Why fatties say everyone's to blame but themselves

[Demi]

The Mail
London, UK
22 August, 2007



Why fatties say everyone's to blame but themselves

Being unhappy. Being happy. Friends who eat like a horse and never put on weight. Childhood admonishments to think of the starving in Africa.

These are some of the reasons the overweight give to explain their size because they are too ashamed to admit they simply eat too much, according to a study.

Researchers found there is such a stigma attached to being overweight that over-eaters are desperate to find something - or someone - else to blame.

The findings mirror comments by Hamish Meldrum, the head of the British Medical Association, who said patients were increasingly seeking weight-loss pills and surgery rather than trying to change their diet and do more exercise.

Karen Throsby of Warwick University questioned 35 patients who applied for such surgery on the NHS to discover why they felt it was the only solution.

She found there were three main types of excuses used by the overweight, according to a report published in the journal Social Science and Medicine.

The first was genetic, with many claiming they had a "fat gene" or that being big ran in their family. Others said they knew others who ate more than they did but never put on weight.

The second most common excuse was that the problem stemmed from their childhood. Many claimed relatives gave them food as a reward and others said their parents told them to eat up and think of the starving in Africa.

The third reason was that a stressful lifestyle had led to weight gain. Illness, divorce, bereavement and parenthood were all blamed for over-eating.

Women cited both happy and unhappy events as reasons for eating more and men said stressful occasions gave them a longing for beer, curry and fast food.

Miss Throsby said the excuses were the result of the way overweight people were pilloried by society.

"Those who become fat often find themselves needing to account for their size in order to refute the suggestion of moral failure that attaches itself easily to the fat body."

Colin Waine, chair of the National Obesity Forum, added: "Many patients seek explanations that absolve them, saying it's their genes or their glands. But in fact it's 99 per cent to do with food intake and lack of physical activity.

"Our genes haven't changed since before the Stone Age - yet obesity has escalated in the last 30 years."



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/dietfitness.html?in_article_id=476899&in_page_id=1798

[CVH]

:thup::thup:...........

[Gypsybyrd]

"Those who become fat often find themselves needing to account for their size in order to refute the suggestion of moral failure that attaches itself easily to the fat body."

True ...

Colin Waine, chair of the National Obesity Forum, added: "Many patients seek explanations that absolve them, saying it's their genes or their glands. But in fact it's 99 per cent to do with food intake and lack of physical activity.

"Our genes haven't changed since before the Stone Age - yet obesity has escalated in the last 30 years."


Uuuummmmm ... they forget other reasons - the type of food humans consume has changed.

Did this 'study' of 35 people (not a good sample size) how much these people ate or how much physical activity they engaged in? I know many people (myself included) who do not eat enough calories to sustain, under the current forumlas, yet they do nothing but gain.

For me the weight gain has to do with *what* I eat, not the quantity.

[OtherCher2]

True ...

Uuuummmmm ... they forget other reasons - the type of food humans consume has changed.

Did this 'study' of 35 people (not a good sample size) how much these people ate or how much physical activity they engaged in? I know many people (myself included) who do not eat enough calories to sustain, under the current forumlas, yet they do nothing but gain.

For me the weight gain has to do with *what* I eat, not the quantity.

Exactly! I never blamed anyone but myself for my weight. That said, however, the food pyramid that I attempted to follow for years was WRONG!

[pennink]

I am glad you mentioned the fact food has changed. Uh, HFCS anyone? didn't have that when gramma was kneading the bread.

And fast food, and cars, and fewer chances/reasons to walk anywhere... Come on, not recognizing the changes are stupid and this smacks of 'it's all your fault'. Well, guess what? Maybe it is, but we all had some 'help'.

[Mandra]

The first was genetic, with many claiming they had a "fat gene" or that being big ran in their family.


I was adopted. I was raised by a family of skinny people. My birth parents are both very overweight and the two siblings that I have met either are or have been very overweight. I didn't meet any of them until a few years ago.

Not saying that's the only reason I'm fat, but you can't tell me genes don't have a role.

[mike_d]

"Our genes haven't changed since before the Stone Age - yet obesity has escalated in the last 30 years."That's precisely why people shouldn't be consuming pasta, grains, and starchy tubers fried in trans-fats and washed down with pop or a milkshake.

Some indeed have linked the invention of HFCS to a rise in obesity. The sugar institute still insists any such evidence is just coincidental.

In our family only one out of the 4 of us has stayed slim even though we had similar meals growing up on a farm so I believe in a genetic component.

[Ayln]

Being overweight sometimes isn't just "simply eating too much" or a moral failing. Yes, it takes self-control to lose weight, but how much self-control comes from both nature (genes, hormones) and nurture (feelings of guilt for wasting food, eating habits, less chances to exercise).

Just looking at overweight as a moral issue is a dead-end. Many doctors already see it as a black-and-white issue: if you're not losing weight, then you must be lying about your intake and you must exercise and eat even less. Hypothyroid patients can attest to the frustration of having to find different doctors because they don't believe the patient is sick, just lazy and irresponsible.

That's not to say that there aren't people who do "simply eat too much," but this reasoning should not be applied to the ones who do make an effort and find it extremely hard to lose weight, for any reason. Besides, aren't four out of five people in this country on a diet, anyway? Makes me think there's something in the water. :P

[potatofree]

You gotta love articles like that. :rolleyes: It brings out all the warm fuzzies in people who like to dispense "tough love".

[pennink]

You gotta love articles like that. :rolleyes: It brings out all the warm fuzzies in people who like to dispense "tough love".


i often wonder if it's 'thin people's' way of saying... see? it won't happen to me cuz I know better. it all adds to the discrimination of those who are vertically challenged. (ie, Garfield- "i'm not fat, I'm just too short for my weight')

[Gypsybyrd]

(ie, Garfield- "i'm not fat, I'm just too short for my weight')

Oooooooooooh --- I've never thought of that ... I *am* short ... I'd have less to lose if I were taller ... :D:D:D:D:D :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[Terry-24]

Oh, good lord in heaven -- it's the Mail, not the most reliable source of news.

wiki hits it:
In the comedy series Extras a copy of the Daily Mail appears with the headline "Asylum seekers are eating our pets."

Cheers--
Terry-24

[EmmaB]

Karen Throsby of Warwick University questioned 35 patients who applied for [weight-loss] surgery on the NHS to discover why they felt it was the only solution.They ask 35 people who want weight-loss surgery why they think they're fat and the answer comes back as something other than "I eat too much and don't exercise enough". WOW! What a HUGE surprise! They are interviewing the very people who are choosing a non-diet and non-exercise way to try to lose weight! Talk about picking your sample to ensure the result you want to hear.

Now, the Daily Mail may not be the pinnacle of journalism, but my problem is with the actual study they're reporting on. Maybe all the study really said was "those seeking weight-loss surgery do not tend to take personal responsibility for their weight". If that's all it said, then okay. But if this skewed sample was used to make generalisations about the thoughts of overweight people in general, as the Mail article does, then I have a real problem with it.

And notice how the article (not sure about the study itself) calls each of them "excuses" thereby immediately discounting the possible validity of each reason.

Grrrrr bad science and bad reporting.

[EmmaB]

Okay so I did a little hunting and the actual journal article, in Social Science and Medicine, seems fairly reasonable.

doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.06.005

Abstract

In the context of the contemporary rhetoric of the “obesity epidemic”, the fat body is easily labelled as lazy, self-indulgent and lacking in discipline. Those who become fat often find themselves needing to account for their size in order to refute the suggestion of moral failure that attaches itself easily to the fat body. Drawing on a series of interviews with 35 weight loss surgery patients in England and Scotland, this paper explores the discursive resources and strategies available to those who are, or who have been, very overweight in accounting for their size. The paper argues that the participants drew on three core discourses in order to resist the construction of their fatness as an individual moral failure: (1) the fat-prone body; (2) childhood weight gain; and (3) life events disrupting weight management efforts.

Then from the first section of the article itself:
The second assumption underpinning the moral evaluation of the fat body is that obesity is a problem which is both preventable and treatable. The dominant representations of obesity reduce it to the simple physics of energy input and output, generating what David Ogilvie and Neil Hamlet describe as the “rational prescription” of reducing consumption and increasing levels of activity (Ogilvie & Hamlet, 2005). This prescription is made literal by Ogilvie and Hamlet in a paper published in the British Medical Journal, which includes a mocked up GP prescription for “Mr. E. Normous” to “eat less” and “exercise more” (Ogilvie & Hamlet, 2005, p. 1545). The presumed amenability of obesity to a “common sense cure” (Ebbeling, Pawlak, & Ludwig, 2002) of “lifestyle” interventions (Brownell & Horgen, 2004; Campbell, 2003; Ebbeling et al., 2002; House of Commons Health Committee, 2004; NAO, 2001; WHO, 2000) contrasts with the recognition of its complex multifactorial aetiology, and leaves those who are categorised as obese particularly vulnerable to the moral censure to which they are routinely subjected. This vulnerability is particularly salient for those having weight loss surgery (WLS), since they are (or have been), in general, at the more extreme end of the obesity scale, with their size rendering them literally more visible as the targets of ridicule and moral censure.

While the discourses of epidemic, crisis and individual moral responsibility in relation to obesity predominate, they have not gone unchallenged. Within the medical profession, debates about causation (and therefore, the degree of individual responsibility) are ongoing (see, for example, Keith et al., 2006). But there is also a growing body of critical obesity literature which poses a more fundamental challenge to the concept of the epidemic and its effects. This literature challenges the presumption that obesity is causative of ill-health (Campos, 2004; Gard & Wright, 2005), questions the validity of BMI as a measure of obesity/health (Burgard, 2005; Gard & Wright, 2005; Monaghan, 2007), and highlights the inefficacy and health- and esteem-damaging effects of anti-obesity interventions and campaigns (Aphramor, 2005; Campos, 2004; Evans, Rich, & Holroyd, 2004; Gard & Wright, 2005; Monaghan, 2005b; Oliver, 2006). From this perspective, the “obesity epidemic” emerges as a moral panic which is driven by ideology, and which is interpolated through the social relations of gender, class and race (Aphramor, 2005; Campos, 2004; Campos, Saguy, Ernsberger, Oliver, & Gaesser, 2006; Gard & Wright, 2005; Herndon, 2005; Monaghan (2005a) and Monaghan (2005b)).
And finally, far from rejecting the reasons given by the study participants, she finds in these reasons a valid rejection of the dominant discourse:
the participants, in their accounts, are enacting a quiet, but significant, resistance towards the dominant discourses of the proclaimed “obesity epidemic”, and in particular, to the prevailing assumption that fatness is something that they have chosen to “let” happen to them through a lack of will and self-discipline. While this lacks the spectacular resistance of size activism, for example, the very need for this discursive work highlights the moral and ideological foundations of the “war on obesity” and can be seen as a “point of resistance and a starting point for an opposing strategy” (Foucault, 1978, p. 101).

[gryfonclaw]

(ie, Garfield- "i'm not fat, I'm just too short for my weight')

Well, he could always cut back on the lasanga. And the Monday hating, cause quite frankly, he finds no sympathy with a person who works two jobs.

[potatofree]

That Odie is an enabler, dontcha know.

[OtherCher2]

Well, he could always cut back on the lasanga. And the Monday hating, cause quite frankly, he finds no sympathy with a person who works two jobs.

A fellow two-jobber! Hey, my personal belief is that people with only one job are slackers!

[mathmaniac]

The findings mirror comments by Hamish Meldrum, the head of the British Medical Association, who said patients were increasingly seeking weight-loss pills and surgery rather than trying to change their diet and do more exercise.

Karen Throsby of Warwick University questioned 35 patients who applied for such surgery on the NHS to discover why they felt it was the only solution.

She found there were three main types of excuses used by the overweight, according to a report published in the journal Social Science and Medicine.

The first was genetic, with many claiming they had a "fat gene" or that being big ran in their family. Others said they knew others who ate more than they did but never put on weight.

It does seem unfair that other eat more than I do but never put on the weight - let's say they DO put on the weight; they still take it off within days of overeating! My husband, for one.
It will never help my situation to complain about that. There are so many weight-loss theories out there but none so far that 'fix' that problem of inequality among dieters.
As I age, I look more and more like my fat, rotund Italian grandmother. The fact that I was skinny half of my lifetime (so far) doesn't change the perception that I am headed inexorably into fat old age.
I do think that low-carb dieting is the solution for me (my grandmother was also diabetic in her old age) but at the same time, I believe that 'calories in- calories out' counting is the simple solution to losing weight. This includes exercise since activity burns calories.
There are also differences in metabolism among dieters.
There aren't enough hours in the day to include exercise (very time-consuming) unless you make exercise your priority - for life.
Every day, I perform many activities. Most of them feel like work. And almost all of them are sedentary! Sitting in the car and driving is sedentary - and yet I can be extremely stressed out by the number of errands and the delays and obstacles I meet along the way, coming home exhausted from a busy day. In which I did nothing much but sit. Or stand in line, in place, or wait. Exhausted! I 'worked' so hard!
I blame life. That's why I'm fat.
Why do doctors prescribe statins? Because they know that you take a pill and your cholesterol goes down. Instead of badgering the patient to do all the right things to lower cholesterol, a pill accomplishes the same thing.
Easy.
Why are doctors going to start suggesting surgery for fat people more and more? Because it fixes the problem. Rather than badgering the patient to do all the right things to lose weight, surgery accomplishes the same thing.
Easy.
Why do I drive a car to all my appointment? Because it would take me all day to walk to 3 appointments and it takes me 30 minutes to drive. Easy.
That's life - you gravitate toward 'easy'.

[Muata]

That's life - you gravitate toward 'easy'.

I couldn't agree with you more mathmaniac, and I believe that this is a trait that we share as a species. I've read that during our hunter and gathering periods, we "chilled" a lot, especially after the hunt. Looking at the few modern hunters and gatherers, I believe this is true. Combine this with all the new food we, or the food industry, have introduced into our diet, the creature comforts of modern society, and boom you have the obesity epidemic we are experiencing on a global scale. IMO, all the technical advances we have made makes losing weight that much harder for us than, say, our grandparents or great-grandparents generation. The Industrial Revolution, invention of the car, refrigeration, etc. were all great leaps forward for us, but it has caused havoc on our waist lines. While I do agree with the calorie in/calorie out formula, I also realize that losing and keeping weight off in our modern society is far from easy and something that we have to work on daily.

And you know what really sucks? The more you lower your body fat percentage, the harder it gets, especially for folks who are genetically predisposed to be efficient at storing fat like I am and others on this forum.

[fujiwara]

Wow. People believe what experts tell them and it's still all their fault for being fat. How many articles have there been touting the latest fashionable thought that obesity is caused by genes/virus/bacteria in the gut/other fat people? It's all presented as science, too.

Gina Kolata (not spelled right) was preaching that people can't lose weight on her recent interview on NPR. Nope, they sure can't. No matter what diet they try, or how much will power they have, or anything else they try, they will fail because weight is genetic. The idea I got out of that interview was, "Why bother? I'll just end up fat no matter what! Sign me up for statins now!"

So the whole idea of helplessness is pushed from lots and lots of places. But when people actually believe this, they are branded as stupid and lazy. The logic escapes me. And this article and the "research" behind it angers me.

Glad to hear that this newspaper is less likely to be taken seriously than others who do actual research.

[gryfonclaw]

A fellow two-jobber! Hey, my personal belief is that people with only one job are slackers!

:lol: Me too!

Though, I've had two jobs for so long, I simply don't know what to do with myself when I had only one!


By the way, why in the hell does Garfield hate Mondays? He doesn't work. Heck, he doesn't even move a lot.

[pennink]

I'm a multi-jobber too....

I have a main job, then pick up freelance projects and contracts... I feel useless when I only have one paycheck!

[Gypsybyrd]

This is the first time I've only had one job - but it's 60+ hours a week ...