Commentary on obese people on London Times | Golden Skate

Commentary on obese people on London Times

Medusa

Record Breaker
Joined
Jan 6, 2007
Here

Just tell me if I am overreacting - but isn't this incredibly offensive? And I don't just mean the comments by the readers, the author's opinion itself seems to be, well, offensive?
 

76olympics

On the Ice
Joined
Mar 4, 2004
Nope, I think this type of article almost defines unnecessary.... and I am not obese. I wouldn't mind losing that last pregnancy 10 pounds that never did disappear ( son is 14!), but I haven't had to struggle with this issue. And I do believe that heavy people struggle; they aren't lazy or uninformed. If someone is over 100 pounds overweight, they are well aware of it and articles like this are just mean- spirited to me. This is a personal issue between the individual and the doctor; why does the press or the public for that matter need to "intervene."

Weight issues can increase the chance of health issues ( those healthcare dollars!) , but everyone does things that increase their health issues. Thin folks smoke,drink and sky-dive...
 

Dee4707

Ice Is Slippery - Alexie Yagudin
Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 28, 2003
Country
United-States
Interesting article. I didn't know what a stone was so I looked it up --- 1 stone is 14 lbs. I don't know if you looked at the comments below but one said....smoking helps you lose weight.
 

Tonichelle

Idita-Rock-n-Roll
Record Breaker
Joined
Jun 27, 2003
smoking helps you lose weight.

my grandmother picked up the habit after 15 years of not smoking because she felt she was 'too fat' (I must look like an overstuffed cow to her, actually she has made comments like that recently... hmmmm)

it's so stupidly frustrating.
 

Wicked

Final Flight
Joined
May 26, 2009
This article is interesting to me because I am a social worker. It states that the children were not removed for weight issues but does not give any other reason for their removal. That is amazing.

One of the major causes of obesity, at least in the US, is poverty. People in poor neighborhoods have limited access to transportation and often the nutritional quality of food in their local grocery stores is sorely lacking. Another problem is that processed food is usually cheaper than things that are more healthy for you like produce.
 

Medusa

Record Breaker
Joined
Jan 6, 2007
One of the major causes of obesity, at least in the US, is poverty. People in poor neighborhoods have limited access to transportation and often the nutritional quality of food in their local grocery stores is sorely lacking. Another problem is that processed food is usually cheaper than things that are more healthy for you like produce.
But those problems are probably really limited to the US. Great Britain and most Western European countries are so densely populated that nobody has limited access to transportation, you can get everywhere by public transportation - often the distances are so small, that you can even go by bike.

I heard about the expensive fresh food in the US. Is that really true? I have a friend at university who lived in Annapolis for 6 months, and she was shocked how expensive fresh fruits and vegetables are. She said that eating fast food is a much cheaper way to live there.
 

Buttercup

Record Breaker
Joined
Mar 25, 2008
I heard about the expensive fresh food in the US. Is that really true? I have a friend at university who lived in Annapolis for 6 months, and she was shocked how expensive fresh fruits and vegetables are. She said that eating fast food is a much cheaper way to live there.
My own experience - which I must point out was some time ago - is that the problem is not always the cost of produce but the cost of fresh, high quality produce. If you buy your fruit and veg from a farmer's market or an organic producer or the like, you can get very good food and while it won't necessarily be cheap, I doubt it will be pricier than in many European countries. Of course, you can buy Ramen noodles or Campbell soup, and that will always be cheaper.

As far as I can tell, the problem is that many people in the US only have access to supermarket produce, or can't afford to buy elsewhere. This means buying fruits and vegetables that are often transported over huge distances and designed to look as good as possible rather than taste as good as possible - and it's just awful. I don't know about the situation in Germany, but I'm used to eating mainly locally grown produce, and even if it's not organic, it's still generally good. Meanwhile, there were some fruits and veggies that I just couldn't bring myself to eat in the US. It was just disgusting, and I fully understand Americans who would rather not eat such things.
 

Medusa

Record Breaker
Joined
Jan 6, 2007
I don't know about the situation in Germany, but I'm used to eating mainly locally grown produce, and even if it's not organic, it's still generally good. Meanwhile, there were some fruits and veggies that I just couldn't bring myself to eat in the US. It was just disgusting, and I fully understand Americans who would rather not eat such things.
I also often eat locally grown products, e.g. the supermarket where I mostly buy, it's just around the corner, is part of a large chain, but they always offer products from the region. I live right on the border to the Netherlands and there is a big farm in the Dutch village next to us - the supermarket always sells their potatoes, tomatoes etc. And it's really quite cheap, probably because they only need to transport the products 1 kilometre. There is also a store in the city centre that sells products from the mountain region that borders Aachen. Also not expensive.

But there are a few vegetables that I don't like to buy in Germany, avocados, aubergines (the dictionary says "eggplant" in American English)... Those are vegetables that always tasted so good in France, but somehow Germany doesn't buy those where France buys them. Plus, they are also more expensive in Germany then in France.
 

Johar

Medalist
Joined
Dec 16, 2003
Alot of places in the USA aren't accessible without driving. Even in my small town you can't walk to Wal Mart, which is the only store that sells groceries. There are no sidewalks to it and if you tried to walk in the grassy area you would be in a ditch, then have to climb over a few property fences. It's not possible at all to walk to it.

Many cities like Indianapolis, Indiana, have little public transportation.
 
Joined
Mar 14, 2006
If you look at obesity as a disability, it's a health and identity-politics issue and people are victims. If you look at it as an addiction, it's a behavioral issue and people need to take responsibility for it. That is, until addiction too becomes a disability and health-identity politics issue and addicts are victims too. :sheesh:

There are lots of overweight middle-class people but I can't deny there's a big poverty connection. I used to be so poor I bought a lot of my food from 99-cent stores, and let me tell you, there is tons of cheap pasta, sweets, and processed food in those places - and absolutely no fresh produce. LOTS of people in poorer neighborhoods depend on those stores. I also did a lot of work with soup kitchens and food pantries, and the nutritional quality of their offerings is on the whole very low.

I don't know what the answer is. It's depressing! But I don't think the answer is not talking about it or banning the word fat or denying people's responsibility for their lives. Comments on media sites are rude and anonymous. The problem is much bigger than this particular article, and the article doesn't disturb me at all.
 

Medusa

Record Breaker
Joined
Jan 6, 2007
If you look at obesity as a disability, it's a health and identity-politics issue and people are victims. If you look at it as an addiction, it's a behavioral issue and people need to take responsibility for it. That is, until addiction too becomes a disability and health-identity politics issue and addicts are victims too. :sheesh:

There are lots of overweight middle-class people but I can't deny there's a big poverty connection. I used to be so poor I bought a lot of my food from 99-cent stores, and let me tell you, there is tons of cheap pasta, sweets, and processed food in those places - and absolutely no fresh produce. LOTS of people in poorer neighborhoods depend on those stores. I also did a lot of work with soup kitchens and food pantries, and the nutritional quality of their offerings is on the whole very low.

I don't know what the answer is. It's depressing! But I don't think the answer is not talking about it or banning the word fat or denying people's responsibility for their lives. Comments on media sites are rude and anonymous. The problem is much bigger than this particular article, and the article doesn't disturb me at all.
soapbox.gif
Addictions are psychiatric illnesses, you know that, right? That's not just some joke or modern nonsense to make people feel better about themselves. Just like we know that genes can contribute to illnesses like depression, cancer, allergies, attention deficit disorder - we also know that genes can contribute to addictive behaviour. There are neurotransmitter imbalances in the brains of addicts, just like in the brains of depressive people.

I am not saying that people shouldn't take responsibility for themselves, on the contrary. Everyone should accept that we are all born with a certain set of cards in our hands, some can be assets, others can jeopardise our health and well-being - and some can do both. We all have weaknesses and strengths. How we play them, that's our decision.

So some people have problems with discipline as far as eating is concerned. That can count as a weakness (also as a strength of course). The author of the text basically said that fat people shouldn't complain if they are bullied for their fatness, because it's their own fault and they could change it. I find that statement to be outrageous. The only thing different about having problems with one's weight from other weaknesses / problems people have, is that it is a weakness, that's obvious to the world - everyone can see it.

But we only see one tidbit of this person, one weakness of a personality, that has probably myriads of assets, strengths and some weaknesses. How can it be right to judge someone just because of one tiny glimpse you get of him/her?

I have no problems with articles giving good advice, articles describing health problems that are connected with overweight / obesity. But this article was just nasty, the author took some extreme examples, put them together in a judgmental and patronising opinion piece, that seemed to have a near demagoguing effect on it's readers.
 
Joined
Mar 14, 2006
Look, I believe in being nice and not bullying, OK? But I also believe in free speech and personal responsibility and the ability to change. I think it's silly to look at this article in a vacuum. It's a drop of frankness about an issue that is often drowned in an ocean of political correctness, and it makes some real points that you can't see if you only see obesity in terms of genetics, rights, and victimhood. Maybe I'm living under a rock, but I don't see bullying of fat people as a big social problem - I see increasing normalization of obesity in the media, by clothing companies, and in everyday life.

There's been an inexorable trend in our society for everybody but white men to organize and demand special victims' rights. Oh, I forgot, they're doing it too! No doubt the obesity-rights movement will succeed too. But as the article pointed out, that movement and its defenders are ignoring the real victims here - the children. Moreover, the ideology of victimization is the opposite of empowering. Yeah, it's great to have "obesity rights" or whatever you want to call it - but what if you don't WANT to be fat any more?

Years ago I used to attend Overeaters Anonymous meetings, based on AA, NA, etc. Whenever you wanted to say something, you had to say, My name is XXX and I'm a compulsive overeater. That strikes me as a healthier approach to the problem. And there is nothing mean or uncaring about it.
http://www.oa.org/

ETA: Lest you think I'm trying to claim special authority by citing OA, I'm not and have never been obese, but I've always eaten a bit too much and used to be something of a binger.
 
Last edited:

Medusa

Record Breaker
Joined
Jan 6, 2007
Of course self-help groups are a great approach to find solutions for one self. That what I meant with constructive help, articles etc.

If someone can't get a job, where weight is irrelevant for the work, because he/she is overweight, then it is discrimination. If you are bullied, and discriminated against, then you are a victim. Just because your are at least partly at fault for your problem, that doesn't mean you aren't a victim. A motorbike driver who is paralysed after an accident caused by his own reckless driving, is still a victim. We don't throw him into the dirt and tell him that it's his fault, mock him, because he is in wheelchair now.

I have no problem with telling people that they need to lose weight, when I was supposed to talk to patients in the hospital about their weight issues, I was always rather blunt and straightforward (I don't do subtle). I told them about the problems, about the gains if they were to lose weight, about simple ways to increase their daily activity, about healthy food (especially elder widowers or elder men with sick wives don't have a clue about how to eat healthily). That's constructive advise.

The article was demonising fat people. As part of my studies I worked in a paediatrics practice, and I swear, I can't remember one mother who was obese / heavily overweight and who didn't care about her children and let them get overly overweight. That case described in the article is very rare, at least where I come from. And how many people do you know that think being obese is "totally fabulous and really healthy"? I maybe met about 2 people like that in my life, and as I said, I worked in hospitals, cardiology etc., with loads of overweight / obese people. Most of these people want to lose weight, have lost a lot of weight in their life, and gained it again, tried this and that.

This is like writing an article on cancer patients, and only taking nicotine-smoking alcoholics dying of hepatic and lung cancer as examples - but at the same time talking about all the cancer patients together as a whole.

And bullying is a big social problem, also for obese people. There are lots of chubby children and not all of those are chubby because they eat too much, sometimes children are just chubby and later in life are of normal-weight. Children love to tease chubby children, they bully them, exclude them from activities. That's really helpful, with the whole self-confidence thing. Children learn from their parents, when they can mock the fat neighbour lady, Junior can bully the fat kids at school, too. Chubby kids start hating all kinds of sports because they are mocked and bullied constantly during games and PE, often also by the PE teacher. This is not some fantasy of mine, traumatic PE as a child can spoil physical activities, especially in groups, for all your life.

You complain about the "increased normalisation of obesity" in society. What would be, in your opinion, the appropriate way of dealing with it? You can't tackle the problem if you make the concerned patients feel like greedy lazy freaks, who have no place in our society? And clothing companies only offering clothes for slightly overweight and normal-weight people can't be the way. "You are fat, better be ready to wear ugly clothes" Way to increase self-confidence!
 
Joined
Mar 14, 2006
Hey, Medusa, you don't have to like my opinions but please don't put words in my mouth. I didn't "complain" about the growing normalization of obesity - I mentioned it as the reality I see, as opposed to an increase in bullying. The normalization is simply a market-based response to an increasingly heavier market, IMO. Good manners and compassion are always good - I already told you I'm not in favor of meanness. So, no, Medusa, I'm not proposing a bullying campaign to tell fat people they're "greedy lazy freaks."

What I complained about and what the article complained about was the victims-rights approach to the problem (especially since it only focuses on the parents' rights and ignores the children). I prefer to emphasize responsibility and the ability to change, which I find more hopeful, socially positive, and personally empowering. I also value freedom (so I don't favor *forcing* people to eat properly), and that includes free speech, so I don't like seeing conservative journalists "demonized" (to use your word) by the left in the name of tolerance.

I'm not in favor of discrimination either, but a technically obese person as a fitness trainer for anyone but other obese people? Come on. IMHO, that seems like political correctness to the point of absurdity.

Obviously we don't agree and as I said, I really don't know what the solution to growing obesity is. And, since I have other things to do tonight, I think I'll leave it there. Peace!
 

heyang

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
I haven't read the link yet, but I do 'wonder' about the term obese at times.

Marilyn Monroe was a size 12. I wouldn't consider her obese.

I do think that part of the image problem is related to the ultra skinny models and celebrities. Courtney Cox is a beautiful woman, but I think she's too thin - at one time she was 115 pounds. That's what I weighed from high school until I was about 28 - I'm at least 3 " shorter, but wouldn't consider myself obese at that age. Isn't a size 2 a bit too slim for a woman that's over 5'2" in height?

I also recall the MJ autopsy report citing that he was a healthy 5'10" male at 130 pounds. Isn't that too light for a guy?

For me, as long as you're healthy and your general activities aren't limited by your physical condition and you're content with your appearance, then no one has a right to comment. Personally, I could lose 30 pounds, but I'm in general good health and take aerobics class and nothing's falling apart, yet.
 

Tonichelle

Idita-Rock-n-Roll
Record Breaker
Joined
Jun 27, 2003
I also recall the MJ autopsy report citing that he was a healthy 5'10" male at 130 pounds. Isn't that too light for a guy?

for someone his height I would say so... looking at the promotional videos for his show that he was working on when he died, he looked painfully (aka supermodel) thin.... nothing spectacular about that, and it's no wonder he was so tired... there was nothing to support the kind of hours/stuff he was doing.

I'm overweight... but I'm not blaming that on anything more than I know I'm being lazy. It's EASIER to go for fast food/do the overly processed foods...

when I was living at home and eating moose and fish and the like I was much healthier.
 

antmanb

Record Breaker
Joined
Feb 5, 2004
This article is interesting to me because I am a social worker. It states that the children were not removed for weight issues but does not give any other reason for their removal. That is amazing.

To be honest, that just the way that the sensational media operate and even the times is not above writing crap like this. To be honest I suspect that there are a number of reasons why the kids have been taken off them, not least that councils over here in the UK are still realing from the Baby Peter case where social workers failed to remove a baby from his mother and her boyfriend who had been physically abusing him all his life. It tragically ended with his death and the council tried to cover up the mistakes they made in handling the case and the repurcussions have been felt across all councils who are taking child neglect/abuse much more seriously and monitoring it extremely carefully.

One of the major causes of obesity, at least in the US, is poverty. People in poor neighborhoods have limited access to transportation and often the nutritional quality of food in their local grocery stores is sorely lacking. Another problem is that processed food is usually cheaper than things that are more healthy for you like produce.

That is exactly the same over here. A famous tv chef, Jamie Oliver, has done a lot of work in this area backed by then PM Tony Blair. He went into schools pointing out how bad loads of the food served was, did a reality TV show where he turned around the views of a cook in a school to cmoe round to his way of cooking healthy fresh food, and going ona campaign of banning chips (french fries) in schools.

The link kis there for all to see - the cheapest supermarkets and places that sell food in the UK for the cheapest price are selling overly processed, high fat, rubbish, but if that is the only thing people can afford to buy then they get stuck in a rut. Jamie Oliver does a lot of endorsement of a supermarket over here called Sainsburys and they have led the way (and forced other supermarkets to follow suit) in providing healthy fresh produce/meat at extermely low affordable prices. That together with tv programmes and campaigns for healthy eating seem to be doing quite well.

I'm not in favor of discrimination either, but a technically obese person as a fitness trainer for anyone but other obese people? Come on. IMHO, that seems like political correctness to the point of absurdity.

Ironically enough though, most male personal trainers that go in for the very muscular look end up being technically obese. My personal trainer pointed that out to me when he showed me the charts, more as way to show that simple BMI is a farce and doesn't take into account enough factors.


Ant
 
Last edited:

Wicked

Final Flight
Joined
May 26, 2009
Have you guys heard of the fat acceptance movement? I'm not sure if it's really gained much ground outside of the US. The main premises, at least as far as I can tell, are that if you're obese you need to just accept it and not try and change it, and that it can be perfectly healthy to be obese, even excessively obese. They say that trying to lose weight is a waste of time, only supports the weight loss industry, and that most people do not keep the weight off. They also deny studies that show a connection between obesity and health problems. If you Google "fat acceptance" you will find blogs about it. This is one- http://kateharding.net/. I would love to know what you guys think if anyone's interested.
 

prettykeys

Medalist
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Yeah, like many of you already said, a big problem in the US is the combination of fresh fruits and vegetables being expensive, low-quality, and difficult to access in many parts of the country. I couldn't believe it myself when I've gone travelling--and realized how lucky I am for living in an urban Canadian centre where farmland is not too far away.

On the fat/obesity issue:

This article is interesting to me because I am a social worker. It states that the children were not removed for weight issues but does not give any other reason for their removal. That is amazing.
Well...it sounds like it could be argued as a case of neglect or incompetence, which are valid reasons to take children away in other situations where obesity isn't the main consequence...no?

Addictions are psychiatric illnesses, you know that, right? That's not just some joke or modern nonsense to make people feel better about themselves. Just like we know that genes can contribute to illnesses like depression, cancer, allergies, attention deficit disorder - we also know that genes can contribute to addictive behaviour. There are neurotransmitter imbalances in the brains of addicts, just like in the brains of depressive people.

I am not saying that people shouldn't take responsibility for themselves, on the contrary. Everyone should accept that we are all born with a certain set of cards in our hands, some can be assets, others can jeopardise our health and well-being - and some can do both. We all have weaknesses and strengths. How we play them, that's our decision.
Yes...genes play a role in interindividual susceptibilities to all those things...but environment and personal pro-active approaches to controlling oneself are relevant to each of those things as well. For that matter, to choose an extreme example, an evil dictator could have been genetically predisposed (or even mentally sick) to be the way they are, and their upbringing will have contributed to it too, but that doesn't mean that demonizing them is morally wrong.

Focusing on addiction, a lot of people argue oversimplistically that genetics and physiological problems lead to chemical imbalances which cause the problem behaviours. I am not saying you are, Medusa, but this, too, is a defeatist approach along with the "Obesity Acceptance" movements or whatever. I thought Spun Silver had a balanced and fair evaluation of the issues.:think: Any kind of addiction is a complex mixture of genetic/physiological conditions as well as precipitating and reinforcing behaviours/attitudes. You may not be able to change your gene account, but your behaviours can change your physiology both directly and indirectly by modulating your genes! And as far as the neurotransmitter connection is concerned, one can develop neural associations to "reward" chemicals to many things, including eating. Learn to weaken those assocations, and you can control the impulsive behaviours that are a defining part of addiction.

However, bullying or ridiculing people are never good ways of helping to ameliorate the situation, as well as being morally wrong.

But we only see one tidbit of this person, one weakness of a personality, that has probably myriads of assets, strengths and some weaknesses. How can it be right to judge someone just because of one tiny glimpse you get of him/her?
I don't have problems with judgment. When I see a fat person, I can think of a million different reasons they might be fat; a few glimpses of their personality might indicate which reasons are likelier than others (and may also prove to be commendable anyway.) What's wrong with judgment? It's what people do with them that matters on the moral plane.

I have no problems with articles giving good advice, articles describing health problems that are connected with overweight / obesity. But this article was just nasty, the author took some extreme examples, put them together in a judgmental and patronising opinion piece, that seemed to have a near demagoguing effect on it's readers.
I agree. :)
 

Wicked

Final Flight
Joined
May 26, 2009
Well...it sounds like it could be argued as a case of neglect or incompetence, which are valid reasons to take children away in other situations where obesity isn't the main consequence...no?

In the US, before children are taken out of a home, the family is worked with extensively and all of it is documented. Social workers have to try and do everything to keep the family intact. To remove a child because of concerns about what the child was eating and obesity would be highly unusual here. The article did not mention there were other concerns about the children- like not attending school, thinking they were abused etc. Removing the child is seen as the last resort. Unless, like Ant said, there was a high profile case where clearly a child should have been removed from a home, the child wasn't, and it resulted in the child's death. That's when you see Child and Family Services around here coming in and taking kids out of the home more frequently.
 
Last edited:
Top