Anti-Fat "Science" (UK Edition)

Summary

Two British charity groups, Cancer Research UK and Weight Concern, recently made headlines with a new survey purporting to show that fat people were unaware of health issues and “in denial” about their weight. The poll results, in fact, showed very little difference in knowledge between fat people and what the survey writers called “normal” people; and “in denial” refers to any fat person who is content with their body as it is.

Caroline Swain, Executive Director of Weight Concern said, “The survey findings highlight a widespread lack of concern about obesity.” In fact, the survey shows that 80% of obese people want to lose weight.

The survey was used to introduce a weight loss plan, Top Ten Tips. This plan, according to its creators, is scientifically-validated, easy to follow, and requires no major lifestyle change.

However, the studies cited to support Top Ten Tips indicate that the vast majority of people who try this plan do not lose nearly enough weight to turn an obese person into a so-called “normal” person. A typical study cited by Top Ten Tips found that the average short-term weight loss is only 11 pounds, and long-term weight loss is even less. Furthermore, the exercise study cited by Top Ten Tips recommends up to 90 minutes a day of exercise, which most people would find to be a major lifestyle change.

The weight loss studies cited by Top Ten Tips are plagued by dubious methodologies. For instance, one study cited had a 77% drop-out rate. Another study cited by Top Ten Tips excluded all people who didn’t lose weight from the study (Imagine if drug companies were allowed to claim their drugs “worked” based on studies which excluded everyone who tried the drug but didn’t get better!). Virtually none of the studies examined whether or not weight-loss was maintained over the course of five years; many didn’t even follow subjects for a full year.

To claim that such studies are scientific proof of the effectiveness of the Top Ten Tips program is simply dishonest. Furthermore, by spreading disinformation, Cancer Research UK and Weight Concern are validating unfair bigotry against fat people, and obscuring more realistic and proven ways that fat people can improve their health.

Part One: A Biased Survey Produces Biased Results. From Reuters:

LONDON (Reuters) – Many obese people are in denial about their size and do not want to lose weight even if it would improve their health, according to a poll on Monday.

More than half of 4,000 people questioned by the charity Cancer Research UK were overweight or obese but a quarter of them were not concerned about losing weight. […]

“These results show far too many of those at greatest risk are choosing to ignore their weight,” Walker added. “They are unaware of their increased risk of cancer and unaware of many of the benefits of a healthy lifestyle.”

Cancer Research UK and the charity Weight Concern said people who are overweight or obese should try to eat at the same time every day, choose reduced-fat foods, exercise, select healthy snacks, limit alcohol, and watch their portion sizes.

About a quarter of fat people aren’t interesting in losing weight – the horror! The horror!

Curious about the report, I searched around and eventually found the actual poll numbers (scroll all the way down). “In denial” means “any fat person who is satisfied with their weight.” The bigotry inherent in believing that any content fat person must be “in denial” is appalling.

As for being “unaware of the benefits of a healthy lifestyle,” It turns out that fat people, compared to “normal” weight people, are slightly less likely to realize that avoiding excess drink, exercising and eating well reduce the risk of cancer; but fat people are slightly more likely to say that “maintaining a healthy weight” will reduce cancer risk.

But the differences really are pretty slight. For example, 24% of “normal” weight Brits surveyed were aware that avoiding excess drinking would reduce their risk of cancer, versus 21% of fat Brits who were aware of that. Yes, it’s a statistically significant difference, but is that a difference that matters? Or that justifies headlines saying that fat people, in particular, are ignorant of cancer risks?

Part Two: Introducing The Top Ten Tips For Weight Loss

But never mind all that; turns out the survey is just the leading publicity edge for an associated weight-loss program:

Cancer Research UK has joined forces with the charity Weight Concern to develop Ten Top Tips ““ a set of weight management guidelines that can be incorporated into everyday routines without radical lifestyle change. The scientifically-based programme involves adopting ten simple steps and using a weekly checklist over eight weeks to monitor progress and help reinforce the new habits.

Note the claim that this is a “scientifically-based program” – which means, I assume, that the Top Ten Tips have been shown to lead to significant, long-term weight loss in scientific studies. There’s also a second claim: the Top Ten Tips do not not involve “radical lifestyle change.” As we will see, neither claim is true.

Dr Lesley Walker, director of cancer information at Cancer Research UK, said: […] “These results show far too many of those at greatest risk are choosing to ignore their weight. They are unaware of their increased risk of cancer and unaware of many of the benefits of a healthy lifestyle.”

“The Reduce the Risk campaign offers people health messages and practical advice they can use to change unhealthy habits for healthy ones. With support and information, the quarter of obese and overweight people who do not wish to lose weight will hopefully join the majority who would like to.”

First of all, notice Dr. Walker’s assumption that not wanting to lose weight and having a “healthy lifestyle” are incompatible.

Second, despite the “practical advice” available, according to their own survey the 75% of fat people who want to lose weight are nonetheless still fat. If the advice is so damned practical, then why are all these people still fat?

To be fair, Dr. Walker doesn’t literally say that the 25% of fat people content with their weight will actually lose weight if they “join the majority”; instead, they’ll just join the other 75% in wishing they were thin but actually remaining fat. What a victory that would be!

Professor Jane Wardle, director of Cancer Research UK’s Health Behaviour Unit said: […] “The Ten Top Tips programme is specifically designed to help people develop routines that are easy to follow and become ‘automatic’ over time. If followed over the long term they will help people lose weight and keep it off.”

Caroline Swain, Executive Director of Weight Concern said, “The survey findings highlight a widespread lack of concern about obesity. Education and support are a vital component in tackling the alarming rise in obesity in this country. By working together and sharing our combined expertise, Cancer Research UK and Weight Concern are offering people practical and simple ways to control their weight and reduce their risk of cancer.”

The set of scientifically-based guidelines is designed to help people adopt healthy habits that can be sustained for long-term weight maintenance. Based on psychological theories of habit formation, the easy-to-follow tips can be incorporated into people’s everyday routines without major lifestyle change.

I am puzzled by Ms. Swain’s alarm over the “widespread lack of concern about obesity.” Her own survey shows that 80% of obese people would like to lose weight. How widespread will concern over obesity have to become before Ms. Swain will stop claiming that there’s a widespread “lack of concern,” I wonder? If 90% of obese people hated their bodies, would that be enough to make Ms. Swain happy? If 95% had a almost certainly hopeless desire to be (in the words of Ms. Swain’s survey) “normal,” would Ms. Swain finally be able to sleep well at night, or would the thought that 5% of obese Brits have failed to absorb the requisite amount of self-hatred keep her counting cracks in the ceiling?

Part Three: So What Are The Top Ten Tips? But moving on. What are these amazing weight-loss tips – these “easy” “practical” “long-term” “without major lifestyle change” “scientifically-based” Top Ten Tips? They must be something really new and innovative; after all, if such Tips had been widely known for a long, long time, then hardly any of the 80% of the obese who want to lose weight would still be obese!

Here they are – the much-heralded Top Ten Tips:

1) Keep to your meal routine
Try to eat at roughly the same times each day, whether this is two or five times a day.

2) Go reduced fat
Choose reduced fat versions of foods such as dairy products, spreads and salad dressings where you can. Use them sparingly as some can still be high in fat.

3) Walk off the weight
Walk 10,000 steps (equivalent to 60-90 minutes moderate activity) each day. You can use a pedometer to help count the steps. You can break-up your walking throughout the day.

4) Pack a healthy snack
If you snack, choose a healthy option such as fresh fruit or low calorie yogurts instead of chocolate or crisps.

5) Look at the labels
Be careful about food claims. Check the fat and sugar content on food labels when shopping and preparing food.

6) Caution with your portions
Don’t heap food on your plate (except vegetables). Think twice before having second helpings.

7) Up on your feet
Break up your sitting time. Stand up for ten minutes out of every hour.

8) Think about your drinks
Choose water or sugar-free squashes. Unsweetened fruit juice is high in natural sugar so limit it to 1 glass per day (200ml/ 1/3 pint). Alcohol is high in calories. Try to limit the amount you drink.

9) Focus on your food
Slow down. Don’t eat on the go or while watching TV. Eat at a table if possible.

10) Don’t forget your 5 a day
Eat at least 5 portions of fruit and vegetables a day (400g in total).

I for one feel underwhelmed.

2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 10 can be summed up as “eat more fruit and veggies, and cut your calorie intake.” (Number 9 doesn’t appear at first glance to be a calorie-cutting tip, but when you read the details it turns out they think that people who eat in front of the TV eat more). 3 and 7 can be summed up as “exercise more.” So 9 of the Top Ten Tips are the two most commonplace and well-known weight loss strategies known to humankind.

Do they honestly think that the 75% of fat people (80% of obese people) who want to lose weight have never thought of eating less and exercising more? That notion has just never been presented to them before January 2006, and that’s why they’re fat?

Good lord, how can these people look at themselves in the mirror? (Answer: they’re thin, and to them that’s the only criteria that matters.) What kind of brainless moron of a researcher brightly chirps to newspapers that fat people should try and lose weight by eating less and walking more, as if this is news?

Jesus Christ! (And I say that as an atheist Jew.)

Part Four: What Is This Scientific Evidence You Speak Of? It gets worse. The “Top Ten Tips” comes from a charity called Weight Concern. Weight Concern’s front page repeats the claim of scientific grounding: “New! Top Ten Tips! Weight Loss Tips Based On Scientific Evidence.

Again, these “new” tips boil down to eating less and exercising more. But let’s check out the much-ballyhooed “scientific evidence” (pdf link). I’m not determined enough to go through all ten tips, but I’ll go through the first three, which is (I think) quite enough to demonstrate the level of scientific support behind these tips. Remember, this is being billed as reliable, easy-to-follow advice to enable fat people to have long-term weight loss.

TIP ONE
The first tip – have a regular meal schedule – is cited to a study called “Behavioural correlates of successful weight reduction over 3y.” from The International Journal of Obesity.(2004, 28:334-335.)

Here we see a common problem of the studies cited by weight-loss gurus: The study combines lousy methodology with an extremely forgiving standard of “success.”

Lousy Methodology: The study had a 77% drop-out rate. This means that the researchers have no idea how many people followed their instructions, found that they weren’t losing weight, and so quite reasonably dropped out. All the researchers can claim is that of the 23% minority who didn’t drop out, those who had a regular meal schedule were 70% more likely to have a “successful” weight loss.

Forgiving definition of “success”: ” weight loss of 5% or more from baseline to 3 y FU was defined as successful weight reduction.”

5%? Let’s say a 300-pound man loses 5% of his weight, and so becomes a 285 pound man. Will that mean that he’s now classified as “normal” weight? No. If he says that he’s now satisfied with his weight, will Ms. Swain find that acceptable? Again, no. And what if he gains back the fifteen pounds if we measure it across 5 or 6 years, instead of three (weight loss maintenance declines steeply over time) – will that be acceptable? No.

And keep in mind, the amount of weight loss drops steeply over time – so when these studies consider a “success” to be weight loss at six months or even three years, they’re greatly increasing the “successes.” If “success” was described as taking the weight off and keeping it off for a lifetime, the success rate of these studies would be near-nonexistent.

This is a double-standard that weight-loss boosters constantly employ. When they spout statistics intending to show how horrible the obesity “epidemic” is, being at all larger than “normal” is categorically unacceptable, and probably a cause for not just concern but panic. But when you look at the scientific studies they cite to show that weight loss is reasonably possible, they define “success” as a fat person who becomes a slightly less fat person.

Which is it? Either people can be fat and healthy, in which case their panic statistics have no basis. Or fat people are not healthy – in which case most of the cited “successful weight reductions” can’t really be called successes at all.

So – of the 23% of subjects who didn’t drop out altogether – how many actually succeeded in maintaining a 5% weight loss over the course of three years? 48%. Put another way, of the minority who were able to stick with this study’s plan, most weren’t even able to lose 5% of their weight over three years.

But what about the most successful group of dieters – those who managed to obey seven separate restrictions for all three years? (That’s a grand total of 198 dieters out of the initial group of 6,857). Of this tiny, select group, 40% failed to meet this study’s extremely forgiving standard of “successful weight loss.”

The second study cited to support Tip One (“Promoting long-term weight control” International Journal of Obesity 2004, 28:278-281) neatly avoids the problem of dieters failing to lose weight by using a selective sample; the sample considered includes only people who have already lost 30 pounds and kept it off for at least two years. They then look at how these successful dieters behave, and assume that if everyone else behaved the same way, they too would lose weight.

The problem with that is, for all the researchers know, many people who aren’t successful at losing weight may have used the exact same weight-loss strategies.

It’s as if they had taken a sample of people who win marathons and studied the training regimens the marathon winners used. It would be illogical to assume either that every person is capable of following the regimen, or that every person who follows the regimen will necessarily win marathons.

And again – note the forgiving standard of success. I weigh about 330 pounds; if I lost 30 pounds, none of the folks behind the “Top Ten Tips” would call me “normal” or view my weight as a success. Plus, even among this group of specially selected super-dieters, the average participant only maintained the weight loss for five and a half years.

TIP TWO
The second tip is to eat low-calorie foods. “There is a great deal of evidence to support the effectiveness of low-fat diets (where 30% or less of total daily energy is from fat), which produce weight loss by decreasing calorie intake. Following a low-fat diet is also associated with better weight maintenance.”

They provide two citations to support this tip.

The first is to a UK government document entitled “Management of obesity and weight loss”; the UK link appears to be dead, but the google catche still works. In the section discussing calories and weight loss, they referred to two peer reviewed meta-analysis studies.

The first peer reviewed study in the UK government report, “The role of low-fat diets in body weight control” (International Journal of Obesity (2000) 24 1545-52), was a meta-analysis of several other studies. The meta-analysis showed that the average dieter using a low-fat diet loses seven pounds for between 2 and 12 months (they didn’t include studies which checked for success past 12 months). However, fat dieters on average lost 13 pounds for 2-12 months. Nothing in this analysis justifies a claim that fat people can reliably use this diet plan to become “normal,” or that the small weight loss that occurs is maintained over the long term.

The second study mentioned in the UK government report, was another meta-analysis (“Advice on low-fat diets for obesity,” The Cochrane Library, Issue 3, 2002). This analysis included studies that went all the way to 18 months (although most only covered 6 months) – again, not long enough to say anything about long-term weight loss. They found that low-fat diets were actually slightly less effective than other diets, producing an average weight loss of about 11 pounds in fat and obese subjects – again, nothing to justify a claim that fat people can become what Weight Concern calls “normal.”

Finally, let’s look at the second citation in support of “Tip Two,” “Successful Weight Loss Maintenance,” in Annual Review of Nutrition 2001, 21:323-341.

As usual, the definition of “success” is quite lenient. “We propose that individuals who have intentionally lost at least 10% of their body weight and have kept it off at least 1 year be considered successful weight loss maintainers.” Even by this very relaxed standard, however, four out of five dieters this study considered failed to maintain the weight loss – and had they used better standards, such as weight loss maintained for at least five years, the failure rate would have been much higher.

The authors note that there are health improvements associated with a 10% weight loss. That’s true – but people who eat healthier food and exercise without losing weight experience the same health improvements.

And in any case, 10% is certainly not enough of a loss to turn most fat people into what Weight Concern calls “normal” people. This study doesn’t support claims that low-fat diets are reliably associated with long-term weight loss, or that they reliably turn fat people into non-fat people.

TIP THREE
Tip three is to walk a lot to lose weight. This tip is supported by a link to a glossy UK government hand out on the benefits of physical activity (pdf link), which gives no particulars at all on how much weight loss walking provides, or how long-term the studies are. Tip Three is also supported by one scientific consensus statement, which reports that “There is compelling evidence that prevention of weight regain in formerly obese individuals requires 60″“90 minutes of moderate intensity activity or lesser amounts of vigorous intensity activity.”

I have no idea how long-term this is, or how much weight loss is claimed. (Some research – not cited in the Top Ten Tips, unsurprisingly – has shown that exercise has only minor long-term weight loss effects. However, exercise is good for health regardless of weight). What strikes me about this, however, is that the Top Ten Tips are advertised as “easy to follow” “practical” and “without major lifestyle change.”

We’re talking between an hour and an hour and a half of exercise every day. I’m willing to bet that the typical citizen wouldn’t find adding 90 minutes of exercise a day “easy,” or “practical” – especially not if they have minor impediments like, you know, jobs. Or children. And I suspect most people would find 90 minutes of exercise a day a “major lifestyle change.”

Conclusion The survey these folks wrote and publicized puts all people into three classes: “normal,” “overweight” and “obese.” (A fourth class, “underweight,” is mentioned once and then ignored). Only being “normal” (and perhaps “underweight”) is considered acceptable, by their standards. Not to worry – they have a “scientifically-based program” “based on scientific evidence” which does not involve “radical lifestyle change.”

Now, when I see such claims, I expect – at the very least – a single study showing that fat people have used this program to become so-called “normal” weight and have been able to maintain that weight loss over the long term. But there is no such study. Instead, they link to studies showing that a small amount of weight can be lost over the short term in the minority of subjects who are able to follow the plan, but is mostly regained several years later.

Oh, and apparently 90 minutes of exercise every day is easy, practical, and doesn’t represent a change of lifestyle. (Do any of these people have children?)

These people are selling snake-oil. They are claiming that their “cure” for fat has been proven to work, when their own studies show that the cure doesn’t work. Their weight-loss plan will not turn a fat person into a so-called “normal” person.

So what’s the harm of selling snake oil?

* By claiming that losing weight has been scientifically proven to be both practical and easy, they’re legitimizing bigotry against fat people, by spreading the myth that the only reason anyone remains fat is laziness and lack of caring.

* They’re likewise encouraging lack of self-esteem – and even fat-hatred – in fat people.

* By pushing weight-loss methods that have been scientifically shown, according to the studies they themselves cite, to not work in the long term, they’re encouraging yo-yo dieting, which has terrible health consequences.

* By making weight their only measure of health, they’re obscuring the fact that eating well and exercising regularly has enormous, maintainable, long-term benefits for fat people regardless of if any weight is lost.

* By making weight their only measure of health, they’re obscuring the fact that being “normal” weight is no guarantee of good health; health-concerned “normal” people need to eat a healthy diet and exercise, too.

If Cancer Research UK and Weight Concern really want to improve fat people’s health, the best thing they could possibly do is to shut the hell up.

This entry posted in Fat, fat and more fat. Bookmark the permalink. 

71 Responses to Anti-Fat "Science" (UK Edition)

  1. Pingback: The Case Against Weight-Loss Dieting

  2. Pingback: Stephen M (Ethesis)

  3. Pingback: Big Fat Blog | The fat acceptance weblog.

  4. Pingback: Sisyphus Shrugged

  5. Pingback: Lawyers, Guns and Money

  6. Pingback: Rainbow's Ramblings

  7. Pingback: Marge

  8. Pingback: feminist blogs

  9. 9
    nik says:

    Wow this is a long post.

    Just dealing with Section 1, two claims are made.

    (1) Far too many of those at greatest risk are choosing to ignore their weight.
    (2) And they are unaware of their increased risk of cancer and of many of the benefits of a healthy lifestyle.

    And the survey shows that:

    (1) 30% of the overweight, 20% of the obese/v obese, and 26 % of the all the overweight/obese/v obese would not like to lose weight.
    (2a) 71% of those at risk because of their weight did not know of the cancer connection.
    (2b) 50% of obese and overweight people did not believe that eating healthily could help reduce cancer risk.
    (3c) 64 % of obese and overweight people were unaware that regular exercise could reduce risk.

    I’d say that (2) is clearly justified by the data, and that (1) is a judgement call depending upon what you think is ‘far too many’ people are. Based on the figures they give I estimate it extrapolates out to about 2 million people (50m*0.2*0.2). I’d give it to them.

    Perhaps I’ll write more if someone out there want to talk to me.

    The survey these folks wrote and publicized puts all people into three classes: “normal,” “overweight” and “obese.” (A fourth class, “underweight,” is mentioned once and then ignored).

    It actually uses the term “healthy weight” not “normal weight” (except in the vertical tabulation of Q2 – which is almost certainly an error – though perhaps a telling one). From their tabulation of BMI percentages the “normal weight” – i.e. the median – is overweight.

  10. 10
    BStu says:

    Bravo! Exceptional analysis. It is genuinely frightening how divorced from reality the claims of fat bashers can be. I doubt the many who blankly support fat bigotry ever pause to examine the case they put so much faith. Regretably, I wonder if they’d care if they were shown how incredibly unfounded their “common sense” is. I suspect most would still respond as if you were insisting that the Earth were shaped like a cube.

  11. 11
    Melinda says:

    In the section where you list the “Top Ten Tips”, number 9 is actually stated because when you eat on the go or while sitting in front of the tv or computer, you tend to eat faster. When you eat faster it takes your body longer to recognize and respond to the *full* or *sated* signal that your GI system sends your brain.

    It’s not that people that eat in front of the tv intentionally eat more, they just tend to eat faster.

    As for the rest of your post, I’d have to agree with you given the presented data.

  12. 12
    BStu says:

    So, nik, you are advocating for a double standard which hyper-criticizes behavior in fat people that is ignored in thin people. The study showed that the difference in knowledge between fat people and thin people to be entirely minor. Yet, it is presented as a failing of fat people.

    Also not even discussed is the fact that the cancer risk associated with being fat has been disturbingly overstated. I’d imagine if you asked people what increased cancer risk more, being fat or being male, an overwhelming majority would say fat on the basis of panicy proclamations like this one and a similiar frenzy in the US not long ago. But they’d be wrong. The studies show slightly increased risks associated with fatness and also slightly increased risks with being male, but the risks of being a man are distinctly higher. But no one complaining about how men don’t know how much they are at risk because of their gender with a top-ten tips on how to stop being male.

    As to the first suggestion you tackle being a “judgement call”, your basis for judgement is still total obediance to the diet industy with any hesitation being classified as ignorant. That’s an outrageous suggestion for the Top Ten people to make and for you to endorse. And how telling is it that you didn’t deal with the 600lb gorilla that is the complete failure of weight loss dieting to live up to its promises.

  13. 13
    ScottM says:

    Well written; I love your detailed breakdowns and analysises Amp.

  14. 14
    pdf23ds says:

    I’d like to know what the anti-fat-bigotry folks think about Seth Roberts’ Shangri La diet. Yes, it’s completely unproven. But do you have other reactions?

    For those that don’t want to click through, the basic idea is that by eating a few hundred tastless calories a day (through a few tablespoons of vegetable oil or some other things), you can trick your appetite into decreasing. Roberts’ idea is that your appetite is linked to flavor-calorie associations that you’ve learned over time, and taking advantage of this fact can allow you to lower it. It thus lowers your calorie intake without any conscious effort, and eventually lowers your weight. You don’t have to change the nutritional balance of your diet at all, so it can be as balanced and healthy as you want it to be.

    This hasn’t been formally studied, but the initial evidence makes it seem very promising, at least to my ears.

  15. 15
    slynne says:

    Thankyou so much for taking this on. It always helps to have someone point out the fat hatred in our culture. It is so common that it is easy to get used to it and hardly notice anymore (which somehow doesnt prevent one from absorbing the message)

  16. 16
    Chameleon says:

    This is a superb corrective to the seemingly endless output of the fat-bashers. The gloves are definitely off in the British media at the moment, fat-denigrating, as one commentator put it, being the last acceptable prejudice. The tendentious nonsense presented as a scientifically rigorous study produced by gleaming-toothed wolves in grandma’s clothing all the better to market our product with, my dear, does not withstand sustained scrutiny, as you so beautifully demonstrate. Unfortunately, however, most readers will not bother to take the time and trouble to examine it as closely as you or with “red pill”-style critical awareness. They will merely encounter it in the columns of some dismal rag such as the Daily Mail and leave it behind on the seat in the Tube to stoke the guilt of some other poor commuter. This is how cultural attitudes are sustained, by rapid scanning articles to while away a bored moment whilst unquestioningly accepting the opinion of those who are presented as experts. So the dreary stereotypes are enforced and the diet purveyors prosper on the misery of those who fail to “measure up”.

  17. 17
    Charles says:

    pdf23ds,

    So some con artist has a new brand of snake oil, and some shiny fake evidence that suggests that it works wonders? How nifty, where can I sign up?

  18. 18
    alsis39.5 says:

    If the goal is to decrease appetite, just try five minutes of FOX news.

    It’s always worked for me. :p

  19. 19
    Dee says:

    Wait. I don’t get it. What does sitting still have to do with eating? The only time I sit still for over an hour is at work, and I don’t eat at work (well, except at lunch time).

  20. 20
    pdf23ds says:

    Charles, I don’t know that Dr. Roberts exactly fits the profile of a con artist, but I can understand your skepticism.

  21. 21
    Maria says:

    This reminds me of racial profiling. just because it is a simple observation to make, people attribute health consequences to weight, as opposed to particular behaviors that lead both to increased weight and poor health. That, I agree, is completely unscientific and even dangerous to naturally thin people who don’t exercise and eat junk food but may think they are safe.

    I live with an eating disorder (slightly under control now), and have had huge weight variations throughout my life (used to be 50 lbs heavier, and that was a sizeable part of my body weight). So the link between what we eat and our weight has always fascinated me. I think lots of subtle mechanisms are not completely understood yet, but one thing is – I think – undeniable: increasing food consumption will lead to weight gain. This does not mean decreasing it after the weight has been stable around a certain level will immediately cause it to lower (or maybe even in the long run), because of the subtle mechanisms I talked about before.

    So, you get two questions. First, why is being fat associated with poor health. Maybe being fat out of consuming lots of fruits and vegetables and milk, even if exercising regularly (which can happen) is not dangerous to your health. But the truth is that most people do not grow fat that way. So pointing out the logical fallacy but not dealing with the true behavior is not conducive to better health. And the fact is that there is probably no good way to get “scientific” results in this matter: you can’t run a randomized trial on people’s food choices, and the fact that this is a complex process where results come from the interaction of multiple factors rather than by one single element makes it terribly hard to gather non fallacious evidence.

    My overall point is that I think you are right in that educating the public about the myth that fat = unhealthy will be ultimately very useful. But I worry about the many fat people who will interpret it as a sign that they should not worry, when chances are that if you’re fat and you’ve never questioned it, you are not getting enough exercise, you are eating too much fat and processed sugars, and you could do with some lifestyle changes. Even if you don’t become thin in the process.

  22. 22
    BStu says:

    Roberts is selling a weight loss system. That IS the profile of a con artist. I find it stunning (but not surprising) that you would demand people respond to a system that you admit is completely unproven. Shouldn’t someone have to, you know, at least pretend to prove something before they get debunked. But since you insist, there is no proof that fat people eat more than thin people, so any treatment that predicates itself on decreased eating is premised on an unsupported assumpsion and thus even less worthy of interest than it already was. Just like all the other con men and their “diet breakthroughs”.

  23. 23
    Charles says:

    Maria,

    There is actually pretty extensive research that eating more does not necessarily lead to weight gain (in fact, without the caviate that easting more without increasing metabolic activity leads to weight gain, the claim is obviously false). I don’t have cites handy, but a search back through Alas will turn up documentation of this. One early study in which non-fat prisoners were fed a very high calorie diet found that they did not typically gain significant weight, and that some actually lost weight. Uptake and metabolism are both flexible and responsive, so changing diet alone is only going to have an effect if uptake and metabolism don’t change in response. Since they do change in response to diet, you really can’t say, if you eat more, you will gain weight.

    Additionally, you can’t say, if you have gained weight, then you must have been eating more than someone who didn’t gain weight. It is also possible that the two people have differences in uptake or metabolism.

  24. 24
    pdf23ds says:

    BStu,

    I’m not demanding anyone reply. I was just curious.

    I agree that having a financial interest in the success of the system provides an incentive for someone to falsify or exaggerate the evidence in favor of the system, but from what I know of Roberts, he seems to be a person that would consciously avoid that sort of thing. (I admit that the evidence there is weak, and I’m skeptical about the system as well.) How many other weight loss salesmen have been academics with no expertise in nutrition, and with research into many other areas of psychology? That, and reading his paper, is what made me give more credence to him than I would to someone else.

    And do you really think that people like Atkins and Agatston (of the South Beach Diet) are/were con men, as opposed to honest people who are perhaps wrong, and who were certainly blindly bigoted against fat people?

    Moving on, Roberts doesn’t say that fat people eat more than thin people. He says that eating fewer calories will make you lose weight. These two statements are different. I thought the latter was established as fact. Perhaps I’m wrong even about this? My understanding was simply that voluntary calorie self-restriction is virtually impossible long-term, and thus not practical as a dieting plan, but that a reduced-calorie diet will lead to a lower weight. Please correct me if I’m mistaken.

    Roberts says that consuming tastless calories far from mealtimes will lower your appetite, thus leading to lower calorie consumption without effort. I think this is the part of his diet that needs the evidence and validation.

  25. 25
    pdf23ds says:

    Actually, upon re-reading some of that paper, I think I’m misrepresenting Roberts’ claims. I think I misinterpreted them because I wasn’t aware of the volatility and contingency of the calorie intake to weight association when I first read the paper.

    What he may be theorizing (and here I may be in a bit over my head) is that one’s “weight set point” controls one’s metabolism as well as appetite, and so reducing calorie intake without changing the set point (which he theorizes is controlled by flavor-calorie associations) will decrease metabolism. (And now I remember someone mentioning somewhere that that often actually happens.) But if you decrease the set point, your metabolism will be more stable even as your appetite decreases.

  26. 26
    alsis39.5 says:

    Gevalt. The point isn’t the character of the men (or women) pitching the diet plan(s). And I say that as one who has tried such things a time or two in her day. The point is that diets have an abyssmal rate of failure. Doesn’t matter whether it’s W.W., Jenny Craig, Liquid Shi– er, Protein, whatever. A fraction of the people who undertake these things keep off the weight they lose. If any other industry had such an abyssmal rate of failure, there’d be a Federal Investigation for fraud. But in this culture, the individual is the supposed master/mistress of his/her destiny, and so of course it is only the fault of the individual. The system itself, however fucked-up, is always above questioning because most of the people questioning it are dubbed “moral failures,” “weak on will,” blah blah blah.

    Besides, just because the last 5,432,187 plans didn’t work– Oh, surely the NEXT one will be different. Please. This all should’ve ended years ago, with the ritual flaying of those fuckwits that foisted Olestra on us.

    Look, ponder the absurdity of drinking oil straight from a bottle. What the hell kind of way is that to live ? Are we all kids in an Our Gang/Little Rascals retrospective, cringing as mean old mom wields the cod-liver bottle ? Please.

    Hell, I have a killer fresh lime-honey-olive oil dressing recipe if anyone wants it. Pour it on your salad greens, slather it on a skinless chicken cutlet before broiling, slather it on a whole chicken with its skin still on before baking, pour it over some melon balls or dunk some crusty bread in it. THAT’s the way to consume oily cuisine.

    Fuck the diet industry and its “kindly” gurus. Cook something nice for yourself and your friends. Eat with joy and with a relaxed mind, until you’re full. When you’re full, stop eating. Period.

  27. 27
    pdf23ds says:

    “The point is that diets have an abyssmal rate of failure.”

    The point of Amp’s post, sure. And it’s a great point, and one that a lot more people need to be aware of. But “con men” is still a bit harsh.

  28. 28
    Sharon says:

    pdf23ds wrote:

    My understanding was simply that voluntary calorie self-restriction is virtually impossible long-term, and thus not practical as a dieting plan, but that a reduced-calorie diet will lead to a lower weight. Please correct me if I’m mistaken.

    In the short-term, yes, it will lead to a lower weight, but note that:

    1. Weight lost may not be even be enough to be noticeable, depending on how fiercely the body wants to hang onto the weight and what differences in its internal systems it is prepared to make in order to maintain that weight, and

    2. Typically a person cannot maintain such a diet forever, so afterwards, there is typically a rebound effect. A substantial portion of people will regain all the weight lost to arrive back at where they were beforehand, and a substantial portion of people will regain more than they lost. (Many many research studies on diets have data on long-term weight regain.) For some people dieting is one of the most effective methods of weight gain.

  29. 29
    BStu says:

    Starvation certainly will induce weight loss. That does not mean it is sustainable, nor that overeating is the cause of higher than culturally accepted weights.

    And a con man is a con man regardless of their motivation. Whether the monatary windfall is a primary factor or a happy side-effect, the results of diet mongers are the same. They selling false promises and benefiting financially for it. Aw, that might hurt the poor diet mongers feelings. Lets all worry about the sensativities of people who have ridiculed and demeaned fat people for profit.

    And Maria, I think your concern that fat acceptance would encourage unhealthy behaviors is entirely without merit. If anything, I think that is precisely the result seen with dieting and a very good reason for fat acceptance. Think about it, when a person is told they cannot be healthy and fat and they know that healthy lifestyle changes won’t make them thin, these two messages are a disincentive to a healthy lifestyle. What’s the point if they won’t be thin? They can’t be healthy if they are fat, so why bother? Educating people about the lie that is can only help, and handcuffing ourselves while others continue to advance a dangerous and destructive myth does no good for anyone.

  30. 30
    Dee says:

    If been “obese” since I was a kid, and I’ve never been above my college freshman weight (I’m about 20 pounds below it right now, as a matter of fact). I’m 36. I don’t know if the eating habits I had as an adolescent were somehow responsible for me ending up fat. But, I do know that for the last 15 years, I’ve been eating a healthy diet. I’ve always been active, including during the time when I was gaining weight as a kid (right now, I walk to work and back every day, among other things). So pardon me if I’m a little offended by the comment about fat people and lifestyle.

    Everyone has been exposed to “eat right and exercise” advice, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the average fat person works harder at that then the average thin person. But it doesn’t make you thin. If you saw me walking down the street and were going to make assumptions about me, you wouldn’t care if I weighed 190 or 210 pounds. You probably wouldn’t be able to tell the difference. But, there’s a big lifestyle difference between the two weights for me, and I don’t get much lighter than 190 without unsustainable habits. The weight loss industry, with the way they use statistics, would consider me a “success,” but you wouldn’t know it by looking at me, or by my BMI. Even if you were my doctor, you wouldn’t be able to judge my lifestyle without asking me about it, asking me about my weight history, asking me about how much other people in my family weigh, and doing medical tests.

    But that’s complicated isn’t it? It means that you can’t judge people – their health, their level of self disipline, how they eat, or how much they move – by how they look.

  31. 31
    alsis39.5 says:

    pdf wrote:

    But “con men” is still a bit harsh.

    So’s assuming a bunch of mean crap about people just because they’re fat.

    Hey, Dr. Diet Oilman, welcome to my world. :p

  32. 32
    Elayne Riggs says:

    Well done, Amp. I hope you’ll be including this link in your upcoming Carnival.

  33. 33
    pdf23ds says:

    “Starvation certainly will induce weight loss. That does not mean it is sustainable, nor that overeating is the cause of higher than culturally accepted weights.”

    Indeed. It’s really appalling how people are shamed into starving themselves because it’s the “disciplined” thing to do, especially in light of its demonstrated worthlessness as a diet plan. Roberts hypothesizes that weights have been rising in general because supermarket/fast food provides a highly consistent and strong flavor. They’ve been adding more and more sugar and MSG and other flavorings to products over time, and mass-produced food provides a very consistent flavor, and often a very high calorie count. This results in a body fat set point that gets raised much more easily than it does on diets full of unprocessed and organic foods. (I’ve also read about how the worst foods for this sort of thing are often all that’s available to poorer people, because of how grocery stores in poor areas are stocked and run, which makes it hard for them to eat a healthy diet even if they want to.)

    Note that Roberts isn’t advocating starvation. The calorie reduction of his diet follows naturally from the other parts.

    “And a con man is a con man regardless of their motivation.”

    Here’s where I disagree. The point should be resolved empirically, but I couldn’t find “con man” in Webster’s, and “con” just pointed to some synonyms. “Swindle” is defined thus: “to take money or property by fraud or deceipt”. OK, that’s still pretty close. “Fraud” is defined to include “intentional perversion of the truth”. So one can’t be committing fraud if one really believes in what one is selling.

    On the other hand, I think that in some sense, the whole diet industry, as a nebulous non-personal phenomenon, can be considered to be more aware of and responsible for its own deception than any individual diet pusher. I don’t have any problem with someone saying that the diet industry is conning the populace–I think it’s pretty apt.

    Maria:
    “My overall point is that I think you are right in that educating the public about the myth that fat = unhealthy will be ultimately very useful. But I worry about the many fat people who will interpret it as a sign that they should not worry, when chances are that if you’re fat and you’ve never questioned it, you are not getting enough exercise, you are eating too much fat and processed sugars, and you could do with some lifestyle changes. Even if you don’t become thin in the process.”

    I think we should probably worry just as much about the thin people who believe the “thin = healthy” myth as we do about the fat people who have given up on the “fat = unhealthy” myth and then stop worrying about their health.

    “It means that you can’t judge people – their health, their level of self disipline, how they eat, or how much they move – by how they look.”

    I think this is going to be a really hard thing for people to learn. For one thing, we’re almost built to do that, unconsciously. It’s called the halo effect. For another, I’m not even sure it’s something people can unlearn. It might be sort of like racism, in this respect. Sort of like implicit association. Of course, we’re still so far away from the point where we even have to worry about unconscious attitudes. We have enough work trying to get people to give up their consciously held biases against fat people. And hard facts are the best thing for doing that.

  34. 34
    Maria says:

    Charles,

    I was not aware of any research documenting that high calorie intake did not lead – for a given person – to increased weight. I’m not an expert, so I’ll take your word for it. There’s not much to discuss, though I would like to see the methodology. At any rate, prison does seem like a place where this kind of study could be enforced (though I don’t know about its external validity).

    Bstu,

    And Maria, I think your concern that fat acceptance would encourage unhealthy behaviors is entirely without merit.

    In case it is not clear, my ideal would be to find out why it is that certain risks are associated with weight – what the underlying cause is – and teach the public in general about it. I just can’t see how sheer weight – as opposed to fat percentage, volume in relation to height, or other dimensions – could cause health problems by themselves. I do think certain habits probably have bad consequences and the fact that being fat correlates with, for instance, heart problems suggests that some of those habits are more common among fat people. This does not mean that fat acceptance would encourage unhealthy behaviors. It means that the fat population (and, for that matter, everyone else) should receive this information. I totally agree with what you say. I’m not saying fat people should strive to be thin (as has been said, they could go for starvation, but that doesn’t seem to be particularly healthy). What I am saying, is that the fat myth is probably based on fat people being ON AVERAGE less active and having ON AVERAGE an unhealthier lifestyle than regular people (not particularly thin people, though).

    Dee,

    I definitely did not mean to offend you or anyone else. But as is true of almost all evidence from randomized trials (the poster child of scientific medicine), claims are made on average, not for specific cases. This is valid for medications which work on a large number of cases but may cause severe side effects on a small population (not that this is any consolation to the small population), and it is valid for claims about fat, or thinness, or smoking. So you should not take a statement about whether something holds on average, and be personally offended or claim it is not true because there are exceptions. I agree that associating being fat with being undisciplined is preposterous. I have not made that claim. I don’t think of lifestyles as morally good or bad, except when they involve a penchant for, say, child abuse or rape. I may be mistaken, but I was under the impression that there are correlations between BMI and bad health. This suggests to me that among people with high BMI certain habits are more prevalent, and so they should be educated. I’m not entirely sure that

    Everyone has been exposed to “eat right and exercise” advice, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the average fat person works harder at that then the average thin person.

    This is probably true among a certain educated, middle class group. But I don’t think it is true in general. Not in this country, not in other countries (which are also the targets of information campaigns – it is not just about the US).

    One last point, is that I do think there is a large prejudice against fat people. As I see it, being fat is considered unattractive, but since that would seem like a very shallow concern, there is a search for more morally valid factors, such as health. This is wrong and unfair.

    It may be that I am biased by my own experience with fat people (I come from a family that is half unhealthyly thin, half unhealthyly fat).

  35. 35
    Helen says:

    Great analysis. The pile of tripe spun about fatness drives me absolutely crazy. Even more irritating, possibly, is the fact that one of my best friends has just completed a three year university degree in sports sciences and all of this garbage is being taught in these classes. A number of times we’ve started discussing issues around weight and it has become very clear that they’re being fed the fat=unhealthy myth. It always makes me think that it’s like her entire degree is a “the earth is flat” equivalent, and that it’ll all be disproven somewhere down the road.

    Also, I gotta say that this: they’ll just join the other 75% in wishing they were thin but actually remaining fat. What a victory that would be! really hit my sarcasm bone just right. Very nice ;-)

  36. 36
    observer says:

    Another factor to consider when analyzing the article amp cites is the association made by (especially upper class/educated) Europeans between obesity and the U.S. If you read, e.g., Crooked Timber, you will find a frequent snide reference to how fat everyone looks in the U.S. There is a sense in which criticizing obesity is a proxy for criticising the U.S.

  37. 37
    Brandon Berg says:

    As I see it, being fat is considered unattractive, but since that would seem like a very shallow concern, there is a search for more morally valid factors, such as health.

    Doesn’t the fact that many people are ashamed to admit that they find fat people unattractive contradict the notion of a pervasive hatred of fat people? Or do we all just think we’re the only ones who hate fat people?

  38. 38
    Tara says:

    Brandon Berg:
    Not unless you’re prepared to admit that nobody is racist unless they call themselves racist…

  39. 39
    Dylan says:

    Great post. One nit: On the narrow point of whether walking 10,000 steps a day (60-90 minutes) is a major lifestyle change, I think you misrepresent what they suggest a little: they’re not proposing that much time devoted purely to exercise, but are proposing just moderate exercise in the form of walking, which can be easily combined with many other activities or can replace other forms of transportation with no time loss. I don’t know enough to know how disruptive that would actually be to most people, but certainly your initial presentation gave the wrong impression on what was being proposed. (For instance, I exercise that much by biking to work rather than taking the subway; biking is actually slightly faster, although I’m not able to work at the same time.)

    But you’ve certainly pointed out many areas where the science looks very, very shoddy.

  40. 40
    silverside says:

    alsis, can you post your dressing recipe? Sounds yummy!

  41. 41
    alsis39.5 says:

    Of course, silverside:

    1 lg. garlic clove, peeled and chopped fine

    2 t. dry mustard

    juice and zest from 2 limes (strain out the pulp through a tea strainer if you dislike the texture)

    1/2 t salt

    1 T honey dissolved in 1 T warm water

    1 C canola or light olive oil (use 1/2 C each if you like the taste of olive oil but are on a budget)

    Combine all ingredients except the oil in a small bowl.
    While whisking, add the oil in a stream until dressing is fully emulsified/blended.

    (These proportions will give you a fairly tart dressing. Add more sweetener or use a honey mustard if you like sweet dressings.)

    Makes about 1 1/2 Cups dressing or marinade. Keeps in the ‘fridge about two weeks.

  42. 42
    mousehounde says:

    Thank you kindly, alsis39.5, for the recipe.It looks to be great. I didn’t ask, but I really wanted to. Perhaps Ampersand could have a recipe thread. ::grin::. Something that could be revisited like the Wedding Dress thread.

  43. 43
    BStu says:

    I think you will find very few people are that concerned about admitting they dislike the physical appearance of fat people, Brandon. Its something many fat people have to deal with every day of their lives. And as has been pointed, bigotry is not limited to those who self-identify as bigots.

    And, yes, PDF, we get it. You think your snake oil is the bestest snake oil around and you totally don’t understand why anyone would not jump at the chance to praise your snake-oil salesmen as the englightened gift from God you clearly think him to be. Well, I’m sorry you’re so disturbed to find a small pocket of this world that doesn’t exist to exault con-men who steal from fat people by selling them false hope. I don’t find anything honorable in that. I’m reminded of a wonderful exchange from the “Pinky and The Brain” cartoon…

    The Brain: How are we going to get the Earth to lose weight?
    Pinky: I know! We can get everyone to go on a diet.
    The Brain: Diet’s don’t work.
    Pinky: Not even if you call them a “Whole New Way of Eating”?
    The Brain: No.

  44. 44
    Brandon Berg says:

    Tara (30):
    But the reason that most racists don’t admit to being racists is that racism is widely regarded as unacceptable, and there’s a stigma associated with being racist. Several decades ago, when racism was widely regarded as a perfectly respectable position, people proudly shouted their racist opinions from the rooftops.

    So why would people be reluctant to admit to thinking that fatness is unattractive if such an opinion weren’t widely regarded as unacceptable? I’m open to accepting the truth of either of those propositions, but unless I’m misinterpreting her, Maria (26) was trying to have it both ways, and I don’t see a way to resolve that.

  45. 45
    pdf23ds says:

    “And, yes, PDF, we get it. You think your snake oil is the bestest snake oil around”

    Umm, I’ve said I’m still skeptical about it, and I await reliable confirmation.

    “you totally don’t understand why anyone would not jump at the chance to praise your snake-oil salesmen”

    I’ve said I understand people’s reservations.

    “as the englightened gift from God you clearly think him to be.”

    I’ve said I’m aware he could be dishonest or wrong.

    “Well, I’m sorry you’re so disturbed”

    I’m not disturbed–why would you think so?

    “to find a small pocket of this world”

    Once again, I find people’s reservations perfectly rational in the situation. Without knowing anything about a new weight loss diet, it’s very likely to not be effective.

    “that doesn’t exist to exault con-men”

    There you go with that word again.

    You’re misrepresenting me and attacking me personally, apparently by hearing arguments you’ve heard from others instead of what I’m actually saying.

    And really, it’s not surprising. It’s a sensitive issue for you, and your reactions are normal defensiveness. It’s probably painful for you to have to reconsider the possibility that a particular diet actually works. I imagine you’ve done so many times in the past, to have your hopes dashed over and over. Now that you’ve resolved to content yourself with your weight, the act of seriously considering a new diet brings back old, bad memories and mental habits that you’ve broken, habits you’re better off without. For you, the reaction is probably a rational way to preserve your sanity and health in light of the capricious and often fragile nature of human emotional mechanisms, even if the contents of the reaction aren’t rational in themselves, even if they’re extremely poor observation and argumentation objectively.

  46. 46
    Sharon says:

    pdf23ds wrote (37):

    It’s a sensitive issue for you, and your reactions are normal defensiveness. It’s probably painful for you to have to reconsider the possibility that a particular diet actually works. I imagine you’ve done so many times in the past, to have your hopes dashed over and over. Now that you’ve resolved to content yourself with your weight, the act of seriously considering a new diet brings back old, bad memories and mental habits that you’ve broken, habits you’re better off without. For you, the reaction is probably a rational way to preserve your sanity and health in light of the capricious and often fragile nature of human emotional mechanisms, even if the contents of the reaction aren’t rational in themselves, even if they’re extremely poor observation and argumentation objectively.

    I find that to be an amazingly offensive and patronizing thing to say against BStu. It paints BStu as a repeated failed dieter who desperately wanted to lose weight, has fragile emotions. Then, rather than accepting the very rational arguments against diet sellers (aka snake-oil sellers), the argument are dismissed as mere health and sanity preservers.

    Forget the ad hominem, and get back to the issue. People selling diets without evidence that the diets have a significant chance of producing weightloss for their customers are indeed very aptly described as “con men”.

  47. 47
    M says:

    I love you. Really.

    observer – yes, I think you’re right that obesity is used as an anti-American thing in Europe. In the UK it’s also very much a class thing as well, so you can bind up those two things together into some sort of weird anti-american classist thing.

    I remember a Scottish Executive advert for healthy eating with people using foods like mobile phones. Most people apparently thought that it was an advert for phones. I was looking at it going “if healthy eating makes you think that a raw mackerel is a phone then I don’t want to be involved”.

  48. 48
    Jakobpunkt says:

    PDF, you’re completely missing the point.

    One thing that has not been said in the objection to your diet, partly because it’s so damned obvious it’s invisible, and partly because our internal anti-fat sentiment blinds us to it. Here it is:

    Your diet isn’t really worth discussing because even if it works why should we care?. Your wanting us to discuss the possible efficacy of this diet presupposes that losing weight is a worthwhile goal and that, while fat people might be forgiven for being fat if no diet works, once a diet that does work is found, then we can and should expect fat people to slim down.

    That is offensive in the extreme, and that is part of why the reaction to you has been so strong. That and the fact that this diet is a bunch of unsupported nonsense.

  49. 49
    BStu says:

    PDF, I’m one of the few fat people in this world who have never dieted, so I’ll thank you not to dismiss my strong opinion as the product of “defensiveness” over my imagined dieting failures.

    I would also thank you not to apply such faulty reasoning to any of the fat people who have dieted unsuccessfully. What you are saying is that “Just because everyone know know who has jumped out of airplane without a parachute has died, doesn’t mean that you won’t die if you jump out of an airplane without parachute.” Sure, there is a limited survivability for such a scenario, but that hardly negates the valuable experience and hard data that shows that there is only one reasonable expectation to have when jumping out of an airplane without a parachute.

    You have no proof that your accepted scheme has an liklihood of success in ANYONE. Much less in a substantial majority. What we see through Amp’s analysis is that what most dieting plans claim as a success fails on closer examination. You don’t even pretend your plan has scientific justification. Its just someone’s idea. Wow. Someone has an idea on how to get people to lose weight. Never heard that before.

    The reason the multi-billion dollar diet industry flourishes in spite of its record of abject failure is that it has successfully encouraged fat people to internalize the failures of its product. The really financially successful systems have people use them over and over. Its a business model that is inconcievable in other industries. If you bought a car and it turns out to be a completely awful car that fails within a year, you’d probably steer clear of that maker in the future. At the least, if it happens two or three times, you’d get the hint. But not with the major diet plans. People keep coming back because they presume themselves to be at fault. Even if they blame a diet, they never question the industry. They are always eager to listen to the same pitch from a slightly different salesman.

    Rejecting something which doesn’t work is defensive. Of course its defensive. Why wouldn’t someone be defensive when pressured to adopt something with a record of total failure left in its wake? That is how one responds to failure. Dieting has never been proven useful, safe, or even effective. A new scheme has no benefit of the doubt just because it pretends its new.

  50. 50
    the15th says:

    The “Shangri-la Diet” is a terrible name for a pretty interesting idea that the Freakonomics writers explored in the New York Times a while before Roberts was planning a book. It’s probably worth pointing out that if it did turn out to work, the anti-fat establishment would freak out. Because its success would imply that the human body does have a “set-point”, and that losing weight is more complicated than “exercise and eat lots of fruits and veggies.” I don’t know why anyone who’s happy with their body should care, but I do know that the health establishment would, and not in a positive way.

  51. 51
    alsis39.5 says:

    silverside and mousehounde, don’t forget to let me know if you liked the recipe. I actually adapted it from a fad-diet book, NOTA forgive me. But I don’t care. Fresh homemade dressings rule. Even the fanciest bottled stuff in the world just can’t compare to mixing your own.

  52. 52
    pdf23ds says:

    “I find that to be an amazingly offensive and patronizing thing to say against BStu.”

    It was pure speculation, but I wasn’t imagining the defensiveness of BStu’s response to me. I hope BStu is not as offended as you are.

    “People selling diets without evidence that the diets have a significant chance of producing weightloss for their customers are indeed very aptly described as “con men”.”

    I’ve already responded to the “con men” slur. It’s not justified.

    Jakobpunkt:
    “Your diet isn’t really worth discussing because even if it works why should we care?”

    I never said you should, and one of the reasons I posted my question is that I was wondering how many would care if it were believed to be effective, and how many would prefer their bodies as they are. I don’t think you’ll find anywhere where I suggested any of the presumptions you speak of. You just pulled them out of the social ether; you presumed that I share those attitudes because many other people have those attitudes, even against evidence that I don’t share the common attitudes, such as my words in comment 25: “It’s really appalling how people are shamed into starving themselves because it’s the “disciplined” thing to do, especially in light of its demonstrated worthlessness as a diet plan.”, or this: “I don’t have any problem with someone saying that the diet industry is conning the populace”“I think it’s pretty apt.”, or this from my comment 16: “people like Atkins and Agatston […] who were certainly blindly bigoted against fat people”, or this: “voluntary calorie self-restriction is virtually impossible long-term, and thus not practical as a dieting plan”.

    BStu:
    “PDF, I’m one of the few fat people in this world who have never dieted, so I’ll thank you not to dismiss my strong opinion as the product of “defensiveness” over my imagined dieting failures.”

    Please accept my apologies. My speculation as to your motivations was unfounded. I do maintain that your reactions are overly defensive. You’re projecting a lot of attitudes on me that I haven’t espoused.

    “I would also thank you not to apply such faulty reasoning to any of the fat people who have dieted unsuccessfully.”

    I’m almost certain that the psychological mechanisms I attributed to you are very plausible. I wouldn’t believe that of someone without good evidence (more than I had of you when I wrote my previous comment), but I don’t think it’s very controversial that people are reluctant to change their minds about things that they’ve already spent a lot of energy deciding, and then built up a lot of their life around that decision. I still think the same thing probably applies to you, even if unconsciously, and I’m pretty sure it applies to me towards the opposite position, unconsciously. We’re just human, and humans suck at being rational. But I try my best.

    If someone could point out an actual instance of this in my posts, especially an instance that indicates real anti-fat bigotry, I’d be grateful. But I don’t think there are any.

    “You don’t even pretend your plan has scientific justification.”

    It doesn’t have any empirical validation, but it has a strong theoretical justification. The diet isn’t scientificly validated, but it was developed using science by (arguably) a scientist. Like many others, to be sure, though I’d like to think to a greater degree, and with more ingenuity than others.

    “You have no proof that your accepted scheme has an liklihood of success in ANYONE.”

    Well, it’s absolutely, 100% proven to be successful in Seth Roberts, and in at least one of his colleagues who also lost weight using it. I find that pretty compelling evidence that it’s at least sometimes successful.

    “A new scheme has no benefit of the doubt just because it pretends its new.”

    I agree. It’s as I said in comment 37: “Without knowing anything about a new weight loss diet, it’s very likely to not be effective.” However, a new scheme can have the benefit of the doubt because of a very different approach, or because of the trustworthiness of its originator, or other factors that make the new diet less likely to fail for the same reasons as old ones. I do think that the approach of Roberts’ diet is very different from any other diets I’ve heard of, and I think that’s a reason to consider it with more of an open mind than one would other diets.

    “The “Shangri-la Diet” is a terrible name”

    hehehehe. Agreed.

  53. 53
    Brandon Berg says:

    Sharon (38):
    I call that fallacy (the one to which you’re objecting) the argument from psychoanalysis. And yes, it’s pretty lame.

    Jakobpunkt:

    Your wanting us to discuss the possible efficacy of this diet presupposes that losing weight is a worthwhile goal and that, while fat people might be forgiven for being fat if no diet works, once a diet that does work is found, then we can and should expect fat people to slim down.

    Assuming for the sake of argument that fat people really don’t cost me money by overusing medical services, I don’t care what they do or how much they weigh. That said, while I don’t want to be a jerk by going on and on about how great it is to be lean, I do think that there are advantages (for example, being able to zip up a few flights of stairs without getting winded) that have nothing to do with the prejudices and bigotry of society at large. And I think it’s perfectly legitimate for most people to feel more attracted physically to members of the opposite sex who aren’t fat.

    I can understand how you might think that the advantages of losing weight (or, more precisely, becoming lean) aren’t worth the effort, or that it’s unrealistic, but to say that you don’t consider it a worthwhile goal even if feasible seems rather questionable to me.

  54. 54
    Jakobpunkt says:

    Brandon, you’re conflating fat with unfit. Show me evidence that fat people use more medical services (other than weight-loss-related services), or that fat people are more likely to get winded climbing stairs.

    Being healthy is always a worthwhile goal. But it has nothing to do with being thin.

  55. 55
    Sharon says:

    Brandon wrote:

    Assuming for the sake of argument that fat people really don’t cost me money by overusing medical services, I don’t care what they do or how much they weigh.

    I can assure you that thin people are not somehow getting a raw deal compared to fat people when it comes to the costs of medical services. Fat people on average have to pay substantially more than thin people for health insurance (if they have it and live in a country that uses health insurance), out of salaries that are on average, significantly less than those for thin people. That should more than cover any increased costs used by fat people (not that fat people would have been much able to avoid those costs, anyway).

    That said, while I don’t want to be a jerk by going on and on about how great it is to be lean, I do think that there are advantages (for example, being able to zip up a few flights of stairs without getting winded) that have nothing to do with the prejudices and bigotry of society at large.

    There are both advantages and disadvantages to different body sizes. But there’s more overlap than you might think. If I zip up several flights of stairs with a friend, my half-my-weight friend is likely to be equally winded at the top. I can float and swim better than my thinner friends. They can run faster than I can. I’m cuddlier than they are. They can fit into smaller spaces. I can’t be pushed around. *shrug*

    And I think it’s perfectly legitimate for most people to feel more attracted physically to members of the opposite sex who aren’t fat.

    I’m not sure exactly what you mean by “legitimate”, but “shallow” would be a much better description. Preference is largely dictated by culture. But I daresay just as there are some fat admirers who buck the trend by being attracted to fat people, there are some thin admirers who would be naturally attracted to thin people even if the culture was pro-fat.

    I can understand how you might think that the advantages of losing weight (or, more precisely, becoming lean) aren’t worth the effort, or that it’s unrealistic, but to say that you don’t consider it a worthwhile goal even if feasible seems rather questionable to me.

    What’s strange about it? There are advantages and disadvantages of being in a “formerly fat” state of thinnes, but given the immense effort required to lose weight AND keep it off (if you have the type of body that naturally tends towards fat in the first place), why on earth would it be surprising if someone made a rational appraisal of the costs and benefits and concluded that it wasn’t worthwhile?

    In addition, there are many people who have lost large quantities of weight and not found it a pleasant experience, so can attest directly to it not being a worthwhile goal.

  56. 56
    BStu says:

    One cannot help but think we are drifting back to the transexual/fat comparisons earlier as we see Brandon being aghast at the notion that any fat person wouldn’t be eager to conform to society’s expectations of their bodies. Nevertheless, I don’t think this is a strain of conversation worth having. While certainly, fat people would deserve respect for their bodies if they had a choice to be thin. The fact reamains that being fat has never been shown to be a significant health risk on its own, so there really wouldn’t be any compelling reason to lose weight beyond cosmetics. But the fact remains that there isn’t a choice. Fat people cannot choose to be thin with anything remotely resembling a realistic chance of their choice coming to reality. Debating a hypothetical which is really just the fat basher’s dream doesn’t seem productive to me. If there ever comes a day when a person can actually choose their weight, I’ll have that discussion. Until then, I’m not going to take the fevered insistance that someone’s come up with a dieting breakthrough that’s really gonna work this time (but no, we haven’t actually proven anything, as such) as a reason to consider that issue. Weight loss isn’t safe, healthy, or even effective at losing weight.

  57. 57
    Brandon Berg says:

    Fat people on average have to pay substantially more than thin people for health insurance (if they have it and live in a country that uses health insurance), out of salaries that are on average, significantly less than those for thin people.

    That may be true for individual coverage, but most people get health “insurance” through their employers or the government, and, at my company at least, premiums don’t vary on an individual basis. And, of course, with Medicare and other tax-funded health care, payments are based purely on income.

    I’m not sure exactly what you mean by “legitimate”, but “shallow” would be a much better description. Preference is largely dictated by culture.

    By “legitimate,” I mean that you have no more right to insult me for not being attracted to fat women than I have to insult you for being fat. And I assure you that my preferences would be very different if they actually were dictated by culture.

    given the immense effort required to lose weight AND keep it off (if you have the type of body that naturally tends towards fat in the first place), why on earth would it be surprising if someone made a rational appraisal of the costs and benefits and concluded that it wasn’t worthwhile?

    Like I said, I can understand a cost-benefit analysis. And I don’t deny that the costs of staying thin are much greater for some than for others. But you seemed to be saying that it wouldn’t be worthwhile even if it were possible with little effort.

    BStu:
    I assure you that weight loss is a 100%-effective method of losing weight.

  58. 58
    Brandon Berg says:

    Whoops. In “But you seemed to be saying…” above, “you” referred to Jakobpunkt, not Sharon.

  59. 59
    cynorita says:

    Brandon said:
    “Assuming for the sake of argument that fat people really don’t cost me money by overusing medical services, I don’t care what they do or how much they weigh.”

    Brandon- Check out this article; Checking the Obesity Math
    http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=120705M

    Quote from the article:
    “But this merely emphasizes the questions that Glick and Tsai raise about the health and other costs researchers say obesity is imposing on society: “Do we know the independent effects of weight, physical activity and fitness?” Their answer: No. “Could our aesthetic judgments about overweight/obesity be affecting our scientific judgments?” Possibly.

    Their conclusion is clear, “evidence is lacking” to support statements such as “overweight/obesity is a major public health problem that costs society billions of dollars, and we should be doing everything we can to combat it.”

  60. 60
    Jakobpunkt says:

    Brandon, that is exactly what I am saying. Can you explain to me, given that there would be no health benefits, why losing weight would be a worthwhile goal, even if it were easy?

  61. 61
    Sharon says:

    Brandon wrote:

    Fat people on average have to pay substantially more than thin people for health insurance (if they have it and live in a country that uses health insurance), out of salaries that are on average, significantly less than those for thin people.

    That may be true for individual coverage, but most people get health “insurance” through their employers or the government, and, at my company at least, premiums don’t vary on an individual basis. And, of course, with Medicare and other tax-funded health care, payments are based purely on income.

    I said, “on average”. That takes into account the many people who are covered by their employers and the substantial minority who are not. And that still leaves the average difference in salary. To repeat, thin people are not getting a raw deal at the hands of fat people when it comes to the costs of medical care.

    By “legitimate,” I mean that you have no more right to insult me for not being attracted to fat women than I have to insult you for being fat.

    That makes it clearer what you mean.

    I don’t think anyone has the right to be insulted for their preferences. I will say though, that if a man says “I’m only attracted to blondes” then my (internal, kept quiet view) will be that I’m entirely unimpressed by that, but if a (heterosexual) man says “I’m only attracted to blondes, but that’s so restricting! I wish I were attracted to brunettes and redheads as well, there are some really beautiful women out there, but somehow the attraction button just doesn’t get hit *sigh*” then I’d be much more impressed.

    Someone who has an irrational preference and knows that it is irrational I always find much more impressive than someone who has an irrational preference and attempts to justify it as being rational. I’m afraid, from the perspective of fat women, we tend to see a lot more of the latter than the former, with or without the justification.

    I assure you that weight loss is a 100%-effective method of losing weight.

    “Weight loss” isn’t a method of anything, nor is it a behaviour; it is simply a possible side-effect of some behaviours. However it is indeed the case that methods intended to cause weight-loss are generally reasonably effective in the short-term, and almost 100% ineffective in the long-term.

  62. 62
    BStu says:

    Conventional weight loss methods ultimately result in weight GAIN in around 90% of cases, and only result in a loss (perhaps nominal as we see in the “success” standards Amp noted) in around 1%. So no, I wouldn’t say weight loss is 100% effective at losing weight. I can see how you would have assumed that to be the case, but the facts betray you. The reality is very much the opposite. As the saying goes, losing weight is as easy as holding your breath. Keeping it off is as easy as continuing to hold your breath.

  63. 63
    W. Kiernan says:

    Many obese people are in denial about their size and do not want to lose weight even if it would improve their health, according to a poll on Monday.

    Those polite, restrained English! If, while they’re being interrogated and accused, these “obese” people would just come out and say “kiss my ass,” then there wouldn’t be any of this silly misunderstanding about “denial.” Me for example, I’m not denying anything. No sir, it’s lunch-time; I’m asserting that I’m gonna go out right now and have me a juicy cheeseburger, with grilled onions. And fries. And beer! Man, it’s gonna be so good.

  64. 64
    tikistitch says:

    Hi there! I got here via LG&M, who in turn is guest posting at JMHM. Lovely post. When I was a little baby scientist, I used to actually work in the field of body weight regulation–that was the name on the grant, and, yes, almost every decent scientist who works in the area agrees that human body weight is somehow regulated, and awfully difficult if not night impossible to alter on a longterm basis. I know (from taking some med school classes) that this fact somehow passes by physicians, who still glibly advise their patients to lose weight.

    I now work in cancer research (*lots* more rewarding), but I’ll share a horrible experience from my 15 minutes of fame in fat research. We had presented some data at the annual APA meeting regarding a change in attitudes for women who’d been on a low fat diet. The goal of the diet was HEALTH (ie, lowering cancer risk), and NOT altering body weight. Anyway, some local news person looked us up and arranged an interview. He insisted no less than a dozen times during my interview that this was information about dieting for weight loss. At every single instance, I corrected him, and told him altering body weight was **NOT** the goal. Later, we viewed the segment on the local news, which began something like, “Great news in fighting the battle of the bulge!” over images of a thin woman picking at a salad. *sigh*

  65. 65
    BStu says:

    I believe Dr. Paul Ernsberger once related an anecdote on his experiences as a researcher critical of the fat=unhealth conclusions of modern medacine. He often found himself shut out of obesity conferences because they would not approve his credentials as an “obesity” researcher because they defined “obesity researcher” as someone researching weight loss, thus excluding scientists who conclude that the data tells a different story.

  66. Pingback: Alas, a blog » Blog Archive » The Case Against Weight-Loss Dieting

  67. Very well said, I had to quote a section of it.

    Thanks!

  68. But “con men” is still a bit harsh.

    Actually, it is terribly accurate. Blood sucking, snake bit, con men who knowingly make life worse and intentionally harm others for their own gratification and wealth.

    Like someone selling poison as medicine.

    Con men doesn’t catch it exactly, I’d call them grifters, perhaps.

  69. Pingback: Fate or Destiny » Is Weight Loss Possible or Even Desirable?

  70. Pingback: Birthcycle » A post that never got posted, June 13, 2006: Fat

  71. Pingback: Alas, a blog » Blog Archive » 95% of diets fail? More like 99%. Or maybe 99.8%.