agree that the spread of weights has increased from some forces that are not furthering human health.  That said, those same forces are endangering the health of people at lower weights, too - who have the same health problems - who sometimes eat the same food, sometimes not, sometimes in the same amounts, sometimes not. They do not all become heavier because of these forces - just sicker.  I think that focusing on what those forces are doing to people's weights rather than focusing on how the forces are problematic for everyone, is a distraction. The public flips out about making people thin rather than making people healthy by altering those forces.  Even the MDs in WOTN who are insisting on people "just losing 5-10% of their weight" to make all these health issues go away don't seem to connect the dots that people will still be fat then - so why are we talking about being fat as a problem rather than focusing on the environments and practices that make people of all sizes less healthy?

I am not the only voice in FA, but I have never heard the argument than "anyone who restricts is going to diet themselves into fatness, no question."  There is clear evidence that weight cycling can ratchet the setpoint range higher in some people, probably somewhere between one-third and two-thirds of us, but that isn't everyone.

What seems obvious to me is that we are now making up a village of humans that have evolved under vastly different circumstances, with vastly different genetic talents.  A "famine" (diet) is going to switch on different genes in different people.  This is also why I don't think you can look at body size and work backwards to eating behaviors.  To vastly oversimplify, some people use more of their fuel for motion, some for heat, some for fat storage, and so on.

Anyway, what do you think it is going to take for people to give a sh*t about the struggles of people trying to work under these conditions rather than whether they are being good little soldiers and losing 10% of their weight?

Annabelle
Annabelle

You are right,  of course. Sarcasm is of no help.

Annabelle
Annabelle

But Deb, not once in any of my posts have I suggested people should lose weight.

I disagree with you profoundly on many points. However, I certainly agree that there are dangerous forces afoot that endanger everybody's health and that focusing on individuals and beating the drum about 'personal responsibility' means that those who are really responsible get to walk away, scot free.

Adshasdha
Adshasdha

You must be kidding with this article. I don't even know where to start. 

Can't believe this was even published. 

Marilyn Wann
Marilyn Wann

Yes, that's the point. I'm inviting you to try some skepticism on a topic that has gone unquestioned for too long. It's your choice, if you're not willing to consider the harms of the current system and the benefits of an alternative that's been developed by a whole bunch of health experts and researchers.

Vtbuc62
Vtbuc62 like.author.displayName 1 Like

Fatties gonna fat

Dave
Dave

This is ridiculous. I grew up as a fat kid, and hated myself for it. So I changed it. I realized that I was the only one who had the power to change my lifestyle to achieve what I wanted. This article pisses me off, because I busted my ass to lose weight. I worked out hard and had the discipline to eat right. The diet was the hardest part. But you know what? I was willing to sacrifice that piece of cake on order to get that much leaner. Reading about how people make excuses for being fat and expect others to be nice to them because they won't trade that burger for a plain grilled chicken is infuriating. I'd like to make one thing clear; I don't hate fat people. I hate people who are fat AND try and validate it with "it's not my fault!" Admit it, if you're fat, you've wished you were skinny at one point. You'll call me a prejudiced bigot and lie to yourselves that you "enjoy" being fat. We all know it's not true. If you had a choice, would you pick appearing fat over appearing in shape? Of course not. And here's the thing; you DO have a choice. Admittedly, being skinny or losing weight comes easier for some people. But that doesn't make it impossible for others. It'll be tough, it'll require discipline, you'll have to suck it up and go for a run instead of hitting up Burger King again, but if you want to lose fat, you can do it. I know you're used to being catered to, but stop expecting people to cater to your beliefs.

Marilyn Wann
Marilyn Wann

I choose to take good care of my fat body and I choose not to be a hateful hater.

Haldoo
Haldoo

Lol, if you chose to take care of your body it wouldn't be fat in the first place. Losing weight isnt even that hard. All you have to do is NOT eat so much crappy food. Exercise is essential if you want to be fit, but you can get away with just being thin by doing a few fork-downs and table-pushaways. In fact, eating better is even easier than finding excuses for being fat. Just think, if you put half as much energy into being healthier as you did defending your disgusting lifestyle then you'd be thin and happy like the rest of us, lol. Fat people crack me up.

umadlol
umadlol like.author.displayName 1 Like

Im sorry to break this to you fatties but loseing weight is hard. Most diest fail because they are undertaken by fatties (who have 0 selfcontrol). I could take your shitty genetics and lose all that extra fat like it was nothing. Calories in and calories out WORKS! You landwales think you have cracked the first law of thermodynamics?

Human body was not designd to carry around 100kg of extra weight. If you think that being obese doesn´t carry its healtrisks then you are not only fat but also retarded.Most people find fatties repulsive. Don´t get it wrong, it´s not something we to due to the portrait painted by the media or because we can´t handel all them curves. From an evolutionary point of view being too fat or too skinny is undesireble. Humans are simply not wired to find you folds of blubber attractive.

Anon
Anon

You're fat, your opinion is invalid.

Marilyn Wann
Marilyn Wann

Thanks for proving the point that weight-based public health messages promote hateful stereotype and prejudice toward fat people.

mtt_rosenberg
mtt_rosenberg

No, I think most people really are just grossed out by fat people. Come on, you guys smell funny...

Haldoo
Haldoo

I'd venture to guess that the stereotypes and prejudices towards fat people are based on daily observations of their appearance and behaviors in public, rather than what the media says about them.

Fcj
Fcj

boy, you people sure are working hard at building this warm and fuzzy little cocoon of denial you have going here, huh? there is no benefit to being fat anymore than there is to masturbating until your hand is crippled; it's self indulgent and shows a complete lack of discipline. i used to be fat myself. i got sick of it though, so i put down the goddamn fork.

and guess what, being fat IS unhealthy, but it's also very unappealing physically. i don't care about your health. your health affects me in indirect and not immediately tangible ways, like healthcare costs. but i do have to see you lumbering gastropods and hide my contempt and disgust in the name of polite society.

Marilyn Wann
Marilyn Wann

What about your denial of ways that weight-based medicine is ineffective and harmful? Contempt and disgust. Yeah, that's all about health.

Haldoo
Haldoo

Statistics show that fat people spend more time in hospitals due to their unhealthy lifestyles, so they're driving up healthcare costs in the same way teenage drivers bring up car insurance costs.

Also, fat people are slow and get in my way all the time. But hey, the more fat people out there the better I look by comparison, so keep on fatting guys.

Haldoo
Haldoo

Okay, first of all it's obvious that being fat is not what causes diabetes. A poor diet and/or a sedentary lifestyle causes diabetes. Coincidently, the same thing causes obesity. You can't deny that. Fat people have an overwhelmingly higher rate of diabetes and heart disease than thin people because the thing that makes them fat is the same thing that causes diabetes and heart disease. So before you play the victim, try eating some broccoli instead of that candy bar or drink some water instead of that Pepsi.

Second, you have some serious issues if you think that ads that promote a active and healthy lifestyle towards children are an ATTACK ON FAT PEOPLE. The war on obesity isn't a war on people, it's a war on an unhealthy way of life. I don't hate fat people, but I do hate stupid or ignorant people. And people that think that you can be severely overweight and still be healthy are clearly stupid and ignorant.

I would much rather try to help a fat person on the right path to being healthy than shame them, much like I would try to help a smoker quit smoking, but if that person is in denial or doesn't have enough respect for their own life or body to realize they need to change, then they don't deserve an ounce of my respect either.

Marilyn Wann
Marilyn Wann

If the ads and campaigns only promoted activity and nutritious eating, I would be *ALL* for them! That they target and vilify fat people seems pretty obvious to me. A Health At Every Size® approach encourages precisely the sort of health-enhancing behaviors you claim to endorse. It's been shown to be vastly more effective than a weight-focused/weight-loss approach. People who keep doing dangerous, ineffective things repeatedly, hoping for a different outcome...not really a choice I respect, either.

mtt_rosenberg
mtt_rosenberg

First off, this is fun. Second, you can't " keep trying" with a diet. You just have to eat less.. For Theresa of your life.

Haldoo
Haldoo

But don't you see? The problem with the whole "health at every size" slogan is that if you actually had a healthy lifestyle you would be the same size as a normal person.

I understand that you feel vilified and discriminated for your weight and it's a bummer that it's like that, but instead of trying to change the whole world to suit your lifestyle, why not just be an adult about it and use it as motivation to better yourself? I promise that being fit and healthy feels way better than being obese and sweaty. Do some research about nutrition and use the knowledge to help you and your fat friends live better lives. Once you're thin you'll realize how ridiculous and immature you were when you spent all this time with fat acceptance.

It's really no different than "smoker acceptance" or "chronic masturbator acceptance." Explain to me why I should be tolerant or respectful of somebody who is actually trying to justify their self destructive behavior?

Habibrasheed
Habibrasheed

calories in < calories out

have any overweight individuals that are proposers to this opinion displayed on this article ever count calories for just a week and observed what they're actually taking in?  It's a bit outlandish to praise diversity of bodies when, in majority of the cases, it can be controlled for plenty of health benefits.  To say that doctors are uninformed, even though they have a medical school degree which is teaching them from scientifically based experiments and case studies, seems silly.  if the proposers of "fat acceptance" actually had a lab, conducted non-biased experiments and proved that being obese carries all the same benefits as being thin then i would believe it - but, alas, it does not and only blames external sources for their lack of moderation.

Marilyn Wann
Marilyn Wann

I think Steve Blair, MD, has already conducted that research and has tens of thousands of data points that find fitness, not weight, is a greater predictor of health. Also that fat people who are moderately fit enjoy better health and longer life than thin people who are sedentary.

Awood
Awood

@Marilyn Wann .....

Are smokers who run, work out and play a bit of sport fitter than sedentary non-smokers..... maybe .... but smokers should give up and non-smokers should stay non-smokers, they will have the long term advantage.

Are lean fit people healthier that fat 'fit' people ...... (Running and fat don't go together very well.) what is the point you are making....that lean fit people should be fatter.

A sedentary lean person is healthier that a fat sedentary person.

The fact is its a good idea for people to take action to be fit, a sedentary lifestyle is a bad idea ...... Stating the obvious 101.....

Ejv94
Ejv94

Life would be so much better without fat people.Number 1 excuse: HURR DURR GENETICSGo kill yourself. It's not your genetics, you just eat to much and it's unhealthy.Calories out > calories in, you lose weight, magic.Enjoy being an ugly, disgusting blob of fat for the rest of your life.The onyl fatties I respect are the ones actively trying to get healthy.

Marilyn Wann
Marilyn Wann

Thanks for proving the point that weight-based public health messages promote hateful stereotype and prejudice toward fat people.

Wow...idiots.
Wow...idiots.

Wow, I didn't realize fat people were more close-minded than the religious nuts that knock on my door every Sunday.

Way to justify setting the bar low people. Go ahead, be proud of your rolls of fat, the disgusting smells, the shortness of breath after only a short walk up the hill (nvm, you would be the type to take the car to the liquor store just half a block away).

Like religious nuts, they pick and choose whatever arguments works best for them, and ignore the rest. If you bring up the rest of the facts, well, GARBLE GARBLE GARBLE LOOK OVER THERE FAT PREJUDICE YOU HATE AMERICA is the basic argument I see.

Touche, fat people, touche. I'll go wallow in shame in my corner eating my healthily portioned meals and think sadly about my longer life expectancy.

Marilyn Wann
Marilyn Wann

Thanks for proving the point that weight-based public health messages promote hateful stereotype and prejudice toward fat people.

Alice
Alice

Hi Marilyn

Thank you for sticking your neck out, in such a public way, on behalf of *all* people. The vitriol is horrific, and you don't deserve it. You are sharing your heart and soul for all the people who are hurt by fat-hatred, and are a beautiful person for doing so. It is truly a shame that everyone can't recognize how beautiful you really are--because of their closed-mindedness and prejudice--and I don't just mean your beauty on the inside, but on the outside, your physical beauty, too.

Now Trending

From the Vault

 

San Francisco Event Tickets
©2014 SF Weekly, LP, All rights reserved.
Loading...