fattypatties

Tune in at 8p on Sunday, Feb 13 to the "Curvaceous Bounty of Sin City" net radio show and hear Pattie and Carl talk about sex and our book!

Fellow Pearlsong Author, Pat Ballard will be joining us as well!

This month, I am participating in a ReVolution! -- Every Monday in January I plan to write a blog post here about my life and how Health at Every Size℠ has changed my life for better. This is the fourth installment of five.

HEALTH AT EVERY SIZE℠ AND THE LIFESTYLE POLICE --
(OR WHY HEATH AT EVERY SIZE℠ IS IMPORTANT TO PEOPLE OF ALL SIZES)

John Kennedy did implement the President's Council on Physical Fitness, which offered students rewards for various achievements in phys ed. I remember winning badges for things like long-jumping and running 100 yards (I had the second best time in my school for a girl in 11th grade). But there was not a lot of rhetoric connecting the physical fitness program with specific diseases and the question of public health. Since the 1970s, "fitness" has become more and more about policing behavior and personal responsibility, not about the joy of movement or the achievement of milestones.

What shifted in the 1970s with the physical fitness craze that led to the 1980s shift into funding lifestyle programs rather than prevention programs, was a fundamental understanding of health. The Baby Boomers seemed to have got it into their heads (as a group) that they could control their health. Jogging became a national past-time. Gym memberships rose. The belief that it was a good idea to do some exercise every day for general well-being became a quest to ward off all diseases. If we just ate the right foods, got the right amount of exercise, didn't smoke, didn't drink, and was conscious about nutrition, we SHOULD NOT GET SICK. EVER!!!

Of course, what that meant is that the poor souls who do get sick are suspected. Catch a cold, you didn't build up your immune system. Had an accident, you didn't stretch well or warm up in exercising. Contracted cancer, well it was obviously something you ate. Have a heart condition, your diet must be laden with, well depending upon who is speaking, too much fat, too little of the right kind of fat or if you eat correctly then it must be your Type A personality.

What started off as a system of promoting general well-being became a blame-the-victim game that has basically divided the population into haves and have-nots of health.

And of course, couple this with fat prejudice (as well as other kinds of prejudice) and a ready-made excuse for bigotry is woven into the culture. Believe that all fat people are lazy, ugly or dirty (the usual bigoted indictments of "other" groups), that's okay, you just care about their health.

This mechanism is, of course, not limited to fat people. Everyone with lung cancer is suspected of smoking. Everyone with AIDS is suspected of sexual "perversion." Liver disease means you must have drank too much. And so forth.

The new part of that rhetoric is "costs" -- almost daily someone somewhere publishes a report that shows how much the bad habits of others are costing everyone.

At the heart of this rhetoric lies two assumptions that need to be examined:

1. We have control of our health.
   
   
   


2. We are personally responsible for our own health and no one else's.

I believe that these two assumptions are patently false, though each with a grain of truth (as most lies need in order to be believable).

It is true that we have influence over our health and if we do things to excess (including exercising too much or restricting our food intake and obsessing over it too much), we will hurt our bodies in the long run and as we get older in the short run. But we do not control our health in full.

One of the original fitness gurus, Jack LaLanne died last week at the age of 96. He live a long and exceptional life, but the fact is he still died. He didn't die healthy. He died. Of course, a lot of people are pointing to LaLanne's life as an example, but I suspect that genetics played a bigger role in his longevity than his supporters would like to admit.

Jim Fixx was one of the thought leaders in the fitness craze of the 70s. He was a well-known runner. He died while running at the age of 52 from a heart attack. In truth, given that heart disease ran in his family and his father died in his early 40s, Fixx may have added some years and even quality to his life through his running. But he died young just the same.

The point is that there are a huge number of factors that determine health: some are under one's influence, most are not. To decide that Jack LaLanne had the superior fitness program over Jim Fixx is to pretend that we are masters of more than we have a right to claim.

Who cost the health care system more? Fixx died young, supposedly sparing us from his old age and the care he would need. LaLanne needed heart valve surgery at age 95. Was he a burden to the system because he prolonged his life until his valve needed care? These are absurd questions, but they are the kinds of questions to which the lifestyle think and victim blaming of current rhetoric lead us.

That leads to why the second assumption is also bogus, but with a grain of truth. We live in our bodies and in those bodies only we know what it feels like. We know our pain and we know our joy in ways that no one else, even our most intimate of lovers can really know. We do owe ourselves care and loving ourselves is, in part, about taking care of ourselves.

But health is not singular. The air we breathe we share. The water we drink we share. Every plant and animal that becomes our food is affected by that air and water as well. We share the planet with bugs. Some of those bugs do us good and some of those bugs under specific circumstances do us ill. We like to think of our bodies are singular, but in fact we have colonies of other creatures who share our body and some of those creatures like the bacteria that lives in our intestinal tracks are necessary for us to function. Where do we end and the bugs begin? Where do we end and the air begins? Where do we end and the water begins?

Carl Sagan once wrote, "We are star stuff." We are the elements and we will return to the elements. All matter does.

This inter-connectivity means that some health problems are better solved at a level different than the individual. Politics, pollution, climate, economics, personal relationships, stranger relationships, historical and sociological contexts affect our health and well-being.

We cannot calculate the cost of the contraction of disease without making some really big and fallacious assumptions. We are assuming that whatever condition or disease that is being examined is preventable and that the incident of that disease could have been prevented. This is always an estimate and it is always speculation.

Calculating the cost divides us and presents some of us as a burden to others of us.

And calculating the cost assumes a set price for our health that is never negotiable or questionable. Health "costs" do not occur spontaneously out of the mouth of some god somewhere. "Costs" are "charged" by people for services supposedly delivered to other people. Want to reduce costs? Charge less or pay less for medical services.

So how does Health at Every Size ℠help us with this understanding of health and the current lifestyle police mentality that essentially want to fault and make victims pay for their "crimes" against the healthy.

The Association for Size Diversity and Health offer 5 Principles of HAES℠:

1. Accepting and respecting the diversity of body shapes and sizes.
   
   
   


2. Recognizing that health and well-being are multi-dimensional and that they include physical, social, spiritual, occupational, emotional, and intellectual aspects.
   
   
   


3. Promoting all aspects of health and well-being for people of all sizes.
   
   
   


4. Promoting eating in a manner which balances individual nutritional needs, hunger, satiety, appetite, and pleasure.
   
   
   


5. Promoting individually appropriate, enjoyable, life-enhancing physical activity, rather than exercise that is focused on a goal of weight loss.

Accepting that people are diverse is a good beginning. Jim Fixx was a different person from Jack LaLanne. Both of these men were a different person from my great-grandfather who lived to be 99 years old, weighed 300 pounds when he died and probably never ran a mile in his life (though I'm quite sure he did his share of physical labor on the farm).

Personally I'm glad the world is full of diversity. I'm easily bored and without the wonderful diversity among us, it would be a really boring place.

Health and well-being are multidimensional and we sometimes choose one thing over another. I like playing poker. But I hate second-hand smoke. Even so-called non-smoking poker rooms are full of smoke because they are rarely cut off from the rest of the casino. I could not play daily, but I enjoy it enough to take the smoke every once in awhile. The exposure is limited but I know it is damaging just the same. Life is full of dimensions and complexities and no one can really draw a straight line of cause and effect with most health-related experiences.

The principles laid out are simple. They suggest that promoting well-being should be about acceptance not creating restrictive and constrictive rules that probably will not have the intended impact.

At the heart of these principles is a belief that all people deserve to be given a chance to show what they are made of -- all people deserve dignity.

The lifestyle policing and cost analyses come from a position of power and control. They are not about good health but about passing the burden on to someone else. They are about blame.

So perhaps you think that because you are average size or smaller this is not an issue for you. Well, the lifestyle think is what drives health care costs. Pre-existing conditions are a brainchild of this way of thinking. Dropping your insurance when you get sick is "only right" in a world where people are to blame for their illnesses. More and more companies are demanding fitness tests of their employees. Better not get too many colds because your boss might decide you ate too much candy or didn't work out enough and compromised your immune system. He will be able to fire you because you are costing the company too much in labor costs and insurance costs for having that cold.

The really sad part of this myopic view of health is that the real problems of pollution, poverty and daily stress are not being addressed. By ignoring the real problems we are making them bigger. You may be worrying about losing weight today, but ignore pollution and global warming and your children may be worried about how to find food for you in your old age.

Adopting a Health at Every Size℠ view of the world can contribute to a broader understanding of health and the major factors that contribute to health as well as creating a more just and sound basis for addressing those factors. Allowing fat people (or any group) to be scapegoated in the name of cost-cutting and blaming will open the door to anyone being blamed for their illness or disability.

First They came... - Pastor Martin Niemoller

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists ,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

I'm excited about kicking off a new blog at the Psychology Today website. The blog is called "I Take Up Space" and is about the consequences of fatism. The site has millions of visitors each month, so I'm hopeful that it will become an outlet for discussing Fat Studies as an emerging field and promoting sociological perspectives on these issues as well.

I write about the failure of New Year's Resolutions and the Moral Panic of the War on Obesity in my first effort.

(Please forgive my cross-posting if you read me in more than one place.)

Had a great time chatting with NotBlueAtAll this week and you can listen in through the magic of podcasting. We talked about THE book and the current project.

This month, I am participating in a ReVolution! -- Every Monday in January I plan to write a blog post here about my life and how Health at Every Size℠ has changed my life for better. This is the second installment of five.

CORRELATIONS, CAUSES AND EFFECTS

So a lesson in the modern scientific method before I get personal:

The news media loves to report about scientific studies in absolute terms. Such and such "causes" cancer or diabetes or "fill-in-the-blank-scary-disease-or-condition." Most scientific studies do not purport to establish such a strong or absolute relationship. In fact, NO SINGLE STUDY CAN EVER ESTABLISH CAUSE AND EFFECT. Here is why:

Only in rare cases is the establishment of cause and effect so solid that it can be stated in an absolute. However, science can help make a case for or against cause and effect by applying the scientific method. If enough studies are done using solid scientific methodology, then a very strong case can be made that one thing causes another thing. But three conditions have to be satisfied in order to make that case:

The "cause" has to occur in time before the "effect."

This may seem obvious, but establishing a time line is more difficult than it may appear. Just because something was observed in time before something else doesn't mean it occurred before. It just means a human paid attention to it. In medicine and health this can be particularly difficult because when a condition gets to the point of diagnosis it probably has been around for a while.

But this still remains one of the three criteria for making the case for cause and effect, so many things in health are never going to be established as anything more than related to each other.


A change in the "cause" must be met with a consistent and significant change in the "effect."

This is called correlation. It is probably the simplest and easiest criteria to establish in cause and effect because of the advances made in statistics in the 20th century. Basically, this relationship has to be tested with a sufficient enough data sample to produce results that cannot be explained by mere coincidence or random chance. So it has to be repeatedly demonstrated (which is why no one study would ever be able to solidly establish cause and effect) and that demonstration must be shown to actually be testing what it claims to test.

Small sample sizes, poor measurements or bad data collection means that correlations are not established. Data quality is very important. This includes how questions are posed. When money is involved (and it is always involved), one should take extra care to review how data collection occurred because this is where bias can be seen most often. Throwing out data that doesn't match, skewing questions and measuring techniques towards a particular conclusion and other types of biases can undermine the case made for correlation.


Once the first two criteria are established there must be NO OTHER EXPLANATION for what is being observed

That means that all other explanations should be considered and certainly that is the best reason why no one study or even a group of studies can "prove" cause and effect. All other explanations must be explored. This includes explanations about which the originators of the study can't or didn't think when they did the study.

Alternative explanations are the meat of science. It is where the debate occurs and out of it is how useful things get discovered and created. But it takes time and money to do this right, so this is where most things get subverted.

Each one of these conditions is necessary to establish a case for cause and effect. NONE of these things are singularly sufficient to establish a case for cause and effect. Yet day in and day out the news media uses the word "cause" when reporting scientific studies.

Why would news media so consistently get it wrong? Well, because, for the most part, instead of hiring a science journalist with a strong background in whatever field of science the news story comes, who can critically read the study and write intelligently about it, they just copy and paste press releases from research institutions. Often it is verbatim. So why would research institutions use the word "cause" so easily? Because, again, the person working in the public relations office is not concerned with science as much as they are with further funding and the word "cause" is often more exciting than the phrase "correlated with."

Cause is sexy. Cause sounds like a big discovery. Cause means something important has occurred with this study.

And, of course, there is also the problem in health of when do we move forward even if we can't establish cause. Epidemiology is the use of demographic information (prevalence and incidence of disease) to see patterns in diseases that allow health care workers to act effectively even if a cause and effect hasn't been firmly established. This works especially well with communicable diseases that are airborne or water-born because cutting off and quarantining the patient or the water source may in fact stop the spread of disease even if no one knows exactly which virus or bacteria is causing what. But there are definite limits to epidemiological methodologies. It does not work as well with diseases and conditions that have multiple factors.

What all this means is that you and I as both health care and media consumers have to be especially vigilant in receiving this information.

So what does this have to do with my life with HAES℠?

Before I understood these things, like many others in our society, I accepted what doctors and news media told me about my health and well-being. I figured that the system was basically honestly trying to help.

I have since learned that to be healthy I need to practice a healthy bit of skepticism. So short of becoming a biologist or spending all my waking free time researching this information, what can I do to ensure my own health?

This is my answer: Trust My Body!

Yep. And that was a big request from someone who spent a good 30 years trying to live up to an ideal that didn't fit my body. That was a big request from someone who's body is now broken from those years of trying. But I stand by it.

Science is useful but it is NOT THE ULTIMATE TRUTH. Science is a tool and like all tools, it can be used for good or for evil. Like all tools, it is only as good as the person's hands in which it resides. Like all tools, it is not perfect and can and will be improved through human effort.

Each of us has been issued a physical presence. This is a remarkable thing we have. It takes us places. It interacts with it's environment with or without our awareness. It is sensitive to and gives warning of danger. It feels pleasure as well as pain. It generally knows what it needs when it needs it and that need may or may not make sense rationally.

Health at Every Size℠ is an approach that has much scientific support, most notably, Linda Bacon's study that compared dieting versus non-dieting approaches. But like all science, Health at Every Size℠ should be studied with the skepticism and scrutiny that makes good science. In my own research, I have found that the relationship between health and size doesn't hold up to that skepticism and scrutiny well.

However, I am an advocate for Health at Every Size℠ for more than scientific reasons. My body clicks with this approach. When I was constantly dieting, I become sicker and, frankly, crazier with each dieting experience. There was no peace between me and my body. In the 10 years since I have been practicing HAES℠, I have discovered a trust in my body that has served me well. I don't fight it and even on days when I am ill and don't have the physical strength to be my most productive, I know that my body knows best.

So I invite you to learn to trust your body as well. It is a lifelong journey that begins with a simple premise: Only I know what I feel. But I assure you it is a better way to live.

Previous installments:
1. DIETING MY WAY INTO DISABILITY

FAT LIBERATION MANIFESTO

1. WE believe that fat people are fully entitled to human respect and recognition.

2. WE are angry at mistreatment by commercial and sexist interests. These have exploited our bodies as objects of ridicule, thereby creating an immensely profitable market selling the false promise of avoidance of, or relief from, that ridicule.

3. WE see our struggle as allied with the struggles of other oppressed groups against classism, racism, sexism, ageism, financial exploitation, imperialism and the like.

4. WE demand equal rights for fat people in all aspects of life, as promised in the Constitution of the United States. We demand equal access to goods and services in the public domain, and an end to discrimination against us in the areas of employment, education, public facilities and health services.

5. WE single out as our special enemies the so-called "reducing" industries. These include diet clubs, reducing salons, fat farms, diet doctors, diet books, diet foods and food supplements, surgical procedures, appetite suppressants, drugs and gadgetry such as wraps and "reducing machines".

WE demand that they take responsibility for their false claims, acknowledge that their products are harmful to the public health, and publish long-term studies proving any statistical efficacy of their products. We make this demand knowing that over 99% of all weight loss programs, when evaluated over a five-year period, fail utterly, and also knowing the extreme proven harmfulness of frequent large changes in weight.

6. WE repudiate the mystified "science" which falsely claims that we are unfit. It has both caused and upheld discrimination against us, in collusion with the financial interests of insurance companies, the fashion and garment industries, reducing industries, the food and drug industries, and the medical and psychiatric establishment.

7. WE refuse to be subjugated to the interests of our enemies. We fully intend to reclaim power over our bodies and our lives. We commit ourselves to pursue these goals together.


FAT PEOPLE OF THE WORLD, UNITE! YOU HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE ....

By Judy Freespirit and Aldebaran
November, 1973

Originally Published by the Fat Underground,
Los Angeles, California USA
copied from Largesse Archives

Please share this with others to honor a life well lived. We will miss you Judy Freespirit.

MICHAELA HAD SUCH A LARGE RESPONSE THAT THE SURVEY CLOSED IN A LITTLE OVER 3 DAYS! -- SHE SAYS THANKS FOR THE SUPPORT!

============================

Michaela Null, a doctoral student at Purdue University is looking for individuals who are interested in volunteering to participate in her study on the "embodiment of size-accepting fat women, with attention to the ways in which gender, race, orientation, and body size intersect" (from her website):

If you are interested in volunteering to participate in an interview, I ask that you take an electronic informational survey, which will take approximately 5 minutes. Please go here and complete the informational survey. After all survey data is collected, participants will be selected for interviews, which will be conducted in-person, by phone, or via internet video chat, and will last between an hour and an hour and a half.

Participation is voluntary and participants must be at least 18 years old.

This project has been approved by my university’s Institutional Review Board, which protects human subjects of research. I will provide confidentiality to all volunteers and participants will be referred to by a pseudonym in all research documents.

If you have any questions regarding this study, you can contact me at mnull@purdue.edu. For more information on me, you can access my university profile. You can also contact Professor Eugene Jackson, Assistant Professor of Sociology at Purdue University, at jacksone@purdue.edu.

Sincerely,

Michaela A. Null, Doctoral Student in Sociology, Purdue University