Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Separating Fact from Fiction in the Age of Obesity

By Courtney E. Martin, AlterNet. Posted May 24, 2007.


Can the diet industry be prosecuted into warning labels and public education efforts the way the tobacco industry has been?

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Is Blind Faith in God and the Bible a Modern Invention?
Devilstower

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
Who's Paying for the Recession Most of All? Young Workers
Lizzy Ratner

DrugReporter:
Lies About Marijuana Drive People to a Much More Harmful Drug -- Booze
Steve Fox

Environment:
Why Max Baucus' 'No' Vote on the Climate Bill May Really Help Its Passage
Jeff Mcmahon

Food:
Soda Helps Make Americans Unhealthy and Fat -- Will Soda Tax Prevail Despite Pushback by Beverage Industry?
Christine Spolar, Joseph Eaton

Health and Wellness:
Do We Really Want to Enshrine Insurance Monopoly into Law? This and 5 Other Complaints About the Health Bill
John Nichols

Immigration:
NYC Marathon Raises Question of Who Is American Enough?
James E. Johnson, Jr.

Media and Technology:
How Biased Media Can Brainwash You
Melinda Burns

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
4 Ways the Stupak Amendment Deprives Women of Access to Abortion
Jessica Arons

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
How the Stupak Amendment Radically Undermines Abortion Rights
Rachel Morris

Rights and Liberties:
"My Kids Want to Hide Their Identity; They're Scared Someone Will Attack Us": U.S. Muslims Being Targeted
Jaisal Noor

Sex and Relationships:
9 Silly Things People Say When They Hear You Don't Want Kids (And Ways to Counter Them)
Liz Langley

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Why Natural Gas Is Not a Clean Energy Panacea
Stan Cox

World:
10 Suicides a Month at Ft. Hood -- War Stress Is Taking Soldiers to the Brink
Dahr Jamail

More stories by Courtney E. Martin

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Feminist theorist Susan Bordo once wrote, "People used to try to develop a better self and act out all the projects of transcendence, transformation and purification in the context of community or religious work. Now they go to seminars with diet gurus." If dieting has become the new religion, then we are not only financially daft but spiritually bankrupt. The good news is that there is a growing movement trying to wake us up from our calorie-counting hypnosis and target the fat-pocketed CEOs behind the swinging crystal.

The pathetic success rate of diets isn't news, but what is groundbreaking is the growing awareness of just how unethical the $34 billion-a-year (some estimate as high as $50 billion) diet industry is. Organizations like the National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance and books like Laura Fraser's "Losing It: America's Obsession with Weight and the Industry That Feeds It" and the just published "Rethinking Thin: The New Science of Weight Loss -- and the Myths and Realities of Dieting" by New York Times health writer Gina Kolata, reinforce that it is not a lack of willpower that is standing between the average American dieter and her perfect body but a corrupt industry that keeps so many of us -- women in particular -- unsatisfied, obsessed and misinformed.

Separating fact from fiction in the age of obesity
If you've just emerged from an ashram or a remote cave, let me fill you in: The last few years have seen a wild spike in the media coverage and public conversation of all things fat. The obesity epidemic became the topic du jour for every nightly news program, sending America racing off to Weight Watchers meetings and downing diet teas in terrified droves.

Most of the diet industry big-hitters toe the party line between quick-results dieting and long-term lifestyle change (Weight Watchers, Jenny Craig, etc.), but there is a whole underbelly of the industry chock-full of dangerous schemes. These fast-fix pills, exercise and diet plans promise rapid weight loss -- sometimes at medically unsafe levels -- to desperate consumers.

There have been two dozen deaths from ephedra-based products in the last decade. Americans take 6 billion doses of PPA (what Fraser calls a "close chemical cousin" to amphetamines) every year even though it can causes a rise in blood pressure, anxiety and stroke; it is a common ingredient in diet pills like Dexatrim, Acutrim, Thinz and Appedrine. Many of the makers of these drugs have profited from the seemingly ubiquitous public conversation about fat in America.

J. Eric Oliver, a political scientist at the University of Chicago, asserts that the advent of the obesity epidemic story was less about fact and more about funding. In "Obesity: The Making of an American Epidemic," he explains that the hullabaloo was the result of "a relatively small group of scientists and doctors, many directly funded by the weight-loss industry, [who] have created an arbitrary and unscientific definition of overweight and obesity. They have inflated claims and distorted statistics on the consequences of our growing weights, and they have largely ignored the complicated health realities associated with being fat."

Instead of talking about the food industry, genetic predisposition, or sedentary, fast-food lifestyles, nightly newscasts featured fat, headless B-roll edited with voiceover from the nation's doomsday celebrity nutritionists spreading fear and misinformation. Being slightly overweight raises risk of death! Life expectancy plummets for the first time in two centuries!

Thanks to books like Oliver's -- and "The Obesity Myth," by Paul F. Campos -- public hysteria over the obesity epidemic seems to have finally come to a more sober summit. The truth is that many of us are overweight -- according to Scientific American, six out of every 10 of us, in fact. After decades of speculation, and let's face it, downright discrimination when it comes to fat Americans, researchers are finally finding out how genetics, environment, and psychology play into our overweight millions. And they are finally asking the question that women, pulling on waistbands and frowning in mirrors, have been asking for years: "Why doesn't my diet ever work?"

The set point makes diets obsolete
The world's largest study of weight loss by a group of researchers at the University of California has proven that two-thirds of those who diet gain the weight back. The study confirms what many researchers have already postulated -- that rapid weight loss and gain is actually more unhealthy than simply being overweight. Yo-yo dieting puts women at risk for a range of scary side effects -- like heart attack, stroke, diabetes and eating disorders.

A host of studies covered in Kolata's new book indicate that, in part, diets don't work because they can't override the body's innate "set point." Dr. Susan Albers, author of "Eating Mindfully: How to End Mindless Eating & Enjoy a Balanced Relationship with Food," explains: "According to the 'set point' theory ... your body has a genetically predetermined weight range. Your body tries to keep your weight within that range and will automatically adjust your metabolism and food storage capacity to keep you from losing or gaining weight outside of that range or set point."

The set point theory was thought to be just that -- a theory -- until now. Too many studies prove its legitimacy. For example, Dr. Ethan Sims of the University of Vermont found that a group of svelte prisoners who increased their weight by at least 20 percent over six months also saw their metabolism increase (by 50 percent!), making it impossible for them to continue to put on weight even with their whopping 10,000-calorie-a-day consumption. Flip the coin and you get the same results: Rockefeller researchers found that genetically fat patients who were put on strict diets actually went into psychological and physiological starvation mode even though their body weight was still technically very safe.

In our extreme makeover culture where women are led to believe they could look like Halle Berry if they just had enough will power or money, this is a powerful conclusion. Your body is genetically predisposed to exist in a certain range of weight. Your range might be higher than Paris Hilton's, or your next door neighbor's, or even your sister's, for that matter, but it doesn't mean anything about your character. In fact, you can diet with utmost determination and your body will continue to adjust your metabolism to fit its genetically determined size.

The frightening power within
Americans have poured themselves into dieting for decades. From Atkins to South Beach to Fat Busters, we've actually spent the gross national product of Ireland each year on trying to slim down. It turns out, it was free all along.

Susan Levin, a registered dietitian at the Physicians for Social Responsibility, explains: "What nobody talks about is that being healthy is not a matter of dieting, it is a matter of changing your life forever, eating healthy forever, moving your body, everyday, forever. No one wants to talk about that because it scares people to have that much control."

Levin recommends rejecting the pharmaceutical therapies and unhealthy diet plans (cutting out whole food groups, she asserts, is undeniably unhealthy) and seeing food as medicine instead. She described a patient with a stomachache who arrived at his doctor's office begging for a pill to make it better. In typical American quick-fix fashion, the patient hadn't even considered what food he had put in that stomach to make it ache in the first place.

Medical schools, it turns out, aren't much help either, as most of them don't require any kind of curriculum on nutrition. So the average American is not only being bombarded with false advertising and hyperbolic weight-loss claims in magazines, on television, radio, the internet and billboards, but often faces a similar fate at his or her own doctor. The "expert" may have little training in talking about weight loss without plugging a pill. Worst-case scenario, that doctor may even be paid to testify to its effectiveness by the pharmaceutical company that makes it.

With the potential of manipulation at every turn, where does the American look for the truth about health? Of all places, inward. "Let's talk about eating that makes good, intuitive sense," Levin insists. "Let's look at countries that eat high plant-based diets like Japan and Greece. These are the healthiest people on the planet, and they don't portion control or calorie count. They eat a natural, close-to-the-earth kind of diet."

The notion that we have everything we need to be healthy (or in diet industry parlance, "lose weight") within renders an entire industry impotent. If only we could believe it. Levin says, "People are afraid. They ask, 'So you're telling me I have that much power?'"


Feminists vs. the diet industry
It is hard to believe that the power to be healthy is so simple and internal, after decades of complex, contradictory, and profit-driven messaging on the part of multimillion-dollar corporations.

The dominant script of diet industry parlance is that, first and foremost, we are inadequate, and only they have the unique cure for our inadequacies. Commercials preach the gospel of thinness and equate it with success, happiness and love -- the thin girl waltzes through a sunny day with a handsome man on her arm and stacks of her own money in the bank, all a not-so-subtle result of her recent weight loss. The chance to slim down becomes more than a dwindling number on the scale in the world of weight-loss marketing. It becomes an answer to all of life's problems.

The obsession and self-hatred that the diet industry engenders has long topped feminist academics and psychologists' list of evils. Clinicians like Catherine Baker-Pitts, LCSW, and her colleagues at the New York and London-based Women's Therapy Centre Institute, encourage patients to look at the ways that "eating problems" are both internally (upbringing, personality) and externally (media, patriarchy) shaped. Baker explains: "Obviously the morality surrounding women's appetites is entirely loaded and connected to female identity -- messages to be less powerful, less emotional, less hungry, and to assume less space in the world."

Efforts to reclaim the beauty of the natural body have been numerous. Love Your Body Day now occupies a celebrated space on most college campuses in late October, as do feminist theory classes on body image year-round. Off-Broadway theaters have recently become a hot spot of plays -- like "Beginner at Life" and "Beauty on the Vine" -- both pushing audience members to come to terms with their inner critics and participate in dialogues afterward (ala Eve Ensler's "The Good Body.")

A wealth of literature, ranging from the academic (Susan Bordo) to the talk show-oriented (Jessica Weiner), urges women to stop pouring their critical time, energy and money into dieting. (Note: I have recently published a book that deals with many of these issues, Perfect Girls, Starving Daughters: The Frightening New Normalcy of Hating Your Body.) But for all of our go-girling, expose-writing and finger-pointing, the diet industry marches on as lucrative and deadly as ever.

Some feminists are considering taking the rallying cry against dieting out of the classrooms and into the courts. Given recent research that proves the ineffectiveness of diets as a whole and the inaccuracies, therefore, littered throughout diet advertising -- are there legal grounds to take down the industry? Can the diet industry be prosecuted into warning labels and public education efforts the way the tobacco industry has been?

Prosecuting the magic pill makers
Susie Orbach would like to think so. The British psychologist and author of the 1978 classic "Fat is a Feminist Issue" has been threatening to sue 40-year-old company Weight Watchers International, which she views as merely a symbol of the diet industry as a whole. She explains, "Dieting has a 97 percent recidivism rate. Where does that appear in the advertising? The failure rate is crucial for the profits of the diet industry. If it worked, there would not be return customers and no profit. It surely contravenes the Trade Descriptions Act."

The Act Orbach referred to prevents manufacturers, retailers or service industry providers in the United Kingdom from misleading consumers as to what they are spending their money on. It empowers the judiciary to punish companies who make false claims as a strict liability offense.

Here in the United States, the Federal Trade Commission recommends a "healthy portion of skepticism" to those evaluating weight-loss products, but has done little since 1990 and 1992, when congressional hearings on the diet industry led to a spurt of crackdowns on outlandish weight-loss claims. Around the same time, the Food and Drug Administration created a list of 111 ingredients used in over-the-counter diet aids that were ineffective or unsafe. In 1992, a National Institutes of Health task force declared that diets don't work.

Since then fraudulent weight-loss schemes have flourished. The Dietary Supplements Act of 1994 put the burden on the FDA to prove that a product is fraudulent -- as opposed to on the manufacturer -- so most diet drugs simply slip through the cracks due to a deluge of undone paperwork. And consumers' rights groups appear to do little when it comes to exposing diet rip-offs.

It does seem like class-action lawsuits -- ala the tobacco industry takedown -- may be the most effective answer. In recent years the number of lawsuits against drug companies, in particular, have skyrocketed. Dr. Phil's reputation was sufficiently tarnished when he was sued three times over his bogus diet supplements. Before Anna Nicole Smith's untimely death, she and TrimSpa were the target of a lawsuit alleging their marketing of the weight-loss pill was false or misleading.

These individual cries for restitution and truth are chipping away at the industry, but it remains to be seen if fed-up physicians, feminists and anti-diet activists can band together to demolish the whole glittering mirage.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: feminism, obesity, diet industry

Courtney E. Martin is the author of "Perfect Girls, Starving Daughters: The Frightening New Normalcy of Hating Your Body." You can read more about her work at www.courtneyemartin.com.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
More lawsuits?
Posted by: kepstein7777 on May 24, 2007 3:36 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Please! Our courts are clogged up with frivolous crap already.

As long as some people want to believe that the next diet trend will help, they will find ways to part with their money, and nobody can stop them. Paying dues every month to Diet Of the Month Club and having to buy their overpriced food doesn't set off any red flags? Hello?!?!? Should we also sue the guy who sells fake watches on the corner?

This article actually started out ok, and provided some interesting info. It even provided the million dollar answer: "Let's talk about eating that makes good, intuitive sense" Then it got all litigious towards the end.

You can sue all the snake oil salesmen you want, but as long as there is a demand from a gullible public looking for instant gratification, or to buy their way out of eating healthy...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You make good points BUT Posted by: Gravitas
a better self
Posted by: wawa on May 24, 2007 4:36 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
People STILL DO "develop a better self and act out all the projects of transcendence, transformation and purification in the context of community or religious work."-Susan Bordo

Having battled anorexia in my teens and obesity in my twenties, at 53, I am at my 9th grade weight WITHOUT dieting;

I "work out"/ PLAY every day; an hour of either Pilates. rollerblade, swimming, lifting weights and a 2-4 mile fast walk in the evening.

I eat what I want, when I want:

I do NOT eat on anyones time schedule-only when my stomach 'talks' to me.

I choose nutrient dense NOT PROCESSED foods, I eat chocolate DAILY and in stead of worrying about my weight, I choose to "act out all the projects of transcendence, transformation and purification in the context of community" through my SPIRITUALITY;

I have been to Occupied Palestinian Territories 4 times [returning for a 5th] to bear witness and report on the Christian EXODUS from the Holy Land-

AlterNet Editors continue to ignore the PROGRESSIVE movement within USA Christianity,

But my Government and Military are always in Top 10 of WAWA readers and my photo on my site was taken Feb. 2007:

http://www.wearewideawake.org/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Good for you Eileen.... Posted by: AngryWhiteFemale
» RE: a better self Posted by: hagwind
Finish your plate!
Posted by: Sushi on May 24, 2007 4:53 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Remember that adage? People are starving in India. Every prepared-food establishment fills plates to overflowing, every ad for sandwiches boasts bigger than the next guy. People think they have to finish their plates instead of stopping eating when they are no longer "hungry" but when they are "full". Full to the point of almost gasping for air at the end of a meal. Want to save money, too? Eat slowly and only eat half your giant sandwich...save the rest for tomorrow's lunch. I will bet you won't miss that second half.
Also, stop the "ritual eating". My mom eats "because it is lunch/dinner time, or "has to have" that bowl of cereal before bed because "that's what I always do." Eat when you are hungry....sometimes I skip meals entirely just because I am not all that hungry. Besides, hunger doesn't always HAVE to be satisfied in the moment. Savor the feeling....many in this world experience it constantly. I promise you, you will not turn instantly into a heap of bleached bones and the next meal will taste better!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Finish your plate! Posted by: bookie
» RE: Finish your plate! Posted by: blm
Fatness
Posted by: hartsmart on May 24, 2007 5:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well said, well done, Sushi! My motto---Never Clean Your Plate! And don't slurp liquids, unless thirsty.
Don't buy into the pyramid guides, and any and all diets. Theyare built on fake nutri sience, they are the root cause of weight gain. Government promoted. Greens and grains are fattening! Treat them with extra caution. Stay away from most carbos, upgrade to red meat, be well fed on smaller portions!---------hartsmartliving-----------------

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» more FRESH VEGAN food... Posted by: veggiegrrrl
Usual comments
Posted by: anothername on May 24, 2007 6:04 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1. Choosing a diet should be the same as choosing a healing method. Yes, there are charltans. Yes, there are incompetent practioners. Yes, there is an officially-acceptable product. Yes, some of those alternatives work for individuals. Guidelines should be provided, as should publicly-funded research and educational outreach. Then, each individual should decide how to continue.

2. Obesity, like smoking, is a result of the U.S. Congress being an enabler. Look at how much money was given to tobacco farmers and companies by congress even as research was showing how damaging smoking is. Look at how much money congress has given to companies that promote lack of exercise (e.g., car manufacturers).

3. As a nation, we have reduced our walking because we no longer have sidewalks, no longer feel safe from the crazy driver when we are crossing streets, no longer have buses that will transport us past the widely-sparsed walking districts and no longer have communities where we shop at local stores and play in the local playground. This is a direct result of the government deciding not to support walking options.

4. Obesity is a result of several factors. These include eating methods, type of food available (e.g., convenience stores only in some neighborhoods), lifestyles (sitting at a computer all day munching to keep awake while working a boring job, maybe), the use of corn syrup and artificial ingredients in much of our food supply, age, lack of exercise, and even those old genes. Always have to put this disclaimer on any issue of diet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Set point? It's more complicated than that.
Posted by: ateo on May 24, 2007 6:21 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Personally I was bordering on obese before I decided to join the military and then I lost 40 pounds in about 5 months before they would accept me and kept it off the entire time I was enlisted. Something about working hard on your feet every day, eating healthy, and working out (running especially) keeps you from regaining weight.

As soon as I got out and got my nice comfortable office job where I sit on my ass all day, stopped working out as often because there was less incentive (in the military obviously fitness is huge and you have fitness tests to pass every year, also you are sometimes let off from work early to go work out), and started hanging out with some old friends and drinking beer/eating pizza etc. The weight came back, I wonder why?

I am fairly educated on matters of nutrition/diet as a matter of personal interest and I was aware of the set point theory long ago. I really don't buy it because if you want to change your weight you need to simply eat better and exercise more. However, like the author of this article says you have to maintain that healthier life style FOREVER. The traditional diet is something people think of as a way to lose a few pounds then they assume they can go back to stuffing their mouth with pizza and cheese cake and the weight won't come back.

I really have to wonder how people can be that ignorant.

Nobody I have ever advised on diet/weight loss that has actually followed my advice has ever had trouble losing weight. It is simply a matter of consuming less calories than your body burns in the course of a day. To off set the metabolism adjustment that your body would attempt to compensate with the lowered calorie intake you exercise and do some cardio.

The problem is with the whole conception of what a "diet" is. If you want to be thinner permanently then you need to alter your diet and life style permanently. If you want to lose a few pounds and look a little better for a couple of weeks/months then go on a temporary diet then go back to eating garbage.

It really is a matter of will power. All of the supplements and other things are unnecessary and often harmful. Garbage in, garbage out. You are what you eat.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Where is the real ignorance? Posted by: Gravitas
» Please don't fool yourself... Posted by: jparsons
» Supplements are not Harmful Posted by: Persephone8
It's ironic...
Posted by: plantsareneat on May 24, 2007 7:01 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That off to the left of the comments on this article, I'm seeing "Ads by Google" and all of them are "lose ten pounds in a week!" and "Cheap Diet Pills!"

Others have said it here - eating a a diet free of overly processed food and being active is the best way to maintain a healthy weight. Humans evolved eating a seasonal diet that consisted of fruits, veggies, whole grains, legumes and free-range farmed or wild hunted meats. Can we be surprised that we're unhealthy when we subsist on burgers and cheese puffs that were formulated in a lab?

I'm a classic example - I bought my lunch at the pizza place or the Chinese place or the fast food joint most workdays, was a cola junkie, and ate dinner out twice or three times a week. This Xmas I got a lunch jar and am packing my lunch with food I cook myself every day. I'm down 40 pounds and suddenly exercise is interesting again. My body is interesting again. Not because it looks different, though that's true, but because it feels better, energized, lighter. Think about carrying a backpack that weighs 40 pounds and what that's like when you take it off. And the main difference is that the food I eat now looked like a head of broccoli, or a cleaned chicken, or a tomato when I bought it - not like a cheese sauce with green flecks or a nugget-shaped patty or a squirt of ketchup.

Eating whole foods is better for humans, and better for the planet. The energy inputs to processing food make it unsustainable, and rising oil costs will make that cheese puff more expensive as we go along. I for one think that will force people to eat more whole foods, because they will be less expensive than the energy-intensive processed foods. I think it can only be for the good.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Great Article!!!!!!
Posted by: Gravitas on May 24, 2007 7:43 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a sociologist who has researched the stigma of obesity for many years, I think this article was absolutely fantastic! I think this author is a brave voice in a sea of insanity!!!!! No doubt there will be critics who feel very threatned by this article. Pay them NO MIND!!!! Remember, the suffragettes also paid a price for thinking ahead of the crowd. Social change is often painful because we can only recognize social disease from historical perspective. Every one is Braveheart in front of their VCRs; rice cakes and diet cola close at hand. It takes real courage to be in the vanguard that fights a popular prejudice. Don't let the bigots get you down, like all bigots, they need someone to project their own inadequacies on. Instead, look at all the brave souls who went before you and know you are in good company!!!!


"She knew she had a delightfully big rump. Her attitude was kiss it!!!!! (From a magnet at Women and Children First bookstore in Chicago)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Great Article!!!!!! Posted by: sweet_byrd
All I want are the facts
Posted by: kwallace on May 24, 2007 8:16 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I noticed a lot of anectdotes in the other comments. Give me science. If 97% of people fail at diet, I can believe that the 3% who succeed must really think they know something. WRONG. Your personal experience is not science. The books mentioned in the article (two of which I've read) discuss real scientific research.

Would you take a pill that actually produced the opposite effect 97% of the time? Of course not, but that's what doctors are pushing on almost everyone who walks through the door, at almost any weight. And don't kid yourself, even so called "healthy, longterm" approaches do not lead to significant weight loss over a period of years. Read the research and this is what it shows.

You want to get personal, fine, I ate a very nutritious diet and exercised regularly and still ended up morbidly obese. I can barely find a doctor who knows what a whole grain is. But none of that made me fundamentally unhealthy. People need to understand that leading a healthy life is it's own reward. People who are overweight and eat reasonably and exercise regularly don't lose a lot of weight, but they will live longer than people who are naturally skinny and lead an unhealthy lifestyle.

Let's quit worrying about our weight and start worrying about our habits. Let's remove words like "non-fattening" and replace them with "nutritious". It's a societal change that starts with language and emphasis. Let's let our little girls (and boys) be happy with their bodies so this frightening amount of anorexia and bulemia and self hatred might start to abate.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Here we go again.
Posted by: dkm on May 24, 2007 8:19 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First off, if we have more overweight and obese people than previous generations, it is NOT because of genetics, physiology or anything like that. It is lifestyle pure and simple. Our grandparents had the same physiology and genetics as we do, so if we are more obese than they were, it is something else, that something else being lifestyle until proven different.

Second, dieting by itself will never give good results. You also need an increase in activity. This is so obvious that to ignore it amounts to dishonesty.

That we in fact are more obese than our ancestors is obvious from the fact that everything from seat dimensions in auditoriums to waist sizes for clothes to rising rates of adult diabetes are changing from several decades ago. You can't claim that it is just some marketing campaign mounted by those who benefit financially from making people think that they are fat.

The last complaint I have with this particular article is the authorities cited are not exactly in a position to talk about the subject. "J. Eric Oliver, a political scientist," is not exactly qualified to say anything about physiology or even about the sociology of expanding waistlines. It reminds me of the Scandinavian economist who make a fool out of himself trying to prove that we don't need to worry about the environment.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» And You Are??? Posted by: Gravitas
» RE: Here we go again. Posted by: fork
There is a "fat gene", predisposition 10 % have it, the same as for alcoholism
Posted by: Swedish liberal on May 24, 2007 9:14 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Studies in Europe show that white Caucasians has a 10 % genetic predisposition towards obesity, about the same prevalence as for alcoholism in the US. However not all people with the fat gene become obese and not all with predisposition for alcoholism becomes alcoholics.

It is of course mainly a life style issue. And it is a fact that overweight will in the future bankrupt the welfare systems since most of the medical issues we will have in the future is because of lifestyle; diabetes type 2, heart conditions etc. So we can fell sorry for the 10 % and therefore do nothing or we can try to change people’s lifestyles by different measures as we have done with tobacco and alcohol, you restrict and tax unsuitable behaviour, by unsuitable I mean from a cost perspective not a moral perspective

For instance a sugar tax and a differentiation on health care insurance and healthcare so that people with a healthy lifestyle get hefty rebates and people with unsuitable lifestyles pay the regular premium. I do not believe that you should penalize smokers, drinker or fat people but a revision of the regular premium will have to come into place. It is also very important that the 10 % showing a predisposition towards obesity and alcohol/drug addiction is given every opportunity and have resources set aside to combat these.

There is noting as efficient as social control and therefore the stigmatization of smokers, over users of alcohol/drugs and fat people is very effective indeed. But I dislike the debate because I am extremely suspicious against puritans both right and left the might hijack this to make us obey their morals, it is not a question of morals but a question of behaviour modification.

I myself smoke cigars, drink to much and are very near being obese. I do not mind paying higher premiums and higher taxes because of my lifestyle, why should not others? I do this because I otherwise know that our welfare system will not survive. I do not do it for moral purposes and therefore I accept to pay but a am totally against forbidding and prohibiting certain behaviour, not even drug use.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Check out the yore
Posted by: talkville on May 24, 2007 9:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
England back a couple of centuries or so ago witnessed a veritable increase in weight in the population and promptly began to discuss these things. Once again, with the aid of the "new" technological and "enlightened" hubris of our epoch, we render judgment on the actual facts of society. Someone is making money; someone isn't. What precisely does capitalism provide?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm confused
Posted by: MartianBachelor on May 24, 2007 10:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is obesity something Ok that we just have to learn to accept (because doing otherwise constitutes "prejudice"), or are we going to sue those who are either responsible for it (or profiting off it without really doing anything about it) because it's a Bad Thing? The article seems to want to have it both ways in different places.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ignorance of BigAgra Causes Obesity (High Fructose Corn Syrup)
Posted by: MLO on May 24, 2007 11:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am allergic to corn. The FDA claims this allergy is nearly non-existent. Though rare, it is real, and I have the Emergency Room visits to prove it.

Corn is a known endocrine disruptor. If the endocrinological system is disrupted, weight, reproduction, immune, etc. are all affected.

Many of the uses of corn do not have to be labeled. They do not have to label that many put a corn-based dextrose into non-organic pork in order for it to be juicier. Unlabeled corn is used in a vast number of products with no obligation to label its use.

The same is true of soybeans - another endocrine disruptor.

We have seen increases in food allergy due to the overuse of these two products.

High Fructose Corn Syrup is a fattening agent. To fatten pigs and cows you feed them corn. Is it any wonder that Americans, a group that eats more corn than any other on earth, have growing waistlines?

Pax,

MLO

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Extra! Extra!
Posted by: morticia on May 24, 2007 1:20 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Read all about it!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Confusing article
Posted by: runner on May 24, 2007 1:37 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm a personal trainer and have strong personal feelings on this topic. I found this article less than helpful. America is dealing with an obesity problem (personal conclusion, I don't need funded research for this insight). As a society, we need to deal with what we eat and how we live or we will damage our quality of live, and on a practical level, place an excessive burden on our healthcare system. Simply, it is a matter of personal responsibility. Discussion of evil business and marketing types or the poor misunderstood plus sized women diverts attention from personal responsibility. The production and distribution of food in America may be a system fraught with problems. But it does allow for the purchase of healthy foods (quality, nutritious whole foods) throughout the year. No one is forced to buy the garbage. No one has to eat fast food. No one has to eat supersized meals. Really. And, turn off the TV, shut down the Internet, and get out and walk or run or swim or bowl or hike: do something. After food and exercise are addressed, we can deal with conditions dictated by genetics and physical limitations.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Confusing article Posted by: MLO
» Self Interest Posted by: Gravitas
Dispelling Some Myths
Posted by: katep on May 24, 2007 1:59 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1. This is an important issue for progressives. Corporations like WalMart have tried to use weight as a means of bypassing antidiscrimination laws, since minorities, women, lesbians, the poor, and older workers *all* have higher rates of obesity. A middle aged African American woman is five times as likely to be severely obese as a young white man - and this is not just "lifestyle" - there's a real genetic propensity and physiology behind this. Liberals who argue that weight discrimination is "good" are just playing into this game - corporations would love to have a free hand to discriminate by weight.

2. For the person who claimed alcoholism is as "genetic" as weight. Not true. Even though alcoholism is highly heritable (40 to 50%), weight is about twice as heritable (80 to 90%) - approaching the heritability of height (approx. 90% heritable). And just about as heritable as any trait there is. There are lots of twin pairs where one is an alcoholic and the other is not - there are virtually no cases of very fat people whose twins are not also very fat.

3. Increasing weight in a population does not say anything about genetics, lifestyle or reversibility - height has been steadily increasing in the population over the past century as well. This doesn't "prove" that height is a "lifestyle choice."

4. Just because there's a set point does not mean that you can't lose or gain *any* weight - the point is that the amount you can lose or gain comfortably is limited. So a +/- 10 or 20 lb weight change is probably realistic for most and can be comfortably maintained through lifestyle changes. But this doesn't imply that everyone has infinite control over their body shape. The logical error in believing in the infinite power over your weight is comparable to the error in believing you can hold your breath until you pass out. Some degree of control over breathing does not imply infinite and permanent control. Some degree of control over eating and weight does not imply total control regardless of the body's increasing pressure on appetite and metabolism.

5. Weight is NOT like smoking. 80% of smokers eventually quit. The number of fat people who become thin permanently is vanishingly small. Unlike with smoking, where health messages were effective, discrimination against the fat and endlless messages to lose weight has only led to...a slightly increased average weight in the population. And fat people already earn thousands less than their thin counterparts, they already face nearly universal bigotry, and yet some quarters believe that a strategy of TOTAL intolerance is the answer. This is perfectly insane and inhumane.

And daft. A certain degree of weight variability in the population is normal and natural and part of the adaptiveness of the species. The five to ten lb average weight gain in the population as a whole does have public health consequences, but it doesn't follow that all people can or should be "thin." That's an entirely specious conclusion. There is no population in the world, nor has there ever been an historical epoch where everyone has been thin.

6. While healthy eating and exercise are important, oversimplifying the issue of weight regulation and using "lifestyle" as a club to beat up on a group that is already highly marginalized already is simply wrong, unproductive, and frankly...ignorant.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Eating Disorders
Posted by: aussidawg on May 24, 2007 2:22 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article was, in my opinion at least, excellent. Thank you Alternet for postiing such a valuable piece of information.

One point I haven't seen discussed in much depth is the problem of eating disorders. This is a very serious condition which I believe gets far too little attention, especially as prevalent as it is in our society. I have known several people in my life time that have suffered from one kind of eating disorder or another. Of these people, two are now deceased. I have a sixteen year old daughter who suffers from anorexia and her twin sister is close behind. I am terrified for them.

Neither daughter has a weight problem, rather, they are both very thin and attractive. However, they do not see themselves in the same light... they see themselves overweight, fat, ugly (the opposite of reality.) Our commercial society is constantly preaching that thin is beautiful, fat is ugly and unacceptable. We have televison commerials constantly advertising weight control drugs, thin models strolling down the runway modeling the most expensive and luxurious new clothes, thin actors and actresses selling everything from diet soft drinks, to beer, to pizza, to Big Macs yet regardless of what they consume, never gain a pound. Meanwhile overweight people are characterized as being lazy, sluggish and stupid...in short, losers. All of this corporate propaganda is constantly being pumped into the minds of our children and we are paying for it with eating disorders which have killed countless teens and young adults.

Once these disorders begin, they are very difficult to stop. They become imbedded in a person's soul and literally turn into a potentially fatal disease...a disease which in its own way is similar to alcoholism. These disorders encompass a persons problems into their eating habits and dieting becomes an obsession, an addiction, very much as an alcoholic becomes addicted to alcohol and drinks to suppress problems.

I have no problem whatsoever with the industries that shove this "skiiny is beautiful" down the throats of our children being sued. I believe they should be held accountable for the problems they create in order to make a bigger profit. This is a serious probem! They must be responsible for what they promote!

If you or anyone you know and love has a problem with an eating disorder, I beg you to get hep or help them get help! Their life could very well depend on it. A VERY good resource for those with eating disorders can be found here:

Eating Disorders, Effects of Anorexia, Effects of Bulemia, Effects of Compulsive Overeating Disorder - Something Fishy or Eating Disorders.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Eating Disorders Posted by: hagwind
» RE: ating Disorders Posted by: aussidawg
BMI bullshit
Posted by: DaBear on May 24, 2007 11:12 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I love the bit about the "set point." Explains a lot and smacks of, OMG, common sense. Then there's the BMI crap: a 5'-6" tall male has to have a weight of 145 based on "healthy" BMI. I've had several docs over the years that have told me flat out, if you were 145 with your bone and muscle mass, you'd be dead or in need of hospitalization where we'd feed ya'. Even 150 is too light for an endomorph with big bones and muscle bulk (years of paddling, climbing and biking). One doc finally told me about this "set point" thing and base don my history, it's about 165. But try to tell that to my insurance company who charges me 300% of a male with a weight of 145, because of their little chart for BMI. It's all about the money. I finally gave up drviing my car (gas costs too damned much anyway) and I ride my bike or walk. Amazing, I can still work at my desk and get in enough energy... no diets, no bullshit gym fees and regimen, no contortions, and low and behold, just like I did a decade ago when I worked a job that was outside, I'm dumpin' weight. But even when I hit my healthy weight with lean muscle, my insurer will still overcharge me because of their little chart based on BMI. Schmucks!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The diet industry is only a small part of a bigger problem.
Posted by: KeepsonTickn on May 25, 2007 5:17 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article completely ignores the fact that we are constantly pushed and pulled into an obese lifestyle, and blames it all on the diet industry (though the diet industry is certainly a part of the problem).

When I say we are pushed, I am talking about two points. First, nearly all of the food available in America that is cheap, convenient and tasty is loaded with excessive salt, refined sugars, starches and unhealthy fats. This explains why obesity is a greater problem for the poor than for average Americans. Second, our entire infrastructure is built around the automobile. Exercise, rather than being a requirement of daily living, is something that must be "scheduled" and done without purpose (driving to the gym to walk on a treadmill rather than walking to the store or work or to school.)

We are pulled toward unhealthy lifestyle by carefully crafted advertising and marketing research, engineered to subtly and not-so subtly entice us to make bad choices in our lives. These bad individual choices are encouraged with the purpose of increasing profits through their cumulative, statistically measurable effect. This is the same way they harm our society, and everyone can disown the damage by citing individual choice. "You don't have to listen to our ads or buy our tempting junk food," though we do our damnedest to make sure you do.

Our government has abdicated its responsibility to control the factors that affect our health, just as it is squandering the world's energy resources and ignoring the destruction of our global environment.

Here is one "small" example of what government could do. If a federal law were passed today mandating that each portion of prepared foods (excepting traditionally salt cured foods) could not have more than that portion's percentage of the RDA for sodium, we would see an immediate and significant national health benefit that would translate into health care savings, at an insignificant cost to government or industry. And freedom of choice would still exist, in the form of a salt shaker.

The processed food industry would not like this at first, because they would no longer be able to increase their marketing edge by dumping more salt in the food, but in the long run I think they would sleep better.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A simple solution in 9 steps
Posted by: wisewebwoman on May 25, 2007 8:53 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
(1)Get a pedometer so you can get an idea of what (2) is.
(2)Walk 10,000 steps a day without fail and without earbuds of any kind, tune into the world around you. Reflect.
(3) Avoid any kind of fast or processed food.
(4)Research 'slow food.'
(5)Connect with local foods.
(6)Connect with this tiny planet.
(7)Read "Diet for a Small Planet."
(8)Be part of the solution.
(9)Spread the word.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

still not totally convinced about set point
Posted by: blm on May 26, 2007 5:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My father was lean but became less active and continued to eat a lot of rich food and he put on quite a bit of weight. If the range of set point is allowed to expand to whatever weight an individual ever weighs, then it's a fairly usless term.

My sister was always a bit pudgy but became an active runner, training for and completing a few marathons. Somehow she never slimmed down as much as I thought she would have. She said she ate healty, frequently would "have a salad for dinner." Subsequently she developed rheumatiod arthritis and was unable to run at all. The most effective thing she found to manage the pain was to eliminate dairy products from her diet. The amazing thing was she quickly lost about 20 lbs (she's only 5' 2"). I think that tells us more about the accuracy of her description of her diet than anything else.

It's my personal, unscientific observation that the overweight people I have known (lived with, worked with, etc), eat a lot, eat a lot of high calorie foods, and exercise minimally or not at all. While I'm sure this doesn't apply to all overweight people, I bet it's true for the vast majority.

I agree with "Susan Levin, a registered dietitian at the Physicians for Social Responsibility, explains: "What nobody talks about is that being healthy is not a matter of dieting, it is a matter of changing your life forever, eating healthy forever, moving your body, everyday, forever. No one wants to talk about that because it scares people to have that much control." I'd add that control means responsibility.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Some Side Ads are Better Than Others
Posted by: Elfcat1 on May 27, 2007 7:48 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Evidently one of the churches which advertises here decided on a happier tack, writing "God Doesn't Care if you lose 20 pounds". Which is heartening considering the stories I've heard about religiously contexted fat-hate.

To individuals like the writer of the "simple solution in nine steps", I think I agree with you far more about the steps themselves than the putative objective of them. I sometimes half-jokingly call myself an "organic feeder" because I love to encourage eating copious amounts of healthy food and getting out and moving the body. The more I experience in the discussion on health, the more I get the feeling that when presented with a load in excess of capacity, some bodies more easily lighten the load and others more easily build up capacity. So all the good food and all the walking I think makes those who are prone to be large to build up the bones and muscles and cardiovascular system. Fat people are generally pretty strong and resilient to say the least. My body is used to the low-100s, it has always been there. If I suddenly had 200 pounds of anything added on, I would not be able to even pull myself out of bed and move out into the field like so many of my 300 and 400 and 500 pounds friends do - not always without visible effort, but they do it.

I think often what I call addiction to immortality infects the discussion, a seeming cage match of longevity and morbidity, and a frighteningly divisive current of invective about fat people supposedly being a harbinger of health system collapse.

I had a conversation once at a party with an inebriated diagnostic tech. He told me, "Oh, OK, so you want to have MRIs with a 1000 pound limit, say? It would have to be as big as this whole living room." Only a few days later in the middle of yet another dose of Pacifica Radio reality check on our foreign policy did I reflect to myself, "Yes, well, that is no larger and likely no more expensive than an M1A1 Abrams tank, and we seem quite able to churn those out don't we?" If we want to talk in terms of a war for something, why not just a war to make everyone as happy and healthy as they can be, with some wide allowance for choices by individuals as to what looks like the most likely path of success, and just some basic decency and respect for each others' choices? If government poured as much money into that as with all its genocidal grandstanding across the globe, we wouldn't have to eradicate adiposity I suspect, because the health detriment of it would I suspect be negligible.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement