negative nelly

Katherine and Aunt B are atwitter at their discovered agreement (like discovered mate, but different) on the topic of obesity. In my role as the resident negative nelly, I feel it’s my duty to provide somewhat of a reality check. First, my rough approximation/paraphrasal of the various individual points I perceive being made, some of which I think are being conflated to dangerous ends:

  • Obesity is not a personality, or the basis for judging someone. (I agree.)
  • Unsolicited rants/advice about how to lose weight delivered to a fat person are superfluous, presumptuous, rude, and annoying (I agree.)
  • Recidivism rates for obesity are extremely high, meaning the likelihood of losing weight and keep it off is minimal (I agree.)
  • … therefore, we should not bother. (I disagree, naturally, though I will concede that I have inferred this point, perhaps incorrectly?)
  • And besides, the obesity epidemic is a myth (I disagree.)
  • And you can be fat and healthy, anyway. (I agree, but with strenuous qualifications.)
  • Society as a whole should therefore have no vested interest in the obesity rate of its populace, since it’s bigotry, akin to racism. (I disagree.)

So, here’s the thing. Obesity is different from race in one objective manner: Obesity is not healthy. Obesity has measurable, detrimental effects on quality of life. I’ve gone round on this one over yonder somewhere in the archives of Tiny Cat Pants with someone, and I don’t intend to re-hash that debate. But suffice it to say: if you believe obesity is not an indicator of poor health, we’ll just have to agree to disagree. Yes, it’s possible to be obese, and live a long, healthy, active life. It’s also possible to carry HIV, but not AIDS, and live a long, healthy, active life. It doesn’t make either situation probable, and neither does it absolve obesity/HIV from fault/causality as being a generally Bad Thing.

If we take it as a given that obesity is not healthy, there are two primary reasons that obesity is then a Bad Thing for society: 1) people, in general, prefer to put off death as long as possible, and 2) this process is complicated by obesity. These complications materialize as real, tangible costs. “Costs”, of course, are not an objectively bad thing.

The real “cost” now is one of opportunity. Naturally, health care is a problem in this country, namely because it’s very expensive. And obesity is a part of this problem – something like 10% of our national healthcare costs are attributable to obesity-related complications (somewhere around that of the costs of smoking-related complications, incidentally). This cost represents a lost opportunity – obesity-related complications are preventable. Had they been prevented, we could be spending our healthcare dollars on health complications that aren’t preventable yet, and quality of life, in general, would be slightly higher. Costs are merely one factor in economics, and yes, eventually, it’s plausible that balanced markets could emerge that absorb these costs, resulting in a nation of obese people that manage their diabetes and live to be, say, 50, 60, or hey, the sky’s the limit, really.

However, I would lay down another assertion here that the majority of the people in this country – obese or otherwise – don’t look fondly on that prospect. Why? Because being obese is generally not pleasant. Diabetes is not fun, even if you manage it rather well. Yes, it’s possible to be happy and obese. Yes, it’s possible, if not probable, to be healthy and obese. It’s easy to explain away the fact that most Americans want to lose weight by blaming the voracious and pitiless appetite of the Diet Industry. That’s a necessary part of the picture, but it’s not sufficient. People want to lose weight because being fat sucks – not because of body image issues, or bigotry (which exist, and can and should be corrected), but because of verifiable, objective detriments to health and costs borne by society.

So where am I going with all this? What bothers me is a sense of defeatism: e.g. “It’s hard, if not impossible to lose weight and keep it off, so there’s no point in trying, or advocating it as a good thing.” Losing weight is certainly hard, but the reasons that it’s hard are structural and societal. Therefore, they are also mutable.

What also bothers me is the straw-man of an implicit assumption that there’s an element of coercion being advocated. E.g. “I can be fat if I want to, stop trying to make me do things I have already tried.” Certainly some consumer-protection advocates are over-zealous (*cough*nader*cough*), but by and large what is usually being advocated is education along with a strategic dismantling of structural forces that contribute to obesity (hint: existing government policy has as much responsibility to bear for the obesity problems in the lower class as lack of policy does). No one is trying to make you do anything, really.

So, in conclusion: if you are happy and healthy being obese, fine. Yes, it’s really shitty that people judge other people because of their body image. But that doesn’t mean being fat isn’t unpleasant and that most people don’t want to be fat as a result. If you’ve given up and accepted your state of being – healthy or otherwise – that’s fine. But you can’t criticize the desire to correct what is rightfully being called an epidemic just because you are obese and healthy (or accepting). You are a single data point, sorry.


Comments

There’s also the issue that losing weight is a much riskier state than obesity.

That’s true, to some extent, but the debate around the “obesity epidemic” revolves around preventative changes as much (if not more) than curative solutions for people that are already fat.

Yes, but come now. No one frames it that way. When I turn on the news and see a story about the “obesity epidemic” and they’re showing me stock footage of big old bellies and butts walking by, the message isn’t “don’t end up like that” the message is clearly “my god! Don’t they know how terrible they look? Why don’t they fix that?” Linking that up with the way our culture sees food and skinniness in moral terms, and you get right at the heart of what I’m bitching about.

Society says fat is unhealthy and immoral and slovenly and unattractive, thus thin is healthy, moral, disciplined, and attractive. I think this is bullshit.

Fat might be an indicator that you are unhealthy, but I think it’s a dangerous societal myth to say that fat itself is the unhealthy state. To me, that’s like saying that, if you have an infection that’s causing your temperature to spike, the solution is to just lower your temperature, because normal temperature equals health.

Clearly, that’s not the case. Lowering your temperature does nothing to address the infection. Of course, there are circumstances in which your temperature is so high that it’s life threatening and lowering your temperature so that it’s safe to treat the underlying condition makes perfect sense. Same with obesity.

But, at the end of the day, we’re an exceptionally unhealthy society. Few of us eat well or exercise as much as we should. Everyone could benefit enormously from a healthy diet and an active lifestyle–fat or thin. Some people, if they ate right and exercised would, because they were becoming healthier, lose weight. Some would gain weight. But all would benefit.

Why doesn’t anyone talk about that?

Because, even if you, Chris, are talking about health, most people are using the notion of what’s “healthy” to actually talk about morality and aesthetics without having to be called out on the carpet about it. That’s what continues to piss me off about the whole thing–people using contrived concern about fat people’s health to pass judgment on their worth as people.

Actually, we’re an exceptionally healthy society, by any kind of sensible historical or global measure. Yes, we’re slightly less healthy than some of the other advanced societies on the planet right now, but those other societies are tiny. We aren’t ravaged by plagues or parasites; we have the extraordinary “problem” of having some of our health risks tied to too much food and not enough back-breaking, agonizing physical labor. There isn’t much cultural knowledge for how to deal with widespread obesity, because it’s so staggeringly unlikely. Most people from most times and places would be happy to have such problems.

[insert relativism here]

KatherineApril 11, 2006 at 15:46 · reply

What she said, with the additional complaint I have.

Many of the same health risks attributed to overweight (heart disease & stroke) can also be traced to stress. I don’t see massive preaching on the same scale against the national epidemics of debt and overwork. Both are as damaging to heart muscle and blood flow as adipose tissue. In many cases more so.

Because the Christian work ethic is far more crucial to the status quo than keeping people fat and unhappy. I am firmly in favor of abolishing work, naturally.

But yes, you’re right. Er, that is, we’re not really differing here. We’re just talking about different points of causality. Guns don’t kill people, bullets do. Bullets don’t kill people, permanent tissue cavication does, etc.

When I talk about “structural forces” as a cause of obesity, they are also often causes of stress, which in turn is (sometimes) also a cause of obesity.

Thanks! Your comment has been submitted and will appear shortly.


Leave a comment