“Lock-in” the Fatty Fat Fats

I have been reading the article on Junkfood Science here: Children hungry to lose weight

One of the recommendations of “Hungry for Success” is so-called “lock-ins” of high school students during lunch-time, so they can’t leave the campus (and get that fatty fat fat McDonald’s food which is obviously CAUZING TEH FATZ THINK CHILDREN OMG).

This is just one of the many problems with this article. Its main thrust, of course, is the implementation of a Food Police to monitor what you eat and turn food choices into moral choices (especially in their pressure on expecting mothers, who we all know are vulnerable to doom-and-gloom language, desiring their babies to be as healthy as possible).

Another example of what I’ll just call “Fat Capitalism;” my firm belief is that no less than free-market capitalism is necessary to end the oppression of fat people. Why? Because the tools of mass <i>political</i> oppression are precisely the tools a powerful, centralized government possesses. It doesn’t matter if they don’t use those tools against the unpopular segments of society this generation, because with those tools in their possession, all it takes is the political ‘tide’ to turn, and generally unpopular groups turn into scapegoats.

Tools that centralized governments currently use against their unpopular fat groups: government-mandated healthcare programs (“You make everyone else’s premiums go up, fatty, because of your fat. Therefore, I can force you to diet.”), public education (“Your kids are in our schools and we provide the food and recreation. Hence, we can force your children to take more hours of gym than academics, go to mandated after-school concentration-camp nutrition/starvation programs, and lock them into the school during lunch so they don’t get fatty-fat-fat”), adoption and child services (“You’re too fat to adopt/keep your child.”), and more to be added later.

I will expound upon “Fat Capitalism” more in a future post. To become free, one must live in a society that allows us to make free choices about our own bodies. Too bad that “Pro-Choice” will soon only apply to abortions, since all our other body choices will be taken away from us.

Are these assertions even true?

Reading an article this morning on the recovery from anorexia, I stopped to actually look on the bottom bar of my browser to see where the little underlined key-word links went to. I hovered over the word “fat” and saw it linked to an NYTimes nutrition page.

Here’s one section of the ‘article’ on fat:

Side Effects

Eating too much saturated fat is one of the major risk factors for heart disease. A diet high in saturated fat causes a soft, waxy substance called cholesterol to build up in the arteries. Too much fat also increases the risk of heart disease because of its high calorie content, which increases the chance of becoming obese (another risk factor for heart disease and some types of cancer).

A large intake of polyunsaturated fat may increase the risk for some types of cancer. Reducing daily fat intake is not a guarantee against developing cancer or heart disease, but it does help reduce the risk factors.

Whaa? Are these assertions even true? I’m pretty sure that ‘fat’ doesn’t give you cancer; there was a falsehood to this effect circulated last year that was eventually debunked. Check out the Junk Science link on my “Fat Links (Science)” page.

First they mentioned a diet high in saturated fats causing problems (which has been widely shown), but then they go on to say “Too much fat also increases the risk…” of several horrifying diseases (I’m surprised they didn’t mention anything about diabetes), which seems to signify not a diet high in fat, but being fat “increases the risk” of OMG TERRIBLE DISEASES AND EARLY DEATH WTF.

And, by the way, how did a bullshit BMI designation suddenly become a “risk factor”? It’s just a designation, a way to group people statistically, and is completely arbitrary.

Studies have shown there is a U-shaped curve plotting risk of early death against weight; at the extreme ends risk of early death rises (i.e., when one is extremely under- or over-weight). However, the local minimum of the curve (where one is ostensibly healthiest, since they have the lowest probability of dying young) occurs in the 30 < BMI < 25 category, which is what insurance companies have deemed ‘overweight.’

Well, the curve doesn’t shoot up sharply right after that point, since it’s entering the magically unhealthy ‘obese’ BMI region. It’s a U-curve, shooting up near the extremities, which implies there is likely a grouping of ‘obese’ BMI individuals that are normalized with respect to those extremes that comparably healthy to individuals of ‘normal’ BMI (since that BMI group occurs at the left of the healthiest ‘overweight’ BMI, and the obese group at the right).

In other words, the ‘normal’ BMI group is already normalized by discounting the severely underweight. I argue that if one discounted the other end of the curve from the ‘obese’ category, obese individuals would have comparable death age-rates as normal individuals.

Bullshit junk science which has been widely disproved === studies of which have been reported in the NYTimes itself, no less —  appearing on a page purporting to be scientifically sound is journalistic blasphemy. NYTimes, you should be ashamed of yourself.

Exposing MeMe Roth…

View MeMe Roth’s site: National Action Against Obesity 

MeMe Roth’s supporters include:

Weight loss industry members:

1. Ultra Metabolism – “The Simple Plan for Automatic Weight Loss”

Description: This is a weight loss industrial site. I’m sure they just love MeMe’s message. A quote from the site:

“I lost 30 lbs, went back to a size 4, and no longer have migraines.”
– Debbie Gosney
Charlotte, NC

Hmm, yes, they’re objective!

“Wow, you wear it really well!”

Isn’t it funny how other people’s weight issues shine through when they’re kindly trying to apologize for yours?

My latest trip to the doctor’s office – a physical, about three months ago – began with the ‘dreaded’ scale routine. I put ‘dreaded’ in single quotes because it is not so dreaded by me now. See, four months prior to that I kicked the vestiges of my eating disorder and moved into fat health, and couldn’t be happier with it.

The nurse that weighed me was the typical sort – placed the bar 100 lbs lighter than I was. What kind of nurse thinks a six foot tall woman should weigh under 150, anyway? Especially not with my beautiful ‘junk in the trunk.’ 😉 So she eventually slides it up to 250, (I was feeling morbidly amused at her thinly veiled surprise), and my final weight was (I think, I haven’t really obsessed about it like I would have just a year ago) 255.

Shocked, she splutters, “Wow, you wear it really well!”

“Yeah, I guess I do,” I reply. The eating disordered apologist that still lurks deep within rose to the surface. “My whole family looks like this. It’s just the way we are.”

“Huh,” replies Ms. Ignorant T. Emptyheaded, writing the number down (I’m assuming the main information passed to the doctor shall be, of course, the three most important health-indicators: Name, Age, Weight.

Considering how important weight is these days – indicator of health, personality (self-control, ambition, and willpower), and intelligence, I should really just write my weight next to my name and age on all important forms. All sarcasm aside, why do I get the chilling sensation that that is exactly what I’m going to be doing if universal healthcare gets passed on a national level?

That number…is me. Is not me. Is me. Is NOT me. IS ME.

Me or no, it’s certainly none of anyone else’s concern.

…not with private health insurance. But when others, referencing junk science (‘others’ includes judges and lawmakers), claim that the very act of my existence puts some kind of tax on the rest of humanity?

The possibilities are endlessly frightening.

Welcome to Big Liberty

Inspired by the Fat-o-sphere (though not always agreeing with its politics), I decided to make the first Fat-o-blog with a distinctively libertarian bent.

Advocacy details:

1. “Health at Every Size” – HAES

2. Pro-logic (i.e., Anti-pretention)

3. Pro-freedom, pro-markets (i.e., Anti-fascist, anti-statist)

4. Anti-Baloney (i.e., #1, Anti-trolls)


 Thanks to:

Rachel &co on the Fatosphere, The New York Times for featuring the article on fat bloggers, Gina Kolata and her book, Rethinking Thin: The New Science of Weight Loss–and the Myths and Realities of Dieting

My dad for showing me what yo-yo dieting can do to a person, and my stepmother, for accepting her thin body as genetic and not superior to the bodies of her fat brothers and sisters (they had different fathers. Hers was skinny, theirs was fat).