Archive for the 'Fat, fat and more fat' Category

On The Most Recent “Fat = Death” Study

Posted by Ampersand | September 11th, 2006

Late last month, a National Cancer Institute study published in the New England Journal of Medicine was given a lot of unskeptical press coverage.

This report, from the AP’s Alicia Chang, is typical in its gloom-and-doom prognosis:

Being a little overweight can kill you, according to new research that leaves little room for denial that a few extra pounds is harmful. Baby boomers who were even just a tad pudgy were more likely to die prematurely than those who were at a healthy weight, U.S. researchers reported Tuesday.

Fortunately for overweight people, the NEJM study is pretty awful, combining bad methodology with dishonest interpretation. The results of this NEJM study, if honestly reported, show that overweight people on average live as long or longer as “normal” weight people; and that the one group of overweight people who did seem to have a significantly elevated risk of mortality, were overweight 50-year-olds who lost weight.

Expect multiple “Alas” posts criticizing this NEJM study. Starting us off is a commentary by Linda Bacon, quoted here with her kind permission.

New Weight Scare Based on Faulty Analysis

by Linda Bacon, PhD, Nutrition Researcher and Professor, NAAFA member

At least 400,000 Americans die of overweight and obesity every year, making it soon to surpass smoking as the leading cause of preventable death [1]. At least that’s what the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) told us.

But an updated federal report, published last year in the Journal of the American Medical Association (and reported in the Late Spring 2005 NAAFA Newsletter), acknowledged that the previous analysis suffered from computational errors [2]. In fact, obesity and overweight only result in an excess of 26,000 annual deaths, far fewer than guns, alcohol or car crashes. And separating overweight from obesity reveals further interesting information: “overweight” people live longer than “normal” weight people.

The data weren’t surprising to those of us who study these issues. This is not an anomaly, but consistent with many other investigations. That it came from the CDC and got published in JAMA were the real astonishing facts.

We waited for the backlash. Fear-mongering about weight is worth billions to industry and is consistent with government policy. Few stand to gain from the news that overweight is benign, if not beneficial. The backlash has been slowly building, and recently came out full force in a highly publicized study published in the August issue of the New England Journal of Medicine [3].

The front page leader in my local paper loudly proclaimed: “Just a few extra pounds is bad for you” and the article title reinforced the message: “Study finds risks for the barely overweight.” Turn to the original report, and you find a consistent conclusion in the abstract: “excess body weight during midlife, including overweight, is associated with an increased risk of death.”

But before you dust off those diet books, let’s take a look at the data itself. The authors worked hard for their conclusion. They examined records from over a half million AARP members that had been surveyed over a ten year period. What they found was entirely consistent with the earlier JAMA report: “overweight” people had the lowest mortality risk. But that wouldn’t serve their purposes. NEJM’s press release wouldn’t look nearly as attractive with that headline.

So they subjected their data to numerous manipulations before finally arriving at a suitable conclusion. First they threw out data on people who were smokers or former smokers. Nope, still shows overweight as benign. They hid this with a sleazy method: using only the top (BMIs of 23 to 24.9) of the “normal weight” group compared to the whole of the “overweight” group.

Then they found an even more creative trick. When they asked participants - some of whom were in their 70s - what they had weighed at the age of 50, they hit paydirt: at last, overweight - at midlife - was associated with increased risk, albeit modest. This will grab the headlines. No need to highlight that we had to whittle our data down to about 5% of the original sample to get this result! (That 40% of the participants chose to leave the question on recalled weight blank should give some indication of the ability of people to accurately report this information.)

Their paper is weak for many other reasons: they had a very low response rate (18%) from a sample that is not nationally representative; their data is based on self-report, which is known to be inaccurate; adjustments for potential confounders were weakly conducted; the list goes on. And they neglected to note another important conclusion: weight loss is associated with a significant increased risk of death for middle-aged “overweight” people.

Come on, New England Journal of Medicine. We expect scholarship, not propaganda.

References

1. Mokdad, A.H., et al., Actual causes of death in the United States, 2000. Journal of the American Medical Association, 2004. 291: p. 1238-45.
2. Flegal, K.M., et al., Excess deaths associated with underweight, overweight, and obesity. Journal of the American Medical Association, 2005. 293(15): p. 1861-7.
3. Adams, K., et al., Overweight, Obesity, and Mortality in a Large Prospective Cohort of Persons 50 to 71 Years Old. New England Journal of Medicine, 2006. 355(8): p. 763-8.

[Crossposted at Creative Destruction, where even the anteaters are covered in chocolate. If your comments aren’t being approved here, try there.]

Weight bias all around…

Posted by Ampersand | August 19th, 2006

I found myself watching an episode of “Hell’s Kitchen,” which was reasonably entertaining. But I hated that a fat kitchen staffer was berated for being fat by the host, Gordon Ramsay: i.e., “get your lazy fat ass in gear,” “you fat jerk,” etc. (I’m paraphrasing, but I think I’ve got the gist right). I tried to imagine the popular revulsion if the host had berated a Jewish worker in the same way - “get your lazy Jewish ass in gear” and so forth. Is there any question that the host would have been fired?

Sara Horowitz from "Hell's Kitchen"Looking online a bit, I find that Ramsey also constantly referred to contestant Sara Horowitz (pictured) as “a fat cow,” “a bloody cow,” “a stupid mouthy cow,” etc. (Ramsay did this so often that another contestant bought Sara a toy cow as a gag gift). Unlike the fat man Ramsay berated, Sara isn’t fat. But she’s not skinny, and on TV all non-skinny women are considered fat.

(The final two contestants were both model-thin. If Ramsay had called Sara “a Jewish cow,” and if all Jewish contestants were cut before the final round, wouldn’t people be questioning whether or not Ramsay’s judgements were unbiased?)

Anyway, what the hell, at least fat people appeared. On TV, that’s a pretty rare thing.

In other news, I took this “Rate Your Life” quiz (via Melancholy Revolutionary). I understand that quizzes like this are just fluffy entertainment, not to be taken seriously. Nonetheless, I was struck by the fact that three of the opening questions asked me to put myself into categories that I just don’t fit clearly into.

Am I overweight, or healthy weight? The question implies a contradiction between being “overweight” and being “healthy.” And the answer to this one question made a very large difference in the results (see below).

Am I straight, or undecided? Nowadays I self-identify as a straight-leaning asexual, but that option isn’t included. There’s not even an “other” option - I’m either straight, gay, bi or undecided.

Am I married? Not legally, and not in the sense that the author intends. But I have two people I share lives with; we’ve lived together since the late 80s, and it’s a lifetime commitment. In terms of rating the quality of my life, my relationship with my life partners is as relevant as another person’s relationship with their legal spouse.

(There are other implicit assumptions in the quiz as well - for instance, the only choices for “sex” are male and female. But the above three were the ones that applied - or, rather, failed to apply - to me).

(Click below to see how my results changed depending on the above assumptions.)
Read the rest of this entry »

It’s The Big Fat Carnival! No. 4 to be precise.

Posted by Ampersand | August 8th, 2006

Here, at Body Impolitic. A lot of great links there; please go check out & please link!

Call for Submissions - The Fourth Big Fat Carnival!

Posted by Ampersand | July 18th, 2006

Hey, fatso - and friends of fatso, too - time to put fingers to keyboard! Body Impolitic has put out a call for submissions for the Fourth Big Fat Carnival. Please submit your own work, or any other blog posts from the past couple of months that you think were wonderful examples of fat advocacy in the blogosphere.

We still don’t have a host for the fifth Big Fat Carnival, so if you’d like to host, please let me know.

Former “Alas” Co-Blogger Bean on German TV!

Posted by Ampersand | June 19th, 2006

A German TV news show did a segment on FATASS, the fat activist radical cheerleaders Bean is part of (FATASS stands for Fat Action Troupe All-Star Spirit Squad). Check it out.

Although it’s very cool that they were on German TV, I found the piece’s emphasis on “fat chicks are sexxee too!” analysis a bit annoying. Sexiness matters, but it isn’t the only possible locus of worth and empowerment, and it’s not all that fat activism is about, but you’d never know that from this segment. (I once had the same complaint about a Michael J. Fox sitcom, oddly enough.)

The Third Big Fat Carnival is Up!

Posted by Ampersand | June 7th, 2006

Over at VeganKid’s place.

Carnival Submission Time - Feminists and Fat!

Posted by Ampersand | June 1st, 2006

Welcome to the Nuthouse is calling for submissions for the fifteenth Carnival of the Feminists. Nut’s happy to see any submission from a feminist point of view, but she’s extra-happy to see posts discussing disability and feminist issues.

And VeganKid is taking submissions for the third Big Fat Carnival. Like Nut, VeganKid has a theme in mind - SEX! - and another theme in mind - size and gender. But VK would also accept any posts that fit into the Big Fat Carnival’s general theme.

Both of these carnivals have deadlines coming up in just a few days, so get those submissions in!

(Also, if you’d be interested in hosting a future Big Fat Carnival, please email me!)

UPDATE: The Fifth Radical Women of Color Carnival is taking submissions, too!

Submit Your Posts To The Third Big Fat Carnival

Posted by Ampersand | May 27th, 2006

VeganKid has the info here.

Let’s Not Discuss Dick Cheney’s Weight

Posted by Ampersand | May 18th, 2006

Although I’m a big fan of Shakespeare’s Sister, I didn’t like her choice to include, in a post about that “I Am Man” Burger King commercial, a quote from Vanity Fair about Dick Cheney’s weight. Here’s the quote:

The extent of his atherosclerosis (hardening of the arteries, which, if it extends beyond the heart to the brain, can cause hard-to-recognize changes in cognition) is unknown. Bypass surgery itself has long been associated with subtle changes in neurological function. At age 65, Cheney is easily 30 or more pounds overweight, seems to have slacked off on what was once a more rigorous diet, and appears to suffer from recurrent bouts of gout. At a roundtable lunch with reporters a couple of years ago, two who were present say, he cut his buffalo steak in bite-size pieces the moment it arrived, then proceeded to salt each side of each piece.

Uh-huh.

1) Why is this even here? SS’s take on the Burger King Ad, is that it says being a man requires eating unhealthy food. She then makes the leap from unhealthy to fat, because - why? No healthy people are fat? All thin people are healthy? All people who eat Whoppers are fat? All fat, unhealthy people got that way eating whoppers? She then jumps to Dick Cheney’s eating, because Cheney is “one of the manliest men of them all,” and he’s fat and unhealthy.

2) I really, really hate the way people feel entitled to monitor what fat celebrities eat. (And do I need to point out the obvious problems of observer bias and reporting bias?)

3) On average, folks who are 30 pounds “overweight” live as long (or slightly longer) than folks at the “ideal” weight; and there’s no evidence that losing 30 pounds would make Dick Cheney live longer.

4) Cheney’s fatness was dragged into the post because Cheney is a disliked political figure (just as Bill Clinton’s alleged chubbiness and overeating was, as I recall, brought up by conservatives back in the 90s). It is only in a climate of widely accepted prejudice against fat people that Cheney’s fatness can be used in this political fashion.

Don’t get me wrong - I’m still a fan of Shakespeare’s Sister. I don’t accuse her of bad motives or anything like that.

But it’s off-putting to follow a link to an ally’s site, going “oh goody, SS on the stupid Burger King commercial, this will be fun!,” only to have a metaphorical door slammed in my fat face.

***PLEASE NOTE***
Comments on my posts on “Alas” are fairly heavily moderated. If you’d like to avoid all that, leave a comment at the identical post on Creative Destruction.

“I Am Man” Burger King Commercial

Posted by Ampersand | May 15th, 2006

Andrea at Shrub.com has a good post with a feminist analysis of “Mantham” (YouTube link) the Burger King ad with new lyrics to Helen Reddy’s “I Am Woman” (although in her count of women in the commercial, she seems to have missed the line of cheerleaders behind the guy burning his tighty-whities). Gayprof has some good comments, as well.

Although not always this blatant (how could it be?), smaller fast-food places have been hitting on similar sexual themes in their commercials for years. Jack In The Box, a few years ago, had a series of commercials based on Jack Box sponsoring a football team (the first commercial featured Jack’s plan to fire the male cheerleading squad - a silly gag, I know, but the symbolism of rejecting homoeroticism in favor of “real man” heterosexuality is hard to deny). And Carl Jr’s (doing business as Hardees in some regions) has had a series of aggressively sexist commercials, from Paris Hilton washing a car to commercials showing befuddled men in a grocery store having no idea what to buy, with the slogan “without us, some guys would starve.”

(It’s amazing how anti-male the “guys should be guys” mentality quickly becomes. Sure, the “some guys would starve” commercials were funny, but c’mon - their premise is that men lack the smarts required to choose a loaf of bread).

So the “guys should be guys” ethos of the Burger King commercial is nothing new, although it’s perhaps a new achievement in the compulsive over-the-topness of its sexism. For example, at the climax of the commercial, the mob of whopper-eating men toss a minivan off a bridge, symbolically rescuing the pleased family dude who got out of the van from his emasculating family attachments. (And if you think I’m reading too much into it, tell me why else they would throw a minivan off a bridge while singing about manhood?)

(Compare the auto-as-symbolic-emasculation theme in this commercial to the auto-as-invulnerable-manhood theme in the recent Dodge Caliber commercial, in which the macho Dodge is the one thing in the world that fairies can’t feminize. Ad writers are convinced that men have a thing about cars…).

But putting the feminist analysis aside, since Shrub.com has already done an excellent job of that, you know what I found striking about this commercial? The absence of fat people. Often, commercials about “everyday guys being guys doing guy things” will include a guy or two with a spare tire, because what’s more everyday than that? Not this commercial. The singer who opens the commercial is if anything a bit scrawny for TV men, and all of the dozens and dozens of guys who crowd through this commercial are thin. There are just two exceptions. First, they cast someone a bit round-faced to play the minivan owner, presumably because family men are stereotypically a bit chubby. Second, the dude pulling the dump truck by a chain isn’t thin, but professional truck-pullers usually aren’t.

It’s odd, isn’t it? On the one hand, the whole commercial is saying “screw the wife/nanny nagging you about health - eat what you want” ethos, while at the same time the casting is trying to assure men that eating at Burger King won’t make them fat.

Now, as it happens, I believe that eating at Burger King won’t make you fat, nor will being fat make you unhealthy (more on that subject here). And I think people should feel free to eat what they want, even if it is unhealthy. But the way this commercial endorses ideologies of thinness and of sexism - even while waving a “just kidding! You’re not allowed to analyze what’s going on, because we’re! just! kidding!” banner - pretty much wipes out any possible beneficial message iit might have carried.

What’s interesting is how the ideology of “healthism” is now predominant enough so that hamburgers are sold the way beer is sold - as an appeal to base male instincts. “C’mon, be bad.” Eating burgers, which are probably the single most popular food in the country, makes you a rebel. Yeesh.

P.S. So why is there a mime? Is that the ultimate example of a feminized man coming back to manhood, or did they just think sticking in a mime would be funny, or both? (Look in the background about 32 seconds into the commercial).

***PLEASE NOTE***
Comments on my posts on “Alas” are heavily moderated. If you’d like to avoid all that, you can post comments on the identical post at Creative Destruction.

The Big Fat Carnival Call For Submissions - Let’s Talk About Sex!

Posted by Ampersand | April 25th, 2006

Vegankid has posted a call for submissions for the third Big Fat Carnival.

I know, i know. Fat people aren’t suppose to talk about sex unless its within the context of feederism. But fuck that. We are sexual creatures regardless of our size! So i’d like for folks to write about some super-sized sex.

Oh, and if you’d be interested in hosting a future edition of the BFC on your blog, please drop me a line.

Anorexia Nervosa, Obesity, Moral Panic and Christina Hoff Sommers

Posted by Ampersand | April 7th, 2006

Jill and Piny both have good posts at Feministe regarding Anorexia Nervosa. My favorite quote is from Jill’s post:

And as for denial, on a most basic level, fuck that. Sorry, but why are the values of self-sacrifice only brought up when we’re talking about women’s bodies? We’re supposed to deny ourselves food in order to stay thin so that someone else (always male) will enjoy looking at us; we’re supposed to deny ourselves sex so that the virginity fetishists can have an all-access pass once we’re married; and even then we’re supposed to sacrifice all of our own wants and needs for our children and our husband, and still deny sex if we don’t want any more babies. I call bullshit. I’ve had enough of the cult of female martyrdom, and I feel no need to let other people tell me that I should feel guilty for enjoying pleasures like food and sex. I own a vibrator, I use birth control, and I make myself steak au poivre and drink good red wine every Friday night. These things bring me far more pleasure than skinny thighs or blood on my wedding-night bedsheets. And if that makes me an over-indulgent pig, then so be it.

Sing it, sister!

But the main reason I’m posting is because of this quote, from a post on the blog “Cosmic Tap”:

My personal offhand estimate had been that we might lose about 100 Americans annually to anorexia. My research this morning showed that I was not far off ““ a 2001 study by the University of British Columbia’s Department of Psychology of every American death for the most recently available five year period showed only 724 people with anorexia as a causal factor - 145 per year. Christina Hoff-Sommers, in her research for the book Who Stole Feminism, came up with a number below half that. In a presentation to the International Congress of Psychology, one expert (Dr. Paul Hewitt) estimated a death rate for anorexia of 6.6 per 100,000 deaths. Even if you assume that sufferers outnumber deaths by a few orders of magnitude, it would still seem that all objective evidence shows the health impact on Americans from anorexia is statistically nil. Now, I know that doesn’t make for very good shock journalism, but it doesn’t change the uncomfortable fact that it’s true.

Hoff-Sommers claimed that between 50 and a hundred Americans a year die from anorexia - but her claim was based on an appalling misunderstanding of mortality statistics. She’s right that only a tiny number of Americans have “anorexia” credited as their cause of death, but that’s not the relevant question.

According to the NIMH, anorexics typically die due to “complications of the disorder, such as cardiac arrest or electrolyte imbalance,” not anorexia itself. Hoff-Sommers might as well have claimed that because so few people have “cigarettes” written on their death certificate, smoking hardly ever causes any deaths.

So what’s the real number? There are about 19 million American women between ages 15 and 24; of those, somewhere between 190,000 and 380,000 have anorexia (it’s estimated that 1-2% of young women suffer from anorexia). About 0.56% - somewhere between one and two thousand - of those die of anorexia-related causes each year. (This is a conservative estimate, both because some studies have found a much higher long-term mortality rate, and because not everyone with anorexia is a young woman age 15-24).

Hoff-Sommers used the mistaken “100 deaths” statistic to refute an also-mistaken number some feminists used in the early 1990s. She was right to correct the feminists - but, unlike Hoff-Sommers, the feminists were willing to retract their mistaken statistic. Hoff-Sommers has never corrected or retracted her false “100 deaths from anorexia” figure.

* * *

Anthony at The Cosmic Tap complains that concern for anorexia is a “moral panic” - but it’s clear that he’s uncritically bought into a far more pervasive and popular moral panic, fat-hating. He complains that two-thirds of Americans are “overweight” and jumps from this to all the usual cliches about Americans stuffing their faces and so forth. But there’s no evidence that fat people eat significantly more than thin people.

Anthony also doesn’t mention that the “two-thirds” statistic defines anyone with a BMI (body mass index) over 25 as “overweight.” But by that standard, merely being muscular can make someone “overweight” (Brad Pitt is a famous example - what a porker!).

More substantively, as a JAMA study published last year showed, “overweight” Americans with BMIs of 25-30 actually live longer than Americans who aren’t overweight. The panic over weight has very little to do with health. It is instead a true moral panic - a reflection of the fear that Americans are over-indulgent and pleasure-driven. As Elkins wrote, “Eating is the new sex. Anti-fat hysteria is the new Puritanism.”

Big Fat Carnival - 2nd Edition!

Posted by Ampersand | April 4th, 2006

This Ain’t Livin’ presents the Second Edition of the Big Fat Carnival! It’s chock full of fatty goodness - go check it out!

(And we’re a young, upstart carnival just gettin’ started, so if you have a blog, please consider linking to it!)

Oh, and speaking of carnivals, the Third Radical Women of Color Carnival is out at Blac(k)ademic!

The Case Against Weight-Loss Dieting

Posted by Ampersand | April 3rd, 2006

Probably no piece of medical advice is so frequently given, and with so little rational basis, as the pressure on fat people to lose weight.

1. For The Vast Majority Of Fat People, Weight Loss Dieting Doesn’t Work

When I say a weight loss diet (or “diet,” as I’ll refer to WLDs for the rest of this post) doesn’t work, I mean two things. First of all, I mean that for most, the amount of weight lost isn’t enough to turn a fat person into a non-fat person. Second of all, I mean that for most, the weight loss cannot be sustained over the long term (say, five years).

Here’s a remarkable fact: There isn’t a single peer-reviewed controlled clinical study of any weight-loss diet that shows success in losing a significant amount of weight over the long term. Not one.

Isn’t that amazing? It’s not as if Weight Watchers, Slim-Fast, diet clinics, Jenny Craig, and the thousands of other companies making billions of dollars from promises of weight loss haven’t been trying. If anyone could reliably make fat people thin, they’d soon have more money than Microsoft and Haliburton combined.

From a review of empirical tests of weight-loss plans by Wayne Miller, an exercise science specialist at George Washington University:

No commercial program, clinical program, or research model has been able to demonstrate significant long-term weight loss for more than a small fraction of the participants. Given the potential dangers of weight cycling and repeated failure, it is unscientific and unethical to support the continued use of dieting as an intervention for obesity.

Let’s closely examine a study cited as proof that weight loss diets work (I examined this study in a previous post): “Behavioural correlates of successful weight reduction over 3y,” from The International Journal of Obesity (2004, volume 28, pages 334-335).

First of all, let’s notice that the definition of “successful weight reduction” is extremely forgiving: According to the study, “weight loss of 5% or more from baseline to 3 y FU [three year follow up] was defined as successful weight reduction.”

So if a 400 pound man becomes a 380 pound man over the course of three years, according to this study that is “success.” But there isn’t any evidence that a 400 pound man who loses 20 pounds will be any healthier, or have a longer life expectancy, than a 400 pound man who maintains a steady weight. (In fact, as we’ll see, the opposite is true - the 400 pound man who never lost weight will probably live longer). Nor is there any evidence that it’s healthier to be 190 pounds than 200 pounds.

And keep in mind, the amount of weight loss drops steeply over time - so when a study like this defines “success” as weight loss at three years, the effect is to unrealistically exaggerate the success of the diet plan being studied. If “success” was described as taking the weight off and keeping it off for a lifetime, the success rate of these studies would be barely above nonexistent.

Still, three years is relatively good methodology - many diet studies measure patients at 3 or 6 months and that’s all. Unfortunately, this study’s methodology is terrible in another way: the 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.

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 23% minority who stuck with this study’s plan, most weren’t able to lose even 5% of their weight over three years.

But what about the most successful group of dieters - those who managed to obey the seven separate diet restrictions this study called for, for all three years? (That’s a grand total of 198 dieters out of the initial group of 6,857, or 2.8%). Of this tiny, select group, 40% failed to meet this study’s extremely forgiving standard of “successful weight loss.”

Now, the above study is one that weight-loss advocates themselves cite as proof that weight loss is practical and possible. Is there anything there to convince a 300 pound person that becoming thin is a practical and likely effect of weight-loss dieting?

One possible factor making it difficult to lose weight permanently is that our bodies may adjust to situations of reduced food intake by lowering metabolic rate and increasing the proportion of food stored on the body as fat. (Some studies support the existence of this effect, but it’s not proven beyond all doubt.) The evolutionary benefit of this is obvious; humans who lower their metabolic rate and store more fat in conditions of famine are more likely to survive and reproduce. But as a result, the more you diet, the harder losing weight becomes over the long term, and the harder your body will fight to retain fat.

2. Losing Weight Makes It More Likely You’ll Die Sooner

Most of the time, people on weight loss diets gain back the weight they lose. But that doesn’t mean they’re back where they started, healthwise. Many studies have found that losing weight - even if the weight is regained - is associated with higher mortality rates. From David Garner’s and Susan Wooley’s review article “Confronting the Failure of Behavior and Dietary Treatments for Obesity”:

There are few studies in the medical literature that indicate that mortality risk is actually reduced by weight loss, and there are some that suggest that weight loss increases the risk of death. In an American Cancer Society prospective survey of over 1 million people, individuals indicating that they had lost weight in the past 5 years were more likely to die from cardiovascular disease than those whose weight was table. In a 10 year follow-up of men who were asked their weight at age 25, Rhoads and Kagen reported that heavy respondents who had later lost weight had almost twice as high a death rate as those who maintained a high but stable weight. Moreover, those with a high but stable weight had the same or lower death rate as thinner men. […] Although weight change was unrelated to mortality for women in the Wilkosky et al. study, the odds ratio… for men indicated that each 10% loss of weight was associated with a 14% increase in all-causes mortality and a 27% increase in cancer mortality.

Finally, in a study of mortality risks among 16,936 Harvard alumni, Paffenbager at al. not only found that the highest mortality occurred in those with the lowest body mass index (below 32), but also that those who had gained weight since college had a significantly lower mortality risk compared to those who had minimal weight gain since college. According to the authors, “alumni with the lowest net gain since college had a 29% higher risk of death than their classmates that had gained the most.” Thus, even if one accepted the premise that obesity is a dangerous condition and weight reduction a realistic goal, it is an unproven hypothesis that weight reduction actually translates into increased longevity.

When you read that, you probably had the same reaction I first did, which is to wonder if the higher death rates associated with weight loss might be caused by unintentional weight loss among already sick people. Glenn Gaesser’s book reviews several studies that distinguished between unintentional and intentional weight loss. One study found that for overweight women with pre-existing health conditions (such as high blood pressure), even a very small weight loss - just a couple of pounds - decreased mortality. (There was no increased benefit in losing 20 or 30 pounds instead of just 2 or 3). A similar effect existed for diabetic men. For virtually all other groups, however, intentional weight loss either had no effect or led to increased mortality.

Among the two-thirds of the study participants who were healthy to begin with, intentional weight loss was anything but good. For example, compared with healthy, overweight women who remained weight stable, women who intentionally lost between one and nineteen pounds over a period of a year or more had premature death ates from cancer, cardiovascular disease, and all causes that were increase by as much as 40 to 70 percent. Unintentional weight gain, on the other hand, had no adverse effects on premature death rates for these nonsmoking, “overweight” women. These findings suggest that if you are overweight and have no health problems, you are probably better off staying at that weight (and not worrying if you gain a few pounds) rather than dieting to conform to some height-weight table “ideal.”

It’s worth noting that the negative effects of weight loss seem to exist regardless of if the weight is regained or not.

I would be remiss not to mention the dangers associated with yo-yo dieting. Too many Americans - especially fat Americans - will lose weight a few times in their lifetime, and then regain. This is referred to as “yo-yo” dieting, and it’s both common and dangerous. (Many yo-yo dieters may not think of themselves as yo-yo dieters, since there may be years between each cycle of loss and gain.) According to Case Western Reserve University’s Paul Ernsberger:

Obese humans typically show repeated loss and regain of large amounts of weight. Men with large fluctuations in weight between the ages of 20 and 40 have increase systolic and diastolic blood pressure and cholesterol. these yo-yo dieters are two times more likely to die of coronary heart disease, even after adjustment for known risk factors, than are men with stable or steadily increasing weight. Fluctuations in body weight have been shown in many other major epidemiological studies to have deleterious cardiovascular effects resulting in increased mortality.

If you’d like to maximize your longevity, probably the best thing you can do is a program of moderate exercise. This may not cause any weight loss - but no matter what your weight, even moderate exercise is likely to increase your lifespan.

3. The Idea Of “Normalizing” Eating Habits Is A Myth

The case for weight loss dieting typically assumes that fat people are fat because they eat more and exercise less than thin people; that thin people, if they ate as much as fat people, would also be fat; and that if fat people only “normalized” their eating habits, they would be thin.

Under this model, fat people eat like fat people, and so need to “modify their lifestyle” to eat “normally,” after which they’ll lose weight.

But evidence indicates that all these assumptions may be false.

First, do fat people eat more than thin people? Study after study has attempted to show that fat people eat more calories, without success. It’s true that many fat people have lousy diets with too much fatty food - but the same is true of many thin people. And, anecdotally, I’ve met fat people who were extremely healthy eaters, and fat vegans. It doesn’t appear that fat people are “eating like fat people,” compared to how non-fat people eat, in any measurable way. From Garner and Wooley:

…[A] tremendous body of research employing a great variety of methodologies… has failed to yield any meaningful or replicable differences in the caloric intake or eating patterns of the obese compared to the nonobese…

[In a study of children], Rolland-Cachera and Bellisle found that food intake was about 500 calories greater and obesity about four times more common in the lowest versus the highest socioeconomic groups studied; however, within each socioeconomic group, there were comparable levels of caloric intake among lean, average weight, and obese children. […]

…It may be concluded that nature and nurture both exert influences on body weight and that the eventual expression of obesity is a complicated matter…. Regardless of these factors, the myth of overeating by the obese is sustained for the casual observer by selective attention. Each time that a fat person is observed to have a “healthy appetite” or an affinity for sweets or other high calorie foods, a stereotypic leap into causality is made. The same behaviors in a thin person attract little or no attention….

…The major premise of dietary treatments of obesity, that the obese overeat with respect to population norms, must be regarded as unproven.

What happens when naturally thin people eat the way fat people allegedly eat? In the 1960s, before ethical rules prevented this sort of study, scientists tested this question on prisoners, doubling their calorie intake in an attempt to make them gain 20-40 pounds. From Garner and Wooley:

Most of the men gained the initial few pounds with ease but quickly became hypermetabolic and resisted further weight gain despite continued overfeeding. One prisoner stopped gaining weight even though he was consuming close to 10,000 calories per day. With return to normal amounts of food, most of the men returned to the weight levels that they had maintained prior to the experiment.

Do fat people who lose weight, do so by taking on “normal” eating habits? Some studies indicate that a high proportion of the few fat people who keep weight off, do so not by “normalizing” their eating habits, but by becoming effectively anorexic. From Garner and Wooley:

Geissler et al. found that previously obese women who had maintained their target weights for an average of 2.5 years had a metabolic rate about 15% less and ate significantly less (1298 vs 1945 calories) than lean controls. Liebel and Hirsch have reported that the reduced metabolic requirements endure in obese patients who have maintained a reduced body weight for 4-6 years. Thus, successful weight loss and maintenance is not accomplished by “normalizing eating patterns” as has been implied in may treatment programs but rather by sustained caloric restriction. This raises questions about the few individuals who are able to sustain their weight loss over years. In some instances, their eating patterns are much more like those of individuals who would earn a diagnosis of anorexia nervosa than like those with truly “normal” eating patterns.

Too many diet advocates still believe in the above myths - and that weight is a simple matter of input and output. But real human bodies are far more complex systems. From the New England Journal of Medicine (emphasis added):

Many people cannot lose much weight no matter how hard they try, and promptly regain whatever they do lose….

Why is it that people cannot seem to lose weight, despite the social pressures, the urging of their doctors, and the investment of staggering amounts of time, energy, and money? The old view that body weight is a function of only two variables - the intake of calories and the expenditure of energy - has given way to a much more complex formulation involving a fairly stable set point for a person’s weight that is resistant over short periods to either gain or loss, but that may move with age. …Of course, the set point can be overridden and large losses can be induced by severe caloric restriction in conjunction with vigorous, sustained exercise, but when these extreme measures are discontinued, body weight generally returns to its preexisting level.

4. So To Sum Up….

1) No weight-loss diet has every been scientifically shown to produce substantial long-term weight loss in any but a tiny minority of dieters.

2) Whether or not a weight-loss diet “works,” people who go on weight-loss diets are likely to die sooner than those who maintain a steady weight or who slowly gain weight.

3) For fat people (or anyone else) concerned with their health, the best option is probably moderate exercise and eating fruits and veggies, without concern for waistlines. In other words, Health At Every Size (HAES).

4) The model on which most weight-loss diets are based - in which fat people eat like fat people and must learn to eat like non-fat people - is probably a myth.

* * *

Citations

Anderson JW, Konz EC, Frederich RC, Wood CL (2001), “Long-term weight-loss maintenance: a meta-analysis of US studies,” American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, vol 74, p 579-584

Blair, S.N., Kohl, Paffenbarger, Clark, Cooper, and Gibbons (1989). “Physical Fitness and All Cause Mortality, A Prospective Study of Healthy Men and Women,” Journal of the American Medical Association, vol 262 p. 2395-2401.

Ernsberger, Paul and Koletsky, Richard (1999), “Biomedical Rationale for a Wellness Approach to Obesity,”Journal of Social Issues, vol 55, p. 221-260.

Gaesser, Glenn (2002), Big Fat Lies: The Truth About Your Weight And Your Health, Updated Edition, Gurze Books, Carlsbad, CA..

Garner, David and Wooley, Susan (1991), “Confronting the Failure of Behavior and Dietary Treatments for Obesity,” Clinical Psychology Review, vol 11, p 729-780.

Kassierer, Jerome and Angell, Marcia (1998), “Losing Weight - An Ill-Fated New Year’s Resolution,” New England Journal of Medicine, vol 338(1), p 52-54.

Miller, Wayne (1999). “How effective are traditional dietary and exercise interventions for weight loss?,” Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, vol 31 no 8 p. 1129-1134

Westenhoefer J, von Falck B, Stellfeldt A, and Fintelmann S (2004). “Behavioural correlates of successful weight reduction over 3y. Results from the Lean Habits Study,” International Journal of Obesity, vol 28 (2), p 334-335

25 Hours Left To Submit To The Big Fat Carnival!

Posted by Ampersand | April 1st, 2006

There’s still time to submit a post to the second edition of the Big Fat Carnival! Get your submissions in by midnight on Sunday!

Feminist blogging

Posted by Maia | March 25th, 2006

The thing about blogs is they let people talk about whatever they like. So there are an awful lot of blogs out there about women’s experiences. Sometimes I wonder if this could be used for something more. If the barrier between feminist blogging, which is primarily about other women’s lives, and blogging on ‘women’s topics’ where feminist women (and non-feminist women) write about their lives, could be broken down. What would it look like if feminists who were writing about body image issues and reproduction, linked more to personal stories on weight-loss blogs and mother blogs (and yes it’s scary that those are the two female blogging topics that come to mind) and vice-versa. Because I do think that feminist analysis is stronger the more it links to women’s experience, and I think talking about women’s experience can be something more, it can be consciouness raising.

This is in response to the great ‘false advertising’ debate. I’ve read a lot of posts on this issue. I feel like I understand the issues around the role women’s bodies play in a relationship, particularly in middle-class white America, but I think many of those observations would apply outside that specific context (incidentally I’ve also developed a plan, if I am in a relationship with someone who thinks a change in my appearance is ‘false advertising’ I will simply tell a couple of my female friends about it, and they will take care of him).

But while I know more, I’m still feeling really ambivilant about the debate, because I’m not sure it’s what I’d call feminism. In supposedly feminst blogs and comments women have been attacked for feeling like they owe it to their husbands to keep their weight down. From I Blame the Patriarchy

Regarding said ass: Women of some races naturally have asses like that. Women of some races naturally have hair like that too. But the kid’s white, and both hair and butt look bought to me. Also besides, being as they are both staunch supporters of the patriarchy, I assume she’s read the fine print. As soon as her ass goes south, he’ll have (and probably take) the option to find another, younger butt.

I get it, I really do. I understand the frustration, the desire to get angry at a woman for accepting and perpetuating so much shit. When I read this:

My boyfriend, the man I thought I was going to marry, brok up with me after 4.5 years. Because I gained weight. To be fair, it was a significant gain (about 25 pounds).

I wanted to yell at the woman why the fuck are you being fair to a man who leaves you because you’ve gained 11 kilos? You should be dancing Numfar’s dance of joy that you got out. But I don’t think that that helps build anything, except the idea that I think I’m better than her. And I’m not, I have my own issues, and I don’t write about them on my blog, except with eight layers of feminist analysis. But does that just make me less honest than her?

Despite these ugly personal attacks, there were real benefits from reading so many different perspectives on one issue. One of the things that really disturbed me, and showed how good the patriarchy (still don’t like the term) is at colonising our minds, was that we shouldn’t just want to attain beauty standards to catch a mate, we should want them for ourselves. From a comment on I blame the patriarchy

I’ve met women who have “let themselves go” after marriage out of the idea that they already have their man, so they don’t have to try anymore. To them, the idea of putting any kind of effort into themselves was a tool to get a mate, and once they had the mate, they could stop doing those things. I’m not saying that one has to wear make-up, exercise, whatever to be happy, but it disturbs me greatly to think that I should only care about my appearance to trap a man, and once I’ve got him I can just “let myself go.”

A slightly different version of the same thought on Tertia

It doesn’t matter if you are 10, 15 or 50 pounds heavier than you were when you got married; if you take pride in yourself and dress nicely, do your hair, spray some perfume on, wear pretty earrings etc, you will feel nice and you will look nice. And I am sure that is all that most men want. They want us to like ourselves and to be happy. Because they know, the happier we are within ourselves the sexier we will feel, and that can only mean good things for the long suffering husband. A happy wife makes a happy husband.

Unfortunately, I can’t really have a conversation here about what these women have said, I’d be attacking them, attacking what they said. Informal, unsure conversations, where you learn stuff together - it’s easier to do that in person.

Which is a shame, because the analysis I found most interesting came from blogs that would probably identify more as Mommy blogs than feminist blogs.

Moxie seemed afraid that everyone would hate her when she came to I Blame the Patriarchy, but I thought her analysis was really useful.

I’ve been thinking about this topic all day. The notion that a woman owes it to her husband or her relationship to keep her body thin (or whatever way the culture decides is beautiful–I’m sure there are women in Africa who feel pressure to stay fat) is part of the truth that when a woman gets married her body no longer belongs to her, but instead is the property of and a symbol of the marital unit.

It’s the woman’s responsibility to get and stay pregnant. Even if she gets pregnant easily, she’s the one who takes the entire physical hit of the pregnancy. Heartburn, acne, sciatica, backache, hemorrhoids, varicose veins, PSD, tendonitis, skin tags, stretch marks, insomnia, swelling. And the labor and delivery is a horror, featuring pain and often cutting or tearing, even when it’s relatively easy. Even if a woman loses all the pregnancy weight, her body is never the same. She sacrifices her body for the family unit.

She goes on to explore what happens if a woman can’t conceive and how this changes as the baby gets older. It’s a really good point, and so much more of what so many other writers say makes more sense when it’s put in this context.

I’ve been reading Jody from Raising WEG for a while, I love her analysis and her writing (and freak out at the very thought of triplets).

As Moxie points out far more eloquently than I could, stress and our mental responses to stress affect our eating habits, too. And exercise that comes naturally to single people gets very hard for parents to find. And I’ll also point out that I don’t believe we are our bodies, and that there’s a difference between living well in the body you have, and trying to make your body into something it was, or should be, so that it looks better to other people. It’s been my experience that it’s not any more work to learn to love your body as it becomes.

[….]

Your body isn’t your self. Your relationship with food isn’t your relationship with your body. There are many ways to be attractive, and they don’t remain static over time. And the thinner women in our neighborhood? I’m pretty sure at least two of them are anorexic. Anything is better than an eating disorder.

I’m going to end with my favourite story. The one that makes me think that maybe this sort of conversation is worthwhile. Maybe it will give women strength, and show them that they are not alone. This is Jen Creer from inkstains

The reason I thought this is because my husband clearly thought differently about me when I was thin and then when I had gained weight in my marriage. One year, when we had two small children, he started running and playing tennis and racquetball and lifting weights. He told me finally that he couldn’t sit around and become a fat slob like me. He said, “No man can respect a man with a fat wife. If you don’t lose the weight, I will leave. If you gain more weight, I will leave.”

I will never forget that conversation. We were sitting in the bathroom at two o’clock in the morning. I was sitting on the lid of the toilet, and he was sitting next to the tub. Our sixteen-month son was sitting in the steamy tub, suffering from the croup. Our four-year-old son was asleep in one bedroom, and our three-week old baby was asleep in another.

Yes, that’s right. I was three-weeks postpartum when my husband said those words to me. And the time that he chose to get back into shape? Was when I was pregnant with his third child. I had a total of three C-sections, and I was not even allowed to pick up our middle child, let alone exercise when he sat and said the coldest words I’ve ever heard from someone who was supposed to love me more than anyone.

Ok that’s not happy, but her next sentance was:

That was the night I stopped loving him

There’s more to the story. Awful horrible stuff that makes me furious, but three years later she did leave him.

I do think bringing together different women’s experiences of the same problem can be helpful. I even think this debate is. But without trust, without sisterhood (with all the problems that brings), I’m not sure this is building anything much. I’m worried that it’s just making ‘feminists’ another group of women with special interests and experiences.

Also posted on my blog.

Unfair

Posted by Maia | March 22nd, 2006

I have a plan to write a long post about the responses to False Advertising a post in which Morphing into Mama says that she believes that to significantly change your appearance after you get married, for instance by cutting your hair or gaining weight, is false advertising.

Before I go any further I do have to quote Twisty:

And, lard-jesus no! MIM, who says she “works” to maintain her figure “for myself and my husband,” goes on to suggest that a person’s weight is indicative, not, as a rational person might imagine, of how much she weighs, but of her degree of “self-respect.” Overweight people, MIM asserts, are probably “depressed.” She asks, “can you imagine still maintaining the same level of physical attraction for your mate when he’s depressed?”

There has been a huge response to MiM’s post, and it’s that collective response that I want to write about. But before I can do that I have to express disbelief at the context in which she reached this particular conclusion:

Recently, in my psychopathology class, I was reminded of this conversation with Husband. My classmates and I were discussing a journal article on bulimia nervosa and speculative reasons were being tossed around as to why the majority of the women sampled were married.

“Maybe married women feel more pressure to be thin for their husbands,” one young, unmarried classmate said.

“Really? Because when I’m in a relationship, I get all comfortable and actually tend to plump up,” said another, very honest young woman to my left.

“Well, first I don’t think it’s fair to say that being married caused these women to be bulimic ““ especially since being in a relationship can make one conscious about one’s weight just as being single can. When you’re single, you want to be in good shape not just for yourself, but so that you can feel confident about how you look and feel like you can attract a partner. When you’re married ““ and especially after having kids ““ you’re conscious about your weight, which may motivate you to watch what you eat and exercise, but that doesn’t necessarily mean you’ll develop an eating disorder. I am conscious of my weight, so I don’t snack, and I exercise. Personally, I think it would be unfair to Husband if I gained a bunch of weight and did nothing about it.”

She was having a conversation about why eating disorders were more commmon among married women, she thinks about her body, food and exercise, within her relationship, and her conclusion is that it wouldn’t be fair to her husband to gain weight.

I’m reminded of last year’s anti-feminist women’s rights co-ordinator at the local university. She wasn’t into ‘No Diet Day’ so she renamed it ‘Love your body day’. How do you love your body? By eating fruit and doing yoga.

I don’t want to blame her for thinking like this, there’s a lot of resources poured into to making women feel like this. It just makes me terribly, terribly, sad and angry.

Also posted at my blog

2nd Big Fat Carnival: Second Call For Submissions

Posted by Ampersand | March 20th, 2006

This Ain’t Living has posted the second call for submissions for the second Big Fat Carnival. Less than two weeks left!

Healthy Living

Posted by Maia | March 20th, 2006

I realised that I hadn’t explained myself very well in my Body Shop thread. Or rather I’d paraphrased an argument without actually making that argument.

I hate The Body Shop, have a for very long time. I’ve never had a use for the dumb soaps and gels and whatever they make (although I did go through a stage when I was 14 of buying them as presents for friends, if I didn’t know what else to get them). They’re such a huge part of the idea that it’s alternative and a moral good to be healthy, and what it means to be healthy is to fit a traditional idea of beautiful that I’d happily watch as every single one of their stores burnt to the ground.

I wanted to explore the link between health and beauty, and the idea that health is a moral good, a little bit more to explain.

The equation of ‘beauty’ and ‘health’ is really common and really insidious. The most obvious example is weight, and (despite rather a lot of evidence to the contrary) the conflation of thin and healthy. In circles (usually middle class and slightly politically aware circles) where it’s not acceptable to talk about weight loss straight up, generally exactly the same conversations take place, but people are talking about ‘health’. If someone is nervous of complimenting a woman for losing weight, they’ll talk about ‘healthy’ she looks.

But it’s much more common than that. Most of the examples are just laughable. Beauty sections in magazines are now called ‘health’ sections. Hair products claim they will promote ‘healthy looking hair’ (because ensuring that your dead-cells are healthy should be the priority of everyone). The state of your skin is seen as indicative of your overall health. Performing beauty routinues, like moisturising or body scrubbing, are portrayed as part of maintaining your health.

Some are more scary:

The American Cancer Society offers the “Look Good…Feel Better” program, “dedicated to teaching women cancer patients beauty techniques to help restore their appearance and self-image during cancer treatment.”

Of course this is bullshit, you can’t tell someone’s health by looking at them, and a lot of so called health routinues won’t increase your longevity, or your quality of life at all.

Now this is partly just a marketing technique, the more women challenge beauty standards, the more useful it is to have different justification for selling exactly the same products. But I think it’s become a lot more significant than that, because health is portrayed as a moral good. This particular conflation is a very powerful one for fucking with people’s minds, and very useful for ensuring certain sorts of behaviour (mostly buying stuff, but also not challenging the way our society is organised).

The first step to believing being ‘healthy’ is moral is to show that ‘health’ is something that is under your control. Now personally, I reject this idea as deeply offensive, as well as being wrong. Wile there are some things that you can do that will promote the length of your life, and increase the ways you can use your body, most of it is just luck. Either it’s your genetics, or it’s a result of environmental factors you can’t control (like poverty, or being exposed to depleted uranium). It’s very tempting to believe we can control our body, how long we live, how far it holds out, but most of us won’t be able to.

To give a rather silly example of this I have had a number of people tell me about the quality of their teeth, how they don’t have fillings, and they each give a different reason for this (they brush every day, or they eat a lot of cheese). Now it seems to me that it’s far more likely that fluoridated water, and improvements in detal practice are the reason my generation’s teeth are better than our parents.

That’s why I think it’s wrong, the reason I think it’s offensive is it promotes an idea that everyone could get better if only they tried hard enough. It turns illness into a form of personal failing. Barbara Ehrenreich wrote a fantastic article about this in relation to the breast cancer industry (and yes unfortunately it is an industry):

My friend introduces me to a knot of other women in survivor gear, breast-cancer victims all, I learn, though of course I would not use the V-word here. “Does anyone else have trouble with the term ’survivor’?’ I ask, and, surprisingly, two or three speak up. It could be “unlucky,” one tells me; it “tempts fate,” says another, shuddering slightly. After all, the cancer can recur at any time, either in the breast or in some more strategic site. No one brings up my own objection to the term, though: that the mindless triumphalism of “survivorhood” denigrates the dead and the dying. Did we who live “fight” harder than those who’ve died? Can we claim to be “braver,” better, people than the dead? And why is there no room in this cult for some gracious acceptance of death, when the time comes, which it surely will, through cancer or some other misfortune?

The idea that ‘health’ is a result of our individual actions is now dangerously firmly placed. We can beat heart-attacks, breast-cancer, alzheimer’s, arthritis, dementia and everything else if we try hard enough.

As well as being awful in its own right, this idea turns anything that is promoted as improving health as a moral good, even if it doesn’t actually improve your longevity or use of your body.

This idea is so insidious that it has often been adopted by the left, where being ‘healthy’ can be portrayed as not just morally good, but alternative - or even radical. So we end up reinforcing our own version of the mainstream ideology. Constantly things that are supported for political reasons (say veganism) are promoted for their supposed health benefits, as if good politics and good health, automatically go together (I have a much, much, much longer rant about this particular topic, but it’ll have to wait for another day).

I started writing this whole post because mythago asked me “why is buying soap kowtowing to patriarchal, capitalistic ideals about beauty?” I want to make it really clear that I don’t think the solution to the problems that I raised is to stop eating in a particular way, or buying a particular product, or trying to live in a way that you find nourishes and sustains you.

What I do think is important is we challenge the ideology which equates beauty, health and morality, and promotes health as something we can control. We can stop praising people for being healthy, we can stop telling people they look healthy, we can stop assuming that just because we agree with something politically it’ll be good for our bodies, and we can stop using moralistic language to describe food.

And that’s why I hate the Body Shop.

Also posted on My blog.

Link Farm and Open Thread #12

Posted by Ampersand | March 7th, 2006

As usual, open for whatever discussion or links you’d like to post - and don’t hesitate to post links to your own stuff!

By the way, I’m sorry I haven’t gotten around to part two of my “No Basis” critique yet. I’m mildly sick, and doing a heavy-research blog post just doesn’t seem as high a priority as, you know, lying on the couch and watching a lot of TV. I am going to do part two, but it may be a week or so - I’m taking it easy.

Nonetheless, I still need to empty all these open tabs, so….

Tomorrow is Blog Against Sexism Day!
I’d better start thinking of a post…

The Third Carnival of Bent Attractions!

The Second Radical Women of Color Carnival!

Fetal Personhood as Metaphorical Thinking
This discussion of abortion politics and pro-life thought, by regular “Alas” comment-writer Richard Jeffrey Newman, develops a fascinating line of thought, using as a starting point a couple of the abortion discussions we’ve had here on “Alas,” and so will be especially entertaining for “Alas” readers. One of the best posts I’ve read this week - check it out.

Top Ten Things Fattiepatties is Tired of Discussing
Ten months from now, I must remember to nominate this series for a Koufax award for “best series of posts 2006.” Fattiepatties discusses the ten “fat acceptance” discussions she’s sick of having over and over. Excellent, smart analysis. She’s halfway through the series now; start here and scroll up.

Feh-Muh-Nist: Dance Like No One’s Watching
Utterly fantastic, beautifully-written post about “Dancing While Fat.” This is the sort of writing I envy. (I’ve added Feh-Muh-Nist to the blogroll.)

The Fifteen Year Plan for Same Sex Marriage
The long-range strategy for same-sex marriage. The article is a bit too optimistic and rah-rah go-team-go for my tastes, but it’s nonetheless interesting.

Slavery Denial
We condemn holocaust denial. So why don’t we condemn those who softball or try to excuse American slavery for slavery denial?

Queer vs. Nigger/Nigger vs. Queer

Why is it that every argument of the (mis)use of the term queer, has to be equated with the (mis)use of the word nigger? I think that they have such separate histories, it is ridiculous to even make such a claim.

Newsflash: Contraception Prevents Unwanted Pregnancies

Ohio State Senator Proposes Bill Banning Republicans From Adopting Children
Being an elected official makes sarcasm much more satisfying.

Israel’s Economic Abuse of the Palestinians
Keeping $700 million in taxes that rightfully belongs to the Palestinians is just scratching the surface.

Buffy The Vampire Slayer and Rape
Curtsy: Muse and Fury.

Can Conservative Christians Be Convinced To Ally With Democrats?
David at The Debate Link argues persuasively that no, they can’t; “as an organized political entity,” the Christian Right can’t get behind “any proposal that doesn’t relate to abortion, gay marriage, and abstinence.” But then a few posts later David reverses himself, after reading this Washington Monthly article, about some Conservative Christians who are sick of Republicans putting big business and hardball politics ahead of issues.

The Gender Mysteries of Don Knotts

Reappropriate on “Crash“: Racist, Shallow, and Easy For Whites To Swallow

The Same Peanut Butter Tastes Better With A Brand Name
As Word Munger sums up, “People prefer inferior peanut butter when it’s got a recognizable brand name. People will say the same peanut butter tastes better when it’s labeled as a recognizable brand.” But since enjoyment is subjective, does this mean that people really do get more taste enjoyment out of eating a brand-name product?

Gendergeek’s FAQ for Men’s Rights Activist readers
Curtsy: Muse and Fury.

Why Curious People Shouldn’t Own Stun Guns

If you ever feel compelled to “mug” yourself with a taser, one note of caution: there is no such thing as a one-second burst when you zap yourself. You will not let go of that thing until it is dislodged from your hand by a violent thrashing about on the floor.

New to the Blogroll: Bad Feminist
The appropriate kitch artwork illustrating each and every post is impressive. More substantively, I liked this post suggesting specific ways feminists could switch way from a judicial-branch approach to protecting abortion rights.

Real Life Simpsons.
“The opening sequence of The Simpsons, but with real people.” Via Crooked Timber.

Widowhood is Bad For Whites, But Not Blacks

Researchers studied 410,272 elderly American couples, and found the “widowhood effect” — the increased probability of death among new widows and widowers — is large and enduring among white couples, but undetectable among black couples.

Excellent Series of Essays on Being An Adjunct Professor

Wow.

What made me cry, was that all these years, I was taught by my family that being gay is horrible, and that gay people do not deserve a decent life. My family lied to me, and I am angry for that. [Curtsy: Rachel’s Tavern.]

The Double Edged Sword of Fuck Me Feminism

UK nurses want to supply clean blades and cutting advice to self-harmers

Parental Notice Laws Don’t Reduce Abortion

New To The Blogroll: Vigilence
Smart, “professional-feeling” blog focused on queer rights and fighting the Christian right.