Wise Up on Weight in Vogue

by Chelsea Heuer

Jeffrey Steingarten is my new favorite person. I just read You Are Not What You Eat, an article he wrote for April’s Vogue. Mr. Steingarten is among a handful of journalists and writers who are attempting to deflate the weight loss myths that are rife in today’s culture. An excerpt:

“The flood of diet articles has several harmful effects. Pretending that losing weight is easy and really fun stigmatizes the overweight for choosing not to lose weight, for remaining weak and self-indulgent. It encourages people to feel that their own bodies are in pretty awful shape. Both the industry and its supporters in the press are playing on the desperation of people who hate how they look in the mirror. Pandering to their unrealistic hopes. Making weight loss into one of the central goals of life.”

Steingarten discusses the inconsistencies between what Americans are led to believe about weight loss via magazine articles and other just-out-to-make-a-buck sources – that everyone can control their weight if they just eat the right foods, do the right exercise, and pop the right pills – and what, according to science, is the truth about weight loss: that genetics and biology account for most individual differences in weight and that our increasingly “obesogenic” environment is responsible for population increases in weight over time.

New York Times journalist, Gina Kolata, visited the Rudd Center last week to discuss her book Rethinking Thin: The New Science of Weight Loss- and the Myths and Realities of Dieting, which illustrates these same inconsistencies. (She recorded this podcast with Kelly Brownell.)

So my question is: How many failed weight loss attempts, how much disregarded scientific evidence, how many dollars spent on recycled diet advice is it going to take for Americans to wise up on weight loss?

The sad answer is, maybe never. As long as magazines continue to print their ‘just do this and you’ll lose weight’ lies, as long as anybody and their grandmother can whip up a diet pill, advertise it, and sell it, and as long as the media continues to assail us with images of waif-like bodies, Americans’ top ambition will remain the same: getting thin.

Imagine a world where sound scientific evidence, rather than advertising and product sales, directed our body ambitions. This would allow us to shift our focus from weight loss and quick fixes to health and healthy behaviors. Then perhaps Americans would be healthier, happier, and a lot less confused.

Comments

[Ang]

"So my question is: How many failed weight loss attempts, how much disregarded scientific evidence, how many dollars spent on recycled diet advice is it going to take for Americans to wise up on weight loss?"

A great question, Chelsea. My take on the answer is that it won't happen unless we stop holding each other accountable to these medical improbabilities.

For example, take a 17 year-old girl who is "technically overweight" on the BMI scale or at the doctor's office, or whatever measurement. Her feelings of not measuring up, of not being good enough, are not solely from within. In real life, every day, she will be held accountable for her size - reminded of it in subtle and unsubtle ways; be forced to "apologize" for it, even if figuratively so; made to try, try, try harder, even if that's not physically possible.

All I mean to say by this is that we need to think not only about how we hold ourselves accountable for our size, but also how we hold others accountable.

This was a great post, by the way. Very thought-provoking.

I lost 50 pounds and I've managed to keep it off for over a year. So have many, many others in the National Weight Control Registry.

We are not myths.

We are real, live people.

Stop pretending we don't exist.

[Mark]

Yes, fat people are mostly stuck with being fat, because they have bad eating habits that they acquired since childhood: that's what made them fat. Short term gratification from eating is more important to them than the long term benefit from health and mobility. For most people, for the most part, those bad eating habits are acquired from childhood and environmental. These habits are no different than other hard-to-shake habits, such as bad money management.

The goal is to prevent fat people from happening in the first place by concentrating on environmental changes for children. (Unfortunately, one of the most important environmental influences, the eating habits of parents, is getting worse and worse.)

I think most of us who are concerned about obesity would be more than satisfied just to roll the clock back 20 or 30 years, or roll things back to the way they are now in Japan. Japan shows that it's possible for a nation not to be fat, and to do so without an eating disorder epidemic and with our current genetic makeup.

[Mara]

There's more complexity to obesity than we admit. For instance, many people do lose and keep off weight. But many more - the vast majority, in fact - do *Not*. Consider actress Carnie Wilson: she had bariatric surgery, lost a huge amount of weight - but now it's creeping back. Even with Wilson's considerable resources she's failing at weight loss - like most obese people do. (And why should we hold up the *relatively few* "successes" who lose weight as some sort of "proof" that it can be done)? This is not compassionate, let alone even rational! Some people also defy the odds and survive after contracting a particularly lethal cancer. Does this mean much for the *other 90%* who die from the same disease? Not really. I also think: how strange that people in the 1950's happily drank whole-fat milk, ate *un-lean* red meat at almost every meal (and were probably less conflicted about dessert than we are). This, despite obesity rates climbing only quite recently. Kids, *these days* are not only heavy but also often on heavy medication (for ADHD, depression, anti-anxiety, and so forth). These potent meds often cause *adults* to gain weight - what are they doing to children? Do we really know?? I'm not anti-med, but we have to look beyond food and exercise now. I think we need to be more humble about obesity until we know much more about it. We need to look at obesity with fresh eyes, *for a change*.

It's interesting to look at the reasons WHY people desire more than anything to lose weight, and why society scorns those who are overweight.

It's the media, advertising, and people who profit from selling weight loss products that drive us to believe that our bodies are infinitely malleable - that anyone can be whatever size and shape they want to be.

Why don't people realize that these messages aren't true, that they are profit-driven lies?

It's one of society's biggest misconceptions - that being thin and perfect is possible for everyone.

Chelsea, you are qouting an obese food critic whose job is to eat a few diferent entrees at EACH of the numerous different restaurants each week. You are talking about an individual who has vacillated between a vegan diet (yes, Steingarten was once a vegan) and a diet of cream, red meat, butter at the top restaurants in the world.

All the food critics, restaurants owners, chefs, etc are primarily overweight or obese or at least have elevated cholesterol and/or blood pressure. Not to mention they are at risk for numerous types of cancer. In fact, there is a fascinating article written this week by Kim Severson at the NY TIMES about top chefs and restaurant owners losing weight. Here is the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/dining/19fat.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Then, you qoute Gina Kolata, an individual who has no nutrition or physician training, a person whose job almost requires her to write about controversial topics (and if there is no controversy available, then create it)

You yourself create the inconsistency in your own blog post here:

"according to science, is the truth about weight loss: that genetics and biology account for most individual differences in weight and that our increasingly “obesogenic” environment is responsible for population increases in weight over time"

This is simply incorrect Chelsea. The science demonstrates that the environment (diet and exercise) is far more important than genetics. Chelsea, if it were due to genetics, then why do poor white people have two to three times the rate of obesity? Why does Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, West Virginia have the highest rates of obesity? Why do black women have a rate of 80% overweight in the U.S. but affluent black women in parts of Africa have a rate of 15% or less!?!?!?

Chelsea, where are you getting your science from? Peer reviewed journals? The consensus among all the top scientists? Or food critics and sensationalistic, unscientific writers (i.e. Kolata)?????

Chelsea writes in her blog:

".....is the truth about weight loss: that genetics and biology account for most individual differences in weight and that our increasingly “obesogenic” environment is responsible for population increases in weight over time."

Ummm, this makes little sense Chelsea. You first state that genetics is primarily responsible for weight differences but then make the statement that the obesogenic environment is responsible for weight increases over time. Sorry, grossly unscientific statement. One that someone who has little or no understanding of biology, science, and genetics would make.

Genetics is an extremely complex field, even for those scientists studying it on a daily basis. But this concept is very east to understand and every person working in the size acceptance movement needs to understand this:

SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IN THE GENE POOL TAKES THOUSANDS OF YEARS.

Obesity has TRIPLED in the last 30 years.

[Sarah]

Genetics may be complicated, but there is no inconsistency in Chelsea's statement that genetics is mostly responsible for individual differences in weight and that our obesogenic environment is mostly responsible for shifts in our population's levels of obesity.

One way to think about it is to picture a normal distribution or bell curve. Genetics largely determines where each person falls on that curve, so most people are somewhere around the average, and fewer people are out on the high and low extremes. The unhealthy changes in our food/activity environment have the effect of shifting the entire distribution upward. This means that the average weight goes up, and most people are heavier compared to the original distribution, but the people who are genetically predisposed to be slimmer are still on the low end, and the people predisposed to be heavier are still on the high end. The gene pool doesn't have to change. The changes in the population levels of obesity come from the environment helping so many people to reach the high end of the potential weight range that is made possible by their own genetics.

There is a similar interaction of genetics and environment that affects intelligence. Everyone has a range of potential that is determined by genetics, but where you end up within that range is determined largely by your environment. Living in an environment that promotes education pushes people to reach the high end of their potential, and living in a deficient environment pushes people to the low end of their own potential. We can see shifts in population levels of intelligence when more emphasis is put on promoting access to quality education.

Back to obesity... Author William Saletan wrote a great article for Slate.com describing a recent study by Jane Wardle and her colleagues published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. Saletan is a personal responsibility advocate, but he doesn't ignore or misconstrue the scientific evidence. In his article, he tries to reconcile the debate over the relative contributions of genetics and environment to obesity. Here is a link to Saletan's piece, which provides a link to Wardle's abstract in AJCN:

http://www.slate.com/id/2184517/pagenum/all/#page_start

[Chelsea]

My statements about the genetic and environmental causes of obesity are not in any way "grossly unscientific".
Science supports the fact that genetics and biology account for individual differences in weight. Furthermore, changes in the food & exercise environment over time are a widely accepted and plausible reason for the increase in rates of obesity over the last several decades.
As someone above mentions, there are unfortunate disparities in obesity along race and class lines that can also be partly explained by environmental differences between rich and poor areas.
Back to the point of the blog, which is not to get into a discussion about the causes of obesity... I'm happy the writers like Steingarten and Kolata are exposing the weight loss myths that are pervasive in today's society - I hope that the effect of their work will be to help the American public think about the reasons why we're so obsessed with weight loss and to become more savvy when it comes to the consumption of weight loss products and information.

One more thing... I fail to see why it matters whether food critics, chefs, or anyone else is overweight or not overweight. I find these comments offensive and unrelated to the topic at hand.
Jeffery Steingarten wrote a great article, and for that, he's my new favorite person.

Chelsea incorrectly writes:

"Science supports the fact that genetics and biology account for individual differences in weight. "

This statement implies that genetics play a greater role than lifestyle factors; the scientific evidence does not support this statement. In fact, this hypothesis, espoused by the National Size Acceptance Association and similar organizations for 30 years has been disproven by the top epidemiologists in the U.S, U.K., China, etc. These include names such as Sir Richard Doll, Sir Richard Peto, Michael Marmot, Walter Willet, Meir Stampfer, Michael Thun and hundreds of other epidemiologists. Some of what you are saying is true (yes, supplement companies misrepresent the time and effort it takes to lose weight) However, you want to qoute a conservative republican (Steingarten), a food critic whose job is to eat the most saturated-fatty, rich foods on the planet, and an author who has no medical or nutrition training and is well known among nutrition and public health scientists to be pro-pharmaceutical and anti-lifestyle changes (ironic because she herself works our excessively - hmmm, does she have her own psychological issues and guilt about her own exercise disorder????)

You are attempting to assert that obesity is 15 times greater in the U.S. than in Japan and China because of Americans having an obese gene?

You are asserting that obesity has tripled in the last three decades because of poor genes?

One can provide one hundred more examples that nutrition and exercise is the overwhelming predmoninant reason for 30% of Americans being obese but you are in denial and don't want to believe it.

Chelsea, where's the scientific evidence? Obesity rates were 15 times lower 100 years ago and three times less just thirty years ago.

Please present the scientific evidence that recent surge in obesity is due to genetics. You can't because there is no scientific evidence.

Step back for a second and look at what you are basing your argument on. You and the poster Sarah are basing your argument on a food critic who make no mistake about it, is as culpable as Mcdonalds in the obesity fight. Food critics and greedy chefs like Rachel Ray make a living marketing the idea of fatty, greasy, indulgent food three times a day. Look at Rachel Ray's show about eating three meals for under $40 dollars. Have you ever seen what she eats? ANYONE would become obese eating like that!

Make no mistake about it, Emeril, Rachel Ray, food critics, Mario Batali all are as culpable as the CEO of Mcdonalds, Dunkin Donuts and the soda companies. In fact, I would argue they are more culpable. Rachel Ray has the audacity to paradoxically serve on Bill Clinton's board for the foundation for a healthier american while at the same time making millions pushing donuts for Dunkin Donuts (via commericials)
Wake up Chelsea! Start thinking out of the box. If you care to curb obesity at all, then you would understand that food critics are incredibly biased and part of the problem. Their living depends on people gorging on the most unhealthy greasy foods.

Sarah qoutes a conservative republican (Salaten) and also incorrectly confuses genetics and lifestyle factors.

The baseline for which to compare our current obesity rates is not 1980 when obesity began to skyrocket in the U.S. The baseline for which to compare obesity is Japan where obesity rates 25 yrs ago were at one half of one percent. Who are the one half of one percent? Are they the ones born with bad genes? No, in fact, except for certain medical conditions which are extremely rare, those who are obese in Japan are the ones who eat like Americans.

The baseline to which to compare obesity is 0% obese. No one in the world should be obese. Those who take prednisone and gain weight because of the side effects is extremely rare.

These arguments by the blogger Chelsea and Sara are weak and no different than the ones the poster "Mara" has made for the last year or so.

You guys use anecdotal evidence, literary pieces by individuals who have never published a study nor have never had any nutrition training, and from republicans who believe the problem is personal responsibility.

It comes down to this, do you want to join the side of people who are extreme, out of the mainstream, and unscientific or join the consensus of the top scientists in the world who have published tens of thousands of studies (Stamper and Willett have published 2,000 studies alone)?

Yes, yes, yes...it's true that obese people are discriminated against and this is wrong.

Its true that obese kids are picked on and it is wrong.

It's true that obese women are not featured in enough TV commericals (for example, many of Mcdonalds customers in real life are overweight or obese but in the commercials they are thin, super attractive models)

Yes, I too empathise with obese people( I was obese) and it hurts me to see friends, relatives, etc. struggle with obesity.

Sticking your head in the sand and ignoring that this is the greatest health threat in the U.S. and Europe and incorrectly stating that genetics play a large role, is only going to cause a delay in curbing obesity which in turn will lead to more suffering and premature deaths.

Claiming a disease is genetic in origin takes the responsibility away from society and the individual to address the problem. It also incorrectly diverts already limited research money from lifestyle factors to genetic, biomedical and stem cell research. All this will do is delay significant action.

[Mara]

Chelsea writes: "I'm happy the writers like Steingarten and Kolata are exposing the weight loss myths that are pervasive in today's society.." Agreed. How can obesity truly be understood when it is wrapped up in so many myths? For Vogue's article, Steingarten approaches the topic seriously, yet writes with a "light" touch. He addresses both biology and the environment in a fair way. It's a great article. Of course, the very next article in this issue features two female designers, who were somewhat overweight. With Vogue's help, they appear to have become supermodel-thin. They look pretty and successful, now. Clearly weight-loss *Is* possible. And, it Certainly Helps if you aren't *very* overweight to begin with, and you have Vogue assisting you with fabulous, prepared meals and high-quality personal trainers. (Also: if you are female and work in the fashion industry, the pressure must be particularly intense to be thin). Of course, the newly svelte designers insist they lost their weight due to health reasons, mainly. I can sort of believe that. Still, I think appearance is the underlying and real reason for most weight loss. I feel ambivalent, at best, when I think of all the intense pressure on people - especially women - to be very thin. Or Get very thin. If you can do this, then everyone assumes you are healthy (but really, it's just as much a factor that you won't "offend" people with how you look if you are tiny).

There is a crystal clear difference between anorexic thin and thin. People with a BMI of 18.5 or under are considered to be anorexic.

People with a BMI of 20 or 21, if they got there by exercising in healthy manner and by eating in a health manner is ideal. Millions of women in the U.S. are jealous, envious, unfortunately even angry at women who fall into this category. Some will even go so far as to say women who have a BMI of 20 or 21 are actually unhealthy - they say this not because they really believe it but because they don't want to accept it. It's denial, jealousy, self-hate all wrapped into one.

Steingarten should stick to what he does best, eat a ton of unhealthy food and write about it. A food critic who has written for years about the wonders of chocolate cake laden with heavy cream and butter and eggs and shortening, liver pate, prime rib, fried frog legs dripping with butter, should not be writing an article on nutrition science. I think any rational person would agree with this.

It's also interesting that some of the posters are qouting a magazine (VOGUE) who has been promoting stick figure thin for decades. Now one man comes along and writes ONE article that incorrectly supports your position and you are start qouting VOGUE as if it was a peer reviewed scientific journal read by the top scientists in the world.

[MR]

All:

Thou hast no right but to do thy Will.

Chelsea writes,
genetics and biology account for most individual differences in weight and that our increasingly 'obesogenic' environment is responsible for population increases in weight over time.

Let me see if this can be teased apart ...

Both of these statements are true, but they seem to be in opposition: if environmental influences are responsible for population increases, then genes "shouldn't" be a meaningful factor. The problem is that when most people hear that "genetics and biology account for most individual differences in weight," they imagine that it means that something in overweight peoples' genes makes them gain weight no matter how little they eat or how much they exercise, and this simply is false. There are no escape clauses on the laws of thermodynamics. Rather, the genes that influence individual body weight are genes governing precisely the predisposition to eat more Calories -- principally, how strong a reward the dopaminergic and other systems in the brain receive and reinforce in response to the taste or other effects of high-energy foods are, how strong the appetite is.

That is: yes, there are genes that predispose toward weight gain -- but the way that those genes create that predisposition is simply by encouraging people to eat more. Contrary to the impression that the irrational arm of the "fat acceptance" lobby would like propagate (I mean here the folks who pretend eg. that being overweight isn't bad for you, as opposed to those folks who simply want to end the ridiculing and discrimination against people on the basis of their weight), overweight people are heavier than slim folks not because they have a magical physiology that makes them gain weight on low-Calorie, healthy diets, but because they consume more Calories and/or exercise less. The role of genetics is to shape brain pathways that make it harder for some people, and easier for others, to maintain their Caloric intake within reasonable bounds, because of variations in the desire to eat, and to eat high-Calorie foods.

This is all covered well in a couple of free-access, full-text review articles from the scientific literature, to which I hope people will turn before arguing further, unless they are themselves credentialed physiologists with a specialty in weight regulation:

----------------
"most obesity in the modern world is a natural biological response to a changed environment and that innate body-weight regulatory mechanisms have been overwhelmed by energy-dense diets and sedentary lifestyles ... all of the monogenic defects leading to obesity so far discovered operate on neuroendocrine pathways involved in the regulation of energy intake rather than energy expenditure ... "

Prentice A.
Are defects in energy expenditure involved in the causation of obesity?
Obes Rev. 2007 Mar;8 Suppl 1:89-91.
PMID: 17316309 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1467-789X.2007.00325.x
----------------
"The results of these studies show that obesity is not primarily due to energy saving mechanisms; it can be inferred from these data that the positive energy balance that leads to obesity is mainly due to an excessive energy intake."

Jequier E, Tappy L.
Regulation of body weight in humans.
Physiol Rev. 1999 Apr;79(2):451-80.
PMID: 10221987 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
http://physrev.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/79/2/451
--------------

Love is the law, love under will.

-Michael

[MR]

One of those links didn't come through properly -- try this:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-789X.2007.00325.x

... or:

http://tinyurl.com/3exx2c

[Mara]

MR writes: "There are no escape clauses on the laws of thermodynamics." But you don't mean, do you, that everyone who eats and exercises the same will lose the same amount of weight? Or be able to keep it off (or not) the same?
MR writes: "Rather, the genes that influence individual body weight are genes governing precisely the predisposition to eat more Calories -- principally, how strong a reward the dopaminergic and other systems in the brain receive and reinforce in response to the taste or other effects of high-energy foods are, how strong the appetite is." If this is so, then how are people who have a very strong "dopaminergic" system tied to food supposed to stop overeating? Surely, calorie restriction is Not the answer - even "normal" restricting, such as with diets like Atkins and so forth - (let alone CRON). It's been repeatedly established that diets do not work (I suppose if people could stick to them, they might work, but we blame people, not diets, which might be the mistake). Dr. Rocchio (who often blogs on this site) supports 12-step groups as the answer - but, again, this is a system not likely to work for most people who struggle - for various reasons. Extreme systems are not, imo, the answer, for the average overeater. Also: what about other factors? I cannot believe that weight is *solely* tied to calories consumed and expended. We all know those people who can eat as they please and Never gain weight. (Some actually retain this "ability" even after adolescence and early adulthood). Conversely, others seem to put on the weight quite easily.
The drive to (over)eat is beyond will in many cases, I think. I think that exercise is possible - but not the kind of exercise that will cause great weight loss, short of a person *also* being on a very restricted diet. And, then, we are confronted by the fact that diets don't work because people can't stick to them.

[Robin]

Mara,

Behavioral modification of any kind is very, very difficult.

Smokers find it difficult to quit smoking.

Drug abusers and alcoholics have a hard time giving up addictive substances.

I've even met gamblers who cannot seem to give up gambling even when it's destroying their families and robbing them of everything they hold dear.

However, this does not change the fact that the behaviors are harmful and must be changed if these people are to improve their lives.

I'm not saying obesity is the same as all these other things, but it does have some striking similarities.

CRON may not be the answer for everyone. It was for me. 12-step programs work for some. Others swear by Weight Watchers. But as you rightly point out, many have not found something that works for them.

Does that mean they should just give up?

Should alcoholics and drug addicts and compulsive gamblers and smokers give up trying to quit engaging in a behavior that ultimately hurts them just because it is difficult?

Also, "difficult" and "impossible" are two different things. I failed to lose weight many times before I found something that worked for me. At any point along the way, I could have just thrown up my hands and said, "This is impossible!" But I would have been wrong.

I'm not trying to be glib - I won't pretend losing weight and keeping it off is easy. And I don't think my experiences are the same as everyone else's. But I do think it's important to keep on trying.

As Kate Hepburn told Humphrey Bogart in "The African Queen":
"Human nature is what we were put on this earth to rise above."

[Mara]

Robin - your achievement of losing 50 pounds is really wonderful - and I think you deserve to feel proud of your success. No doubt about it. The problem is - for people who are morbidly obese - they cannot necessarily lose their weight and sustain that loss. Can they improve health in other ways? I think so. Just eating better and exercising is key. People diss Gina Kolata, but I appreciate how she explains, clearly, the *real* issues at stake for someone who is morbidly obese. Can the average person, who has never carried 150 or 200 extra pounds Truly know what such a person is up against? The fact is: most morbidly obese people have Tried Repeatedly to lose weight. Dozens of times! And they Have succeeded - just like you. However, unlike you - and others who can keep off the weight - they've regained it plus More. I do not think such people should be blamed or seen as weak. This goes beyond personal control or choice. I don't think it's really understood as to Why people - despite their *best* (and repeated) efforts - regain all their weight back. Many programs may work - for a while. Gastric bypass even can fail. Trying to lose weight, if you are morbidly obese, is very risky. You are almost always going to regain your weight, plus even More weight. Science, itself, tells us this. It may seem like a person you see who is eating junk food is "giving up", but I see it as more that they are "giving in" to their cravings, that they have TRIED to fight. The body always wins, at some point. That's the problem. Our minds and our bodies are not separate, either. So, yes, CRON can work and OA can work, but for most who are morbidly obese, gastric bypass is the only thing that shows *some* success. It's crude and someday, I think, science will come up with something better. In the meantime, instead of asking why morbidly obese people just don't eat less (and this is not addressed to you, personally, Robin, but to people, in general) - why not ask what it would be like to be living in a body that constantly pushes you to overeat. Constantly. Then, factor in depression, physical pain, the mental anguish of stigmatization, the self-critcism of rage ("why can't I lose weight"!), and also: all the fattening food everywhere that one must Constantly try to resist, while inside, their bodies are pushing them to Constantly eat. I think if people could magically do this (live as a morbidly obese person for a Month, at least - and truly so - Not just by donning a fat suit) they would know better the real issues at stake. I get very angry when people act like it's just a matter of choice. However, I Can and do make the choice to eat nourshing food and do daily exercise. Is this not Also a major accomplishment, Robin? However, it won't get me thin. People can see your accomplishment of the weight loss easily enough. They may praise you in all kinds of ways, both subtle and overt. But, when they look at me, they just see failure. They see someone who has "given up". Well, I Haven't. I'm doing the best I can do. I don't have a thin body to galvanize me to keep trying. I have a body that I must respect, despite the fact that others express everything from contempt to amusement at my struggles. Screw them. I have Not given up!

[Mara]

I think it's important to enjoy many kinds of food. To have some birthday cake on your birthday - if you want it. To put feta cheese on your salad and not feel terrible over all the "extra" calories. To enjoy some red meat, if desired. This is different than overeating and it's also very different than CRON, OA and alot of other diets/food plans/ways of life. We have demonized food to absurd degree in this world and that is not helping anyone with weight struggles, in my opinion.

[Robin]

Mara,

People like to believe they have a lot of control over what they do, that it's all a matter of will-power. I understand and respect the fact that it isn't so simple. Human behavior is far more complex than most people think.

I don't think you've given up, Mara, and I think any change in behavior that moves any person - obese or thin - in the direction of greater health is to be applauded and celebrated, especially in the toxic environment we now inhabit.

I wish you the best of luck in your struggle.

[Mara]

Robin - thank you. I do think that a true love of food is not the same as bingeing on toxic foods, but I also think that people should take care to not label everything that is extremely pleasurable to eat as "toxic". Obviously, someone who practices CRON raises the bar very high, of course. I understand that.

100% of individuals who are 200 lbs. overweight reached this point from consuming an incredible amount of calories, especially if they are young adults (20s and 30s)

Talk therapy combined with exercise and decreased calorie consumption can in theory cause anyone to lose weight. However, if a person believes that whole milk, marbled red meat, butter, cream, and full fat cheese is healthy.....and does not believe that being overweight is unhealthy or THAT unhealthy, then the person is battling themselves. Their is a conflict. On one side, they want to lose weight but on the other side, they are attempting to convince themselves that their weight is not that bad. They read the blogs on fat acceptance, they look for the studies that say obesity is not that bad, they view Gina Kolata as a messiah.

This conflict causes stress. This stress may cause one to continue to overeat.

One must clear their mind, find out what they really want in life, and then act upon it. Talk therapy can help with this. Surrounding yourself with people who want to lose weight can help as well.

In the end, throughout U.S. history, we have never been in a period where people were attempting to lose weight in a non-toxic food environment. In the last 30 years, the tens of millions who have attempted to lose weight were doing so in an environment where physicians did not dispense nutrition advice (this provides knowledge, courage, motivation, etc.), schools were not teaching the basic principles of nutrition, billboards on the highway were not reminding people to eat healthy (in fact the billboards were for Dunkin Donuts, Mcdonalds, and Got milk?)

In addition to all this, celebrities have been endorsing the worst foods (Shaq sells burgers, Michael Jordan sold hot dogs, etc)

Then you have people come along and write books saying obesity is not a problem and red meat is healthy.

OBVIOUSLY it is difficult to lose weight in this environment but yet millions of people have (me, robin, mr are just three examples on this blog post alone)

A person with a superficial knowledge of nutrition and public health will throw their hands up in the air and say this does not work, lets give up. However, the progressive person who has a positive (but also realistic) vision for a healthier america sees millions more losing weight in the proper environment.

So we must strive to improve the environment. Part of what Rudd and a couple other organizations do is improve the environment. Candy and soda vending machines never existed in schools for 150 yrs. Then in 1990 (thanks in part to Reagan budget cuts combined with egregious marketing on the part of Coca-Cola) candy and soda entered our schools.

So it is perfectly logical, rational, etc. to remove this crap that was recently never there. It also makes sense to remove fast food restaurants from every hospital and children's hospital in the U.S.
It also makes sense to improve the nutritional quality of every entree served in a school and hospital in the U.S.
We can actually do 100 more rational things to improve the food environment.

It is tough however when you have conservative republicans who are in bed with Coca Cola, Mars, etc. and when you have people who say this will make things worse. Umm, no....the candy was never there...duh.....the problem started when the candy came in.

When we improve the food environment, it will become easier to lose weight.

[Mara]

"...(me, robin, mr are just three examples on this blog post alone)."

People who follow CRON, (or "Calorie Restriction For Optimum Nutrition)"
really should not be using themselves as examples for the morbidly obese. CRON(or "Calorie Restriction For Optimum Nutrition)" is a very extreme way of life. It's obviously Not for most people, Nor would most peole care to do it, even if they could.

[Mara]

I gave out the CRON acronym, twice, by mistake. But, never mind, I want everyone to know a few facts about myself. I practice CRON, am a Vegan, attend the most rigorous of OA groups and have a personal shrine dedicated to MeMe Roth on top of my fridge. I also pass out buttons of MeMe Roth (I make them myself; it's a labor of love and keeps me away from the Twinkies) in front of bakeries when any of the "fallen sinners" try to enter. I don't know why I mention all this, but since it's April Fool's Day...