[lbo-talk] grist for the cultural angst mill

snit snat snitilicious at tampabay.rr.com
Wed Jun 9 10:26:31 PDT 2004


At 12:53 PM 6/9/2004, Christian Gregory wrote:
> >So, how does this invalidate the researcher's claims?
>
>You have to have a pretty cock-eyed view of the world to think that a
>fairly large change in the skewness of the weight distribution isn't
>significant. And, yes, it is fairly hard to loose weight, but that has
>nothing to do with why people weigh what they do in the first place.

Sure it does. They plant people in a chamber that measures their metabolism so that they know exactly what it takes to maintain their body weight. Then they put them in a room and overfeed them. Some people automatically upregulate their metabolism, burning off most of the extra calories. How? They fidget, squirm, etc. This is in a controlled environment. There really are people who can eat a lot and not get fat. Most of the people in the room will see their metabolism upregulate mildly, it's a normal response to overfeeding. Another group of people will see their metabolism hardly move at all. These people get fat easier.

This is because some people are just different than others.

Then there are situations we're now learning about, where people--especially women--have really screwed with their metabolisms because they've dieted at insanely low calorie levels. As a kid, like a lot of other girls, I thought I was fat. So, I used to eat 800 calories a day. If I ate more, if counted how much more and figured out how much I had to do to burn it off. Or, I made myself puke. Doing that to your body, or engaging in any of the stupid weight loss programs that put people on 1000 cal. a day diets will mean that people lose LBM. When they reach their weight goal, they can't maintain on the same calories as someone who has never dieted but weighs about the same. They have different levels of LBM and, thus, they burn calories at a different rate just sitting on their ass.

as for the researcher, he doesn't seem to be saying the change isn't significant. He's saying that the change is not because every or most USers are way more fat than they used to be. He is saying that the changes in _certain_ groups has skewed the numbers so radically.

Why should this surprise anyone. One of the reasons why they crime rate skyrocketed was simply due to demographics: a lot more baby boomer teens and 20 something contributed to a rise in crime. There were other factors, too, of course. This guy _is_ saying that some of the change can be attributed to being fatter in general, just not all of it.

So, yes, it's a hurtful myth. As someone who grew up thinking I was fat, who shakes my head at my son's GF who think she's fat (she isn't anywhere near being fat), who has a friend who's son thinks he's fat (he's not!) because the cultural ideal is fucking twiggy and emaciated GQ models, yes I have a big fucking problem with the hand wringing over people being fat, especially when it comes from certain people on this list who think it's all about individual moral failure and/or like to blame it all on being Americans, as if the Brits and Australians aren't seeing similar increases in obesity! It's some weird self-hating lefty biz going on there.


> >He's saying the tendency toward obesity or leanness is shaped by
> genetics (duh).
>
>And overlooking that there is a meaninful trend over time, which is
>clearly false. But this also lets him ignore that the relative cheapening
>of calorie-dense foods (ie happy meals, cheetos, etc.) has nothing to do
>with it. Even neo-classical economics tells us that it would have a lot to
>do with it.
>
>Christian
>
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk

"We're in a fucking stagmire."

--Little Carmine, 'The Sopranos'



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list