[lbo-talk] 300 Pounds of Joy (Was Re: 4 July - Help me Think)

Jerry Monaco monacojerry at gmail.com
Sun Jul 8 08:26:53 PDT 2007


On 7/8/07, ravi <ravi at platosbeard.org> wrote:
> On 8 Jul, 2007, at 8:50 AM, Jerry Monaco wrote:
> >
> > Let me repeat, her claim is that practically all of the scientific
> > evidence shows that there is nothing, absolutely nothing, you can do
> > by diet and exercise to effect your weight-range in the long run.
> > <...>
>
>
> She (Gina Kolata) also made the claim that the emerging scientific
> consensus is that being a little (or even a good bit) fat is better
> than being a little thin, for which she offered only some correlation
> evidence. All this was on NPR (The Brian Lehrer show) and Brian did
> not push her on either the analysis or the scientific studies... but
> when he did do that, I found that she was being sensationalistic and
> absolutist -- I guess it sells books and makes you look like you
> found a new "truth".

Yes I agree with this completely. She overstates her case in order to sell books. But I don't think that her basic thesis is sensationalistic or that the truth is new. The weight range observations have been around for about thirty years. But she doesn't mention the fact that weight ranges are only made possible by a stable and inexhaustible supply of food which is a relatively recent phenomena for a mass society. She also doesn't mention the fact that there maybe several triggers for weight ranges and that the same person may have two different weight ranges depending on the environmental triggers, etc. I didn't hear the Brian Lehrer show.
>
> Her claim(s) itself is not easily falsifiable since it is not well-
> stated formally. But using the most obvious formalisation would make
> it possible, I believe, to provide counter-evidence in short order.
> That said, a more nuanced version of the idea, no longer sensational
> or novel unfortunately, would not only be substantial but also
> progressive.

On this point all I have to says is that she gives no clear definitions.

But it was always a goal of my Italian great aunts to "fatten" up their kids. It was bad to be skinny in their view because if you get sick you have less "padding." I think peasants all over the world used to believe this. But has anybody actually done any research. In a world where most people go through periods of forced hunger at some point in their lives. being overweight is certainly a good buffer from the vicissitudes of poverty and famine.

Maybe being a little "overweight" and getting a lot of exercise is good! But how do we define good? I would guess it was certainly "good" for Italian peasants in 1890. Was it good for middle class Americans in 1990? I am still going to guess that lack of exercise and lack of eating "good" food is the main problem with how Americans eat and the obsession with weight is just a class based cultural tyranny of beauty.

I only looked through the book at the library the other day. I didn't read the book. What I saw was interesting and I wouldn't reject it out of hand.

Jerry


>
> --ravi
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list