firecat

Wrongly or rightly, I think of the Utne Reader as one of the voices of the upper-middle-class self-righteous "progressiver-than-thou" movement, which has so far been more of an enemy of fat activism than an ally. So when I found out that they published two articles that are critical of current rhetoric around fat and obesity, I felt like maybe the message was getting through to some people who are usually anti-fat.

"The Food Police: Why Michael Pollan makes me want to eat Cheetos by Julie Guthman, from Gastronomica has this important comment:

In a course I taught, Politics of Obesity, I was not surprised by the number of students who wrote in their journals of their hidden “fatness” or eating disorders. The number of entries that stated how the course itself had produced body anxiety and intensified concern over diet and exercise, however, was shocking, given that much of the material was critical of obesity talk. The philosopher Michel Foucault might have called this the “productive” power of obesity talk—naming a behavior as a problem intensifies anxiety about that behavior.

This is really true for me and it's why I limit how much I read about fat and obesity—even the positive fat-activist stuff makes me feel uncomfortable sometimes. Every once in a while I'd like to just get through a day without thinking about how my body is at the center of a huge cultural debate about Good and Eeevul.

The article also does a good job getting at the moral angle behind "obesity rhetoric", how fatness has come to stand in for sin and thinness for moral superiority, without reference to how anyone actually behaves. So does this one: Shame on US: How an obsession with obesity turned fat into a moral failing by Hannah Lobel. Excerpt: "We continue to treat obesity as if it’s either an original sin we’re born with and must repent or a cardinal sin we choose to commit."

I did not read the comments on either article. Articles like this tend to attract some fat-hating comments, so approach at your own risk.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

bunnybutt.livejournal.com

I have no reason to doubt this source. I think it's an interesting perspective, with scientific merit. Since I have a history of being a "canary in a coal mine" anyway, I can't say it surprises me, either.

http://www.theecologist.org/archive_detail.asp?content_id=646

From:

dawnd.livejournal.com

Mmmmm... Well, they seem to have a potential point about hormonal effects. Without more research, I couldn't say whether it's accurate. However, I get suspicious again with this:
There is also a need to address the obvious question of why the people in polluted cities like London and New York remain slimmer than those in industrial towns and cities.

The data doesn't even match the theory that they put forth, and they're trying to "patch the hole." Now, I'm the first to agree that human beings are complex. But it's still disturbing to see yet another article that posits a cause of obesity largely based on correlation with population data etc.

And with regard to the fellow I heard speak--let's just say that there were other holes in his presentation that I could drive a truck through, and he didn't answer my questions well enough for me to go back a second time. And my friend, who was paying him so much money for a while... is still fat.

I remain open to new information, and still skeptical for the moment. Thanks, though, for the link. It certainly was refreshing to see a wide variety of factors presented, rather than just the same old songs.

From:

bunnybutt.livejournal.com

Any popular media article (which this is) can only address the very surface of a research issue. Obviously the cited studies would contain far more scientific information regarding the conclusions.

I didn't get the feeling they were trying to "pin" obesity on anything except to say that it's far more complex than calories in/out, and likely has significant adaptive components.

It bothered me to see members of the fat community snicker and sneer at the theory posited, I will say. A lot. It reminded me of nothing so much as the snicker and sneer often seen on the medical profession and general public's face when someone says diets don't work, or HAES. If we aren't at least open to new ideas on correlation and causation, how can we expect anyone else to be?

From:

firecat

That article went to a lot of trouble to tease out potential alternative reasons for obesity but unfortunately appears to have completely overlooked socioeconomic status, although it danced around the subject by mentioning ethnicity. Poor people are more likely to be fat, for whatever reason (probably partly lack of high quality nutrition, but possibly in some cases because they are exposed to more pollutants). If you are interested in this angle, I recommend Campos's The Obesity Myth.

From:

firecat

Also it's kind of sad that the article went to such trouble to debunk certain beliefs about "obesity" without bothering to debunk the belief that it's inherently unhealthy.

From:

dawnd.livejournal.com

Yes, THAT. Thanks for pointing that out.

From: (Anonymous)

I read Paul's book when it first came out. The studies the article references are much more recent than his data.

The referenced article is just an article. A short one, and not in an American publication. It had some interesting thoughts on pesticies, pollution, hormonal interactions and complexity. I linked to it *only* because someone openly scoffed at the idea that there was a link between pollutants and fat, not because I thought it was perfect.

However, if we disregard everything that isn't perfect, we miss a lot that is important and useful.