Taking Away Your Big Gulp Is The Same As Nazism

[OkToBeTakei]

I thought fat shaming had been decided as a bad thing? What's with all the ZOMG OBESITY stuff? Google 'Health At Every Size'.

Fat shaming isn't OK just because it's painted as being about health.

It is not about google. It is about fact. Sometimes that is not politically correct. Life is not always kind.

I actually do not recall fat-shaming being either universally decided as a good or bad thing, I missed that vote.. I think the majority of society have never heard that phrase.

[desertvixen]

Some public health issues require the abrogation of the will of the individual to the whole. Somewhere these discussions need to acknowledge that. Yes, it's your choice BUT.... Less obese people = less strain on the medical system. More breastfed babies = healthier children. etc... With a public health system, but also too in the private systems though less directly - everyone benefits. Provision of health costs fall. More hospital space is available. Better care can be provided to those with who need it etc... Society benefits when individuals make healthier choices.

Some public health issues, yes, but I find comparing buying a large soda because it's there to formula feeding your child because you have a sample a little hard to swallow.

Also, if our society really wants to encourage more women to breastfeed, then we need to make a few adaptations that would allow more women to do so successfully. I managed to do it, but that sample of formula was a lifesaver when my daughter was four days old and not being able to get enough breast milk until I could see a lactation consultant and figure out what the hell I was not doing right.

Women shouldn't be shamed into breastfeeding, any more than people who are overweight should be shamed into doing what someone thinks they should to fix it.

[JenniferJuniper]

This isn't some new, novel, "just because Bloomberg thinks so" plan.

To get WHO certification as a "child friendly hospital" you basically have to adhere to this policy. Formula is discouraged. Strongly, strongly discouraged. I cannot given to mothers in their sample bags, nor for their kids.

You want to bottle feed, you have to to sign a waiver saying "I understand formula is not the best choice for my baby".

The NYC suggestion was a whole lot more measured than this.

but really, you're saying that the internationally recommended protocol is "off base", because the NYC mayor thinks it to? Gah.

I think the waiver in the WHO protocol is too much. (Guess what? wasn't in the NYC plan!) But it reflects the understanding that our decisions are shaped by our options. It's hard to breast feed, esp in the early days. Having a formula bottle lying around makes is some ridiculously high % more likely that the mother will chose to bottle feed - even if without the bottle she'd have persevered at the breast, and stuck at it after a few days.

Anyone who was only every going to bottle feed could still do so.

Again: those "intensely personal decisions" everyone is so fixated here, that these programs were intended to address, are quick decisions made under pressure - and are often (often often) the product of *what is there at the time*. There is an option to get 2L of coke in a serving - do it. There is an easier way to get past those early hours of uncomfortable, difficult breastfeeding - done.

The choice isn't there, the decision is less likely to be made.

You really, really want to drink all that coke or bottle feed: no problems. YOU STILL CAN.

Bull-fucking-shit on equating the locking up of infant formula in hospitals to the cutting down on the marketing and immediate availability of big gulps to those who are mostly kids and teens.

This is a fundie type of false equivalency that barely deserves acknowledgement, but here I go anyway. I agree with not sending new mothers home with formula. They can pick it up on the way home if they want it, and I also agree that overt marketing can interfere with decision making. But locking it up at a birth center to shame women who cannot or don't want to breastfeed - for an endless number of reasons that aren't related to the marketing of formula - is simply wrong.

Women aren't children. Anyone who has gone through pre-natal treatment and a hospital birth knows the drill. (The current drill, by the way. My mother was told formula was superior to breast milk back during the 60's and 70's. We're all alive and quite well, thank you.) I breast fed one child but the other two had to start on formula right away due to the nature of my work. There was and remains no difference in their health. No woman should have to explain why she can't breast feed or plead for formula in the hospital if she has no intention of breast feeding.

Every "less than perfect" substance is not equal. One feeding of infant formula is not the same as 64 ounces of Coca Cola. By a very long shot.

[jenny_islander]

It is not about google. It is about fact. Sometimes that is not politically correct. Life is not always kind.

I actually do not recall fat-shaming being either universally decided as a good or bad thing, I missed that vote.. I think the majority of society have never heard that phrase.

Here's the deal about the "fact" that obesity = explodeanddie = ZOMG MY TAX DOLLARS. This is the idea that drives the war on obesity. Whether or not you believe it, that's what it does.

For a look at what this apparently well-meant attempt to make people healthier actually does to people's health, please visit fathealth dot wordpress dot com. Count the number of entries by people who were denied care, or whose loved ones were denied care, because health care providers insisted that all of their symptoms could be explained by how fat they were. Some of these people are now sicker than they would otherwise have been because their actual medical conditions--PCOS, rheumatoid arthritis, even multiple sclerosis--went undiagnosed and untreated for years due to health care providers being obsessed with body fat percentage.

The war on obesity always means a campaign of shame and abuse against obese people. It helps no one and harms many. It has to stop.

[jaelh]

Jennifer, I only spoke about the breast feeding because you raised it. They aren't the same; there is no equivalency.

However: it's the same principal - that people make many choices depending how easy a decision is to make at any given moment in time. Obviously, there's a giant difference between a big/small gulps, breast/bottle feeding or shopping on credit/putting something on lay away but the commonality in all of those is: the easier something is to do, the more likely we are to make it.

All of these decisions also impact our collective experience. No, they're not the same. But they are similar in particular ways.

I thought fat shaming had been decided as a bad thing? What's with all the ZOMG OBESITY stuff? Google 'Health At Every Size'.

Fat shaming isn't OK just because it's painted as being about health.

I thought about putting that clause in.

But.

Healthy at every size is one thing. Obese people can be very healthy people. No question.

However.

Observing that wide spread obesity has public health implications is another.

Not all obese people are healthy.

There are public health issues related to widespread obesity.

112,000 people a year die from obesity related causes.

Less obesity would impact on a number of different health issues.

Yes, no given individual obese person is unhealthy.

This doesn't mean that there isn't a (causal) relationship between obesity and public health issues.

And I know you can frame it as either:

fat + healthy = ok

or you can say:

fat - healthy = a problem

or just

healthy = ok/ not healthy = not ok

But (and I'm not a public health person; this is a real basic whack at this) when you're working at the level of a general population, blunt instruments tend to reach the largest number of people. If you can get the number of % of obese people down per capita, you're going to have positive health outcomes.

Not because obese people can't be healthy as obese people, but because for many people, being obese is the product of unhealthy choices. In addressing the obesity in a general population, you end up addressing the underlying health choices.

*****

Jenny: Those are horrible, awful stories. And there are lots and lots and lots of examples of fat people being appalling treated by health care providers.

Shaming individual fat people (of whom i'm one), engaging in person judgement, misdiagnosis - these are all terrible things and shouldn't happen.

I think it's possible to avoid those things, while still acknowledging that having a really large number of obese people in any given population makes a different in collective outcomes, and is not a desirable thing at the level of a population.

Yes, we need improve how deal with obesity, at the level of the population as a whole, but esp. at the level of the individual. No one should be subjected to the treatment you described.

But it doesn't mean we shouldn't do it at all.

*****

AreteJo - I don't think this is the only way to change behaviour. Yes, tax. Yes, education. Yes, subsidies.

I really don't think this is like teen sex though - you can't intervene at the point someone is making the decision to have sex.

Also, no one is saying - bad dog, you can't drink soda. Clearly, you can. I differ from you in how I see the objective/intention.

I don't have a problem with limiting/regulating people's access things with impact their health. I don't think we're anywhere near the free agents we imagine ourselves to be. So much of what we do is the product of chance. And I really think part of this discussion is a cultural distinction: I *think*, but I'm not sure, that OKT and I are from communities with public health and higher social support structures, and most of you who are strongly against what we're saying I think are from the US, where there isn't public health; there is a much stronger ethos of the individual, fewer social supports etc... Im sure someone from Scandinavia is going to appear now and agree with you all. :) But I really wonder how much culture does have to do with what we perceive the appropriate role of government to be.

[miffy]

People forget that whilst you can have a high body fat % & a sedentary lifestyle in your 20s,30s & 40s without your doctor putting you on medication for sky high BP & cholesterol. However its unlikely that you will be free from these problems at 60.

I run 3-4km every day on asphalt & lift weights. I'm setting myself up for health problems too. But mine will be of the knee reconstruction variety. So there are bad things either way.

[OkToBeTakei]

Here's the deal about the "fact" that obesity = explodeanddie = ZOMG MY TAX DOLLARS. This is the idea that drives the war on obesity. Whether or not you believe it, that's what it does.

For a look at what this apparently well-meant attempt to make people healthier actually does to people's health, please visit fathealth dot wordpress dot com. Count the number of entries by people who were denied care, or whose loved ones were denied care, because health care providers insisted that all of their symptoms could be explained by how fat they were. Some of these people are now sicker than they would otherwise have been because their actual medical conditions--PCOS, rheumatoid arthritis, even multiple sclerosis--went undiagnosed and untreated for years due to health care providers being obsessed with body fat percentage.

The war on obesity always means a campaign of shame and abuse against obese people. It helps no one and harms many. It has to stop.

I do not disbelieve you Jenny. For many reasons people can be denied healthcare. Due to ignorance of many issues. What I brought up though is that some lifestyle choices impact poorly on health. I don't live with the dollar and by your comment I imagine you do not live with the NHS. Again as mentioned factually based data explains the cost to human health of poor lifestyle choices. Over-eating, being vastly overweight is not there just to offend sensibilities. It is as much a fact as other poor lifestyle choices.

[Arete]

jaelh, is there really a belief in GB that the US has no public health, or do those two words simply have two different meanings in the US/GB? There are vaccine policies, drinking policies, Medicare, Medicaid, anti-smoking campaigns, nutrition classes in grammar school, diseases and epidemics being tracked, early intervention programs by state to provide services for children age 0-5 identified as having certain special needs etc, etc, etc....all this being done by government, paid by taxes, and under what is defined as the public health umbrella in the US. If by public health we are refering to one overarching program of truly socialized medicine for every coordinated solely by one agency like the NHS in GB, then no. This may just be a matter of semantics, but we may be working with two different definitions of the concept of public health.

There are definitely ingrained cultural differences to the way different populations look at what the role of government is, but even these differences run along a continuum, they aren't a polarity. Just because I am an American who wants to be able to order any size soda in a restuarant in peace, doesn't mean I think there is no role for government intervention in public health. I completely and totally support the idea of universal healthcare, but that doesn't mean I am willing to give every legislator with a cause carte blanche to pass any law they want based on "it is for the public health". Case by case basis is my mantra. So I support legislating getting soda machines out of schools because they target children, but do not support the same laws restricting serving sizes when they target adults. Teach children good habits, and then accept that some adults are going to order a Big Gulp. You want to tax soda because it really is a pleasure drink with no nutritional value that may contribute to people gaining weight? Fair enough.

[jaelh]

on the public health: "a public health system"; yes, the whole thing. You might notice my posts are rife with typos, dropped words and the like. I intended to refer to a 'system', rather than to 'public health'. My apologies. Yes, some health care in the US is provided publicly. But that's not what I understand "public health" to be. In my mind, public implies universality.

On culture: Of course there are differences, and no, there's isn't a universal experience of anything. None the less - even at the liberal end of the continuum, American's have a culture of individual rights that is much stronger than anywhere else I've experienced. And I know, the anecdote is the poor cousin of evidence, and yes, I'm basing this on living in the US, and having lived in a number of other countries. (and many other discussions like it, again, in my experience. Other variants include the free speech - while the liberal end of the US continuum tends to be ok with gun regulation, the speech thing always astounds me.. anyway.

I didn't make this observation to suggest that american's don't see a role for government: I mean it as a not-critical-isn't-it-interesting the lines along which this discussion falls.

On the "where's the line" - I don't know; honestly, AreteJo; who knows where the right spot for the line is. I think the only thing left at this point is to say we simply think is in different places.

[yewchapel]

Jennifer, I only spoke about the breast feeding because you raised it. They aren't the same; there is no equivalency.

However: it's the same principal - that people make many choices depending how easy a decision is to make at any given moment in time. Obviously, there's a giant difference between a big/small gulps, breast/bottle feeding or shopping on credit/putting something on lay away but the commonality in all of those is: the easier something is to do, the more likely we are to make it.

All of these decisions also impact our collective experience. No, they're not the same. But they are similar in particular ways.

I thought about putting that clause in.

But.

Healthy at every size is one thing. Obese people can be very healthy people. No question.

However.

Observing that wide spread obesity has public health implications is another.

Not all obese people are healthy.

There are public health issues related to widespread obesity.

112,000 people a year die from obesity related causes.

Less obesity would impact on a number of different health issues.

Yes, no given individual obese person is unhealthy.

This doesn't mean that there isn't a (causal) relationship between obesity and public health issues.

And I know you can frame it as either:

fat + healthy = ok

or you can say:

fat - healthy = a problem

or just

healthy = ok/ not healthy = not ok

But (and I'm not a public health person; this is a real basic whack at this) when you're working at the level of a general population, blunt instruments tend to reach the largest number of people. If you can get the number of % of obese people down per capita, you're going to have positive health outcomes.

Not because obese people can't be healthy as obese people, but because for many people, being obese is the product of unhealthy choices. In addressing the obesity in a general population, you end up addressing the underlying health choices.

*****

Jenny: Those are horrible, awful stories. And there are lots and lots and lots of examples of fat people being appalling treated by health care providers.

Shaming individual fat people (of whom i'm one), engaging in person judgement, misdiagnosis - these are all terrible things and shouldn't happen.

I think it's possible to avoid those things, while still acknowledging that having a really large number of obese people in any given population makes a different in collective outcomes, and is not a desirable thing at the level of a population.

Yes, we need improve how deal with obesity, at the level of the population as a whole, but esp. at the level of the individual. No one should be subjected to the treatment you described.

But it doesn't mean we shouldn't do it at all.

*****

AreteJo - I don't think this is the only way to change behaviour. Yes, tax. Yes, education. Yes, subsidies.

I really don't think this is like teen sex though - you can't intervene at the point someone is making the decision to have sex.

Also, no one is saying - bad dog, you can't drink soda. Clearly, you can. I differ from you in how I see the objective/intention.

I don't have a problem with limiting/regulating people's access things with impact their health. I don't think we're anywhere near the free agents we imagine ourselves to be. So much of what we do is the product of chance. And I really think part of this discussion is a cultural distinction: I *think*, but I'm not sure, that OKT and I are from communities with public health and higher social support structures, and most of you who are strongly against what we're saying I think are from the US, where there isn't public health; there is a much stronger ethos of the individual, fewer social supports etc... Im sure someone from Scandinavia is going to appear now and agree with you all. :) But I really wonder how much culture does have to do with what we perceive the appropriate role of government to be.

People deserve dignity and good healthcare whether they are healthy or not. This 'fat people are okay if they are healthy' bullshit has to stop, because it denies the humanity of non-healthy fat people. The 'obesity epidemic' is a lie. Period. And um, I'm from the UK.

edited for typos

[yewchapel]

I do not disbelieve you Jenny. For many reasons people can be denied healthcare. Due to ignorance of many issues. What I brought up though is that some lifestyle choices impact poorly on health. I don't live with the dollar and by your comment I imagine you do not live with the NHS. Again as mentioned factually based data explains the cost to human health of poor lifestyle choices. Over-eating, being vastly overweight is not there just to offend sensibilities. It is as much a fact as other poor lifestyle choices.

We are not talking about people being denied healthcare 'for many reasons', we are talking about people being denied healthcare because they are fat. End of. I live with the NHS and I can still see that the 'war on obesity' is horseshit based on making a section of society feel ashamed of their bodies and pay money to 'cure' themselves. If you had actually, I don't know, looked at the facts that myself and Jenny provided you with (via Health At Every Size and Fat Health) instead of repeating the party line on 'lifestyle choices' (which are mostly not actual choices at all) you would have seen that the 'obesity epidemic' is NOT a fact at all. It is a lie. A lie to make money off fat people's bodies and the shame surrounding them. When you get GPs recommending diet clubs that rely on fat people existing to make money, you know the joke's on those people who don't think healthcare provision is dictated by capitalism.

[OkToBeTakei]

We are not talking about people being denied healthcare 'for many reasons', we are talking about people being denied healthcare because they are fat. End of. I live with the NHS and I can still see that the 'war on obesity' is horseshit based on making a section of society feel ashamed of their bodies and pay money to 'cure' themselves. If you had actually, I don't know, looked at the facts that myself and Jenny provided you with (via Health At Every Size and Fat Health) instead of repeating the party line on 'lifestyle choices' (which are mostly not actual choices at all) you would have seen that the 'obesity epidemic' is NOT a fact at all. It is a lie. A lie to make money off fat people's bodies and the shame surrounding them. When you get GPs recommending diet clubs that rely on fat people existing to make money, you know the joke's on those people who don't think healthcare provision is dictated by capitalism.

I don't think I mentioned the' war on obesity.' I know for a fact that healthcare has and is denied due to weight issues. Healthcare is denied for other reasons also related to health. Unfortunately what you fail to grasp is that whilst I tend to agree the medical view of obesity is well skewed and not all people classed as overweight are in fact unhealthy OR making poor choices, the fact remains that some are. Unfortunately as tends to happen in society a broad brush is used to tar all with the same brush. I'm not sure how that can be addressed.

Whilst popular media is saturated with reality TV shows showing bad diet and linking it with weight loss as the only solution or goal it is not a stretch to see why it is seen as you said some form of epidemic requiring a war. Those shows are everywhere at the moment.

As is this, via a quick google.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19721977

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healt ... cohol.html

https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/ ... oving-diet

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-14276445

Changing attitudes to not have such broad societal attitude is sadly difficult to Jo public when the media bombards with this type of data. Some based in fact and some I agree based on negative stereotyping.

[yewchapel]

But you are still not looking at the facts, which is that the 'obesity epidemic' is actually a lie. Just because news sources and the government (not exactly scientific research) say so doesn't make it true. IT DOESN'T MATTER IF PEOPLE ARE UNHEALTHY, THEY STILL DESERVE MEDICAL TREATMENT AND GOOD CARE. Are you actually reading what people are posting? Because you don't seem to be understanding.

Also, you've totally ignored the role of capitalism in all of this.

[flyawaystray]

I think that there is an epidemic, simply because we're seeing obesity rates going up and it's not just one country that is being affected, but other countries as well.

That said, I agree that obese people deserve care and treatment, but I also believe everyone should have access to it.

Unfortunately, money talks and it doesn't seem like anything is going to change soon. The government wants to pretend they're doing something proactive by removing the food pyramid and focusing on My Plate or whatever it is, but until they stop subsidizing corn and change, nothing is going to get accomplished.

[OkToBeTakei]

But you are still not looking at the facts, which is that the 'obesity epidemic' is actually a lie. Just because news sources and the government (not exactly scientific research) say so doesn't make it true. IT DOESN'T MATTER IF PEOPLE ARE UNHEALTHY, THEY STILL DESERVE MEDICAL TREATMENT AND GOOD CARE. Are you actually reading what people are posting? Because you don't seem to be understanding.

Also, you've totally ignored the role of capitalism in all of this.

I don't recall saying anywhere people do not deserve medical care.

Calm down. I refuse to engage with whatever agenda you are trying to pursue on this thread. I think what you are trying to say rather than actually reading others posts here is that I am just not wholeheartedly agreeing with yours.

[yewchapel]

I don't recall saying anywhere people do not deserve medical care.

Calm down. I refuse to engage with whatever agenda you are trying to pursue on this thread. I think what you are trying to say rather than actually reading others posts here is that I am just not wholeheartedly agreeing with yours.

I am reading posts. I am also presenting facts which you are plain ignoring.

[yewchapel]

I think that there is an epidemic, simply because we're seeing obesity rates going up and it's not just one country that is being affected, but other countries as well.

That said, I agree that obese people deserve care and treatment, but I also believe everyone should have access to it.

Unfortunately, money talks and it doesn't seem like anything is going to change soon. The government wants to pretend they're doing something proactive by removing the food pyramid and focusing on My Plate or whatever it is, but until they stop subsidizing corn and change, nothing is going to get accomplished.

Even if obesity rates are going up, why medicalise it? Literacy rates are also going up, yet we don't talk about a literacy epidemic. The fact is that obesity is as relevant to health as having brown eyes. Body shape doesn't dictate anything about one's health. In fact, for example, fat around the hips has a protective effect on a woman's health.

What governments need to do is to eradicate food poverty, not dictate how people should feed themselves and shame them for choosing 'unacceptable' diets.

[OkToBeTakei]

I am reading posts. I am also presenting facts which you are plain ignoring.

No I am not ignoring them I merely am presenting a different view.

You wish to say that obesity is not an epidemic, that obese people are denied care and to mention otherwise is fat-shaming. You quite rightly have a cynicism regarding mass media which causes the stereotyping that Jo public sees and which I merely pointed out. All of which has nothing really to do with my original post or the discussion regarding how this forms opinion in a country with a socialised healthcare system. NOTE. Opinion in general not mine specifically and the original premise of the discussion I entered with Aretejo and jaelh. Wether scientific data supports or not either view the point of the discussion was how society in a socialised healthcare setting will blame what are perceived as choices.

[flyawaystray]

I'm not the one for discriminating against obese people (I said everyone deserves healthcare), I just simply said it is an epidemic.

[BoomerLynn]

Bull-fucking-shit on equating the locking up of infant formula in hospitals to the cutting down on the marketing and immediate availability of big gulps to those who are mostly kids and teens.

This is a fundie type of false equivalency that barely deserves acknowledgement, but here I go anyway. I agree with not sending new mothers home with formula. They can pick it up on the way home if they want it, and I also agree that overt marketing can interfere with decision making. But locking it up at a birth center to shame women who cannot or don't want to breastfeed - for an endless number of reasons that aren't related to the marketing of formula - is simply wrong.

Women aren't children. Anyone who has gone through pre-natal treatment and a hospital birth knows the drill. (The current drill, by the way. My mother was told formula was superior to breast milk back during the 60's and 70's. We're all alive and quite well, thank you.) I breast fed one child but the other two had to start on formula right away due to the nature of my work. There was and remains no difference in their health. No woman should have to explain why she can't breast feed or plead for formula in the hospital if she has no intention of breast feeding.

Every "less than perfect" substance is not equal. One feeding of infant formula is not the same as 64 ounces of Coca Cola. By a very long shot.

So much this. I was the woman who had to plead for formula in the hospital after the birth of my second child. He was born by scheduled C-section so my milk took a bit longer to come in. I was recovering from surgery, in pain, nauseous from my meds, and my son was crying because he was hungry and was so worked up he couldn't latch on properly. I had to ask my nurse (who also happened to be a lactation consultant) repeatedly for 1 bottle of formula. She refused several times saying he was less likely to be able to breastfeed if I did that and tried (unsuccessfully) to help me get my son to latch. I was an emotional wreck and in tears by this point. It took my husband literally yelling at her and threatening to talk to her supervisor before she finally brought in a bottle. Lo and behold, my son calmed down and latched perfectly at his next feeding and I successfully breastfed him for several months (with the occasional bottle as well). No one should have to go through that. If a woman wants to feed her baby formula, she should be able to do so without shame and harassment.

[BlondeAgent007]

People seem to be okay with putting commercials on tv of smokers with problems associated with smoking. Even though there are lots of smokers who never have serious health issues. There are also lots of people who get lung cancer without smoking a day in their lives. Fact is, lots of smokers do develop those complications, and the public has deemed it generally okay to run and fund anti-smoking campaigns.

There would be a public outrage if they put an obese person missing a leg on tv, saying, "I got type 2 diabetes and lost my leg from drinking soda and eating ding dongs," even though it is basically the same thing. Not all obese people get that way from unhealthy lifestyles. Not all people get type 2 diabetes because of weight issues. Fact is, lots of people DO. There are definite links between obesity and type 2 diabetes.

I don't think those types of commercials should be used for either case. But to scrutinize and marginalize one group that causes health issues, and not another because it hits closer to home for most, isn't right.

[Arete]

The fact is that obesity is as relevant to health as having brown eyes.

You have got to be kidding here. Obesity can exacerbate arthritis (rheumatoid and osteo) and high blood pressure, aggravates and contributes to heart disease, can be an indicator of unhealthy diet/lifestyle, puts damaged joints at risk, puts new joint replacements at risk, and increase the chances of developing Type II diabetes. This is just the short list. Not all obese people are going to get any or all of these conditions, but saying that obesity is as irrelavent to health as having brown eyes is just not true.

Stating the links between obesity and health problems is not the equivalent of fat shaming. There are facts and there are moral judgements. People can and should keep them seperate in matters of public health.

[jenny_islander]

I'm not the one for discriminating against obese people (I said everyone deserves healthcare), I just simply said it is an epidemic.

No "it" isn't. I am not an epidemic. I am not the victim of an epidemic. I did not catch fat from anybody. I am not a vector. I am not a disease pathogen.

The Well Rounded Mama, for one, has done a close study of scientific studies of the link between being socially unacceptably fat and getting sick or developing musculoskeletal problems. Her conclusion: The conventional wisdom, even among health care providers, does not agree with the facts.

I run a somewhat increased risk of developing some ailments at a higher rate than people who are noticeably thinner than me. I also run less risk of other problems. I run quite a risk of being denied medical care if I develop one of a number of conditions that can lead to increased weight gain--denied treatment for the underlying condition on the grounds that I am obviously a bad person because I look fat. I am at significant risk for unnecessary pharmaceuticals and surgery during labor on the grounds that somebody who is fat must be sick even if all tests indicate otherwise and even if she can't be proven sick she must be weak. I also run increased risks of developing eating disorders (narrowly avoided that one), and if I succeed at losing weight I run a 95 percent chance of gaining all of it back and then some in the long term even if I diet and exercise as much as I am "supposed to."

It's a treadmill that leads nowhere. Thinness is not an indicator of blooming health. Fatness is not an indicator of debilitating ailments. And trying to be thin just funnels money into the pockets of the diet industry. Except for the times where it outright kills you. (Go to Fat Health and read about the final result of weight loss surgery.)

If Weight Watchers is so good for people, why aren't they a non-profit?

[jaelh]

Rather than blog posts, are there scientific studies detailing the non-impact of obesity on health outcomes?

If there are, could you refer to those instead of blog round ups.

While a "a childbirth educator, speaker, free-lance writer, and well-rounded mama to four kids" with a Bachelor's Degree (magna cum laude)" [in what?], "extensive graduate work" and "childbirth education training" may have come to the correct conclusions, these conclusions seem to be different (opposite) to those of the CDC and international health organisations.

She might be right, but in determining what weight I'm going to give to various pieces of evidence, I'm going to go with peer reviewed science over blogger.

As it was, I couldn't find the round up you were talking about. the only articles that I could see on the well rounded mamma blog that were be similar to what you're saying is a discussion of science + obesity + pregnancy. Is that what you're referring to? If not (cause it seems you're talking about the link between "socially acceptable fatness" + musco-sceletal issues, not pregnancy issues) could you please provide a link to the piece you're talking about? I haven't had a super deep dig into the site, so if it's somewhere obvious, my apologies.

BTW - what do you mean when you refer to "socially unacceptable fat"? That's a measure that varies from group to group; so i'm not sure it's actually useful. Socially acceptable weight in the US or Australia is dramatically different to socially acceptable weight in say China.

[jaelh]

For what it's worth (which may or may not be much) I'm not trying to be an asshole. I'm sorry if I am.

If there is evidence that shows there isn't a link between obesity and increased health risks, I really want to see it (for myself, as much as anyone else).

Fatness is clearly NOT an indicator of any individual's health; but that's agreed by everyone here. Nor is thinness.

But I don't understand the resistance to the idea that obesity can have significant health outcomes, both for individuals and at the level of the population. I understand if you say - your health issues are your fault because you eat too much, and all you need to do is diet - I get that. But no one is saying that.

Manipulating the link to shame: yes; bad; wrong. No one should be denied health treatment, given unnecessary drugs etc.. No one should be. But we don't have to say there is no link to achieve that.

We need to treat people with dignity and respect. Everyone. Fat people, people of colour, immigrants, honky old white men. Everyone. We need to change how the medical system treats fat people. Absolutely.

But can't we do all of those things which acknowledging the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence suggests that there is a link between obesity and particular health issues.

What am I missing? I come across as combative (as I know I often do on the internet), I don't intend to and I apologise. I don't mean to be a triggery asshole.