The-F-Word.org

It’s Friday, the sky is blue, the sun is shining and I’m much too buoyant to dwell on frustrating and depressing news, so instead I’ll share some fuck-yeah! good news from the north. Canada’s National Eating Disorder Information Centre has teamed up with Toronto-based advertising agency Zulu Alpha Kilo to creatively combat unhealthy body images promoted by the fashion industry.  The small-budget guerrilla-style advertising campaign involved sending fashion editors and brand marketing directors across the country a Hallmark-style greeting card which reads, “Thanks for helping to make me such a successful anorexic.” They also sent out T-shirts with an absurdly small waist featuring the message, “Please try this on to experience how your ads make us feel.” And an interactive transit shelter with a poster reading “Shed your weight problem here” currently functions as a garbage bin for fashion magazines, complete with a slot at the front which allows consumers to add their glossies to a growing stack of Glamour, Vogue, and Fashion magazines.  The campaign’s broader goal asks marketers and fashion leaders to “cast responsibly and retouch minimally.”

More than half of all Canadian women diet, according to NEDIC, and one in four teenage girls engage in eating disordered behavior (in the U.S., it’s estimated that three out of four women have disordered eating and as many as 10 percent may have a full-blown eating disorder).  The fashion industry often bears the brunt for instilling unhealthy body images in girls and women and while NEDIC director Merryl Bear acknowledges that “a range of factors” are at play when it comes to eating disorders, the organization’s goal, she said, was to “focus on different audiences at different times to look at a broad range of some of the influences on body image and disordered eating.  We wanted to show that both the public and some fashion thinkers are ready for change. It may look provocative and edgy, but it is a very substantive campaign.”

NEDIC is collecting digital signatures for its petition, which asks fashion leaders and marketers to “broaden their definition of beauty and inspire us with looks that are beautiful and attainable.”  Watch highlights from the campaign below (beware: the video contains potentially triggering images of emaciated models).

MSNBC interviewed U.S. Surgeon General Regina Benjamin about weight and fitness and her “vision for a health and fit nation.”  Benjamin, you may recall, was attacked and criticized for her weight after her nomination (she appears to be about a size 18).  But while Benjamin is enthusiastically joining the “nation’s war on fat,” I’m glad to see that she’s more even-keeled and sensitive about it than, ehem, others.

So how do you reach more people?

If you talk to the average person, what’s clear is we need to give them tools to make it easier. We need to get people to make good health part of their lives. I’m showing my age, but I remember going out dancing, doing the hustle and sweating off my makeup. That was fun. People need to exercise and eat well because they enjoy it and they want to be fit. It could be taking a walk in a park. But we need nice parks. We need people to buy better foods. But a lot of communities don’t have access to fresh produce. Right now, it’s very difficult to find a meal that’s healthy and competes with a “dollar meal” like a burger and fries. We need to ask the communities and food manufacturers to offer more healthy choices not as alternatives, but as first choices.

Your weight was made an issue when the President picked you for the post, and you said it was hurtful. So how do we talk to our kids about a sensitive topic like weight?

I’m very secure in my own self esteem, but yes, it was hurtful. There were some mean comments. But what about those kids who will be looking at me as a role model? They may be very discouraged by some of those comments. I exercise regularly, at least four days a week. If I didn’t I probably would be a big blimp. And I try to eat pretty healthy, as much as I can. I know the things that I’m doing. I tend to stay on the elliptical as long as other people. I’m not out of breath. You can be healthy and fit at different sizes. The real message is that you don’t want to limit yourself by your dress size. You need to be comfortable with yourself and have a good body image. Don’t have some dress manufacturer tell you what size to be. Be a size that makes you fit.

I dislike Benjamin’s near exclusive focus on obesity — as if Not Getting Fat is the only worthwhile reason to encourage people to make healthier choices — and I am vehemently against workplace wellness programs and challenges, which she also promotes, but I’m glad to see that not only does Benjamin appear to support HAES, she also seems to recognize the racial, environmental and socio-economic forces at play that contribute to body weight.  Now if we could only get her to heed her own words and redirect her health and fitness outreach efforts from just fat people to all people.

This week marks National Eating Disorders Awareness Week (NEDAW), and so we will be posting tools/resources/tips/personal stories and more this week in support of eating disorder recovery.  To kick the week off, how about checking out and joining these supportive Facebook groups (because isn’t everyone and your grandma on Facebook?).

• Letters to My Body: Fostering body kindness and promoting stronger self-esteem; One letter at a time (check out the project’s website to read letters from others).

• 5 Resolutions to Transform the Fashion and Beauty Industries: Founded by model Magali Amadei and writer Claire Mysko, 5 Resolutions (http://5resolutions.blogspot.com) is a network for anyone who believes in promoting healthy beauty and fashion.

• Eating Disorders Coalition for Research, Policy & Action: The Eating Disorders Coalition for Research, Policy & Action promotes the recognition of eating disorders as a policy concern. This Facebook group was created so that people will know that there is hope. It is for everyone who is alarmed by the prominence and danger of eating disorders, but is unaware of what can be done to change it. We can ask our government to help create actual policies that will translate into advancing the goal of eating disorder prevention and recovery…

• Blogging for [ED] Awareness & Recovery: A group of bloggers that write specifically about eating disorders, whether a loved one has been diagnosed or you have been yourself.  This group is *NOT* for pro-ed blogs! These are strictly recovery and awareness-minded bloggers!

• I’m making fat socially acceptable and I’m not sorry:  This is a fat acceptance group. This group is for people who one day stumbled upon the truth that fat is not as bad as it is made out to be. In fact, most of the time fat isn’t bad at all – and even in the cases where it is (where is causes mobility or other issues) it isn’t being treated properly, and fat hatred is only hurting the issue…

• Dear Eating Disorder,: This is a group for those of us who suffer from an eating disorder can come and write a letter to let ED know exactly what we think of it. Whether you are recovering or recovered. Whether you are struggeling or in a good place. Whether the Eating Disorder is runining your life or the life of a friends or family members its time it should know. Tell your Eating Disorder your thoughts and feelings about it. Breakup with the Eating Disorder if you want!!!

• Start a Revolution.  Stop hating your body.: is an attempt to raise awareness about the vast array of problems that stem from body consciousness and lack of esteem including, but not limited to: anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa, body dysmorphic disorder, binge eating disorder, depression, and general dissatisfaction. Furthermore we acknowledge that society today has constructed a multi-billion dollar industry designed to perpetuate the desire for unattainable beauty while capitalizing on products for self-improvement. Our mission is to end corporate dominance over body esteem.

• Men Get Eating Disorders, Too: is a web and publicity campaign that aims to raise awareness of male eating disorders to enable men to get support. The site provides essential information and advice, links to support and a message board.

• Academy for Eating Disorders: The AED is a leading global professional association committed to promoting innovative eating disorders research,education, treatment and prevention.

• Eating Disorders Anonymous: For those with eating disorders looking for support OR someone with a loved one suffering and needing advice as to what to do OR supporting friends with eating disorders OR wanting to know more about eating disorders and their danger [this group’s content is public, so be forewarned that it’s not exactly “anonymous,” per se).

And, of course, be sure to join The-F-Word’s Facebook page, as well as friends of the blog: Big Fat Deal and Feed Me!. Know of any other great Facebook or MySpace groups? Give them a shout out in the comments below!

Journalist Kate Baily wonders why more women don’t come out and tell their fat friends that they look like Shamu and need to speed dial Jenny Craig.  In an article in The Daily Express, she cites a recent study of 3,000 women in which one in five revealed she secretly thinks her best friend is fat but would never dare say so.  Baily writes:

So it seems we can’t even rely on our best friends to tell us when it’s time to quit the cupcakes.

Am I the only one who thinks that’s a crying shame? Whenever I watch TV diet programmes I am amazed that nobody has actually sat down with morbidly obese Jenny and had a word with her.

In that same un-cited study, Baily notes that one in four women “plucked up the courage” to tell a friend she should lose some of her fat ass — thus demonstrating nothing more than 25 percent of women are friends with a jerk — and of the friends in question, 12 percent “went mental” and one in five ended the relationship.  Baily wonders:

Isn’t that just a little, well, neurotic for grown-up women with jobs and families?  Shouldn’t we just be able to come right out and say, ‘You look like a badly trussed chicken in those jeans – go on a diet immediately’?

Right.  I’m willing to bet that Kate Baily doesn’t have all that many friends.

So, why don’t more women point out their gal pals’ flab? Uh, duh.  It’s because A: friends don’t police their friends’ weight or food choices and make them feel bad about themselves; B: your friend is a big girl (no pun intended) and can make her own decisions about what’s best for her and her health; and C: most fat people already know they’re fat, and therefore don’t need nor necessarily want their “friends” to hammer that point home or to offer up unsolicited weight-loss advice.  And should your fat friend ever want that advice, it’s not as if women’s magazines, television commercials, news outlets and even the White House aren’t already mass-churning out weight-loss tips and diet plans complete with fatalist warnings on how you and your fat ass are at risk for any number of so-called obesity-related diseases and are Public Enemy No. 1 to both the environment and national security.

And if it’s a case of emotional/compulsive overeating, binge eating or other eating disordered behaviors, focusing on a friend’s weight isn’t all that constructive or healthy.  Anyone who’s struggled with an eating disorder will tell you that it’s not about the weight — it’s about emotional issues, psychological and/or physical trauma, a need for power or control, etc… — and that weight is but a symptom of much larger issues at-hand.  Telling a friend with disordered eating issues that they “need to go on a diet immediately” is not only counterproductive in that it puts the focus on the symptom and not the cause, it’s also downright rude, callous and virtually irrelevant.  It’s a little like telling your unemployed friend who’s on public assistance that their clothes are shabby and unfashionable and that they need to go on a Saks shopping spree immediately.   As well, Kate Baily suffers from the culturally-driven delusion that not only is fat always unattractive, but that it’s always unhealthy — not to mention, that it’s always malleable.  When I was actively eating disordered, I received copious compliments about my weight loss that only spurred a disorder that damn near killed me.  Now that I’ve regained some of the weight I’ve lost, I’m much healthier and happier for it — something a true friend would already know.

A few of my more health-conscious friends and I discuss healthy foods and recipes and fitness and so forth, but weight rarely factors into these conversations because not only is it not all that high on our priority list, it’s also vapid and boring.  As part of my own commitment to recovery, which includes taking the pledge to end fat talk,  I actively seek to surround myself with people who respect me enough to not  infantilize me by asking if I really need that second helping and who have far more interesting things to talk about than their daily carb intake.  You?

So, Kevin Smith was booted from a Southwest flight earlier this week for being Too Fat To Fly (TFTF).  The “Clerks” director had originally purchased two tickets for his original flight from Oakland in anticipation of Southwest’s “Customer of Size” policy, but flew standby and caught an earlier flight.  He was permitted to board, but then was ejected after he had already taken his seat for being TFTF.   He fought back via his Twitter page, rapid-fire tweeting,

If you look like me, you may be ejected from Southwest Air;  @SouthwestAir, go fuck yourself. I broke no regulation, offered no “safety risk” (what, was I gonna roll on a fellow passenger?). I was wrongly ejected from the flight (even [attendant] Suzanne eventually agreed). And fuck your apologetic $100 voucher, @SouthwestAir. Thank God I don’t embarrass easily (bless you, JERSEY GIRL training). But I don’t sulk off either: so everyday, some new fuck-you Tweets for @SouthwestAir.

Among other media outlets, Nightline picked up Silent Bob’s anti-Southwest tweet-out and invited Golda Poretsky, an F-word reader and friend of the blog to appear last night — watch the clip with her here.  For your sanity, beware that everyone’s favorite anti-obesity nutjob Meme Roth also appears with some hackneyed shrilling about how fat people cause plane crashes with their “improper eating.”   Improper eating, indeed. I wonder if MeMe was able to squeeze in her four miles of running that day and therefore “allowed” herself to actually eat something before appearing on the 11:30 p.m. show.

I’ve blogged before about Kevin Smith’s decidedly conflicted views about his body and previous — and quite public — attempts to lose weight.  In his final blog post on the Southwest matter, Smith seems more concerned with the fact that he’s not TFTF than with Southwest’s discriminatory and vague policy for fat flyers.   The airline had initially offered Smith a $100 voucher — as if $100 sufficiently reimburses for the public embarrassment and ridicule — but after his Tweets was contacted by a Southwest representative named Linda, who explained that the problem actually lie with another passenger who was TFTF and Smith inadvertently got caught up in the melee.  Smith wrote:

Lots of folks still telling me to stop crying and lose weight – as if that’s what this was all about. Easier to tell the lie about the whiney Fatso than the truth that someone at Southwest fucked up. “Sure, someone fucked up, Lardo” You’re saying. “You and your fat gut! This is YOUR fault because you’re fat!”

Once again: I know I’m fat. The point of all this? I’m not too fat for Southwest Air, yet someone deemed me so. *sigh*

…And as pleasant as Linda was, clearly the notion of me going on Larry King scared the shit out of somebody over there.

I was very nice but very firm/clear with Linda: Southwestern needs to make this right. And “right” is Southwestern falling on their sword over a situation THEY CREATED and continued to mismanage for nearly 48hrs.

So I swore to Linda, up and down “Get me a document to sign, and I’ll swear on my child’s life and penalty of all I own that I’ll never sue your Airlines. But just PUT THE FUCKING TRUTH OUT THERE THAT I’M NOT TOO FAT TO FLY, AND THAT THIS WAS ALL AN UNFORTUNATE ERROR ON SOUTHWESTERN’S PART.”

Despite Linda’s reassurances that the situation was indeed accidental, Southwest still refused to admit that Smith wasn’t TFTF, which only further enraged the director.  And who can blame him?

I feel like a broken record with that stupid “But I could buckle and fit” shit. Pathetic, right? Grasping at any dignity straws. But that’s what you do when you’re kinda stripped of your dignity.

I could hear it in her voice: the sad frustration. Somewhere between the two phone calls, the bounty that was hinted at got a lot smaller. And while the apology is a little deeper now and more sincerely-worded than it was in the initial “apology” blog (thank you, Linda), it still infers that I need two seats to fly on Southwest Airlines.

I begged her to just put the truth in the about me and the seat belt and arm rest – at least admit you guys were wrong: that I wasn’t Too Fat To Fly. And while in phone call #1 it seemed promising, it didn’t happen. There was some standard corp-speak about how they’re going to examine their “Person of Size” policy, and how they know it needs change. I sincerely hope it does. That shit with the Girl on the flight was just heartbreaking and shameful.

But to be honest, I was looking for a little exoneration so I didn’t have to keep exonerating myself. And while Linda was kind and respectful, if they’re gonna stick with this “Well… he needed two seats…” shit, then we’re just back to square one.

You guys screwed up, SWA; why’s it so hard to own up to it? Now I’m gonna carry this Too Fat To Fly shit around like herpes for the rest of my life, and it was never even true.

So, Linda: I appreciate the effort you made, the time you spent with me on the phone, and the work you put into this. You, too, were a reasonable cat during our conversation.

But wrapping up with a repeating of that 2 seat policy (the one THAT HAS NO BEARING ON MY CASE) is a reminder that you guys haven’t learned anything: you’re still blaming it on the Fatty. Still, you tried. Thank you for that, Linda – and for being human.

As an occasional flyer (who fits comfortably in one seat, even on Southwest), I know how uncomfortable it can be to be seated next to someone who doesn’t quite fit entirely in their own seat.  But with 60 percent of Americans overweight or obese, is the problem with the paying customer or with the fact that Southwest’s shrinking airline seat?  Consider this:  Southwest requires any passenger who cannot comfortably lower the arm rests  to purchase another ticket.  Seat width on airlines is generally measured between the inside of the arm rests, but Southwest includes its armrests in its 17 inch “Customer of Size” policy, so that when you factor in the cushioning on the armrests, their seat width is actually more like 15 inches.  Seats on Southwest are 7-14 percent narrower than its other domestic counterparts, which tend to be 18 inches on average and even 20 inches wide, and much narrower than on other international airlines — even those that cater to clientele who tend to be disproportionately thinner than Americans!  In fact, a standard seat in a movie theater (about 18-20 inches) or on a New York subway (18 inches) is roomier than a seat on Southwest’s airline.   To put the airlines’ small seats into even further perspective, I have a 17 inch laptop that just meets Southwest’s grade.

Sure, sure… cramming people in like legless sardines is what helps keep Southwest’s tickets cheap for the masses, but as Kevin Smith points out, Southwest is blaming and financially penalizing the customer for IT not being able to adequately and comfortably meet the needs and realities of its passengers.  Southwest is promising to “examine” its “Customer of Size” policy, but as Smith points out again in a follow-up Tweet, they’re only doing so because they happened this time to piss off a celebrity who has the ability to get airtime on Nightline and Larry King.

I’ll let Silent Bob have the last word here: “Hey @SouthwestAir? Fuck making it right for me just ’cause I have a platform. I sat next to a big girl who was chastised for not buying an extra ticket because ‘all passengers deserve their space.’ Fucking flight wasn’t even full! Fuck your size-ist policy. Rude…”

I love me some Whole Foods’ vegan General Tso’s chicken, but I seem to have lost my appetite after reading that Whole Foods is discriminating against its fat employees by offering their thinner coworkers as much as a 10 percent additional employee discount.  Jezebel has the scoop.

Whole Foods CEO John Mackey explains the program in a letter, reproduced below. Apparently it’s part of an initiative to reduce health care costs, which is interesting since Mackey is against the health care reforms that would actually reduce costs for all people.

Note that Mackey knows BMI isn’t a perfect measure of health, but at least it’s cheap! Even more fun, though, is the poster for the new Healthy Discount program, breaking down exactly what BMI range his minions need in order to get various discounts on his Tofu Pups.

If your BMI is above 30, you’ll get to keep the original 20% employee discount, but you’ll paying more than your thinner co-workers, who can knock as much as 30% off. Because if public health research has taught us anything, it’s that reducing people’s buying power totally makes them healthier. Stay classy, Whole Foods.

(copies of the announcements are available after the jump)

To put this into perspective: to receive the maximum 30 percent employee platinum discount, a 5-foot-4-inch Whole Foods employee would have to weigh less than 140-pounds and a 6-foot employee less than 177-pounds.  That is, of course, assuming they also meet the attendant platinum levels cholesterol, smoking and blood pressure requirements.  And because this is all in the name of health, say that same 5-foot-4-inch employee meets all the cholesterol, smoking and blood pressure requirements of the platinum level but they weigh 175-pounds, which means that they have a BMI of 30.  Their added discount?  Nada.

Whole Foods is careful to point out that they’re not penalizing employees who do not participate or who do not meet their admittedly “imperfect” bio-markers for health — all employees will keep their basic 20 percent discount — but, in effect, they are penalizing these workers by selectively rewarding those who hand over their private medical files and meet incentive requirements.  Whole Foods CEO John Mackey cites an attempt to curb rising health care costs as the impetus for the program, but do the ends justify the means?  Ironically, the company’s plan to slenderize employees by dangling before them an organic carrot may actually work to increase health premiums in the long run.  Remember that many an eating disorder begins as a simple diet and desire to “eat healthy.”  Now consider that eating disorders alone cost U.S. companies about $3.8 billion a year in lost productivity.

By rewarding a BMI of 24 — a full point below what is considered the benchmark of “overweight” — Whole Foods is not-so-subtly indicating its preference that a lower BMI is better and ideal, thus contributing to an atmosphere in which employees who do not meet this standards are made to feel ostracized and targeted.  These blanket standards also ignore genetic, gender, age and ethnic differences across groups, thereby directing this sense of corporate hostility, however passive, toward those employees who may already be among the most vulnerable in the workplace: minorities, women and senior citizens.  Would we tolerate this kind of “incentive” if it were directed at other groups of workers?  Consider this: in at least half the states, marital status isn’t a condition protected by state or federal anti-discrimination laws.  Many other states, like Ohio, are “at-will” employment states, meaning that workers can be fired without just cause (so long as its not based on unlawful discrimination, which even then must be proven).  Whole Foods could also save a lot of money both in terms of productivity and health care costs if they offered similar incentives to employees who make the “lifestyle choice” to remain single, childless or who limit their family sizes to a number that’s more cost-effective for the company’s bottom line.

Absurd!, you gasp.  Unfair!  A person’s marital or parental status has nothing to do with their work performance!

Exactly.

Read the rest of this entry »

An Examined Life will continue this week, but I wanted to bring to your attention a very important matter with political implications for all Americans.  Last week the Supreme Court effectively deregulated the American electoral process by striking down a century-old ban against corporate spending directly on political campaigns in federal elections.  With that 5-4 decision, the court, in essence, has transformed the highest offices of the land into an auction to be controlled by the likes of Exxon, Big Pharma and Wal-Mart.  The ramifications of the decision cannot be overstated.  As the New York Times sums up in its excellent editorial:

As a result of Thursday’s ruling, corporations have been unleashed from the longstanding ban against their spending directly on political campaigns and will be free to spend as much money as they want to elect and defeat candidates. If a member of Congress tries to stand up to a wealthy special interest, its lobbyists can credibly threaten: We’ll spend whatever it takes to defeat you.

…The majority is deeply wrong on the law. Most wrongheaded of all is its insistence that corporations are just like people and entitled to the same First Amendment rights. It is an odd claim since companies are creations of the state that exist to make money. They are given special privileges, including different tax rates, to do just that. It was a fundamental misreading of the Constitution to say that these artificial legal constructs have the same right to spend money on politics as ordinary Americans have to speak out in support of a candidate.

This decision touches upon nearly every facet of Americans’ lives, but in particular for readers here, it has the potential to affect causes near and dear to our hearts.  A quick rundown of what may loom in the near future:

• Corporations like Johnson & Johnson, who have huge and multiple stakes in the weight-loss industry, have long fought to fight to have obesity classified as a disease, for if obesity is a disease or a mental illness, government and private insurance will be forced to cover products and treatments for its treatment.  Groups like the American Obesity Association–which is supported by the pharmaceutical industry and commercial diet-mongers like Weight Watchers and Jenny Craig and also advocates obesity to be classified as a disease–have gone so far as to argue for “fat taxes” to be leveraged against fat Americans.  In 2008, Johnson & Johnson alone posted annual sales of $63.7 billion.  If the company directed less than 3 percent of those earnings to political lobbying, they will have spent more than the combined 2008 presidential campaigns of Barack Obama and John McCain — which in itself was more than double the amount spent by both candidates in the 2004 election.* With the court’s overturn on corporate electoral spending, how long before corporate interests masquerading in doctor’s smocks are allowed to dictate treatments and taxes that support only their bottom line ?

• Proposals have already been made to develop and adopt national standards for company-run “wellness plans” with tax incentives and credits given to companies based on whether or not their employees meet “wellness objectives” such as weight, blood pressure, blood sugar levels and other arbitrary levels of health as defined by people with no otherwise right to peek into your medical file.  Corporations, of course, like this proposal because it offers them a relatively inexpensive return on investment — simply adopt a government approved wellness plan and then either not hire or fire those employees who don’t meet the new government health standards.  With the court’s overturn on corporate electoral spending, how long before corporations lobby their candidates of choice to make this proposal the law of the land?
• Last year, Congress finally passed H.R. 1424, which among other things provides equity in the coverage of mental health and substance use disorders by ensuring that group health care plans do not charge higher co-payments, coinsurance, deductibles, and impose maximum out-of-pocket limits and lower day and visit limits (provided that they offer mental health coverage).  The bill is set to take effect this October.  With the court’s overturn on corporate electoral spending, how long before Big Health Insurance Corporations lobby Congress to enact laws and amendments that erode at this coverage

In response to the ruling, Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fl) has filed five campaign six campaign finance bills to secure the people’s “right to clean government.”   The bills have names like the Business Should Mind Its Own Business Act and the Corporate Propaganda Sunshine Act. The first slaps a 500 percent excise tax on corporate spending on elections, and the second mandates businesses to disclose their attempts to influence elections. More details are available on the congressman’s Web site.  Grayson’s also created an online petition to support these bills moving forward and becoming law.  I urge you to lend your support in rescuing democracy.

* The candidates spent a combined $1.7 billion in the 2008 U.S. presidential election, according to Bloomberg.

From the station that helped destroy the Gosselin’s marriage comes a new series called “One Big Happy Family.” The series, which premiered last month on TLC, documents the efforts of a black North Carolina brood, in which all four members weigh in at more than 300 pounds, to slim down. The show’s producer, Mike Duffy, likened it to the TLC show “Little People, Big World,” saying that “One Big Happy Family” is instead “about big people living in a little world — fat people living in a skinny world.”  Show clips are available here.

The Boston Herald calls it “TLC’s latest attempt to exploit a family for ratings.” Monsters and Critics says, “Trainwreck reality TV doesn’t get much bigger than the TLC effort, One Big Happy Family.” Variety says, “One Big Happy Family joins a TLC lineup that often seems devoted more to pithy titles than anything else.” And a CNN report last week drew attention to “big” concerns whether or not the show is “potentially exploitive of the family, whose ‘fat and happy’ attitude has drawn comparisons to the comedic Klump family from the Eddie Murphy film ‘The Nutty Professor.’”

Granted, the Cole family’s attempts, at times, can seem like buffoonery. For instance, in the clip above, the family is shown eating a voracious amount of pancakes, which mother Tameka says the family can work off later with a walk around a local water park (an excursion undoubtedly suggested by show producers). Once there, they indulge in a big, sugary piece of funnel cake. Chairs break beneath their weight and the family is turned away from a water park ride for their size. But weight-loss reality shows are, by their very nature, exploitive, which begs the question of why the sudden concern and criticism over this weight-loss reality show.

Read the rest of this entry »

Wow, Washington Post advice columnist Carolyn Hax really delivered the one-two punch to a smug, fat-phobic reader today!  The subject, adapted from a recent live chat, initially arose from a person who wanted to know how to deal with the occasional snide comment or hostile stare from others in an elevator directed at someone who uses the elevator to go up or down one floor.  This letter writer points out that they have friends with “invisible disabilities” and was torn in wanting to speak out.  Another reader chimed in and admitted to being one of “those” people and justified their indignation by self-righteously pointing out that “Obesity is a huge problem that’s going to continue to consume health-care resources. Why shouldn’t getting a little exercise start in the workplace?” Carolyn replies:

Why should it start in the workplace? Why do you get to decide when or whether I (or anyone else) should get exercise? Who says the person you’re judging is a lazy “obesity epidemic” contributor vs., say, an eating disorder survivor, or PCOS (polycystic ovary syndrome) sufferer — and who says someone obese via behavior isn’t already facing the problem in the gym before work?

And, to name just a few hidden disabilities: multiple sclerosis, muscular dystrophy, asthma, arthritis, tendinitis, heart conditions, recent illness or surgery . . .

And, to name a few reasons I’ve chosen to fly vs. walk: Maybe my feet hurt. Maybe the stairwells are hot and I don’t want to get sweaty. Maybe I’m late.

And maybe you don’t understand the definition of a toxic person. You’re taking your own choices, deeming them righteous and then making baseless judgments about other people based on that righteousness. Seriously smug.

The letter writer then replied back, surprised at Carolyn’s response, and suggested that she (Carolyn) was overreacting in her assessment of him/her.  Carolyn shoots back:

I think it was fair, or I wouldn’t have posted it. I’m glad you wrote back, and allowed me to explain: Those “silent judgments” are not harmless, they’re deeply polarizing, and dehumanizing. You just declared that fat people should take the stairs, without considering that maybe it’s not so simple and maybe it’s not your place to draw that conclusion.

And given the terrible schisms currently running through society, I think we all have a moral obligation to put our silent judgments under a microscope and ask ourselves whether we’re in fact part of the problem. Civility starts inside us.

A rich thing to say, I know, after what you probably regard as my uncivilized attack on you, but there’s one form of intolerance I’m willing to defend, and that’s intolerance of intolerance.

Word.

Spam.  It’s the bane of anyone with an email address.  We all loathe and despise it, but does anyone actually buy the often ridiculous and over-the-top products being shilled?  It  turns out that when it comes to weight loss spam, young adults who think they’re fat swallow it en masse.

Researchers Joshua Fogel of Brooklyn College and Sam Shlivko of New York Law School conducted a survey of 200 New York college students about their experiences with spam email for weight loss products (published here in the January edition of Southern Medical Journal).  Participants were asked, “Do you believe that you have weight problems?”  One-third answered that they did and responses were then compared along those lines.  Keep in mind that the study only asked for a yes-or-no response as to whether someone believed they had a weight problem, meaning that this group could have realistically included both students who are certifiably fat or those who just think themselves the size of a landbarge.  Of those students who reported to have weight problems:

• 85 percent said they had received weight loss spam over the past year, compared to 73 percent of those without weight problems

• 42 percent opened and read spam email advertising weight loss products versus just 18 percent of those without weight problems

• 19 percent said they had bought a weight loss product from spam — as did five percent (!) of those without weight problems.

Researchers also measured participants’ psychological stress according to the Perceived Stress Scale and the Rosenburg Self-Esteem Scale.  Not surprisingly, students who reported weight problems had lower self-esteem and higher perceived stress, which, in part, influenced their proclivity to open, read and purchase weight loss spam.  In all, after adjusting for other factors, students with reported weight problems were about three times more likely to receive and open weight loss spam and to buy the products pitched.

So, what’s the big deal, some might ask.  We’re constantly bombarded with the mantra that “diets don’t work” and the only thing these students have to lose is their money, right?  Wrong.  As Fogel noted in his report, there is no quality control for products advertising in spam emails.  The current law on dietary supplements gives the FDA jurisdiction only after the products go on the market.  And instead of reviewing the supplements and approving them for sale, as the agency does with drugs, the FDA is limited to spot-checking manufacturers and distributors and testing products already on store shelves.  In February, the agency issued warnings for 70 weight loss supplements found to contain unlisted and potentially dangerous ingredients — see the complete list here.  And this list, most of which are imported from China, represents only a teensy tiny fraction of the dangerous and often ineffective diet pills available in what is a $1.7 billion dollar a year market.  The FDA itself admits that it simply does not have the resources to identify what may be hundreds of other drug-contaminated weight-loss supplements for sale. Some spam emails even advertise and sell prescription medications without requiring proof of a valid prescription.  And not addressed in the report is the more alarming consideration that responding to weight loss spam only reveals what may be a larger and more shadowy pattern of disordered eating and fad or yo-yo dieting, all of which take their toll on health and may even ironically lead to even greater weight gain.

Products purchased via weight loss spam can also take a blow to one’s pocketbook and even credit ratings.  Since posting my expose on one acai berry diet scam more than a year ago,  responses — 139 as of this posting — continue to trickle in from duped buyers who report being scammed charged hundreds of dollars in unauthorized expenses for “free” trial offers and when they call to cancel, either find that the customer service number has been disconnected or are put on hold for an ungodly amount of time by agents who often refuse to refund their money and sometimes even to cancel their orders altogether.

Researchers note that the findings indicate that young adults with weight problems are “apparently not seeking or not satisfied with evidence-based treatments available from physicians… or other health care providers.”  And therein lies the problem, for as physicians, scientists, researchers and specialists admit, there is no proven way to make — and keep — fat people thin.  The National Institutes of Health and other studies show that, on average, 95-98 percent of people who lose weight gain it back within five years. Only 2-5 percent of dieters succeed in keeping their weight off while 90 percent of those gain back more weight than they lost.  Even those who undergo weight loss surgery mostly become less fat, with weight regain rates both high and common.

Trust me.  If some virtuoso discovers that enchanted unicorn horn dust will magically whittle our waistlines, he/she would be hailed as a global fat-fighting hero, invited to the White House for a few cold ones (all lite, of course), awarded the Nobel Prize amidst international fanfare and be secretly masturbated to by MeMe Roth.  Insurance companies everywhere would cover these miracle pills in full without reserve; they’d be added to the water supply with fluoride and the government would pass them out like candy.  But as the old adage cautions us, if it’s too good to be true — and it’s peddled by spam-mongers — it probably is.  My advice?  Invest in a good spam filter and save yourself some time, money and sanity.