The wrong form of gluttony
As certain people of the medical persuasion continue to focus on our “obesity epidemic” as one of the worst horrors the human world has ever faced, the diet industry is making billions of dollars a year and funding the very studies that these “scientists” quote.
We are more than willing to criticise Western culture, but for one and only one thing: how fat we are. Forget the fact that the US alone (5% of the world’s population) consumes 25% of the world’s resources; forget that we throw tons of food waste into our dumps every year, forget that we are destroying entire ecosystems and promoting disease, starvation, and environmental catastrophe. Forget that our entire system is based on the flawed assumption that humans are naturally rational creatures who are competitive and out for profit, and would destroy our fellow human anytime the opportunity arose.
So yes. We are rational creatures. Except for the fact that we are too stupid to understand that the food we eat is killing us and making us fat ugly slobs, according to the media.
I’m not sure that a claim to rationality on the part of human kind has ever been substantiated. Rather when stated we all simply agree, because we have a “stake” in that claim. You are right though, the media does distort messages. Problematic for healthcare is the media’s short attention span for a consistent message. I’m sure you’ve heard people say “what do the doctors know, they’ll say the opposite in a few years”, this message comes from the media’s ever changing commentary. Should we eat low fat, low carbs, all meat or only gluten free? The lie in this is that the actual message from scientists (actually doctors, scientists are all about fact finding, not giving advice) is quite consistent for any issue over large span of time. Sure, studies are always being done to expand our knowledge. Sometime this adds new dimensions to our understanding of healthcare, things that seemed very good previously now may have added dimensions of concern. But, given consideration of all that we know, medical advice is quite consistent. It is the media which would have us think that medicine is in a state of undecided flux, and this is simply not true. We do have an obesity epidemic, and it is a problem for the whole world, not just for overweight people in rich countries. Obesity related diseases will undoubted have lots of money thrown at them in the years to come. These diseases are quite unique to the problem of obesity, and the knowledge gained from research in this area will not be of any use to people in the third world. This is a real tragedy, medical knowledge should be shared and applicable to all humanity, not just those in the position to do unconsidered harm to themselves in the first place.
The “Homo Economicus” model, the very foundation of modern economics, was what I was referring to with regard to us being “rational” creatures.
No disease is unique to the problem of obesity. Hypertension, diabetes, heart disease, etc. can all be found in non-”overweight” people. The link between obesity and many of those diseases is up to much debate. What has been ignored, of course, is the danger of being too thin. Being underweight is also linked to heart problems, for example.
In addition, there is no universally recognised definition for obesity, which is absolutely ridiculous. How can you compare studies or repeat an experiment if the criteria for what you’re studying varies from study to study.
True, no disease is unique of obesity (except obesity itself) , but the range of diseases given rise to by obesity IS unique of itself. Very true, hypertension, diabetes and heart disease can all be found in non-overweight people. However, these people are the exceptions rather than the rule (even though they may still comprise a very large absolute number of people). Being exceptions, they must in the light of a world of limited resources not unduly monopolise health resources. This is the true test of healthcare. Anyone can be a champion of the minority, in essence all is requires is a genuine desire to do good (which is the absolutely best quality), combined with a lack of appreciation of scarce resources (catering to your economics bent!). What defines a true practitioner, is the ability to make hard decisions. These can only be made in the context of evidence based medicine (or suggest an alternative?). This is by nature aimed at the “average” person, who (for different philosophical reasons), doesn’t exist. None the less, for most people, advice and treatment on this basis will be of more harm than good. It is not ideal, no one in any real educated position of responsibility claimed it to be so. However,it is the best we have-of course open to alternatives?????
This ties back into obesity insomuch as it IS a cause of a large number of conditions, well and above the ethologies of those conditions unrelated to obesity. The targeting of obesity in addressing these conditions is a simple application of wanting to do the greatest good, while allocating scarce resources. Agree to pay more in taxes, and we’ll do more.
I suggest you read my new post (http://sitakali.org/2012/08/12/lets-talk-about-obesity/), which is filled with peer-reviewed research. This is based in evidence-based medicine. Cardiovascular mortality has been found to be higher in underweight people, and normal weight people have been found to have the same level of mortality as the severely obese. As for the overweight and obese categories, mortality is actually lower. This, of course, is based on the same index that is used in all weight-health studies: The BMI, which is very flawed.
Sitakali, while the excesses of the West and drive for profits have clearly laid the foundations for the obesity epidemic, they’re not *directly* responsible.
Mankind fucks up all the time, unknowingly. When it comes to diet, every time we dabble in overprocessing foods, we get nutritional diseases – be they obesity or wasting diseases due to lack of specific nutrients. This time is no different, just on a bigger scale that’s all.
As for the definition of obesity, it *is* well defined, as a BMI of 30 or more. Sure, that measurement has its flaws, but it’s a global reference point that shows the world – and not just the west – is currently suffering from a global metabolic meltdown.
Hi Mike,
The BMI doesn’t just “have its flaws.” It is utterly useless. Thus, obesity is poorly defined, since the only definitions use an indicator that has been shown time and time again to be scientifically worthless.
I agree, however obesity IS a problem (not the root problem, though) because people are being conditioned to overconsume and it is damaging them and the planet. No, fat people are not to blame, but this doesn’t erase the issue. We get fat because we are consuming too much, and consuming too much is what capitalism depends on. How is this not an issue? I would be grateful for a response, please, as I respect your opinion.
The problem is confusing food overconsumption with over-eating. Overconsumption of food is not done mostly by individual people, but by large organizations (restaurants, especially fast-food; biofuel companies). A huge portion of food is thrown away and never eaten. Individuals do this too, and this is far more problematic than over-eating.
Over-eating can be a symptom of an eating disorder. This has little to do with resource overconsumption, and a lot to do with the screwed up world we grow up in – the same world that causes other eating disorders. The over-eating in the world is not comparable to the amount of food thrown away. The extra food people eat that they do not need is of no consequence to global food poverty.
People mostly get fat due to genetics. Obesity is not an epidemic. One of the reasons for this is because obesity’s only medical definition is scientifically flawed; it is based on the BMI, which has come under massive scrutiny in the scientific community. Obesity has just as much correlation with health problems as being underweight. Yet nobody’s going on about the “underweight epidemic.”
You cannot tell how healthy somebody is by looking at them. You simply cannot. You cannot even tell how healthy they are likely to be. Health and weight have little correlation, except for on the low end and the extremely high of the scale. “Extremely high” does not include individuals labelled as “obese.” It doesn’t even include many individuals labelled as “morbidly obese.”
The reason the “obesity epidemic” is reported as such a concern by both left and right, is because many, many people benefit from it being a concern. Yes, it’s helpful to have media images of what “attractive” people look like, and drive home the idea that fat = ugly. But that’s not enough. They have to make it so that fat people get pressure from everywhere – their communities, the media, and yes, their doctors. The diet industry is a multi-billion dollar industry. Yet scientific studies have proven that weight-loss diets simply do not work. There are simply too many factors involved in fatness, and over-eating is only one of them – sometimes a very small one.
Even if the entire world over-ate, we could feed it. We could feed the entire world 3,000 calories a day. The societal changes that need to be made have nothing to do with fat, and everything to do with a sick agriculture system, over-consumption of meat, and intense poverty and the disenfranchisement of people around the world.
I would really love to see the idea of fat separated from the idea of capitalism and greed. Because they are unrelated.
But no-one IS a fat/skinny person; we get fat/skinny bodies due to our behaviour. Being slighty over-fat (like, size 14-16 UK size) may be due to some gentic factor llike a thyroid condition, but being hugely over-fat is due to over-consumption. Genetics give us predispositions for cerain bodily traits, however blaming genetics for people being grossly over-fat is silly, since genetics might cause a skight predispotion to store fat or a metabolic issue, etc.,, however if you are eating a healthy, normal diet and not eating too many calories, you won’t end up over-fat. I don’t actually understand what is wrong with acknowledging that, more often than not, being over-fat is a result of eating issues and can lead to other health complications. I don’t think we need to argue that being fat is healthy just to fight for fat people to be treated like actual people. Why do we have to turn it into a debate about what is healthy; we should be treating each other equally regardless of whether we are healthy or not. Trying to convince the wolrd that fat is healthy is kind of like saying there is not other basis for arguing that fat people should be treated with respect other than that they are healthy. If someone is healthy or not, they should be treated with dignity. And again, I say ‘fat people’, but I just mean ‘people with fat bodies’, since we aren’t born fat or skinny; we get that way through behaviour. We should be treating massive over-fatness with the same urgency as we treat anorexia, since binge eating disording is the most commen and really horrible eating disorder. People who are hugely over-fat with eating disorderes are usually extremely unhealthy and unhappy, and their problems should be taken seriously and not written off as either, ‘they are just lazy and gluttenous’, or as, ‘they are healthy and fine, leave them alone, #fatpositive!’
The ONE thing I can agree with from your statement is that respect shouldn’t be based on health. However, saying that health stigma regarding fat doesn’t have to do with how much respect people get is patently false, especially in healthcare. You can read about how horribly fat people are treated by doctors based on the asssumption that fat is unhealthy here: http://fathealth.wordpress.com/about/ Also check out their study on physicians’ treatment of fat people. When fat is equated with health, fat people are treated as inherently unhealthy. this is untrue. Simple as that.
As for the actual effects on health, I suggest you look at this peer-reviewed meta-study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16920472 A meta-study is an analysis of several other studies – in this case, it comprised 40 studies and over 250,000 people. What did they find? Based on the BMI, the scale that all medical practitioners use, the one that DEFINES OBESITY, people in the severe obesity range DID NOT HAVE INCREASED MORTALITY. They were at a higher risk for cardiovascular disease, but that did not translate to less health overall. Underweight people had a higher risk for overall mortality, based on cardiovascular risk. Overweight and obese people had a LOWER MORTALITY. That’s right. Now, considering the fact that the BMI is utter bullshit when it comes to determining health, as is essentially stated in the last line of the meta-study, this shows that essentially, all studies about health involving the BMI need to be thrown out the window, and no assumptions about fat based on health should be made. The “paradox of obesity” (http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.co.nz/2007/10/obesity-paradox-13-take-heart.html – this references peer-reviewed research) is partially caused by the uselessness of the BMI.
The fact is that doctors need to focus on health. They do not need to focus on fat at all. That’s where Health at Every Size (peer reviewed research – http://www.nutritionj.com/content/10/1/9) comes in.
As for the genetic factor, you can look at many peer-reviewed studies, including ones cited in this editorial: http://www.ajcn.org/content/87/2/275.full.pdf Genetics are not a “slight” influence. But seriously, who cares if they weren’t, if fat isn’t a determinant of health?
One more point: You talked about respecting people regardless of size or health, but then you used such a loaded, judgmental term as “grossly over-fat.” You should really look at your own language if you want to see the influence that our cultural fat-hatred is having on you. Terms like these are useful for only one thing: Shaming fat people. They are not necessary beyond that context.
‘Grossly’ means ‘hugely’…not ‘gross’. And my body is hugely overfat at the moment because I have a binge eating disorder brought on by the skinny-shaming I experienced when my body was skinny. I am extremely unhealthy at the moment due to my diet and my over-fatness causing me not to be able to exercise without pain and discomfort. Yes, fat-bodied peeps are treated poorly, but so are skinny-bodied peeps. In my experience, skinny-bodied peeps are actually treated worse, since everyone around them assumes they have eating disorders (which can be incredibly damaging) and every cold/flue or other health issue is attributed to be skinny. So, having been both skinny and fat-bodied, I can speak from experience. I have seen pictures of you, and you don’t have a fat body. How can you tell someone who is experiencing over-fatness that they are perfectly fine when you have no idea how uncomfortale it is, how sore your joints can get, how it inhibits movement and causes high blood pressure? I can speak from experience, and I don’t appreciate being told by someone whose never experienced it was the ‘fat’ experience is.
Oh, and I agree; BMI os bullshit, which is why. use the term ‘over-fat’, not ‘over-weight’.
Sorry about the misinterpretation of the word “grossly.” The term “over-fat” is still a problem, though.
I never said you didn’t have a problem. I said that you cannot tell by looking at somebody if they are healthy or not. I really hope that you can find a way to feel and be healthier. But that doesn’t negate the years of scientific research on the subject, or the experiences of others.
I was incredibly thin as a child. I was ridiculed for it. I did have an eating disorder (not a typical one). I was bullied horribly as a child. But I only had to spend two hours with a fat friend to realize that there is no comparison.
Here’s the thing. I, as a thin person, have to go by what I have heard from the experiences of the many fat people I know. I can either take your experience as the only example of what a fat person’s life is like, or I can take in all the experiences of the people I know. You are only one of the fat people I have interacted with. In my mind, your experience does not trump that of the many other fat people I know. Body-shaming is a problem all over the spectrum; however, to say that thin people have it worse is so wrong, I don’t even know what to say. I highly suggest you look at the peer-reviewed science articles I linked for you. Science does trump individual experience, since it is an amalgamation of the experiences of multiple individuals, along with being in controlled environments, which allows for more objective analysis. The fact is, fat isn’t a signifier of health.
There are mothers out there whose children received the MMR vaccine, and then developed autism. They believe, with all of their hearts, that the vaccine caused autism. If I did an article on vaccines, one might comment about how I can’t possibly know what she’s been through as a mother with an autistic child. This is true. But does this make the link between MMR and autism true, just because of her anecdotal evidence? No. Numerous studies have shown not only a lack of causal relationship between MMR and autism, but a lack of correlation. The fact that it was cold this winter does not negate global warming. This is the problem I have with prioritising people’s experiences over scientific evidence. I am not belittling your experience by saying that fat isn’t an indicator of health – just as I am not belittling the mother’s experience by saying that vaccines don’t cause autism.
If you want to use experience as evidence, talk to the people in the fat-pos community. There is a reason they are fat-positive. They have experienced some of the most horrific abuse a person can take in a lifetime. I highly suggest you converse with other fat people on the issue, if you want to get a good idea of what our culture’s priorities are. If you want to know the science, however, all you have to do is look at the links.
[...] written briefly on the subject before, but I would like to expand, especially to include some scientific research. [...]
[...] written briefly on the subject before, but I would like to expand, especially to include some scientific research. [...]