WW say that they want people to change habits to something healthier, and having used their system, it’s pretty good. They’re not claiming to work miracles, just give people tools. What they’re really marketing is their system of tracking what you eat, something that you can do yourself for free after a while. Yes of course anyone could do this on one’s own for free from the beginning, but a lot of people wouldn’t know where to start or be willing to spend the time to do that. IMO, lots of corporate scum out there, and if I have a choice I’d rather give some money to this than the company that advertises organic cheese puffs by putting endangered species on the package. Your choice may be different. Most advertising for anything is morally compromised anyway, in my opinion.

And I don’t think I’m disagreeing substantially with the last paragraph you wrote, Ampersand.

But then again, maybe not. I think it’s unlikely that WW will ever fund a well-designed, blind, objective study to find out for sure — or if they fund such a study and the results are bad, they’ll keep it a secret.

That aside, my take is this: Weight Watchers is a corporation dedicated to becoming wealthy by taking advantage of people’s body self-hate. This makes them scum.

Furthermore, they make promises of major, long-term weight loss for fat people that they are unable to back up with any legitimate study, because their claims are lies. This makes them con artist scum, and the world would be better if they quit their jobs and become postal workers.

Most people will feel better if they eat better and exercise more, regardless of if they lose weight. Furthermore, someone who loses weight while eating badly and not exercising probably doesn’t feel better physically, and may be seriously ill. It therefore is illogical to say “losing weight will make most people feel better” instead of “eating better and exercise will make most people feel better.”

This is manifestly untrue when you look at the data, isn’t it? Or at least, untrue if the claim is either “significant weight loss” or “weight loss that doesn’t end up causing more weight gain at a later date.”

On the other hand, I think it’s misleading to look at weight loss as something that inevitably damages self esteem or makes one be depressed. I know that for me and for a number of others, even a small loss of weight resulted in feeling better in a lot of ways, not in depression or damaged self-esteem. The diets I followed focused on eating healthier and exercising (latter is something I always did a lot of anyway). Eating less and eating healthier got me to lose 20 lbs. But it also meant that I didn’t enjoy myself as much. I ate a bit more of what I liked, and gained 10 lbs., but that was fine. But if I eat as an end in itself, for pleasure or out of compulsion, I gain weight and feel worse in general.

The method of Weight Watchers, whose focus is weight loss through healthier food choices and exercise, is more responsible in that sense than lots of other programs, because they don’t expect weight loss results fast, and only have as the goal a 10% loss. Sometimes that’s not realistic, and you can set your own goal as well.

The overwhelming impression I get from looking at the WW forums is that a lot of people really don’t understand what a healthy diet is, nor are they regularly active. Nor have they been very introspective about what they consume. If you’re not conscious of what you’re consuming, then you’re far more likely to buy into the consumerism of prepared foods, where the focus is on size, not quality. The restrictions under WW make them reconsider their previous choices. Those choices usually lead to weight loss. I think it’s fine for most people to focus on changing behaviors rather than have weight loss as an end in itself, though it’s a lot easier for the individual to measure weight loss (one number…) than track behavioral changes.

So most people wouldn’t be any healthier if they lost ten pounds, nor do I know of any reason to believe that “most people would feel better physically and have more energy if they weighed 10 lbs less.” My guess is that most people would feel better physically and have more energy if they exercised more* — but that’s true regardless of if they lose weight.

(*Unless they’re already exercising a fair amount.)

Likewise for overweight/obesity: if it’s a matter of judging the fat person’s character for being that way, yes the judger is a jerk. But really, the evidence is hard to deny that more people are overweight than previously, and that it increases certain health risks. Most people would feel better physically and have more energy if they weighed 10 lbs. less. And if you’re aware of environmental factors that influence people to eat more than they need (as has been done extensively, see _Mindless Eating_ for example), it’s easier to reduce them.

what i don’t think has been mentioned yet is how dangerous the “it’s not a choice” argument is to gay people themselves. personally, i never had a clear definition of my own sexuality, so when i found myself in a lesbian relationship, my initial panic attack came from being unsure if i was really a lesbian. If the gay community continues to tell themselves that they are born completely gay and it’s not a a choice and it never changes, they alienate everyone whose sexuality doesn’t play out that way. someone i was discussing this with brought up the fact that every gay person she has ever talked to has told her they’d always been gay. my response was that even when it’s not true, it’s the narrative a lot of gay people need to buy into to feel better about their sexuality and to be accepted into the gay rights movement.

another thing that bothers me is the split between genetics and choice. someone can experience fluid sexuality without choosing it (let’s say i like women today, i might like men tomorrow, but it’s not a conscious decision.) we need to defend everyone’s experiences, those who are predetermined, those who choose freely, and those who are somewhere in between.

marmelade Writes:
December 19th, 2007 at 6:42 pm

I think the problem is that some people want to have a screen-out for civil rights based on “choice.” That is, people can’t *possibly* change their race, therefore race should not be used to limit employment, public accomodation, etc. And that analogy is openly used against gay civil rights initiatives - because they see being gay as a “choice” (I don’t know if the same argument is used against efforts to limit weight discrimination).

Probably because a surprisingly large number of people are more likely to accept a negative-for-them outcome if they feel that there’s some quid pro quo and a reasonable “rule.” The tradeoff for the flag burning being legal is that the KKK gets to march through the downtown. It doesn’t make them magically like flag burners, and it doesn ‘t make me appreciate the KKK, but most people understand that those two things are linked.

OTOH, moralities change; fairly fast, it seems. If you hang your hat on the concept that ‘well, it’s a choice, but a fully defensible choice’ then generally speaking you’re going to have to defend it at a higher level than otherwise. You also run the risk that moralities will change and that your currently-supported stuff will go south.

And, there actually is something to that agument. . . afterall, as a lesbian I actually *could* choose to act not-gay . . . I could get married to a man, and have his children, and keep my feelings to myself, and lots of people would just feel much better about that. And I guess if you severely deprived anybody of food they’d eventually starve and look pretty darn skinny. So, maybe you could say that being overweight is a choice - so no civil rights there, either.

But then, my neighbors who have just discovered strong religious feelings could also just keep quiet about it, and “act secular.” I don’t say to them that they don’t deserve a job or a place to live just ‘cuz they are a part of a religious group. And, at the risk of too much generalizing, it does seem that it’s somtimes the religious folks who complain that gays shouldn’t get rights because it’s a “choice”! Kind of funny, that.

To paraphrase Kate Clinton, what are we going to be reduced to, holding up placards that say, “we’re here, we’re queer, we couldn’t be more sorry, it’s not our choice”?

I’m not willing to tell people how to feel. And I’m sure as hell not willing to let anyone suggest that I shouldn’t, or can’t, hate/love/attack/praise whoever I damn well please….

So long, that is, as I’m doing so based on their own choice.

I’m not convinced that hatred is an especially useful tool for accomplishing anything worthwhile. Even if the target might arguably “deserve” being hated, how does doing so accomplish anything but incite retaliation and impede progress? Even in a situation where you’re forced to commit violence, it’s far better to keep your wits about you, and realize the gravity of what you’re doing, then to let yourself get carried away with anger. Yoda had it right.

What circumstances, what targets do you feel deserve true hatred?

On the one hand, I don’t personally hate fat people or gay people, so, yeah, whatever, hating them could be banned and it wouldn’t affect me much.

But OTOH I think it’s good, and right, and important, that we continue to be able to hate people for what they choose to do. Hate is an important part of the continuum that spans all the way from despite and anger to love and respect. Hate can, oddly enough, be a good thing.

I’m not willing to tell people how to feel. And I’m sure as hell not willing to let anyone suggest that I shouldn’t, or can’t, hate/love/attack/praise whoever I damn well please….

So long, that is, as I’m doing so based on their own choice.

Which is why this question IS crucially important, at least for me and people like me. And we make up the majority of people in general, I think (though not necessarily on this blog); look, for example, at the enormous value we place on criminal intent. We’ve been doing that since the Talmud was written and we are continuing to do so now.

Tom Geller Writes:
December 19th, 2007 at 12:45 pm

The trump to end the “it’s-not-a-choice” argument is: Jewish is a choice.

Not sure how much of a trump card that is. Yes, being a practicing Jew is technically a choice–and, therefore, in theory, you can feel free to dislike or even hate people who have that belief system.

It is a bit trickier because “jewish” is also a culture, and the culture you were raised in is less of a choice.

We also acknowledge that people tend to be indoctrinated in religion at a young age (when they are not making a choice or held liable for their choices.) Furthermore, most religions are internally designed to discourage people from leaving.

As a result, religion in general straddles the choice mantra. I would have no squabble with the concept that adults who are nonreligious or of a different faith, who voluntarily choose to join Religion X, should be liable for their choice. You want to hate them, go ahead.

It’s a lot trickier if you look at someone who has failed to choose to leave a religion. Although lack of action is obviously a decision of a kind, it’s harder to judge.

And in that case the standards were wrong but not stupid. But nowadays there is the Size Zero nonsense, and for that matter the steroid silliness for men. The culture simply cannot stand normal grown-woman bodies. Girly shapes are fine, and if you can hang to it for a couple, three decades, you’re fabulous. Sad, sad, sad. For a society that claims to worship Mom and apple pie, why do women prefer to be compared to willows wands rather than cows?

I say this as a 54-y/o man, 5′9″/160 and just now starting to put a little on. I wish I had had some more weight back when I was freezing my rear off in the field in Germany in January.

Mold, you may post in this thread again to apologize.

Apart from the apology, you may post a substantive, non-anecdotal, evidence-based argument supporting your views that avoids insulting tone and language like “stupid and lazy.” The evidence you cite has to be from a legitimate source others can read for themselves.

If you can’t do that, then you’re banned.