Fat Chicks Rule

Yet another useless Weight Loss Drug

No blog post next week, I will be away.

Weight loss drugs have a history of not working and/or causing dangerous and deadly side effects. This new one coming down the pipe doesn't look any better.

This new pill Gelesis100 (I kind of wonder what happened to Gelesis1-99) temporarily expands in your stomach, in theory making you eat less. Results have been disappointing. The pill caused a people to lose 6.1% of their body weight compared to the placebo of 4.1%. The makers, of course, call it a huge victory over the fatties!

Oh and they also had to diet while using it.

The study involved 128 overweight or obese Europeans who swallowed a capsule before lunch and dinner along with half a liter, or about 17 fluid ounces, of water. They were also put on a reduced-calorie diet.

And 24% of people who took the higher dose (Is this like a bigger balloon?)

Gelesis executives said that was probably because 24 percent of patients on the higher dose stopped taking the capsules...

Because

...could cause bloating, flatulence, abdominal pain and diarrhea.

Also

But Dr. Daniel H. Bessesen, an endocrinologist at the University of Colorado who was not involved in the study, said weight loss of 2 percent beyond that provided by a placebo was “very modest.” “It doesn’t look like a game changer,” he said.

So let's say it again kids, "No diet drug has been proven to work in the long run." This drug mixed with a low calorie diet is the same shit, different day.

And I'm really tired of these pill pushers that assume fat people are fat because we eat too much. Of course starving someone can cause weight loss but studies have shown this doesn’t work in the long run.

 

 

Zero Steps Forward and Eight Steps Back

Living in New York City, I climb stairs. In my house, in the subway, at my job, and in random  places you wouldn’t think would have stairs. Two months ago I climbed the Manitou incline which was like a giant staircase. I admit when I sometimes climb to the subway (I often take an elevated train), I get winded and going up the incline I thought my heart was going to explode.

 

Every day I take some kind of stairs, an while the exercise has done wonders for my legs, it has not made me thin. Riding my exercise bike 15-30 minutes a day has not made me thin, walking at least a mile or more a day had not made me thin, my daily stretches, my yoga, my summer swimming, my walks around the office has not made me thin.

 

There is a slogan: "Nothing about us, without us." which is often used among marginalized groups. It essentially means one group decides the fate/treatment of a marginalized group without their input. Fat activists see this all the time. "Obesity" organizations which decide on policy on how to make fat people thin don't seek input from actual fat people.

 

Case in point, this:#‎ICO2014‬

I have mentioned before that there is a constant assumption that if you are fat because you stuff your face and sit on the couch all day. Some organizations try to be gentle by saying “It’s not your fault you stuff your face.” Every single treatment for fatness is always the same: eat less calories than your body needs (aka a diet). It is the same treatment used in the last forty years and still hasn’t been proved to work in the long run.

 

If the people running this International Congress of Obesity would talk to an actual fat person (and not just try to treat them), they might figure out that taking the stairs will not make us thin.

 

Ragen Chastain says it best:

When organizations pull stunts like this, the only thing at which they can possibly succeed is creating an environment that prevents people from, and shames people for, navigating the world in the way that’s best for them and their situation.

 

 

And shame on this Amanda Sainsbury who decided fat people must become thin or they will die and Health at Every Size is bad for encourage people to stay fat. But what can you expect from a person who writes diet books? (Even worse this quack is the editor in chief of the Journal of Eating Disorders).

 

While I certainly agree that it is possible to have healthy behaviours that provide health benefits at a wide variety of body sizes, I disagree that it is possible to be or to stay truly healthy at every size.

 

This is the second time I've seen someone add a Y to the end of health when referring to Health at Every Size. This, to me, changes the meaning. Even though HAES is more geared to fat people because of the discrimination we face in health care, HAES is meant for all body types. Healthy is an abstraction. You can't really define it because everyone has different ranges. My husband can get to the top of a mountain but put him in a lake, and I’m going to zoom past him. Are we both “Healthy” or “Unhealthy”?

  

It is thus not surprising that people frequently put off doing anything about excess weight until better conditions arise (e.g. when the children start school or leave home, when a better financial position or home is attained, after retirement, etcetera). The health at every size concept implies putting off doing anything about excess weight indefinitely, instead accepting a higher BMI and focusing on healthy behaviours.

 

Ironically here she accidently points out how HAES is better than dieting. People put off Dieting. They wait until January or when they have money. HAES you do every day, no putting off. No need for money. It's learning to be as healthy as you can in the body you have whether it be too fat, too thin, disabled, or suffering from a disease. You can do HAES if you walk the stairs, take the escalator, or jump up and down. 

 

Related articles

Take the stairs. Or don't.

 

Still not a disease

As I talked about a few months before, the American Medical Association decided that fatness is a disease, whether you're healthy or not. They are ignoring all logic and science. Some fat people are metabolically healthy while in some people fat is a symptom of disease. The gist is they want to try to impose same solution "Make the fat person eat less" that has never worked in the long run.

Why would the AMA do that? Could it be that the Affordable Health Care allows treatment of fatness that includes paying for diets, diet pills, and surgery.

Defining obesity as a disease should encourage more doctors to offer treatments like surgery and medication, Hamdy says. Two new obesity drugs, Qsymia and Belviq, were recently approved by the FDA

Qsymia is an appetite suppressor. It goes back to same fucking "cure" of eating less. And it has a mile long list of side effects. Of course you can say all meds have side effects. They do. However, why take a drug with terrible side effects that won't work? 

And Belvig was proved to not work even before it was released. 

The AMA's classifying the fatness as a disease opens up a lot of money to the diet industry. It will continue to work on the faulty assumption that we must make fat people eat less. The weight loss/gain cycle will continue. 

Even this doctor in this TED video who is  not being fat positive agrees that the issue isn't EATING TOO MUCH but metabolic issues that cause fatness in SOME but not all people.

Essentially stop trying to cure the fatness, instead cure the actual disease.  

Stigma Hurts

This week is Weight Stigma Awareness Week. Weight Stigma often comes from assumptions. The strongest stigma is if fat people just eat less they will be become thin and healthy. It is at the bottom of every cure for fatness: diet pills, surgery, low calorie diets, lifestyle changes are all to make a fat person eat less. Bullies claim that fat people are lazy and lack willpower, the well-intentioned think it's not fat people's fault. Food is everywhere. Except that why don't thin people have the same problem?

Everywhere we are bombarded with hateful messages: (Trigger warning ahead.)

The second? Costco as much as anything else is why the land of the free and the home of the brave is also the trough of the tub o’ lard, our exceptionalism measurable by not only our G.D.P. but also our B.M.I. That’s body mass index, and our bodies are indeed massive.

So says Frank Bruni who has suffered from eating disorders and should know better.

Even when Fat people say enough, we are okay with our size, that no matter what our eating habits are, we don't deserve to be treated like shit, that some of us are healthy and fat, that many of us eat no more than thin people do, we are told we are delusional or making things worse.

Obesity is a class issue, like tobacco. People in every class used to smoke, rich and poor, educated and non-educated alike. But when tobacco was conclusively linked to disease, more and more educated people stopped, until the image of smokers reached a tipping point, and went from “cool” to “loser.”

Yes people with a lower SES are more fat, but it's more likely to do with bias in society rather than poor people eat too much. Being fat is not like smoking. Smoking is a HABIT, being fat is hugely genetic. And if the fat is a habit why do so many people fail to lose weight?

Even "Doctors" think it's okay to shame fat people. In Katz, D. L., Murimi, M., Pretlow, R. A. & Sears, W. (2012). Exploring Effectiveness of Messaging in Childhood Obesity Campaigns. Childhood Obesity 8(2): 97-105 (The article unfortunately is not available unless you subscribe) is filled with praise for programs who shame fat children. Many of the quotes are disgusting but I will share one.

Sears: Good medicine means encouraging children and giving them the tools to get lean. An occasional child might be pushed over into anorexia, but I think the situation that you mention in Seattle is an overreaction and represents unwarranted fear.

Guess what? Teenagers who were formerly fat were found to suffer from eating disorders.

These problems may not be diagnosed quickly, because parents and doctors "think it's a good thing that these teens have lost so much weight," said lead researcher Leslie Sim, an assistant professor of psychology and an eating disorders expert at the Mayo Clinic Children's Center in Rochester, Minn.

I have mentioned before that some of the worst habits I've ever picked up came from dieting. The worst being the dieting/binge cycle. Thankfully I never do less than at 12oo cal diet but I did a lot of crazy things to lose weight. I think of all the people who starve themselves or have weight loss surgery and consume less calories than a normal person needs. Why isn't this considered anorexia? Just because they are fat?

Stigma also affects health greatly. Not just from the stress of being bombarded with messages that you are less than human if you are fat, but bias in even getting your health care.

Obese people are less likely to survive cancer, and one reason may be a surprising inequality: The overweight are undertreated.

Doctors often short them on chemotherapy by not basing the dose on size, as they should. They use ideal weight or cap the dose out of fear about how much treatment an obese patient can bear. Yet research shows that bigger people handle chemo better than smaller people do.

I have written before about doctors refusing to treat fat people or giving them surgery and treatments needed. I even spoke once to a supersized woman whose doctor refused to give her an lifesaving operation (the story has a happy ending, another doctor did the surgery).

When are "Doctors" and "Journalist" going to listen? Stigma against fat is stigma against the fat person. It will lead to poor health care, eating disorders and stress.

Focusing on one thing

On Saturday I attended the Just Foodconference. It was a two day event Friday and Saturday. I couldn't go Friday because I had to work. Just Food's mission is to promote sustainability in regards to food and water as well as usage of local and organic foods. Just Food does a lot of work with CSA, Community Gardens, farm schools etc. 

I joked with my husband that I hoped that I wouldn't hear the O word during the conference. He responded the first person who mentioned it I should go up and punch them. 

It didn't take long (Not to punch someone, I had not intention of hitting anyone).

I discovered that I had missed a panel on Friday from the NYC Obesity Taskforce. Had I known about it previously I might have taken the day off and gone both days. This is how the panel is described in the program: 

Curious about the New York City Obesity Task Force plan to prevent and control obesity? The plan includes the identification of 15 municipal sites suitable for urban agriculture projects throughout the City’s five boroughs, which will be made available through GreenThumb for the participatory installation of new community gardens. Come participate in design charrette of an example site and discuss design elements and site development challenges.

Then came keynote speaker filmmaker Bryon Hurt who directed Soul Food Junkies. I will make a disclaimer that I haven't see the movie yet (I intend to). The movie examines the director's father refusing to change his eating habits despite a diagnosis of aggressive cancer,  the history of Soul Food, and access to healthy foods, particularly in minority neighborhoods. In his talk, something the director wanted to do was a movie like Food Inc, King Corn, Supersize me, The Future of Food, and Fat, Sick and Nearly Dead but with a focus on the black community. The director did make a point that he tries not to be judgemental in the movie. 

But the real question is this: what happens when we remove the subject of fatness from both events? The first one no longer becomes a program of making fat people thin but creating community gardens. The second becomes a talk about getting people better access to health foods. (BTW one of the clips Mr. Hurt showed during his talk is of a woman complaining that the vegetables in her local market are "pathetic." She complained, she met resistance, the quality of the produce improved.) 

Community gardens, healthy eating, access to health food is the focus of any coherent health plan for the country, or it should be. Once you remove that idea and limit your focus to making fat people thin, we lose everything. 

Even Michelle Obama is realizing that we need to focus on health not weight.

According to The Huffington Post, Mrs. Obama told her hangout audience, "I have two young daughters. We never talk about weight. I make it a point. I don't want our children to be weight-obsessed. I want them to be focused on: What do I have to do, in this body --because everybody is different, every person's body is different-- what do I have to do to be the healthiest that I can be."

 

Finding blame and paying more

At one of my physicals, the nurse taking my vitals wanted to weigh me. I don't get weighed at the doctor's office and told her so.  (If the doctor really wants to know my weight, I'll be willing to be weighed by him in private as long as the number doesn't go into the chart. That hasn't happened.) She said that some insurance companies want the number. I told her that that was one of the reasons I didn't want to get weighed.

I get my insurance through my job and at the moment there are no extra charges for perceived health issues. There are discounts to diet programs and gyms. I worry constantly that this will change. Other places already are looking to hit people while they're down.

For the past few years, companies have experimented with tying health insurance premiums to people's health. Here's how it works: Employees go through medical and biometric testing as part of their health insurance open-enrollment process. They are weighed, their height and blood pressure are measured, and their blood is drawn. Those with high scores on cholesterol, glucose and blood pressure -- or with chronic conditions like diabetes -- are told they will have to pay higher premiums unless they actively try to address any risky conditions.

One of the reasons I am very pro-universal health care is that when we have for-profit system of health care, people who tend to be genetically prone to certain diseases will be charged more or denied coverage. It's a slippery slope that this will condemn all fat people regardless of their health.

Meanwhile UCLA Professor Abigal Saguy points out in her op-ed about fat prejudice.

Despite the fact that body weight is largely determined by an individual’s biology, genetics and social environment, medical providers often blame patients for their weight and blame their weight for any health problems they have. 

Health insurance isn't like car insurance. Driving a car isn't a right: you need to demonstrate your competency through your actions. Health insurance means that you don't go broke for an illness, acute or chronic. I don't get the logic of telling people they need to get healthy before being allowed access to health care. 

The good news (for the US) is that in 2014 you cannot be denied health insurance based on health status. It also means there are affordable health care options. This is good news for fat people who often are either denied health insurance or given outrageously high priced options.

Health insurance companies offering coverage to individuals and small employers will only be allowed to vary premiums based on age, tobacco use, family size, and geography.  Basing premiums on other factors will be illegal.

 

Hollywood Fat

Almost four years ago I chucked cable TV. I'd long since gotten my news from online papers and picked and chosen my TV  and movies from streaming sources. 

Fat women and men make up about two-thirds of the US population according to fearmongers yet you wouldn't know that from TV and movies. In most mainstream movies and TV (except for artsy, foreign, or comedy shows), the actors, usually just the women, are conventionally attractive like they cut from the same mold. They are usually slender, tall and made up. For example there is a recent movie called Seven Psychopaths that has seven people appearing on a movie poster. Five are men and two are women. The five men are gruff, not glamourous and distungished . The two women might as well be twins as they look perfectly the same. It's ironic because Gabourey Sidibe also appears (I'm not sure in what capacity, she seems like she's a dog sitter) but her name isn't headlined and she doesn't appear in the poster. 

When I was working on my book and researching movies and TV that featured fat actors,  I found roles for fat people were limited to background, side characters, or comedy only. If they were the main character they were dieting (Fried Green Tomatoes), hated themselves (Fat actress), it was a foreign or artsy film (Zuckerbaby),  poor quality (More to Love) or nuts (Misery). 

Flashforward eight years later where the NY Times has an article about female comedians who are fighting back against the pressure to lose weight. 

Self-acceptance has become a new form of defiance on television, especially among younger female comedians. Partly that’s because it’s refreshingly unusual. There’s little comic shock value left in profanity, obscenity or intolerance, but it’s still quite rare and surprising to see a woman not obsess about her waistline.

The majority of these performers are "Hollywood Fat" and the only true discrimination they might face would be lack of roles in mainstream movies and TV. They can still buy clothes at almost any store, probably won't get a lecture from doctor, or be told they are diseased. Rebel Wilson, the only one who might fall into the latter category, is a spokesperson for Jenny Craig. 

I'm glad to see actors that don't fit into the typical Hollywood cookie cutter. Mindy Kating is a very talented writer, a very funny lady and I think maybe the only Indian actress on television now that the horrible show Outsourced was cancelled.  However things still haven't changed since I first researched my book. Fat actors are still background and side characters, if they are seen at all. The movies are almost always comedies. If the fat character it is the main character it's either a comedy, or the main character is emotional disturbed. For example Precious is a wonderful movie starring two amazing actresses but both are poor and uneducated. Mo'Nique's character Mary had sexually abused her daughter and is a stereotypical welfare queen. 

Real change happens when we see a variety of actors on the screen and tube that are different sizes, different colors and from different backgrounds. One of the reasons I gave up cable was there was nothing on but the same cookie cutters. 

Speaking of movies, a good one is coming out about fat men becoming sumo wrestlers. Oh it's from Israel and a similiar movie was done in the UK 12 years ago.

So no real change to Hollywood fat.  

Weight alone won't kill you and Disney makes everyone a barbie.

Apparently another study (This one done as a study of other studies, aka a metastudy) found that "extra" weight did not cause a change of morbidity more than any other weight unless the person had hypertension or diabetes, then their risk increased 1.26 %.

However despite this proof that being fat (most likely) won't kill you, even if you are severly fat with diabetes and hypertension, the author of the study still wants to the doctor to tell you to lose weight.

Based on the study, Jerant recommends that doctors` conversations with patients who are overweight or obese, but not severely obese, focus on the known negative effects of these conditions on mental and physical functioning, rather than on an increased short-term risk of death. By contrast, Jerant added that it is important for doctors to talk with severely obese patients who also have diabetes or hypertension about their increased short-term mortality risk and treatment, including weight loss.

So let's get this straight. After analysing mortality studies, you discover that fat doesn't in fact kill (unless you are very fat and have diabetes or hypertension, then your mortality goes up a whole 1.26 percent). Otherwise you will die about the same time as everyone else. Despite this you still have to be bombarded with messages to lose weight and be thin. No one said, "Hey, it's normal for some people to be fat or thin, let's focus on disease prevention instead of weight loss instead!"

Speaking of being thin, one of my favorite movie characters is Urusla, the villain from The Little Mermaid. Sure she was a bad guy, but she was still awesome. She's not only a brilliant , magic-using, octopus, but a big fat fattie. Of course Disney villains are the only place for real body diversity. Every heroine is a Barbie, even non-white ones such as Jasmine, Mulan and Tiana.  Disney villains are fat (Ursula), have flawed faces (Scar) or disfigured (Captain Hook). Most the female villains are strong power woman (A no-no in society).

This is Ursula, she is confident and bold.

This is Ursula slimmed down to sell beauty supplies. 

And Ursula loses her confidence, her boldness, her beauiful curves, her tentacles now a pretty dress and Ursula loses everything that makes her different and original. She is now Ursula Barbie, pose pretty for the cameras. (And also so the designer could use the exact same mold for every doll, if you check out the other Disney villains they look the same). 

Stigma never works

I don't really want to give a lot of time to the HBO series Weight of the Nation, the 8o million part series (Okay, it's actually four parts) about poor stupid fat people who will only get better if they learn to put down the doughnut and run 5 miles. Looking  at their web site, it looks like the same shit different day because the first thing it does was start us off with a fat joke. As you can see we fat people are so heavy we are putting cracks into the United States. My only hope is no one will watch it. I don't want have to go into detail about it because ASDAH has given us ten reasons to be concerned about it and a viewer's guide. Plus Dr. Deah Schwartz also weighs in.

And this Jezebel article sums it up nicely:

I know this is a terribly uncool, bleeding-heart thing to say, but language like "crush the United States into oblivion" hurts people. It sets up fat people—in case you forgot, fat people are people—as not just the adversaries of our own health or some lady's airplane elbow room or your boner (the usual crimes), but as the future downfall of humanity itself.

Oh and Michele Simon won't watch it either.

How many years has it been since we got serious about the "weight" problem in this country? Yet despite pushing for dieting, removing treats from schools, taking fat kids away from their parents, victimizing the poor, and stigmatizing, we are still fat. Despite that our weight is leveling off, we are living longer (BTW living longer is the biggest drain on our health care system. It's just easier to blame fat people). The answer to every ailment has become weight loss. It's an easy out, far easier that looking at the complex issues of health including genetics, the environment (Not just food but pollution) and yo-yo dieting (I say my fatness is about 50% genetic, 40% dieting and 10% other). No matter what the issue a person has, if they are fat the answer is always weight loss. 

However weight loss doesn't work for the majority of people.  We've been dieting, doing lifesysle changes, drugs and surgery and we are still fat. We are also being made fun off a lot and it is considered perfectly acceptable. For example a NYTimes article covered whether plane travel is safe for fat people since the seats and safety belts aren't made for big people (Let's ignore the fact that is still safer to fly than to drive), an article in gizmodo picks up this story and instead of chastaise the lack of safety in the airline industry, makes fun of fat people. 

That's right, obese air travel could kill you. Standard seats are a legacy of old airplane design, and as people get plumper, they haven't been rethought. 

First off what is "Obese air travel." Is that a travel agency or finally our own airlines where seats are made for us? 

Second getting plumper is wrong, we've apparently been getting plump for about 30 years. Yet despite 30 years of dieting, we are still fat.

 The hysteria of Weight of the Nation will do nothing to make people healthy, it will make continue the fear mongering and stereotypes about fat people. It will make fat people the villains, the victims and will continue to marginized them. 

An article in Reuters show prejudice affects behaviors. 

The stigma also hurts the efforts of America's 73 million obese adults and 12 million obese children to get back to a healthy weight: Targets of stigma often fall into depression or withdraw socially. Both make overeating, binge eating, and a sedentary existence more likely, studies show.

It's funny because a similar article about stigma has a picture of a women's back with fat rolls who is wearing an exercise bra. 

 I don't find this unattractive but others might find this humiliating, a headless fattie with rolls of fat. To me this underhanded hatred is more dangerous than the outright stigma because it's ingrained. This woman is wearing an exercise bra. She is being healthy, she's exercising, just like her fucking doctor told her to but seeing this picture she might be embarrassed by it. Maybe even humiliated enough to not exercise anymore. 

Stigma is far worse because the often those who create stigma either don't think they are doing it or don't realize they are. The person who choose this photo, did they think they were creating stigma? Or groups like the Rudd center who always get quoted when talking abut how horrible stigma is don't think they are the cause of it. The truth is this, they can't ever end stigma until they also realize that fat people are people who exists, good or bad. Overeating or listening to body ques and that being fat is as just a normal state as being thin. 

What if a picture like this was used instead?

 

Diabetes, Autism and Pepsi oh my!

This starts with two facts,

1. Just because you are diabetic doesn't mean you are fat;

2. Just because you are fat doesn't mean you will get diabetes. 

I felt the need for these two facts to be fresh in people's minds for the two infuriating stories I am covering today. 

No one knows for sure what causes autism. It could be anything, genetics, low birth rates, later in life pregnancies and better diagnosis (autism may have been diagnosed differently in the past as retardation or bad behavior). Now comes a new study saying fat mothers are bad because they are giving their children autism. After all every single autistic child has a fat momma right? Right?  

 

As far as fat women and autism, there could a host of reasons for the increased rate including: dieting, weight loss surgery, poor prenatal care (Fat women often do not get the best of care), and the high rates at which doctors perform C-sections on fat women.

 

Or could it be that the study itself was based on fat women with metabolic disorders? Not healthy fat women. The gist is women with metabolic diseases might have a higher rate of autism but that doesn't mean fat mothers have more kids with autism (or even that MD have more autistic kids; the sample size was 1000 from California only and self reported). It is the false assumption that all fat women have or will get diabetes and hypertension. Diabetes is a complex disease. Merely simplifying it down to weight loss creates a horrific risk for thin people who have it in their family. 

 

And it is our irresponsible media that ran with "all the fat mother's fault", because in reality what they really want is fat women to stop breeding. After all fat parents are more likely to make more fat people and we wouldn't want that. 

I've spoken before on soda. It's a tax that doesn't affect me because I don't drink soda. I'm now perfectly willing to have a tax on soda as long as it's on Pepsi. Pepsico, yes the soda maker is now charging it's smoking and fat bottlers and drivers $50 more per month for health coverage. Yes,

Pepsico the makers of Pepsi, 7up, Mountain Dew, Lipton, Lays potato chips wants to charge "unhealthy" employees $50 more a month. What next? Is Marlboro going to charge more for smokers? (Also all these employees are unionized but union busting is another story for another blog.)

And when they talk about fat, they actually mean "Obesity related diseases" which at this rate is diabetes, hypertension, cancer, global warming, autism, plane crashes, stroke, car accidents, and plumber's crack. Now if you have one of these diseases, but are thin do you get $50 charge and if you are fat and healthy do you still get that charge? Targeting diseases is a horrific slippery slope that will lead to employers hiring only perceived healthy people, and firing anyone who gets a disease. It also faults diseases on those who got them. We need to learn that it's very rare that someone brings a disease on to themselves. 

So now I'm for a soda tax. $50 tax on all pepsi products to go into a fund to cover the employees forced to pay this ridiculousness.