So she can accept that his compressed disc, diabetes, emphysema, and heart problems, but fat (someone else's, natch) is something she just refuses to take lying down?
@Shiya: It says in the article (I think, I only skimmed) that the injury was unrelated to his weight, and that it pre-dated his weight gain. Which is just the icing on the fucking sugar-free cake.
A healthy at any size argument fails when the example used, as the case here, is not healthy at all and experiencing health issues which are directly caused by the excess weight. This is where I believe the fat=unhealthy and skinny=healthy argument tends to fail. Do not take a skinny person and use them as an example of how skinny can be unhealthy and then say they smoke, have back problems, or joint problems. Those are not related to their size.
Take a skinny person who is maintaining an unnatural weight FOR THEIR BODY and highlight their poor hair and nail health, their lower bone density, their low iron, or even their decreased energy levels and inability to sustain short exercise.
Take a fat person who is maintaining an unnatural weight FOR THEIR BODY and highlight the joint stress and damage from carrying their weight, their diabetes, or even their inability to walk a short distance without becoming winded.
Those are failures of healthy at any size. I don't care if you are a size 14 and you have great blood work or if you are 2 and have great blood work. Why is that even a question of an issue? I don't care if you have cancer, that isn't weight related. If we are going to talk about weight related health then people should focus on weight related issues, not the OTHER health issues that are unrelated but for the fact that are in the person being talked about.
@Zombies make the heart grow fonder: Seems like there is a lot of confusion with that phrase going on: "health at any size." I take that to mean health, first and foremost, and as a result, whatever size that means for the individual. A dumping of an "ideal" and an adoption of healthy lifestyle choices. The resulting body size --whatever that might be-- is what's to be accepted, as opposed to the blanket acceptance of any and every body size without regard to what's contributing to them.
The focus being on the choices and not the potentially misleading physical appearance. Am I making any sense?
@JerseyGrrrl: You do. I don't think we are at odds with our views here. However, other commenters and this original story posted, make the mistakes that you and I both highlighted. In fact, we here at Jezebel often have a tendency to drop the "perfect blood work" argument without ever addressing joint health. I am certain if we heard more from the skinny-who-aren't meant-to-be, we would hear their health woes. However, much like Beth Ditto who overlooks her health limitations caused by her size, none of the famous skinnies who aren't meant to be are going to come out and tell us how they have to take a million supplements to grow an inch of hair or finish 20 minutes of cardio.
At the end of the day, I don't know anyone who takes issue with a healthy fatty or a healthy skinny- and that is a good thing. However, I am unfortunate enough to know many who are quick to be terrible about an overweight person who has any weight related health issues. So that is an issue I would prefer to see addressed.
@Zombies make the heart grow fonder: I like how your rant completely ignores scientific studies. It's like you actually tried to be as intellectually dishonest as you possible could.
When 75% of the American population is expected to be overweight in 2015, you know a HUGE majority are being unhealthy at their size. This point really isn't up for debate.
And according to the American Cancer Society:
"Excess Weight is Linked to 90,000 US Cancer Deaths a Year"
You have no rant, this is senseless dribble at best.
Edited by Zombies make the heart grow fonder at 12/02/09 9:41 AM
Zombies make the heart grow fonder was starred
Zombies make the heart grow fonder was unstarred
I am very sorry for her loss and it's tragic that her brother didn't take care of himself.
However, that he didn't take care of himself has nothing to do with FA or HAES. I think she would agree with HAES if she studied it more. The point is that her brother should not have given up health because of his size, and worked on being as healthy as possible within his legitimate limitations. HAES is by no means saying "hey, you obese person, you can be healthy, here's a gold star!" It is not discouraging the considerable hard work it takes to be healthy. It's trying to shift the perception of healthy away from looks alone - since focusing on size instead of actual health is why a lot of dieters fail.
My old therapist had a thyroid condition that caused her to gain 100 + lbs on her naturally thin frame. She didn't stop eating nutritious food and staying active because of this, though. She eventually lost the weight due to medication, but she was never miserable because of her size since she didn't give up on her health.
Maybe I'm a jerk, but I don't care if people are healthy or not. It doesn't affect me if they are/aren't. I can't tell if a person is healthy/unhealthy from their size, and why would I WANT to?
What does concerning yourself with other people's health do for you?
I'm not a doctor, and I don't want to be one.
@femme-bot: I generally agree. I feel this way about weight, health, and a lot of things that other people seem to find interesting. (Like, for example, why do I care if an acquaintance or such-and-such actor is gay? I wasn't going to sleep with him either way.)
However, I think it's quite normal to care whether your family is healthy. My husband's brother recently had a string of health problems related to his weight, culminating in his gall bladder being removed. My husband had tried to talk to his brother several times about his health and his diet and exercise habits, but his concerns went unheeded. I think in some ways, family members and loved ones who express concern do so not only for the benefit of the overweight person, but also for their own benefit so that when something bad does happen, they haven't just stood by and watched.
@Bitingpika: I ask this out of genuine curiosity and not to be argumentative: Do you feel that the health of your family members and closest friends is your business?
I would definitely never say anything to a co-worker, casual friend, acquaintance, or stranger about their weight or health, but I would have and have had that conversation with a family member or close friend. And the conversation isn't, "You're fat. You're going to die." It's, "Have you been to the doctor this year? What did he/she say? I'm concerned about you, because I love you and I want you to be around for a long time."
@femme-bot: Not having ever been over weight myself, I have seen people comment on the weight of friends and family and it pisses me off to no end. It would be interesting to spend a day with all of my health sins written on my shirt: Binge drank last night, haven't eaten anything but cheese for the last three days, smoked half a pack of cigarettes, wore high heels, drove over the speed limit, had a coke for breakfast, etc...and see if people had the nerve to openly condemn me. Another person's weight is NOT an excuse to don your asshat.
@Antrack: If they're competent adults, no it isn't any of my business, unless they choose to make it so. And I have cut ties with family members who felt the need to point out that I'm fat.
@femme-bot: Word; I don't care if you, the General You, are healthy. Not because of my misanthropic nature, but because it's none of my business. I also don't care if you are fat or thin.
That said, there may be a point when it's not the General You, but someone very dear to me who is very unhealthy- not fat, but ill- and then I'd care a great deal.
What is wrong with people that they critique a movement without knowing anything about it? Some links for y'all who have this idea that fat acceptance threatens the foundations of civil society:
@PilgrimSoul: part of the issue seems to be that dialogues around healthy at every size form around stories wherein (such as the one above) the principles of the movement don't really factor.
HAES and shriver's brother's weight and health battles (and death), really don't have that much to do with each other.
@PilgrimSoul: I know what you mean. Also, this semantic thing with mixing Health at Every Size up with Health at ANY Size causes some huge problems. One implies that it is a good goal to be as healthy as possible at whatever size you are and that there is probably someone of every size for whom that is a proper and healthy shape for them, but ANY size makes people think that the movement is saying that everyone is a healthy size no matter what which simply isn't true. It would be just as messed up for me to lose 50 pounds or to gain 50 pounds because I'm pretty close to a good size (read: I've reached a stable weight living a fairly healthy lifestyle) for me and that would probably mean something was seriously wrong, so I wouldn't be healthy at ANY size. Then again, there are people who would say I can't even possibly be healthy at my current size (20 lbs overweight) even though I exercise all the time, eat a moderate vegetarian diet and have a statistically greater lifespan than someone who is 'normal' weight, but that's a whole other eye-twitchin' issue.
From the piece: I have buckets of sympathy for the obese, often subject to cruelty, ridicule, denunciation and contempt. Fatties are the one subgroup you can still make fun of on the BBC and not lose your job. ... I sympathise with their recurrent sense of hopelessness. ... But the "fat pride community" doesn't want my sympathy. They want acceptance. They want respect.
This hardly seems like someone who hates anyone whose BMI rises above her own. The piece actually read to me like a sister watching her brother repeat behaviors that were undeniably killing him (medical emergency after more serious medical emergency). I would refuse to accept that my brother couldn't change a destructive pattern too, whether it be a drug addiction or some other kind of self-destructive behavior, if it so clearly was killing him. You love your family.
It seems like talking about weight and obesity with blanket statements, and lumping anyone with a BMI over average into one category on which to pass sweeping judgment (health! not healthy! attractive! lazy! curvy! risky!) is counterproductive in all cases. I'm curious to see others' takes on this piece.
@JerseyGrrrl: Unlike Liz whatserface, I don't hate Lionel Shriver or think she's destroying humanity with being a moron, because I definitely agree with your statements here. She seems like a nice enough person, just rather self-absorbed and navel gazey.
Maybe it's her problem with the word "Healthy" in the name of the group? Because you can't actually be healthy at any size. This applies to the severely underweight as well. And while HAES wants to end discrimination, and that is a wonderful goal, I don't how this woman is "missing the point" of the group when 1) that's its name and 2) it is a lie. This woman might actually join the movement because I'm sure she agrees with its end goal -- the name is simply problematic.
@judgingamy: But the point of Health At Any Size is not that All Sizes Are Healthy. The point is that your focus should be Health, not Size.
This raises the larger point of whether or not critiques of a movement by people who can't be bothered to even acquire a rudimentary knowledge of what they stand for is worth reading. My personal stance is no. Ignorance is not a defensible position from which to critique anything.
@judgingamy: Well, the group is about accepting that health does come in different shapes and sizes depending on the individual. It's not saying that being fat is healthy for every person. It's just trying to debunk the myth that being fat is universally unhealthy, and therefore okay to discriminate for.
@PilgrimSoul: Ouch. I was just trying to bring up a discussion. I'm sorry that I read a word wrong. That doesn't mean I didn't put careful thought into my point/question, or that I'm not trying to learn myself. PilgrimSoul, most of the time I love your comments and I agree with you, but you often bring the tone to a very petty level. These conversations could be very educational, but not when you snap down people's throats.
And while ignorance may not be a position to critique from, I do believe that a lot of people (myself included, I never claimed not to be) are in that pool, and that the name is problematic "healthy" or "health."
@tiredfairy: Thank you. My point was more that if the group wants to truly reach people who are unaware of its message, the name could be read to imply that every size is healthy for every person, even though that's not what they mean. If their goal is to attract people and not preach to the choir, I think that the name is working against them.
@judgingamy: You didn't read a word wrong. You read an entire movement wrong, and your reading could have been corrected by a simple google search, as Bitingpika pointed out.
I get that you find me hard and mean and petty, but you are attacking a group from a position of either dis- or mis-information, and I'm sorry, I'm sure you don't mean badly, but I do think that your position comes from ignorance. And I think ignorance deserves pettiness, I'm sorry, because it's really pretty fucking awful how many of the comments on this thread mischaracterize the agenda of the HAES movement, and it happens again, and again, and again.
I get that you want to "start a conversation," but your conversation goes down the path of shaming people for being overweight because you believe they are too stupid to know their own health. That's a pretty appalling position to take without backup.
@PilgrimSoul: Obviously, you can't be a fat person. Everyone knows fat people are jolly and willing to do a thin person's damned googling for them. Haven't you heard that members of marginalized groups should maintain a pleasant, nonconfrontational tone at all times?
@PilgrimSoul: I understand how you read my post that way, and I'm sorry that I was not more clear. I do understand the message of HAES, though I was not aware of them as a specific group. While I may not know the statistics very well, I do support their mission. If it came across that I read a movement wrong, that was my fault. My point is that right now, many many people are ignorant on this issue, and the name can be read the way that myself and the author of the article took it.
Until there is broader knowledge of this specific group as well as the movement as a whole, I think their name is working against them because ignorant people will dismiss it. Is that the groups fault? No, it's not. But most activists want people to join their movement and not just preach to the choir, and that means having patience for the ignorant, and taking time out to educate them and have constructive conversations without shaming them for their lack of knowledge. Being petty will only alienate potential alliances for the cause.
@PilgrimSoul: I understand your frustration. But is this position of 'everyone else is stupid, except me and a small group of people well-versed in a particular corner of the internet' approach ever going to garner more support for your cause? Of course the agenda is going to be mischaracterised, because its not culturally mainstream yet. That doesn't mean that everybody else is a complete numbnuts and that you've got all the answers.
@chinaplate: I understand this argument and I guess my response is this: I don't think it's a small number, and in any event, I think my fundamental point, which is that ignorant critiques of movements that the speaker has not bothered to understand do not create healthy atmospheres for education to happen. I think, if you see something you're uncomfortable with, and you want to talk about your discomfort, what you should do is frame a question to the people who do know this stuff cold.
Similarly, judgingamy, the problem with the "pettiness alienates" is this: it implies that one's alliance with a political program is dependent on how "nice" the movement is to oneself. Which means that we end up, as we are in this thread, spending a whole lot of time attending to the discomfort of the ignorant instead of, y'know, liberating the oppressed. Which, like: oppression is WRONG, whether or not we all are friendly with each other at the clambakes. So you owe these people your alliance whether you feel alienated or not.
I don't mean to dismiss your argument entirely because I understand pragmatics, but what I am saying is that the honourable, "I want to learn" way to approach a debate is to ask questions, read on your own, etc. It is not to arrive with a pre-set position on a subject that is articulated without evidence, loudly proclaim that position, and then get upset when people call you out on not having any support for it. When you take the latter path, you can't blame your opponent in the debate for assuming your bad faith from the get-go.
That's the point. Trust me, I've been in this position before, and I think I'm far better off knowing that sometimes the pettiness is deserved. Particularly when I'm just spouting on the internet to blow off steam, as we often are around here.
Her brother is the opposite of a good test case for Healthy at Any Size. He was unhealthy. Profoundly so. It seems like she totally missed the point because someone she loved was fat and unhealthy, so rather than learning something from the movement she just assumes it's a pack of lies.
@yvanehtnioj: I mentioned this below, but having read the first 16 pages of her novel before I became so enraged at the self-absorption that OOZED from every page that I had to stop, she seems like the type that takes her experience and then attempts to use her experience to extrapolate how everyone experiences everything. She misses the forest for the tree that is sitting right in front of her and that she is staring at intently because every tree must be EXACTLY like this one.
The thing that bothers me about the fat acceptance movement is how often any attempt to lose weight is considered futile. People do come in lots of sizes, but I don't think I'm alone in having an eating-well-exercising-pretty-regularly weight and an eating-not-so-well-never exercising weight. For me, the first is well within the healthy BMI range while the second is well over it. Not everyone is going to follow this pattern, but some fat acceptance blogs make me seem like a complete freak of nature.
There is a difference between "There are healthy people at every size" and "Every size is healthy for every person."
@clevernamehere: That's a very key difference. While "healthy at every size" is a catchy name, someone who is uninformed about the movement could easily infer "every size is healthy for every person" from that title, and dismiss the whole message.
@clevernamehere: That's what pisses me off about it. It's really defeatist. For SO MANY people, most people, this formula works. Yes, it's hard work and a lifestyle change, but this is a GOOD thing. To say that's not so is dishonest and dangerous.
I just don't see why it has to be either a) you're fat and you always will be no matter what you do so accept it, or b) if you're not a size 2 you're doing something wrong.
I personally don't care what people do to their own bodies, obviously everyone has agency, but be honest. It irritates me when people profess that simple things like exercise are futile. They're not. And if they are? See a doctor.
@clevernamehere: Yeah, I think a lot of people who write about fat acceptance don't really understand the science behind some of the numbers they're pushing. That oft-quoted "98 (sometimes 95) percent of all dieters will regain the weight, therefore diets don't work" statistic? Comes from a study where scientists took a bunch of women, jerked their calories artificially low for a few months, and then let them lose into the real world to go right back to their previous eating habits. They didn't teach them anything about healthy eating or portion sizes, they didn't have them exercise, etc. When you look at it that way, it's not surprising 98 percent of them regained the weight--it's surprising that 2 percent of them didn't!
But that doesn't mean that someone who goes from eating fried food and restaurant food daily to eating smaller portions of healthier fare and working out will not lose weight and keep it off if she keeps at it. She may not lose as much weight as she wants to or expects, she probably won't automatically--poof!--be thin (and she may never be thin!), and she will have to keep doing those things to stay at the lower weight . . . but in most cases, eating less, eating healthier, and working out more DO change your weight. And if you make permanent changes in those habits, you do see permanent changes in your weight.
@clevernamehere: Or: you haven't taken the time to read any intelligent fat acceptance blogs. I mean, sure, there are dumb anti-racist blogs on the internet, but that doesn't reflect on the program advanced by anti-racism generally.
@clevernamehere: Both my eating-well-exercising-regularly and my nomnomchocolatenap weight are overweight/obese, but the difference between them in both my size and how I feel are huge. Personally, I have maintained 60lb weight loss for 3 years, but am still not at a "healthy" weight on the BMI chart. I have anecdotes of people who both successfully lost and maintained and those who have yo-yo'd for years. But I do think that the majority of studies on this show that maintaining huge weight loss is actually quite rare across populations.
I don't read fat acceptance blogs, so I can't speak to your point on their reaction to weight loss.
@thesciencegirl: Okay, I just went and looked up stats on successful weight loss and maintenance, and I read this sentence in a scientific review article, "There is a general perception that almost no one succeeds in long-term maintenance of weight loss. However, research has shown that approximately 20% of overweight individuals are successful at long-term weight loss when defined as losing at least 10% of initial body weight and maintaining the loss for at least 1 y."
So, 1/5 -- not as bad as I expected, but still a minority.
@bananaballs: Nobody is the HAES has proclaimed exercise futile. Nobody. Nor has anyone denounced eating vegetables or taking prescribed meds, either. What the movement says is that there is no guarrantee that exercise or diet will make you thin, that being thin is not itself a healthy goal, and that it is a good idea for people to take care of themselves EVEN IF THEY'RE FAT.
@PilgrimSoul: That's probably a fair point, but I think part of the problem is that the nuances in argument of intelligent writers are not adopted by the less trenchant observers, so a lot of the message that trickles down beyond those blogs does tend to sound a lot like 'being fat is great, no matter what' - and that is problematic for society as a whole.
@Endora: Well, but then the problem is widespread stupidity, not the HAES movement. And trying to dress it up as a critique of fat acceptance is intellectually dishonest, and thus betrays a certain antipathy towards the overweight that bugs me in the first place.
I mean, Jesus, it's only in fat acceptance posts that this attitude comes out. I once noted that Gisele Bundchen was terrifyingly thin on Jez and it turned into a shitstorm for the ages, and all sorts of people told me I didn't understand how hurtful that was, etc etc, and probably they were right. But we seem to all agree around here that that sort of stuff isn't helpful because it has nothing to do with anyone's concern for a thin person's health. So pretending this is a health concern here: reprehensible, IMHO.
@thesciencegirl: 1/5 for one lousy year? I don't see what this has to do with permanent weight loss at all. And 10 per cent is nowhere near enough for most fat people to get into the "healthy BMI range".
@thesciencegirl: One of the problems is that some people don't look at a 10% weight loss as successful. But research shows that a 5-10% weight loss can have a significant impact on one's health. There are so many assumptions and so much misinformation in the area of weight. People promoting increasing health through weight loss are often not saying everybody needs to be a size 4.
@thesciencegirl: The successful weight loss studies do show that most people don't keep it off, but most people who quit smoking also don't quit for good (normally it takes several attempts, which is similar to weight loss in some studies). There needs to be more of a distinction between "difficult" and "impossible" as well as a distinction between "healthy for the individual" and "super skinny." Weight is also related to dozens of structural factors that get very little play in the media.
The "only freaks of nature maintain weight loss" memo is what bugs me. I think a lot of people in the size acceptance community are naturally bigger and have gotten fed up with the pressure to go to extremes to fit someone else's notion of healthy. But for a lot of people, reasonable measures significantly lower their weight but it is easy to sit on the couch and eat take out. That's why my weight goes up and I'm not the only one.
@Bitingpika: I agree -- it's not inspiring. The article also notes that people who manage to maintain for 2-5 years are much more likely to permanently maintain their loss.
@Lymed: Yes, but that's also part of the assumption that overweight or obese people can't be healthy. Someone could lose 10% of their body weight, and improve their health and fitness, but if they're still obese, people will continue to harp on how they're not healthy. As someone who has experienced this myself (from doctors too), it's frankly not only irritating but incredibly frustrating. This is why I like movements that promote health as a motivator. Because it's so counterproductive when someone busts their butt to improve their health and even succeed in modest weight loss, but all their hear in return is "Yes, but you're still fat, so..."
@thesciencegirl: It gets to something I said below which is that, ideally, we could get rid of the judgment. I know that ideal things rarely happen though. Ideally doctors would actually be educated about weight and nutrition rather than just looking at a chart to see if you are in a "healthy weight range."
@PilgrimSoul: Kate Harding would be on the list. I haven't been reading it lately, but I went through the archives well before she was posting on Jez and I found a decent amount of her dieting/weight loss posts flawed.
You can disagree with my opinion, but I don't think it is reasonable to jump to the conclusion that I am misreading them. I understand the science and I think her criticisms are sometimes incorrect.
@Lymed: As a med student, I can tell you that BMI is being presented as the foundation of "healthy weight" and the conversation really doesn't get much more nuanced than that. My school had a weight loss expert lecture us on how to effectively counsel patients to make lifestyle changes and it devolved into the most shaming, judgemental thing I've ever experienced. He had students role play in fat suits. He put up photos of obsese people and invited the class to shout out what came to mind (things like "disgusting" and "pitiful," apparently). Obviously, I stood up and laid the smack down in the middle of the lecture hall. But I felt like a guppy fighting against an ocean tide.
Yes, people, this is why your doctors are so mean to you if you're fat. They learn it in med school. *sigh*
@clevernamehere: But I don't know your opinion, because you're only making general statements. Besides which, I'm not sure what you mean by "you understand the science." Are you a medical professional? Even if so, are you maintaining that science actually knows all that much about how the human body works?
@Bitingpika: The reason they use 10% is that other studies have shown that a 10% reduction is enough to reduce weight related problems if they exist (ie people with high blood sugar and crappy eating habits can often get within the healthy blood sugar range if they lose 10% of their body weight). The literature is really messy on weight loss and obesity though.
On the 10%/BMI thing, it really depends. A 10% loss can shift someone from the overweight category to the healthy category according to BMI and more people are in the overweight category than the obese category. If a woman is 5'2" and 140 her BMI is just over 25. If she loses 10% (14 lbs) her BMI is 23. If someone who is 5'11 goes from 200 to 180, their BMI goes from 28.7 to 25.8.
@clevernamehere: The literature is really messy on weight loss and obesity though.
That's the problem, isn't it? I mean, I gave up coffee and my blood sugar improved. Didn't lose an ounce, though. I am very, very nervous about weight loss - especially surgically induced weight loss - being touted as a panacea. The science about metabolism, weight and health is completely lacking - and until we have decent science, we're relying on prejudice.
@PilgrimSoul: I really don't think going through posts on other websites and pointing out what I disagree with is relevant to this post. I also doubt that or discussing why I think I have a good grasp of the research would satisfy you. You want to correct my opinion, but you don't seem very open to any points I might make.
@thesciencegirl: How the medical community handles this stuff frequently drives me nuts. They should understand that the research is often limited to people who have both bad habits and high weight, but frequently they don't. The BMI is flawed, but a lot of doctors seem to even go beyond that to "I think you should be thinner." I've heard of doctors telling people within the healthy range to lose weight without even asking if they exercise.
@thesciencegirl: 10% of body weight generally isn't going to change someone's BMI category. I'm a size acceptance activist, and I'm one of the 20% who was 10% less than my top weight for a significant number of years (through HAES, actually). Guess what? Nobody treats you differently if you weigh 190 rather than 210 at 5'-4", and either way, you're "obese." If my habits had been motivated by weight loss, I never would have maintained them.
@Bitingpika: I don't think we are relying on prejudice in the actual literature by and large. It tends to take a somewhat convoluted path from health problems to habits to weight loss because weight loss, calories, and exercise are easily measurable and quantitative research requires measurable things. The researchers generally make it clear they know it is a multifactorial problem and not just heavy=unhealthy. The big thing in obesity research is more walkable communities and better food access that naturally encourage health, not the "fatties should diet" that seems to come across. I think the problem is how the research is translated to doctors and the press.
@clevernamehere: Well, it's relevant insofar as you are making claims about these blogs using bad science or whatever.
I mean, you and I sort of have a vague internet acquaintance, but I can't just agree categorically with you when you refuse to back your position up, no. Maybe that's what you're reading as not receptive, but you are making claims you now claim it would be irrelevant to defend.
@clevernamehere: I have frequently had doctors launch immediately into "you should lose 30lbs" or "you're fat" (direct quote from my pediatrician), but they have never simply asked me, "what are you doing to be healthy?" or even "have you tried to lose weight?" I keep waiting to have an opportunity to brag about my weight loss to a doctor, but they never ask.
@clevernamehere: But the actual scientific literature has very little to do with why fat people are treated like crap by doctors, strangers, the media, etc. No amount of "treat this study with caution" has any effect, and I think that's because fat hate is part of a cultural moral panic.
@deeleigh: I agree. I said much the same thing above. I lost almost 25% of my body weight, and it doesn't seem to "matter" because I'm still obese. Apparently, even though I dropped a quarter of a person, I'm still lazy. :-/
@thesciencegirl: I haven't been to med school, but I've been to way too many doctors and most have clearly never been taught how to interact with any patient that takes time to deal with. I assume it is a mixture of tradition and insurance company reimbursement. Because the doctors who have the best bed side manner, in my experience, are doctors who don't take insurance and who include some integrative medicine.
@PilgrimSoul: You could have asked if I had an example rather than telling me I "haven't taken the time to read any intelligent fat acceptance blogs" and you "have a pretty strong suspicion [I'm]misreading them." Your comments do not make me think you would be open to my opinions on any links I posted if they differed at all from your own. I think you are looking for someone to fight and I'm not interested.
@Bitingpika: I think the literature can feed fat shaming, particularly since most people read about it in the press rather than the journal. But at the same time, 10% is actually a pretty reasonable goal for doctors to suggest if they do it after taking a medical history. Not quite fat positive, but not part of the "you must be skinny!" panic.
@clevernamehere: I am skeptical of this based on my own experience - anecdata, but there you go. I have endocrine and losing 10% of my weight has proved impossible without severe calories restriction and classic ED behavior. My eating habits are actually less healthy when I lose weight, my mental health goes to hell, and I have yet to enjoy any of the blood sugar and cholesterol benefits from weight loss. Any doctor who suggest weight loss to me is is one who'll never see me again.
@PilgrimSoul: There is a big difference between, "I haven't noticed that, what blogs/posts are you referring to, could you give a link?" and "You must be reading the wrong blogs and/or misreading them, so give me a link." The second sounds like you are looking for a fight, not a discussion.
I don't know if it is intentional or not, but reading your comment it sounds like you are accusing me of fat/fat acceptance shaming because I have a less than 100% positive view of fat acceptance blogs. I also have a less than 100% positive view of HuffPo and the DailyKos, but it doesn't mean I hate liberals.
@thesciencegirl: According to Kate Harding, the ideal standard for measuring permanent weight loss is 5 years. The study cited, by using 1 year, is setting the bar rather low.
@thesciencegirl: I guess where we differ is that (it sounds like) you were focused on weight loss, and for me it was just a relatively insignificant side effect of being active and eating well. I'm aware of the research that suggests that being 10% below your maximum weight may eliminate the health risks associated with being heavy, but no doctor has ever asked me about my maximum weight. They skip right to the lectures and mistaken assumptions.
@deeleigh: I think a fair characterization of my motivation was 1/2 weight loss and 1/2 wanting to be healthier (like realizing that a flight of stairs winded me and not being okay with that). I haven't lost any more weight in over a year, but I've maintained a lot of healthier habits just because it's good for me. It irritates me to no end that people look at me and assume that I don't care about my health.
Being severely underweight or overweight will certainly impact one's health. It's really that simple. It's a factor. It just happens to be a factor tied in with a lot of judgment and self-loathing.
@Penny: And we shouldn't ignore the impact on one's health because there is also judgment. We should try to find a way to separate the two, to stop the judgment and allow a conversation about the impact on one's health.
Yes. I agree. Compulsive overeating is just as dangerous as Anorexia. Both are EDs (in my opinion). I am not saying that everyone who is overweight is a binge eater, but the morbidly obese tend to be.
Most of us have very complex relationships with food.
@Penny: Exactly. You can accept that someone is too fat or too thin--you don't have much choice, really--but that doesn't mean you also have to think it's healthy or you should pretend you're not concerned.
@Penny: Compulsive Overeating is also considered an ED by all the psychological textbooks I've read on ED's, too. It's technically a form of non-purging Bulimia. Because Bulimia is actually defined by the binge behavior, not the form of purging. You can binge, for instance, and then over-exercise. No physical purging required. The media has just taken the purge part and run with it as the classification. The lack of understanding around ED's in general, and the complex psychological issues that surround them, is a huge part of why we can't seem to get past some of this stuff.
And just like how many bulimics don't lose weight, many binge eaters don't gain weight.
And that's my take on it as well. If your eating habits are compulsive, whether it's compulsive restricting, or compulsive binging, it's a psychological disorder. It's not about self-control and it has nothing to do with fat acceptance.
@tiredfairy: Compulsive Overeating is also considered an ED by all the psychological textbooks I've read on ED's, too. It's technically a form of non-purging Bulimia.
The hell it is. I'm a purging type anoretic (and, yes, I binge -- 10,000 calories in an hour kind of binge, not "two bowls of cereal"); my mother is a compulsive overeater. We have completely different pathologies regarding binging. In her case, the binging is not a concentrated, focused act but an attempt to find pleasure, however mindless, that is inevitably futile, and she takes some 'relief' in the shame of the binge. For me? Binging itself is a violent act; there is no attempt to find pleasure but instead to beat the hell out of my body by shoving in as much food as possible at once, either to shove down an unpleasant emotion or because I feel I deserve it. But I binge for the purpose of getting to the purge -- the release of everything through my compensatory mechanism (vomiting), which allows me to maintain the delusion that it's now 'all gone,' the emotion and the food. My mother seeks no such release.
Bulimics (and anoretics) who purge via exercise share a psychological similarity to me, not to my mother -- the purge, while done through exercise, restores a feeling of 'it's okay it's okay it's okay.' I am not saying that compulsive overeaters do not also find a sense of 'it's okay' through the act of binging (as I'm sure some of them do), but I really dislike the lumping in of people who DO NOT PURGE, IN ANY WAY, BY ANY COMPENSATORY MECHANISM (even if that compensatory mechanism is just "If I repeat the words PURPLE MONKEY DISHWATER ten times, that means the food doesn't have calories") with those who walk into binges with a compensatory mechanism set up and may in fact binge solely for the purpose of getting to the point of being able to use that compensatory mechanism.
Some people binge to binge. I binge so that I can purge. My mother finds me as alien as I find her. Whereas her emotional release starts midway through the bag of potato chips, mine doesn't until I've pushed my vomit down the garbage disposal. You can stretch the criteria of ED diagnostics however you'd like to make binging with absolutely no compensatory mechanism a form of bulimia, but you're doing a disservice to both sides: the binge/purge cycle is poorly understood as is and has plenty of variety (some bulimics binge to binge and purge solely to maintain weight, some binge for the emotional release of purging, some purge without traditional binging....); turning compulsive overeating into "oh, bulimia without the purging" is both a reductionist view of the binge/purge experience and inaccurate.
I mean, think about it: I can purge, and that changes everything. I can, therefore, eat to the point where I am seriously afraid of gastric rupture, because I know none of this is staying in. My mother, on the other hand, has no such mechanism. From the outside, I probably look more frenzied while binging, act more desperate; certainly my caloric load is greater. If you didn't know the diagnoses, I assume I'd come off as the compulsive overeater, as I've just spent a considerable number of hours today stuffing my face. But my problem is not that I compulsively overeat in a quest to fill myself with some good feeling or to bury some bad one (or out of malnutrition borne of the western diet); my problem is that I binge so that I can do my 'I'm a teenage drama queen/I'll throw my guts up for self-esteem' routine. Psychologically, I'd be in the same boat if I were using exercise, but it would certainly change my eating habits. When I binge, I binge to the point where I'm pretty much crawling on the ground in agony. If I knew I was eating and then going to the gym... I probably wouldn't eat to that point. Etc.
The diagnostic criteria are one thing; the experience of an ED another. And while I know everyone with an eating disorder can relate to some part of another sufferer's experience, regardless of diagnosis, I think that blurring the lines so much that entirely separate syndromes are shoved in under loosely written and poorly understood diagnostic criteria does no one any good.
@franzen: Whoa, whoa. I'm not classifying it that way. Psychologically, that's how it's classified. I agree that we need better ED understanding and classification across the board. It's not well understood psychologically by anyone but those who specialize in the field. And I said it was a form of, not the same as, Bulimia. Compulsive overeating is just not discussed almost at all in discussions about ED's even though they are very much a disorder. For instance, Anorexia and Bulimia are usually accompanied by a "morbid fear of fatness". This may or may not also factor into compulsive overeating. But whereas people recognize the problem with ED's like Anorexia and Bulimia, I think a lot of people mistake compulsive overeating for just a lack of willpower or gluttony. It's a disorder.
I absolutely understand that the motivations are different. As they are for each person with an ED. Which is one of the reasons they're so misunderstood. Not all anorexics are starving to be aesthetically pleasing or conventionally attractive. Sometimes the opposite. Sometimes to avoid developing breasts and hips. And sometimes for other reasons altogether, like controlling households, or depression, etc.
All ED's, though, come back to control. Whether trying to maintain it rigidly through restricting, losing it in the binge, or regaining it via the purge. That's generally the common thread.
Binging does create a euphoric "high", must like fasting will. So there's an element of that in all ED's. It's partly what makes them addictive in behavior.
The reason I mentioned the categorization was to show people that compulsive overeating is, in fact, an ED. Most people don't know that. They hear ED and they just think Anorexia or Bulimia, with absolutely no understanding of what defines either, or the variety of forms most ED's take. It's actually really important we know how these things are defined by psychologists, precisely because they ARE lumping many behaviors together. So people aren't being treated with their individual issues in mind.
I actually think the problem is that we've failed to take into account that ED's are not just one behavior, one pathology, one experience.
So. I'm sorry if you thought I was dismissing ED's, or condoning the limits of the categorization. I can assure you, I'm not.
It reminds me of the idea that we shoudn't have sex education because it ENCOURAGES SEX (because this argument, like that one, is wrong and both arguments are made by judgey mcjudgersons)! #nightclubforfatpeople
This just in: sugar-free candy and pudding encourages diabetics to not suffer for their lazy pancreases / insulin resistant bastard cells. For shaaaaame! #nightclubforfatpeople
@mariamariamaria: Oh no! Someone realized my evil plan!!!
I'll never have a diet coke again!
...but I plan on finishing the one I'm drinking now..... #nightclubforfatpeople
Thank you for this article! It's sums up everything I feel.
I've long wished for a gym for fat people- a "beginner gym", as I've lovingly called this imaginary place in my mind- where I'd feel like I didn't stand out, where I felt like the people there and I had something in common.
And if I danced more, I would definitely love a nightclub for fat people. #nightclubforfatpeople
"but if we give them nice things, they won't have any motivation to lose weight!"
On the flip side, do the people really think us skinnies aren't gaining weight for fear we can't have nice things if we get fat? I try to exercise and I eat healthy when I can, but the reasons I am pretty skinny have to do with genetics, hormones, medications (hello, Adderall, that's a healthy way to stay skinny), and maybe because I played sports as a kid and a teen. Most of these factors are either beyond my control, or because I was lucky to have parents that encouraged athletics. My mother, on the other hand, is fat because she takes a powerful psychotropic drug that causes weight gain, and no amount of deprivation of nice things will make it easier for her to lose weight.
I don't want anyone to patronize me either, but it's odd that this attitude seems to come with the assumption that skinny people clearly must be doing something right-- even though a skinny person COULD get fat at any time.
But hey, even though I'm 25 and so far doing okay by their standards, I was just diagnosed with Hashimoto's! So if my thyroid actually becomes shot, and weight creeps on, I think I should consider myself lucky that people like Kate Harding paved the way to acceptance.
Also, I know the weight/health debate can get heated, but at least in this very specific case, according to my mother's doctor, the medication she is on is linked to diabetes, (which she has) due to the weight gain. While dancing and clothing are very nice things, so is your health, and for some people, whose weight gain is linked to a medical problem, I'd think that would be enough of a reason for them to lose weight-- if only it were so easy. #nightclubforfatpeople
12/01/09
12/02/09
12/02/09
12/01/09
Take a skinny person who is maintaining an unnatural weight FOR THEIR BODY and highlight their poor hair and nail health, their lower bone density, their low iron, or even their decreased energy levels and inability to sustain short exercise.
Take a fat person who is maintaining an unnatural weight FOR THEIR BODY and highlight the joint stress and damage from carrying their weight, their diabetes, or even their inability to walk a short distance without becoming winded.
Those are failures of healthy at any size. I don't care if you are a size 14 and you have great blood work or if you are 2 and have great blood work. Why is that even a question of an issue? I don't care if you have cancer, that isn't weight related. If we are going to talk about weight related health then people should focus on weight related issues, not the OTHER health issues that are unrelated but for the fact that are in the person being talked about.
End rant.
12/01/09
The focus being on the choices and not the potentially misleading physical appearance. Am I making any sense?
12/01/09
At the end of the day, I don't know anyone who takes issue with a healthy fatty or a healthy skinny- and that is a good thing. However, I am unfortunate enough to know many who are quick to be terrible about an overweight person who has any weight related health issues. So that is an issue I would prefer to see addressed.
12/01/09
12/01/09
When 75% of the American population is expected to be overweight in 2015, you know a HUGE majority are being unhealthy at their size. This point really isn't up for debate.
And according to the American Cancer Society:
"Excess Weight is Linked to 90,000 US Cancer Deaths a Year"
You have no rant, this is senseless dribble at best.
12/02/09
12/01/09
However, that he didn't take care of himself has nothing to do with FA or HAES. I think she would agree with HAES if she studied it more. The point is that her brother should not have given up health because of his size, and worked on being as healthy as possible within his legitimate limitations. HAES is by no means saying "hey, you obese person, you can be healthy, here's a gold star!" It is not discouraging the considerable hard work it takes to be healthy. It's trying to shift the perception of healthy away from looks alone - since focusing on size instead of actual health is why a lot of dieters fail.
My old therapist had a thyroid condition that caused her to gain 100 + lbs on her naturally thin frame. She didn't stop eating nutritious food and staying active because of this, though. She eventually lost the weight due to medication, but she was never miserable because of her size since she didn't give up on her health.
12/01/09
12/01/09
What does concerning yourself with other people's health do for you?
I'm not a doctor, and I don't want to be one.
12/01/09
However, I think it's quite normal to care whether your family is healthy. My husband's brother recently had a string of health problems related to his weight, culminating in his gall bladder being removed. My husband had tried to talk to his brother several times about his health and his diet and exercise habits, but his concerns went unheeded. I think in some ways, family members and loved ones who express concern do so not only for the benefit of the overweight person, but also for their own benefit so that when something bad does happen, they haven't just stood by and watched.
12/01/09
12/01/09
I would definitely never say anything to a co-worker, casual friend, acquaintance, or stranger about their weight or health, but I would have and have had that conversation with a family member or close friend. And the conversation isn't, "You're fat. You're going to die." It's, "Have you been to the doctor this year? What did he/she say? I'm concerned about you, because I love you and I want you to be around for a long time."
12/01/09
12/01/09
12/01/09
12/01/09
That said, there may be a point when it's not the General You, but someone very dear to me who is very unhealthy- not fat, but ill- and then I'd care a great deal.
12/01/09
12/01/09
12/01/09
12/01/09
Drop dead for all I care, folks! Fat and skinny alike!
;)
12/01/09
12/01/09
[kateharding.net]
[jezebel.com]
12/01/09
HAES and shriver's brother's weight and health battles (and death), really don't have that much to do with each other.
12/01/09
12/01/09
Funny, that.
12/01/09
This hardly seems like someone who hates anyone whose BMI rises above her own. The piece actually read to me like a sister watching her brother repeat behaviors that were undeniably killing him (medical emergency after more serious medical emergency). I would refuse to accept that my brother couldn't change a destructive pattern too, whether it be a drug addiction or some other kind of self-destructive behavior, if it so clearly was killing him. You love your family.
It seems like talking about weight and obesity with blanket statements, and lumping anyone with a BMI over average into one category on which to pass sweeping judgment (health! not healthy! attractive! lazy! curvy! risky!) is counterproductive in all cases. I'm curious to see others' takes on this piece.
12/01/09
12/01/09
12/01/09
This raises the larger point of whether or not critiques of a movement by people who can't be bothered to even acquire a rudimentary knowledge of what they stand for is worth reading. My personal stance is no. Ignorance is not a defensible position from which to critique anything.
12/01/09
12/01/09
And it's Health At Every Size.
12/01/09
Might I connect you with some of my family members who are in rather desperate need of your wisdom?
12/01/09
12/01/09
12/01/09
And while ignorance may not be a position to critique from, I do believe that a lot of people (myself included, I never claimed not to be) are in that pool, and that the name is problematic "healthy" or "health."
12/01/09
12/01/09
I get that you find me hard and mean and petty, but you are attacking a group from a position of either dis- or mis-information, and I'm sorry, I'm sure you don't mean badly, but I do think that your position comes from ignorance. And I think ignorance deserves pettiness, I'm sorry, because it's really pretty fucking awful how many of the comments on this thread mischaracterize the agenda of the HAES movement, and it happens again, and again, and again.
I get that you want to "start a conversation," but your conversation goes down the path of shaming people for being overweight because you believe they are too stupid to know their own health. That's a pretty appalling position to take without backup.
12/01/09
12/01/09
Until there is broader knowledge of this specific group as well as the movement as a whole, I think their name is working against them because ignorant people will dismiss it. Is that the groups fault? No, it's not. But most activists want people to join their movement and not just preach to the choir, and that means having patience for the ignorant, and taking time out to educate them and have constructive conversations without shaming them for their lack of knowledge. Being petty will only alienate potential alliances for the cause.
12/01/09
12/01/09
Similarly, judgingamy, the problem with the "pettiness alienates" is this: it implies that one's alliance with a political program is dependent on how "nice" the movement is to oneself. Which means that we end up, as we are in this thread, spending a whole lot of time attending to the discomfort of the ignorant instead of, y'know, liberating the oppressed. Which, like: oppression is WRONG, whether or not we all are friendly with each other at the clambakes. So you owe these people your alliance whether you feel alienated or not.
I don't mean to dismiss your argument entirely because I understand pragmatics, but what I am saying is that the honourable, "I want to learn" way to approach a debate is to ask questions, read on your own, etc. It is not to arrive with a pre-set position on a subject that is articulated without evidence, loudly proclaim that position, and then get upset when people call you out on not having any support for it. When you take the latter path, you can't blame your opponent in the debate for assuming your bad faith from the get-go.
That's the point. Trust me, I've been in this position before, and I think I'm far better off knowing that sometimes the pettiness is deserved. Particularly when I'm just spouting on the internet to blow off steam, as we often are around here.
12/01/09
12/01/09
12/01/09
12/01/09
There is a difference between "There are healthy people at every size" and "Every size is healthy for every person."
12/01/09
12/01/09
I just don't see why it has to be either a) you're fat and you always will be no matter what you do so accept it, or b) if you're not a size 2 you're doing something wrong.
I personally don't care what people do to their own bodies, obviously everyone has agency, but be honest. It irritates me when people profess that simple things like exercise are futile. They're not. And if they are? See a doctor.
12/01/09
But that doesn't mean that someone who goes from eating fried food and restaurant food daily to eating smaller portions of healthier fare and working out will not lose weight and keep it off if she keeps at it. She may not lose as much weight as she wants to or expects, she probably won't automatically--poof!--be thin (and she may never be thin!), and she will have to keep doing those things to stay at the lower weight . . . but in most cases, eating less, eating healthier, and working out more DO change your weight. And if you make permanent changes in those habits, you do see permanent changes in your weight.
12/01/09
12/01/09
I don't read fat acceptance blogs, so I can't speak to your point on their reaction to weight loss.
12/01/09
So, 1/5 -- not as bad as I expected, but still a minority.
12/01/09
12/01/09
12/01/09
12/01/09
I mean, Jesus, it's only in fat acceptance posts that this attitude comes out. I once noted that Gisele Bundchen was terrifyingly thin on Jez and it turned into a shitstorm for the ages, and all sorts of people told me I didn't understand how hurtful that was, etc etc, and probably they were right. But we seem to all agree around here that that sort of stuff isn't helpful because it has nothing to do with anyone's concern for a thin person's health. So pretending this is a health concern here: reprehensible, IMHO.
12/01/09
12/01/09
12/01/09
12/01/09
The "only freaks of nature maintain weight loss" memo is what bugs me. I think a lot of people in the size acceptance community are naturally bigger and have gotten fed up with the pressure to go to extremes to fit someone else's notion of healthy. But for a lot of people, reasonable measures significantly lower their weight but it is easy to sit on the couch and eat take out. That's why my weight goes up and I'm not the only one.
12/01/09
12/01/09
12/01/09
12/01/09
12/01/09
You can disagree with my opinion, but I don't think it is reasonable to jump to the conclusion that I am misreading them. I understand the science and I think her criticisms are sometimes incorrect.
12/01/09
Yes, people, this is why your doctors are so mean to you if you're fat. They learn it in med school. *sigh*
12/01/09
12/01/09
On the 10%/BMI thing, it really depends. A 10% loss can shift someone from the overweight category to the healthy category according to BMI and more people are in the overweight category than the obese category. If a woman is 5'2" and 140 her BMI is just over 25. If she loses 10% (14 lbs) her BMI is 23. If someone who is 5'11 goes from 200 to 180, their BMI goes from 28.7 to 25.8.
12/01/09
That's the problem, isn't it? I mean, I gave up coffee and my blood sugar improved. Didn't lose an ounce, though. I am very, very nervous about weight loss - especially surgically induced weight loss - being touted as a panacea. The science about metabolism, weight and health is completely lacking - and until we have decent science, we're relying on prejudice.
12/01/09
12/01/09
12/01/09
12/01/09
12/01/09
I mean, you and I sort of have a vague internet acquaintance, but I can't just agree categorically with you when you refuse to back your position up, no. Maybe that's what you're reading as not receptive, but you are making claims you now claim it would be irrelevant to defend.
12/01/09
12/01/09
12/01/09
12/01/09
12/01/09
12/01/09
12/01/09
12/01/09
12/01/09
I don't know if it is intentional or not, but reading your comment it sounds like you are accusing me of fat/fat acceptance shaming because I have a less than 100% positive view of fat acceptance blogs. I also have a less than 100% positive view of HuffPo and the DailyKos, but it doesn't mean I hate liberals.
12/01/09
12/01/09
12/02/09
12/02/09
12/01/09
12/01/09
12/01/09
12/01/09
Yes. I agree. Compulsive overeating is just as dangerous as Anorexia. Both are EDs (in my opinion). I am not saying that everyone who is overweight is a binge eater, but the morbidly obese tend to be.
Most of us have very complex relationships with food.
12/01/09
12/01/09
And just like how many bulimics don't lose weight, many binge eaters don't gain weight.
And that's my take on it as well. If your eating habits are compulsive, whether it's compulsive restricting, or compulsive binging, it's a psychological disorder. It's not about self-control and it has nothing to do with fat acceptance.
12/01/09
The hell it is. I'm a purging type anoretic (and, yes, I binge -- 10,000 calories in an hour kind of binge, not "two bowls of cereal"); my mother is a compulsive overeater. We have completely different pathologies regarding binging. In her case, the binging is not a concentrated, focused act but an attempt to find pleasure, however mindless, that is inevitably futile, and she takes some 'relief' in the shame of the binge. For me? Binging itself is a violent act; there is no attempt to find pleasure but instead to beat the hell out of my body by shoving in as much food as possible at once, either to shove down an unpleasant emotion or because I feel I deserve it. But I binge for the purpose of getting to the purge -- the release of everything through my compensatory mechanism (vomiting), which allows me to maintain the delusion that it's now 'all gone,' the emotion and the food. My mother seeks no such release.
Bulimics (and anoretics) who purge via exercise share a psychological similarity to me, not to my mother -- the purge, while done through exercise, restores a feeling of 'it's okay it's okay it's okay.' I am not saying that compulsive overeaters do not also find a sense of 'it's okay' through the act of binging (as I'm sure some of them do), but I really dislike the lumping in of people who DO NOT PURGE, IN ANY WAY, BY ANY COMPENSATORY MECHANISM (even if that compensatory mechanism is just "If I repeat the words PURPLE MONKEY DISHWATER ten times, that means the food doesn't have calories") with those who walk into binges with a compensatory mechanism set up and may in fact binge solely for the purpose of getting to the point of being able to use that compensatory mechanism.
Some people binge to binge. I binge so that I can purge. My mother finds me as alien as I find her. Whereas her emotional release starts midway through the bag of potato chips, mine doesn't until I've pushed my vomit down the garbage disposal. You can stretch the criteria of ED diagnostics however you'd like to make binging with absolutely no compensatory mechanism a form of bulimia, but you're doing a disservice to both sides: the binge/purge cycle is poorly understood as is and has plenty of variety (some bulimics binge to binge and purge solely to maintain weight, some binge for the emotional release of purging, some purge without traditional binging....); turning compulsive overeating into "oh, bulimia without the purging" is both a reductionist view of the binge/purge experience and inaccurate.
I mean, think about it: I can purge, and that changes everything. I can, therefore, eat to the point where I am seriously afraid of gastric rupture, because I know none of this is staying in. My mother, on the other hand, has no such mechanism. From the outside, I probably look more frenzied while binging, act more desperate; certainly my caloric load is greater. If you didn't know the diagnoses, I assume I'd come off as the compulsive overeater, as I've just spent a considerable number of hours today stuffing my face. But my problem is not that I compulsively overeat in a quest to fill myself with some good feeling or to bury some bad one (or out of malnutrition borne of the western diet); my problem is that I binge so that I can do my 'I'm a teenage drama queen/I'll throw my guts up for self-esteem' routine. Psychologically, I'd be in the same boat if I were using exercise, but it would certainly change my eating habits. When I binge, I binge to the point where I'm pretty much crawling on the ground in agony. If I knew I was eating and then going to the gym... I probably wouldn't eat to that point. Etc.
The diagnostic criteria are one thing; the experience of an ED another. And while I know everyone with an eating disorder can relate to some part of another sufferer's experience, regardless of diagnosis, I think that blurring the lines so much that entirely separate syndromes are shoved in under loosely written and poorly understood diagnostic criteria does no one any good.
12/01/09
I absolutely understand that the motivations are different. As they are for each person with an ED. Which is one of the reasons they're so misunderstood. Not all anorexics are starving to be aesthetically pleasing or conventionally attractive. Sometimes the opposite. Sometimes to avoid developing breasts and hips. And sometimes for other reasons altogether, like controlling households, or depression, etc.
All ED's, though, come back to control. Whether trying to maintain it rigidly through restricting, losing it in the binge, or regaining it via the purge. That's generally the common thread.
Binging does create a euphoric "high", must like fasting will. So there's an element of that in all ED's. It's partly what makes them addictive in behavior.
The reason I mentioned the categorization was to show people that compulsive overeating is, in fact, an ED. Most people don't know that. They hear ED and they just think Anorexia or Bulimia, with absolutely no understanding of what defines either, or the variety of forms most ED's take. It's actually really important we know how these things are defined by psychologists, precisely because they ARE lumping many behaviors together. So people aren't being treated with their individual issues in mind.
I actually think the problem is that we've failed to take into account that ED's are not just one behavior, one pathology, one experience.
So. I'm sorry if you thought I was dismissing ED's, or condoning the limits of the categorization. I can assure you, I'm not.
10/28/09
10/28/09
10/28/09
10/28/09
I'll never have a diet coke again!
...but I plan on finishing the one I'm drinking now..... #nightclubforfatpeople
10/28/09
I've long wished for a gym for fat people- a "beginner gym", as I've lovingly called this imaginary place in my mind- where I'd feel like I didn't stand out, where I felt like the people there and I had something in common.
And if I danced more, I would definitely love a nightclub for fat people. #nightclubforfatpeople
10/28/09
On the flip side, do the people really think us skinnies aren't gaining weight for fear we can't have nice things if we get fat? I try to exercise and I eat healthy when I can, but the reasons I am pretty skinny have to do with genetics, hormones, medications (hello, Adderall, that's a healthy way to stay skinny), and maybe because I played sports as a kid and a teen. Most of these factors are either beyond my control, or because I was lucky to have parents that encouraged athletics. My mother, on the other hand, is fat because she takes a powerful psychotropic drug that causes weight gain, and no amount of deprivation of nice things will make it easier for her to lose weight.
I don't want anyone to patronize me either, but it's odd that this attitude seems to come with the assumption that skinny people clearly must be doing something right-- even though a skinny person COULD get fat at any time.
But hey, even though I'm 25 and so far doing okay by their standards, I was just diagnosed with Hashimoto's! So if my thyroid actually becomes shot, and weight creeps on, I think I should consider myself lucky that people like Kate Harding paved the way to acceptance.
Also, I know the weight/health debate can get heated, but at least in this very specific case, according to my mother's doctor, the medication she is on is linked to diabetes, (which she has) due to the weight gain. While dancing and clothing are very nice things, so is your health, and for some people, whose weight gain is linked to a medical problem, I'd think that would be enough of a reason for them to lose weight-- if only it were so easy. #nightclubforfatpeople