here here!

The way I read it, "dieting" as in restricting food for a short period then returning to the old habits doesn't work. To me, that's a big old "duh." The changes have to be consistent. That's why when I worked with diabetes patients, I called it "lifestyle changes," because that's what it is.

This is not to say that everyone has to be a certain size or shape in order to meet some criteria of beauty or what have you. I'm just pointing out that these study results confirm something a lot of people (nutritionists, for example) have been saying for years.

That, and American society has a really disordered view of food. More food for less money! All-you-can-eat buffet! "getting your money's worth" in a restaurant is definitely not helping.

The ad I really loathe is the one where some bubbly skinny woman proudly proclaims that her husband now calls her his trophy wife. Ugh.

I did notice that the same company is now playing men with this marketing guilt trip. They are equating weight with sexual inadequacy. They claim that being overweight ruins your sex drive.

Maybe once men start falling victim to the diet industry we will finally see the whole thing go away.

I agree, with a caveat. My mom, who is naturally petite, had gained a lot of weight after my youngest sister was born, about 30% of her pre-baby weight. For ten years, she struggled to lose the weight. She had health problems and needed cholesterol meds. If you are trying to lose weight for health reasons, and you're trying to get to a healthy weight for YOU and not what is fashionably thin, and you've made the requisite mental adjustments (my mom had been eating for emotional reasons and from post-partum depression) as well as a sustained lifestyle eating change (she stopped eating processed foods and lost the weight over a longer period, almost a year), then I think losing weight can be very healthy. It all depends on your reasons. Obviously a fad diet to look like Mischa Barton or whomever is probably not healthy, nor will it work. BUT, I don't think we can say that all efforts to diet are negative or a result of the patriarchy or whatever.

Unfortunately, the article gives practically no useful information on what the study actually did, and I'm incline to agree with C. Diane -- if this is a study on binge dieters, the astounding thing is that a third of them lost weight!

I agree, Meredith. I put on a lot of weight during my marriage. I couldn't walk up stairs without huffing and puffing, my joints hurt (hips, knees, and ankles, mostly), I was tired all the time, and my sex drive had gone down (due to both energy loss and poor self image). I joined Weight Watchers (which promotes the "lifestyle change" thought process) and over two years lost 76 pounds. I feel better, I have more energy, I'm proud of being able to accomplish that, my sex drive is through the roof, and I'm healthier.

Binge and yo-yo dieting are bad things. Women hating themselves for being five pounds over their "ideal" weight is bad. But sometimes making that kind of change can be good for you in a lot of ways.

I'm sorry, but any conscious restriction of food intake with the goal of losing weight counts as "dieting" under any reasonable definition. Whether you're following Atkins to the letter or just trying to eat smaller portions, whether it's a temporary or permanent change. And look how much weight the participants lost: 5 to 10 percent. If you didn't fit the societally approved standard of thinness before, you're probably not going to fit it at 5-10 percent less, and now it requires a massive effort to maintain this still-not-thin-enough weight.

And you also have to wonder about the finding that "people who report the most exercise also have the most weight loss." If your past experience with exercise involved absolutely no results, of course you're going to have a lot less incentive to exercise in the future than someone who successfully loses weight through physical activity. It's like saying that people who report being around cats most often also have the lowest rate of cat allergies.

I'm pretty sure that when psychologists use the term diet, they mean something along the lines of "restrict food intake in an effort to lose weight." That means that this study wouldn't have only looked at binge dieting. It probably also examined groups like Jenny Craig, Weight Watchers, etc. So that means so-called healthy diets as well.

The thing about the human body is that if you deprive it of something it wants, whether that be calories, quantities of food, or certain types of food (like carbs), it will find a way to compensate. First by slowing the metabolism, and then usually by giving you nearly irresistable cravings. This is the primary cause of yo-yo dieting.

So when researchers say that dieting doesn't work, they literally mean that any effort to restrict food intake is likely to be unsuccessful, or even harmful.

More and more, psychologists and physicians are suggesting that the best way to lose weight is through exercise and healthy eating, as opposed to less eating. A pretty good book on the topic is Mindless Eating by Brian Wansink.

I agree with the 15th, the idea behind "dieting" is to reduce calories for weight loss and I'm guessing the academic article defines dieting (which the newspaper article does not). The idea of dieting is driven by people's health concerns and physical/emotional comfort levels with their weight but those comfort levels are shaped by the social influences that tell women they need to be thin. Not happy, comfortable in their bodies, THIN.

Women of all sizes are socialized to think about food as reward and punishment: I ate 5 fruits today so I can have cake. I've been "bad" all week having that frappacuino, I'll eat salad today and go to the gym. We watch and weight and measure ourselves to try to fit that thin ideal all the time (true to varying degrees, but it's hard to fight the social tide). Dieting is part of that.

A good alternative is Healthy at Every Size which teaches people to eat until they feel full, examine how, what and why they eat and encourages pleasurable physical activity. The point is that you may not be thin but you'll be healthier and happier.

The problem is, there's no money it that message for the diet industry.

True words, Steph. One of the things that enabled me to move past the yo-yo dieting mentality I had in college was realizing how much of it is fueled by capitalism. I mean, Nestle makes those delicious crunch bars and hot chocolate and markets them like porn, and then turns around and gives us slim-fast or whatever. Kelloggs tempts us with frosted flakes (mmmm) and then offers the "special k diet" (ewww). And so on.
When you start to really consider the fact that these huge conglomerates want you to binge your misery away and then hate yourself and buy diet products, it makes it easier to stop doing both, I think.

That's what I like about Weight Watchers. It's not about restriction. It's about balance. You can choose to eat a lot of one kind of thing, but you may (depending on what the things are) have to balance that by having less of something else. And then encourage drinking lots of water, eating veggies, exercising in any and all ways, and discourage negative thoughts regarding your activities.

I know, I sound like an ad. But I really think it's a healthy (physically, mentally, and emotionally) way to lose weight for those who need to for whatever reason. Plus, in the two years I've been doing it, I've never put back on more than a few pounds, and that was mostly on vacation (I tend to eat huge amounts on vacations for some reason, plus I drink more).

I could have lost my 76 faster, but there were times I wasn't taking it that seriously. And even during those times I didn't really gain weight back. So there must be something right here.

I learned about weight set-points in my AP Psychology class, and it's something that made a lot of sense to me. Ever since I was 14 I've been within 10 pounds of the same weight except for a few drastic incidents (serious illness, going on the pill, etc.) that evened out in less than a week and a half. Some people just have very strong set-points and for me and other people like me it's going to be very hard to ever gain or lose weight in a significant way. Dieting probably wouldn't help, only dramatic lifestyle change with regards to what I was eating, when I ate it and how much I ate would adjust my weight, and I'm a pretty healthy eater to begin with.

I think the diet industry is another way to keep women obsessed about unimportant things so we don't work as a group against some of the worse forms of sexism in the culture. But that's just the conspiracy theorist in me talking ; )

It was right for you, Kimmy. Being borderline diabetic, it wasn't right for me. Hello, twenty pounds.

Fortunately, carbohydrate restriction has worked for me (hello, concern trolls!) for six years. My blood work is stellar and my weight's manageable, and even though the government would classify me as 20 pounds overweight, I'm healthy.

Still, it's not about lifestyle changes, is it? It's about accepting our bodies as they are, and our sisters as they are and not falling into the role of concern trolls. I believe Fellow-ette has the right idea of avoiding manufacturers who target us with binge/guilt products and doing for ourselves instead.

(God, none of that makes sense. I apologize.)

What's more interesting is that 1/3 of participants kept their weight off.

Set points - they change, and you can often change them. It's hard work, but it can be done. I certainly don't have the same set point I had 20 years ago and among the changes was at least one rachet down, not up.

Personally if I stop taking in all foods with processed sugar in them, I lose weight. Imagine that.

And when I'm working out a lot or have a job that requires a lot of intense physical exercise (as when I was a bike courier), I lose weight. Imagine that.

Being fat (let's not mince words here) isn't healthy. Neither is yo-yo dieting and by definition, people who diet, then regain the weight, then diet again, are yo-yo dieting. The rule-of-thumb for healthy weight loss is a pound a week. Two at most.

To this day, Bloom County said it best.

"Eat less and exercise."

I am hesitant to agree with anything that smacks of "if you're fat, you're stuck that way." While our society puts far too much value into thinness, it also glorifies binge eating and generally unhealthful habits. No, it's not "your fault" if you are overweight, and you may not be meant for the size 0 jeans, but obesity is a health problem that most people can do something about.

Most weight loss programs prey on insecurities about appearance and, as fellow-ette noted, are part of huge companies that encourage fatty foods with one side of their moths adn thinness with the other. I also had a very positive experience with Weight Watchers, but I think it also depends on who your leader is. I definitely need a support group to resist all the other propaganda that's out there about food.

Anyway, I guess I haven't really added much except to say there's a difference between binge/yoyo/fad dieting and permanent alterations to your way of eating and exercising. One will net you an empty pocketbook, growling stomach, and not much in the way of results. The other can be an overwhelmingly positive experience, whether you lose weight or just improve your overall health.

I haven't seen the actual study (and the news article doesn't even tell me which journal it's in.) I would hope that the reviewers defined 'diet' for their meta-analysis. Unfortunately, the newsmedia is using 'binge-dieting' or other terms like it.

It is also true that by starving yourself, you can severely screw up your metabolism. I cringe when I hear someone say they're on a 600-calorie diet or even 1200 if they're tall, doubly if they say their doctor ordered it.

Personally, I'm 25 pounds over the high end of "normal" for my height. I'm working out and watching what I eat, and iff I stick with it, I get smaller. (Frustratingly, I'm not a "plus-size", so fashionable pants are skin-tight around my fattest parts. I need to lose 10 pounds of thigh before I can buy pants. Which is a rant unto itself.)

I agree Diane and others. Personally, I have seen alot of troubling things come from feminism in terms of health. Clearly, you should love yourself and that love should not be size dependent. Yo yo dieting is also clearly not good for you at all. our society has a predetermined idea of what makes someone beautiful, and its not a healthy size 10. however, i do NOT think its ok to accept being overweight to the point of unhealthiness. clearly, different people at different weights are healthy, we are all different, however, 400 pounds is not healty for ANY woman. no one should be discriminated against for their size, i dont look any anyone any differently, but i hardly think feminism should be telling people "its ok to be any size" bc they arent doing a service to anyone. for some reason, i see alot more of that lately and i think its a clear reaction to our societies obsession with thinness. but telling someone they dont need to lose weight bc they are 'beautiful as they are" is misleading. yes they are beautufil, but they are NOT healthy necessarily. healthy should be the goal.

C. Diane,

Have you tried relaxed-fit men's slacks and jeans?

Curiously, I've found that a lot of better clothing picks can be found by "cross-dressing" for both genders in a department store. Women's sweatpants seem to be fuzzier and more comfortable, for instance (it's a freakin' set of formless sweatpants, people, do we really need gender distinction in brands?), while I've known a couple women who swear by men's pants, which is why I bring it up. The main complaint I've heard is a tightness at the hips on jeans, but not all cuts seem to have that problem.

(My girlfriend also steals my T-shirts, but I think that's just because they're mine. :P I sometimes steal her shirts and sweaters, except that they're mostly buttoned, and having the buttons on the opposite fold of cloth makes my fingers clumsy.)

"Eat less and exercise."

That's only going to work so far.

Being fat (let's not mince words here) isn't healthy.

Not everyone is going to be thin, and it's harmful to people when we push that as the ideal. Being morbidly obese is unhealthy. Being "fat"? Not necessarily. Weight is hardly the best indicator of health.

I'm about 6' and around 175 lbs. Most people look at me and think that I'm relatively thin, so I get a pass on my health. Nobody lectures me about my diet. Nobody tells me that I should exercise more. Nobody tells me that I'm unhealthy or derides me for my appearence or my eating habits.

I know plenty of people who weigh more than I do who are in way better shape than I am, and yet, they're constantly bombarded with this notion that they need to lose weight for their health. They eat well, work out, and are active and healthy, but total strangers see that they've got a bigger waistline than I do, and assume that they're in worse shape.

Lack of healthy eating habits and lack of proper exercise are a problem for many people- "thin" people included. Fat people may be an easy target, but there are just as many unhealthy thin people as fat people, and it's pretty shitty to shame people for something that may literally be beyond their control. "Thin" is not the healthiest state for everyone.

It seems to me that most of the health problems associated with obesity have to do with inactivity. I do think that it's wise to reject the unhealthy, overprocessed food that's so abundant in our culture. And it's probably no coincidence that people who are physically active are less likely to be obese. But there are plenty of people who are fat and fit, and trying to get healthier is usually a disappointing endeavor when the only indicator of health you're using is your weight.

According to my BMI, I'm "overweight." But nobody would look at me and describe me as overweight--I'm fairly muscular and in generally great health.

Some people who are suffering from obesity-related health concernes are really unhappy and I sympathize with their efforts to shed unwanted pounds. But it's obvious that our society's notion of what a woman's body is supposed to look like is seriously twisted. It has to do with fetishizing female frailty, I think, and that coupled with the abundance and low cost of junk food is pummeling everyone's self esteem.

I hope no one thought my earlier posts were indications that I thought everyone needed to get thin, or that there's anything wrong with being larger than society has arbitrarily determined is "average."

I lost my weight for a multitude of reasons, among which were both self-image and health issues. But before I did that I spent a good three to six months learning to love myself no matter my size. I refused to begin at Weight Watchers until I knew that it wouldn't affect my ability to love myself one way or the other.

The only reason I really posted at all was to point out that not all so-called "dieting" (I really don't consider WW a diet) is bad, and that even efforts to lose weight through programs (meaning not just eating better and exercising on your own) are bad for you mentally, physically, or emotionally.

And now I see I've talked too much again. Sorry 'bout that.

Zed, I already buy men's jeans, but men's dress slacks don't fit me quite right. I'm 5'2", petite, and curvy, which makes for an utterly hellish experience in clothing stores. Except places like Ann Taylor, which are a bit out of my price range.

yup romacyll, dead on. technically i could lose more then a few pounds, but i can run, with no problem 5 miles, and swim well over 7. i know people who are a size 4 and cant do that. morbidly obese is more what i was speaking of.

katie, I agree. I like to say that we're rapidly losing the "weight middle class."

In a sense, our society fetishizes both morbid obesity AND thinness. Fetishize not in the sense that they're both trumpeted as "ideals" -- but in the sense that we objectify and depersonify people far on either end of the scale. As a society, we have horrifically unhealthy eating and exercise habits, and these DO need to be addressed, period, on BOTH ends.

If you look at tabloids you'll notice that female (and to a lesser extent, male) celebrities are brutally mocked for their weight. If they deviate more than five pounds up or down from some pre-determined "ideal," suddenly they're FAT or they need to check into rehab for anorexia. We as a society are guilty of judging ALL of these people and simultaneously contributing to their poor health, by essentially giving them a free pass on the bad behaviors that contribute to it (obsession with looks/appearance on the one hand, and eating the absolute SHIT that passes for food nowadays on the other).

I actually don't think that the skeletal look is REALLY the ideal... unless you want to be an international supermodel (quite honestly, I don't -- I always wanted to be an actor, which you can be and actually maintain a healthy weight, if on the lowish end of healthy). I DO think that there are healthy ideals, but that those ideals are REALLY hard to reach -- people like Scarlet Johansen and Brad Pitt didn't get their bodies by starving themselves into such a stupor they didn't have the energy to exercise. I think the problem is that we focus on just GETTING the body, rather than on HOW you get a body like that, or healthy ways to do it. Obviously you have to control for things like bone structure and body type -- but most people can find a healthy, attractive ideal for their bone structure and body type. The problem is that our culture objectifies these issues and makes them intensely superficial -- leading people to only care about the outward appearance rather than having the health and attractiveness flow from the inside. I say all this at the risk of sounding supremely cheesy :)

I'm also rambling, so I'll stop now.

I definitely agree about the nutri systems ad - it makes me want to vomit. what about "losing those 100 lbs allowed me more mobility" or "my health greatly improved" or "i feel more confident"? i hate that shit.

a good non-diety-y system for weightloss that makes it about health, not appearance:

www.sparkpeople.com

you can track calories as well as fitness, different vitamins, protein, etc. along with a big support group of people in the same boat.

Apologies if this seems really random, since I've only read about half the comments. But:

There's something innately wrong about controlling what you eat? Fad diets are one thing, but there are many variations on "dieting", and starving yourself or cutting out one whole food group are not the only ways.

I NEED to change my diet, and don't out of laziness. I need to because I'm lactose intolerant, and allergic to refined sugars and wheat. I can and do eat these things, but I'm exhausted all the time, get asthma, and sometimes get welts on my thighs.

As someone who has recently gone from doing a LOT of exercise to very little, I also want to lose fat. Sure, I want to look prettier, but I know what is a good amount of fat on my frame - I'm not unhealthy, but it's more weight than I need to carry around for the sake of my fitness and my shite joints.

Also, I'd go so far as to say ALL diets work - if you actually do it and realise that you cannot lose weight then go back to eating crap.

The concept of energy in=energy out seems to miss most people. The crap thing about losing weight is that you WILL feel bad because you have to use more energy than you eat. But that's not forever.

I don't really like the attitude I picked up in a couple of posts that is "be as fat as you want but don't you DARE think of losing weight". Beauty standards may not cater to a "normal" weight but that doesn't mean it's good for you in any sense to continue to eat badly because changing would be "giving in"

There's nothing wrong with controlling what you eat, but I just disagree with the idea that there are bad "fad diets" and good "lifestyle changes." The low-fat diet that everyone was told to follow in the 90's was accepted as nutritional gospel, and now we're just starting to realize how little evidence there was that cutting (at least vegetable) fat is a good idea in any way.

Perhaps there's no evidence, 15th, but your final clause implies that cutting fat at all is a bad idea. Is that your intent?

The logic, as I understand it, is that fat is the most calorie-dense part of food (9 kcal/gram vs 4 for carbs and protein), so it's easier to reduce fat calories, and probably healthier. Since the 1980s thinking has changed that saturated fats (eg animal) are 'worse' than unsaturated (plant). Fat should still be limited, and olive oil is better than lard or butter.

This is part of science. You get a theory, test it, and revise it as data come in.

The difference between "fad diets" and permanent changes is that the general cultural mindset toward a diet is that it's a temporary state, and once you've reached your goal, you can stop "dieting" and go back to eating all the crap you used to. That's not true. That's how you yo-yo.

A lot of plans that are considered "fad diets," like Atkins, are intended to be followed in some form permanently, whether or not dieters actually do so.

Yes, I think that cutting total fat percentage is a bad idea, except for those people who find it easier to eat fewer calories that way. Whenever there's research that a food like avocados or nuts is healthy, the advice usually given to the public is to increase that food as a part of their total fat consumption, which still shouldn't exceed some arbitrary percent of calories. It makes no sense not to have guidelines that advise increasing that food as a part of total CALORIE consumption.

If people stick to Atkins for 30 years, and it works for them, more power to 'em. I go more Ornish-style, though I still eat cheese and put (skim) cow milk on my cereal.

The problem with getting dietary advice from the media is that it promotes a false sense of "one plan fits all" and does a horrible job of explaining things (as you note with the fat vs calorie consumption). The media also feeds into the national eating disorder: they make headlines about new findings, then suddenly everyone's doing low-carb or whatever. (also, butter! no, margarine! no, butter!)

Limiting fat to 1/3 of total calories allows you to divide the other 2/3 between carbs and proteins, assuming you're not doing Atkins. That's pretty balanced. I heartily promote balance and moderation.

There's a tendency to conflate the idea of a diet as a restriction of food intake with the more colloquial concept of diet as eating tendencies. As in, "I'm on a diet" vs. "I am trying to eat a healthier diet."

The people who did this study meant the former as do, I assume, the commenters here who advise against dieting.

I don't think that any of the people advocating against that type of diet, however, would say that trying to change one's eating habits to be more healthy is a bad idea. Big changes can be hard to maintain, but small steps like cutting out sodas or artificially sweetened juices (the NYTimes article about 21% of U.S. calories coming from drinks was eye-opening), eating less fast food, or trying to eat more servings of fruits and vegetables are of course a good idea.

On a somewhat different topic, I would love to see a post and/or discussion on the issue of eating healthily as a class issue.

The problem here is really one of paradigm.

Most diets fail not because of the structure of the diet, but because of the lack of discipline/will of the dieter.

Most businesses fail too. About 90%. This does not mean the "business industry" (to be redundant) is flawed. It means running a successful business is HARD.

Dieting is hard too. I have been a weightclassed athlete, and have trained with many women and men in the same sport who work exceptionally hard to "make weight".

The CDC says about 2/3 of all illness is diet/behavior related.

People expect diets to be easy, and don't want to put the effort in. Then, with empowerment from studies like these I might add, they blame the DIET.

Also, the concept of "going on a diet" implies a temporary thing. It shouldn't be. Losing fat/gaining muscle/being healthy is about lifelong lifestyle CHOICES. It's not about "going on a diet" to lose a few pounds, then reverting to one's prior habits and expecting the change to remain

Seriously?
Nobody is saying that people shouldn't strive to be healthy.
Nobody.

The article was talking about being on a diet, not about maintaining a healthy diet. The two aren't really the same.

The key point was that weight is not a good indication of health.

Yes, a person who is morbidly obese is probably not very healthy, but the fat-shaming is hardly so finely targeted.

We conflate thinness with happiness, success, power, when really it is just a number on a scale.

That right there seemed to be the point, to me.

Thin does not necessarily equal healthy.
Fat does not necessarily equal unhealthy.

You are making my point. People think diets as in "I'm going on a diet". Which means, invariably, they go OFF the diet at some point and/or fail to maintain the discipline and blame... wait for it... the diet.

You are darn right that weight is not an indication of health. I am obese by BMI standards. But my bodyfat is under 12%. Why? Cause weight =/= fat.

Overfat *is* unhealthy, ceteris paribus - being 30% BF is much less healthy than being 12% bf. But if you are 12% bf, eat a diet high in transfats, smoke, drink lots of liquor, etc. you are not healthy.

The reality is that, for the first time in history, the #1 health problem among poorer people is OBESITY. It used to be that poverty meant - not enough to eat. How ironic is that?

Again, having a healthy diet is about discipline. It means that you cannot eat what you want, when you want.

People who are not willing to accept that, and make that sacrifice can't blame The Diet (tm).

i hardly think feminism should be telling people "its ok to be any size" bc they arent doing a service to anyone. for some reason, i see alot more of that lately and i think its a clear reaction to our societies obsession with thinness. but telling someone they dont need to lose weight bc they are 'beautiful as they are" is misleading. yes they are beautufil, but they are NOT healthy necessarily. healthy should be the goal.

Sure, health ought to be a goal for all people. However, I don't think it's the job of feminism to shame fat people into adopting that goal. Yes, it is okay to be any size; we don't have to pretend that it's healthy but I don't think you or anyone else has a right to tell someone else that they must be a certain size. Saying that feminism shouldn't be telling people that they're fine at any size implies that there is a size that these people should be. Feminism is about many things, including choice.

Beauty doesn't equal health either. It's not misleading to tell someone who isn't healthy that they are beautiful - considering that many people over eat for emotional reasons, just telling them that might help!

I don't mean to pick on you personally but I just wanted to have my say. I'm sorry if I've misinterpreted you.

What is and isn't healthy is a science thang. What is and isn't feminism - is something entirely different.

One the one hand, people say that one should not "fat bash" or that fat people are beautiful etc.

But, fat-acceptance anti-science aside - it is NOT healthy to be overfat.

On the other hand, it is not healthy to be extremely thin.

People have the choice to eat what they want... unless they are in NYC and want some transfats... but i digress.

It does not follow that the RESULTS of their choices are equally healthy, equally worthy, etc.

Overeating and getting overfat tends to result in a # of health issues, especially over the longterm.

But... looking like stick figure =/= healthy (necessarily). Again, I have trained with some of the strongest female athletes in the country - they have various levels of fat, but all are very healthy, and only a couple looked like the "media perfect" body so to speak.

Sorry if this is disjointed...

What is and isn't healthy is a science thang. What is and isn't feminism - is something entirely different.

One the one hand, people say that one should not "fat bash" or that fat people are beautiful etc.

But, fat-acceptance anti-science aside - it is NOT healthy to be overfat.

On the other hand, it is not healthy to be extremely thin.

People have the choice to eat what they want... unless they are in NYC and want some transfats... but i digress.

It does not follow that the RESULTS of their choices are equally healthy, equally worthy, etc.

Overeating and getting overfat tends to result in a # of health issues, especially over the longterm.

But... looking like stick figure =/= healthy (necessarily). Again, I have trained with some of the strongest female athletes in the country - they have various levels of fat, but all are very healthy, and only a couple looked like the "media perfect" body so to speak.

Sorry if this is disjointed...

to put it succinctly ...

mccallum, a writer on strength training once said that: mediocre effort combined with the best training program in the world will give mediocre results.

however, superior effort on a mediocre program will yield good results

the same can be said for diet. the problem is not "the diets".

dieting is not rocket science (and i have work as a personal trainer as well). it's actually quite simple in theory. it's the execution that is hard. and that is entirely within the locus of control of the person doing the dieting

Holly and Roymac, thanks for making most of the points I would have made in an overlong, hysterical comment if you hadn't preceded me.

I have two things to add, and let me preface this by saying I've lost a total of 110 lbs. on various diets in my adult life:

1) Isn't this thread itself evidence of how silly it is to act as if there's a single diet--or "lifestyle change" prescription for everyone? "Diets don't work, but Weight Watchers does." "Diets don't work, but carb restriction does." "Diets don't work, but exercise does." "Diets don't work, but restricting calories permanently, which is somehow not dieting, does." "Diets DO work, but people just can't seem to stick to them for the rest of their natural lives."

At some point, doesn't the ridiculousness become obvious?

Shorter everyone in the world: "Diets don't work, but fat people still shouldn't be fat."

2) I think a lot of the points about weight and health here are highly debatable, but let's take something we can all agree on: weighing several hundred pounds is generally not healthy.

Even acknowledging that, how does harping on it help anyone one damned bit? Does anyone seriously think people who weigh 400 lbs. haven't clued into the fact that their bodies are under some strain? Does anyone seriously think adult human beings will somehow benefit from being tsk-tsked about their weight--let alone reviled, ostracized, denied employment, etc.?

And most importantly, does anyone seriously think it's possible to reconcile feminist principles with telling an entire group of people their decisions about their own bodies--insofar as they are decisions--are A) wrong and B) anyone else's business?

It is not healthy to be what doctors call "morbidly obese," but most people who think of themselves as fat aren't "morbidly obese."

It is not particularly unhealthy to be overweight, or even obese, in and of itself. At least not in my estimation. Cholesterol count and blood pressure are more important numbers than weight, I would think. Of course there is a correlation between high cholesterol and high blood pressure and obesity, because the fried foods that comprise so much of our diet as Americans create both effects, but correlation and causation are not quite the same thing.

Oh, me? I'm 5'9" and praying I haven't cracked 200 pounds yet. Kind of scared to look. I just ate a Slim-Fast bar for dessert, and chased it with a diet root beer. You won't catch me in a bathing suit anytime soon. So even while I recognize how ridiculous and cruel and commercially-driven the "drive to be thin" is, I'm still holding myself accountable to those standards. So I'm in sympathy with other people who do, certainly, but that's a completely different problem from legitimate health concerns re: blood pressure, cholesterol, and inactivity. The fact that we conflate all of that may be part of the reasons why diets, in this country, don't seem to work.

Cheers,

TH

TH: "You won't catch me in a bathing suit anytime soon."

Oh come on, Tom, you know you look sexy as all hell in a banana hammock! :P

If only I wasn't married...

the issue is not that there is something morally wrong with being fat. the issue is that it is anti-scientific and suspect to claim that the reason people who want to lose fat, is the fault of bad diets, or the diet industry. ANYBODY (with the exception of a very small %age of people with serious metabolic disorders) who WORKS HARD at ANY decent diet methodology will lose fat. period. and i say that based upon dozens of personal training clients - women and men alike.

everybody wants to blame somebody or something else- mcdonald's, the diet industry, etc.

the point is that there are a few things in life that we have near total control over - what we, as adults, put in our mouths is one of those things

I've been reading a lot of stuff here about how people wouldn't gain the weight back if they could maintain their diet indefinitely. Subtext: if they weren't so lazy and had some willpower.

Well, the thing about most diets is that they CAN'T be maintained indefinitely. If I choose to eat nothing but cantaloupe, which I've heard as a diet, I'll lose weight, but eventually I need to put the other nutrients back in my system, or I will become very ill and possibly die.

My theory is that we should all try to pretend we live "100 years ago" in regards to eating. We wouldn't have access to any of the refined and processed foods that have contributed to obesity, especially in our poorest communities. Unfortunately, our poorest communities are where this is impossible, because they simply don't have access to things the same things as someone like me, who lives in a wealthy community surrounded by fruit stands and upscale grocery stores with a variety of produce. If I'm not mistaken, I read on Feministe that food stamps couldn't even be used on fruits and vegetables until a few months ago.

But back to my theory: if it's possible, I think it could work. We'd eat only whole grains, fresh fruits and vegetables, and a great deal less meat. It's harder to eat cookies all the time if you have to make them from scratch, and fast food just wouldn't exist to us.

But I also have this half-baked theory that the world would be a better place if the car had never been invented, and we all just used trains/streetcars/trolleys.

Good on those who point out that it's not our place as feminists to say what someone else should or shouldn't do with her (or his) body. Feminism shouldn't be about fat shaming any more than it should be about shaming people who strive for unhealthily thin body weight or body shape (which I often find myself doing, falsely thinking it is feminist because these thin women's bodies are a visual reminder of patriarchal demands on my own).

The feminist in me who says "fuck the beauty myth" also says "fuck the industries that encourage me to pollute my body." So while I agree that the diet industry participates in both the beauty myth and body pollution, so do those that put out defeatist messages about overfatness (that it's my fault but/and/or there's no use dieting) and sell me expensive "plus size" clothes along with my unhealthy dose of shame. I think a lot of commenters who reacted negatively to this post feel the same way I do--that feminists should be encouraging (not forcing!) women to take care of their bodies without buying into either side's lies.

Of course I live my life falling short of all these high ideals (not just physical fitness but also avoiding hipocrisy), but the closer I get, the better I feel.

prairielily, that was exactly my point. paradigm

people think of going ON a diet. that implies going OFF it at some point

what people need to do is first and foremost - take responsibility for how they live - and specifically what and how much they eat. it's that frigging simple. simply decreasing portion size ALONE ***will*** result in fat loss if you keep your discipline

it is not the fault of diets. fad diets are popular because there is a MARKET for them. because people who (i'm sorry if it's harsh - but it's true) can't or won't exercise the willpower/discipline to adhere to basic portion control etc. WANT their to be these magic canteloupe (etc.) diets that will save them from actual effort.

for the first time in history - OBESITY is the #1 health problem for the poor. and it is entirely correctable through self-action. it's not externally determined.

i spent a fair amount of time on the "fat acceptance" group in usenet, and i'm telling you people will delude themselves with any bogus science and blame everybody else vs. just take responsibility.

if you want to be fat, that's fine. i could not care less. what irks me is when people try to blame the diet industry, mcdonald's, etc. for their own personal choices.

atrope I had a friend who was in a highly active performance group in high school (competitive marching band, woo!), carried around a Tuba on his shoulders at least 20 hours a week, went for twice weekly runs, sit ups, stretches and other warm up routines just like the rest of us. He was 6'6", couldn't have weighed an ounce under 300lbs and never got any smaller. We were in marching band together for 4 years. But he always kept up with everyone else, and usually had more energy left at the end of the night than the more fit people in the group.

I saw what he ate, it wasn't any different than the lunches my mom was giving me, but where he looked like he spent all his time playing video games I dropped to 11% body fat (I'm a girl). My brother lost so much weight in his first three months in the band that his pants literally fell off during rehersal one night.

I don't blame my friend for his weight, especially after going through those years with him, anymore than anyone should blame me for mine. No one's saying that it doesn't matter what you eat or not to take care of yourself, just that it's hard to judge whether or not someone's doing that from the outside. I'm sorry if you find that offensive.

what people need to do is first and foremost - take responsibility for how they live - and specifically what and how much they eat. it's that frigging simple.

Wow. Thanks for clearing that up. I'm sure nobody has thought of that, before. With those words, I will now dismiss the myriad studies I've seen that show that even people who stick with diets frequently gain weight back.

simply decreasing portion size ALONE ***will*** result in fat loss if you keep your discipline

It sure will. Right up until your body's metabolism adjusts to the new portion sizes you're going with.

fad diets are popular because there is a MARKET for them.

So? Hardcore pornography is popular because there's a MARKET for it, too. That doesn't mean that it's completely harmless.

It's great that you've apparently had brilliant experiences with losing weight. Not everyone is built the same. Obviously, if someone wants to be healthy, they need to watch what they eat, and they need to exercise. Those are two key elements to being healthy. When you focus on the losing weight part, you completely miss the point.

Weight is not a good indicator of health.

There are lots of unhealthy thin people and lots of very healthy fat people. You keep focusing on "Well, if those fatties weren't so lazy and would put some effort in, they could lose some weight."

In some cases, maybe. In others, maybe not. If someone is already at their body's ideal weight, but they look fat by societies standards, they're not going to lose and keep off weight just by eating a healthy diet and exercising, and it's dishonest and harmful to say that they will.

You're doing exactly the thing that is being talked about- you're conflating thinness with health, even when you're saying you're not. Emphasizing things like "ANYBODY (with the exception of a very small %age of people with serious metabolic disorders) who WORKS HARD at ANY decent diet methodology will lose fat. period." is hurtful and harmful. Also, untrue.

the issue is that it is anti-scientific and suspect to claim that the reason people who want to lose fat, is the fault of bad diets, or the diet industry.

This isn't even accurate, either. Nobody has said that the reason people watn to lose fat is because of bad diets or the diet industry. What is being said is that there are many people who become obsessed with losing weight because of social pressures to be thin, regardless of whether it's healthy or not. We're constantly bombarded with the notion that:
thin = pretty
thin = healthy
thin = popular
thin = good

fat = ugly
fat = unhealthy
fat = unpopular
fat = bad

None of those things is necessarily true, and continuing to reinforce those ideas is hurtful and wrong.

Hear, hear, roymacIII!

Study details:

The study gathered all of the information from the dozens of large-scale dieting studies that have been conducted. From the lit, it is quite clear that the vast majority of people regain the weight they have lost - for some its because they go off the diet, for others the mental fatigue and stress related to dieting reinforce a pattern of binging to relieve stress followed by more stress-inducing fasting.

If you *are* going to diet, the most effective methods are group based programs like Weight Watchers and Overeaters Anonymous, because they are lead by instructors trained in emotional and nutritional information related to dieting, and encourage very slow weight loss over a long period rather than crash dieting.

Caveat about the study: it only examined programs that focus on dieting without adding an exercise component. The research I am familiar with that focuses on dieting + exercise doesn't give strong support for dieting to lose weight either, but it's more effective than dieting alone.

"I did notice that the same company is now playing men with this marketing guilt trip. They are equating weight with sexual inadequacy. They claim that being overweight ruins your sex drive. "

That's interesting, I would love to have the link. We are about to publish a study of 2000 adult men and women (including 250 gay/lesbian participants). One of the questions we asked was whether or not their feelings about their body had a negative, positive, or no effect on their enjoyment of their sex lives.

Percent who said it had a negative impact?

Hetero Men: 30%
Gay Men: 50%
Lesbian Women: 38%
Hetero Women: 39%

Some of the quotes from the qualitative responses are quite sad.

personally, i think its absolutely feminisms job to promote healthiness in women. once again healthiness is NOT equated with being a certain size bc clearly it comes in many different sizes. what i do see feminism doing is promoting "fat acceptance" in a way they would NOT do in terms of "thin acceptance". by this i am referrring to both extremes of thin and fat. you dont see feminism promoting that its ok to be anorexic (by ok i mean healthy for you, not as indicative of the person you are) so i dont think they should be promoting "fat acceptance" in the sort of way that says, yes, its ok to be obese. my point was is that these are BOTH unhealthy things. by no means should feminism bc saying "you need to be this size" (which i never said) but we absolutely should be behind A) not judging people for their weight, and expanding on that fact confronting the horrific issues women face with their bodies and society and B) talking about making women healthy, and how to get them there.

what is more feminist then helping women be the best they can be?

you dont see feminism promoting that its ok to be anorexic (by ok i mean healthy for you, not as indicative of the person you are) so i dont think they should be promoting "fat acceptance" in the sort of way that says, yes, its ok to be obese.

I don't see anyone saying "it's healthy to be morbidly obese", though. Where are you seeing this attitude coming from, because I'm not sure I've seen it. At least, not in any mainstream sort of way. I've been told about groups that fetishize fatness, but I don't think I've ever heard of people saying "Hey, being morbidly obese is totally healthy!"

i think feminism has been at the forefront of "fat acceptance". there have been a bunch of books on it, and a a bunch of groups that thats all, stop being so combative.do it. and i am not saying they go out and say "its totally healthy", however its like an accept you body how it is, sort of thing. clearly, like i said before, you should love yourself, but its almost like saying "its ok to be this big". which, it is, we should fight for people not to be discriminated against, but its NOT ok to think its healthy, which is sort of the message i get from it. and i am not talking about any groups that do this in a sexual sort of way. maybe i am just looking at it the wrong way, but i still think health should the goal, and i dont necessarily see that as much as i would like to.

genny, i don't find it offensive. i find it inconsistent with the scientific data, and my personal experience.

i am NOT speaking for myself (only). i am speaking for myself, for dozens of clients i have PErSONALLY trained, and for several dozen women and men i have competed/trained with.

the laws of physics and chemistry are pretty universal. save an extremely rare metabolic disorder - eat less, lose fat.

period.

i suggest that unless you were with your friend 24/7 you did not see everything they ate. with clients, i always had them record for a week every single thing they ate. not ONE person was unsurprised by how much more they eat than they had deluded themselves into believing they did.

again, some people want to blame external forces - e.g. the diet industry.

we have (as adults) complete control over what we eat. the reason people are (usually) fat and/or we have had upspike in obesity is because of the choices people make. regardless, of the reasons behind those choice - CHOOSING to be disciplined about eating WILL result in fat loss.

again, i don't care how fat somebody is. i care when people try to blame external forces for their own decisions.

""I don't see anyone saying "it's healthy to be morbidly obese", though. Where are you seeing this attitude coming from, because I'm not sure I've seen it. At least, not in any mainstream sort of way. I've been told about groups that fetishize fatness, but I don't think I've ever heard of people saying "Hey, being morbidly obese is totally healthy!""

i have seen it repeated ENDLESSLY (with bad science to boot). there is a usenet group that specializes in this stuff

the idea that obesity is not unhealthy, etc.

ucla bodyimage...

again, the facts don't lie

the science is this. fatter men do tend to , on average, have decreased sex drive

this is because increased bodyfat is estrogenic (see: aromatase enzyme etc.)

overweight men tend to have a lower T/E ratio (testosterone/estrogen)

this would certainly explain the lower sex drive

but its almost like saying "its ok to be this big". which, it is, we should fight for people not to be discriminated against, but its NOT ok to think its healthy

I am totally coming late to this discussion, but may I point out that you cannot tell how healthy someone is from externally judging their body weight? Weight does not equal health. It doesn't even come close to it.

So saying it's not okay to say "it's okay to be big" because it's "not healthy" to be big is untrue.

Not to pick on you, but this bugs me immensely when some little Susie-Sunshine (not you, but rather people I meet day to day) thinks she knows my blood pressure and cholestoral (both impeccable) when she notices that I'm 20 pounds "overweight". And, yes, it IS "okay to be big".

first of all, the term "overweight" is AMA inspired rubbish, since it fails to distinguish between LBM (lean body mass) and fat.

you could be "obese" by BMI standards at 12% bf.

some of the comments here strike me as EXTREMELY classist. to say that anyone can change their diet and devote time to exercise is a big FAT lie. a single mother working a minimum wage job and not recieving child support cant hop in her suv and hightail it to whole foods, nor does she have the time to "train" or to even cook every meal from fresh ingredients. she and her children will eat what they can afford and she will serve the meals she has time to serve and often those will be frozen or canned. i kno becos i was raised by a single mother who wasnt recieving child support and who made only enough to just get by. i ate "kid's cuisine" and my mom ate "stouffer's" and while i hung around in front of the tv babysitting myself waiting for her to get home from work i ate oreos. our idea of a homecooked meal was prince spaghetti with prego sauce. we ate fast food 3 times a week, becos my mother lacked the time and energy to do anything more than survive.

im actually really angry at the way this conversation is going, on the part of certain posters. i dont own a car and live in a rural community that i could afford to rent in, without job opportunites, so my boyfriend (who has a car) and i commute an hour and a half each way to chicago to work so we can make above minimum wage. i wake up each day at 11 am and eat breakfast get ready so we can leave by 1pm. we get home from work between 2am and 3am on average, then we cook dinner and try to relax enough to sleep. we finally fall asleep around 5am, which means i get 6 hours of sleep. lucky for my girlish figure, my job as a cocktail waitress keeps me running all night with a 10ish pound tray of drinks hoisted over my head, otherwise who knos how damn fat i would be.

despite the fact that i get my medical care at the local clinic, i dont own a car, i live well below the poverty line, i eat an all natural and organic ovo-lacto vegetarian diet. i can afford it becos my rent is so low, becos of my commute to a better job, becos im lucky enough to be childless while living below the poverty line. but i dont have the luxury of time to excercise and combined with a slow metabolism im 5'1'' and 150 Lbs (tho my legs are solid muscle from work)even tho i only eat about 1000-1500 calories a day becos its all my body desires. 1000-1500 calories of whole foods, tons of fresh organic produce, whole grains, yogurt.

you would look at me atrope and assume that i am lazy, that i fill my face with massive amounts of calories and sit on my ass watching television instead of excercising when in reality i have been within the same 15 pound range since i was 16, ten years ago. my body is where it needs to be, i am healthy and i feel amazing.

My theory is that we should all try to pretend we live "100 years ago" in regards to eating.

No thanks. 100 years ago my great-grandmother and her sisters were sleeping in hammocks because their parents couldn't afford to buy beds. She grew up hungry. Her access to fresh vegetables and fruit, especially in winter, was severely limited. Damn, 100 years ago, most of my forebears couldn't count on access to milk while they were growing up.

For those of us who aren't wealthy, expanded access to different kinds of food, and the kind of processing and preserving that makes it possible to have food out of season has been a good thing.

There are a few things in life that we have near total control over - what we, as adults, put in our mouths is one of those things

Nonsense. That's a myth, and an attractive one, but a myth nonetheless. Leaving aside things like eating disorders, let's just talk about class and money. What you eat depends on what food you can afford to buy; it also depends on what kind of food is sold in your neighborhood. It also depends on the emotional and cultural valance of your food: the consequences of becoming a vegetarian can be great if, for instance, you come from a family whose gatherings revolve around collard greens and barbecue. It also depends on time constraints: are you working two jobs or having to commute two hours each way? You're probably not going to have a whole lot of time to cook nutritious meals from scratch. The fantasy that we can completely control these fundamental aspects of our lives is one of the most guilt-inducing lies ever told.

jessi, please get real.

for decades in the united states (and elsewhere) poor people had no problem cooking and preparing (reasonably) healthy meals in reasonable portions

the obesity epidemic is RECENT.

it is matter of discipline and effort. poor people (i used to be one) can eat smart

saying they don't, imo, is classist. a classic "soft bigotry of low expectations" so to speak.

i lived below the poverty line for quite some time. and i ate responsibly.

i see the way people shop, and what they buy, in the hood, cause i've shopped there for years.

it's a matter of personal choices.

EG, once again, you say exactly what I was thinking, only more eloquently, forcefully, and (infinitely more!) politely than I would have.

And jessi accentuates the point as well: Which is, simply, that poor people (I should know, I am one!) don't have the time and energy to exercise.

Atrope, the "epidemic" (a poor choice of words, but whatevs) is "recent" because our jobs have changed from active to sedentary ones. We're just as tired after a long day, but without the exercise we used to get.

Plus, we don't half-starve-to-death every other winter. Go fig.

sorry, EJ but the facts don't support your rationalization. first of all, obesity IS an epidemic among CHILDREN (again, for the first time in recorded history) and children have TONS of leisure time. what is the average # of hours per day that kids spend 1) watching TV 2) surfing the internet 3) playing video games?

last i checked, it was over 5 hrs a day.

it is NOT a leisure time thang.

for most of recorded history, obesity was a problem with the "idle rich" who had tons of idle time.

it comes down to choices. when people choose to eat too many kilocalories of fattening food, they get FATter.

again, you don't NEEd to exercise, it merely helps (it's symbiotic with exercise and diet).

for the first time in history, the #1 health problem in the lower income quintiles is directly behavior based (diet) as the CDC says. these are choices people make.

as i said, i have lived in poor areas (and been poor myself) and i suggest you go to the local grocery store and observe what food people are buying - overwhelmingly it is highly processed, fat/salt laden, devoid of micronutrients and fiber, etc. etc. etc.

it comes down to discipline and choices. if i ate what i wanted to eat, i would be hella fat. i choose not to be. that's my choice

i have no problem with people who are fat. i have a problem with people who want to blame others for their choices, or blame external factors when the cause, and the cure - lies with the person who is putting the food in their mouth.

Atrope, sorry but you are living in a fantasy world.

Yes, you DO have to exercise if you want to lose weight. "Dieting" does not work, simply because our bodies are sophisticated enough to adjust to the new food input and maintain the previous balance point. And poor people simply do not have time to exercise after a long day at a sedentary (no work-place exercise perk) job.

As for the children, the same thing applies. Across the country (at least MY country), schools are cutting recess to save money and meet the "No Child Left Behind" scholastic requirements. At the same time, the school days are getting longer and longer (I know a boy who has to get up at 6 am every day for the bus. *I* don't get up at 6 am.) and the children arrive home tired-er and tired-er. They get served microwave meals because Mom is bushed and then they drag themselves off to bed. That's the life of America's living-on-minimum-wage-and-burning-the-candle-at-both-ends class.

Maybe you just don't have much insight into a class other than your obviously privileged one.

I'd like to adress another point you seem to be missing, atrope.

as i said, i have lived in poor areas (and been poor myself) and i suggest you go to the local grocery store and observe what food people are buying - overwhelmingly it is highly processed, fat/salt laden, devoid of micronutrients and fiber, etc. etc. etc.

The REASON people in poor areas buy fattening food is because it is cheaper and more filling than non-fattening food. Again, we are slaves not to our own choices but to our opportunities. It is simply fact that a $1 cheese burger at McDonalds is more affordable to me than a $5 supermarket salad. I've actually purchased microwave meals at 30g of fat a pop for more than the price of a single potato.

For you to blame poor people for these buying "choices" is unbelievably classist.

Typo correction:

I've actually purchased microwave meals at 30g of fat a pop for LESS than the price of a single potato.

No thanks. 100 years ago my great-grandmother and her sisters were sleeping in hammocks because their parents couldn't afford to buy beds. She grew up hungry. Her access to fresh vegetables and fruit, especially in winter, was severely limited. Damn, 100 years ago, most of my forebears couldn't count on access to milk while they were growing up.

Notice the quotation marks, and that I only meant it in regards to eating. 100 years ago, I would have been married with children by 22, and unable to vote. I wouldn't have even been allowed to live in Canada, with the racist immigration policy. I have no illusions about life back then.

I was really referring to eliminating refined and processed foods, like the corn syrup that is so prevalent these days. I did not mean that food availability should be similar to that of 100 years ago, because then I wouldn't have easy access to the cranberries that stave off my urinary infections. Most of us wouldn't even know what a mango was!

I don't even think people should be making their own whole grain bread, but I do think that we as a society need to move towards a more health-based rather than profit-based worldview. What does it matter if the GDP is through the roof if the social cost is so damn high?

That makes me damn pinko commie socialist feminist liberal, of course.

EJ, it's nice to see you posting.

you are living in fantasy world. you absolutely CAN lose weight without exercise. it is merely superior to do both exercise and diet (they work together in an additive manner).

second of all, it is incredibly presumptious to PRESUME i come from some sort of privileged background. like i said, i lived and worked in the hood a good percentage of my life.

what is unbelievably classist is the way you, and others, patronize poor people as if they are poor victims of evil society and cannot take responsibility for their own actions.

you can eat healthy, lower cal for VERY little money if you put some frigging effort into it.

but most people don't. they prefer to buy fat laden, high salt, processed food.

50 lb bags of brown rice, tuna fish, lentils, etc. are immensely healthy, cheap (kilocalories per $$) and readily available.

and again, you conveniently ignore FACTS to exchange with how you want to see things. kids spend, on average over 5 hrs a day watching tv/playing videogames/surfing internet.

so, the idea that a lack of free time, or the necessity of SCHOOLS to provide recreation is absurd.

again, all i see is belittle poor people from you, because you turn them into victims, unable to control their own destiny.

it is you that are classist.

i recognize more dignity in ALL people such that i recognize that people, REGARLDESS of class, are responsible for their own decisions.

i could show you how to shop for food and spend less than $5 a day, and get healthy, plenty of kilocalories, micronutrients, etc.

it takes effort and discipline. and ANYBODY can do it, including poor people. give people more credit than simply being helpless victims of societies and the dieting industry (which is how this whole thing started).

but again, all i see is a pattern of baseless assumptions to confirm your preconceived notions of how you want to perceive reality. the fact that you assume, sans evidence, that i am a product of privilege is a perfect example of this

i'd be happy to discuss the science of dieting (leptin, EFA's, brown fat, etc.) if you'd like to discuss actual facts, not ad hominem attacks based on no evidence, that are in fact - incorrect

you can eat healthy, lower cal for VERY little money if you put some frigging effort into it.

Atrope, I'll make a deal with you. You buy me a week's worth of low fat, low cal food on 10 U.S. dollars and I'll thrown out my boxes of mac'n'cheese and my microwave meals.

And please present one shred of scientific evidence that diets without exercise result in long-term weightloss. I'll save you some time: You can't.

I also love that you think I'm patronizing poor people, when I AM poor. Heh.

Prairielily, I toke your meaning earlier about "eating like it was 100 years" ago, and I have to admit I agree (on the cars, too!). When I finally get my decent paying job (I'm soooo close to graduating), I'm going "retro" as much as possible. ;) And I've missed posting, too. It's been so crazy here.

right away, you display your misunderstanding. you do NOT have to eat low fat food to lose weight, and in fact (dean ornish rubbish aside) it is a suboptimal way to diet.

instead of macncheese meals, buy some 50lb bags of brown rice, some nonfat dry milk, some eggs (you can get 5 dozen for $4 in my area when they go on sale), some tuna fish (as cheap as 33 cents a can), etc. etc. etc.

and you are totally correct prairielilie. gnereally speaking - the less processed, the better (although the raw foods people are full of it i might add).

it is much more difficult to lose fat without exercise. nobody denies that. again, i have worked as a personal trainer. i trained a woman to pass the police swat test (no woman had ever passed it before), so i know what people can do if they put their mind to it.

and just because you are poor does not mean you can't be patronizing poor people. imo, you are. by saying that it is not an individuals behavior/responsibility but they are merely hapless victims' of society.

EJ, my dear, you're back! I'm so glad to read your smart, snarky posts again!

I'm new to the list, but a friend and fellow fattie clued me in to the debate firing up over the original post.

I gotta say, as a proud fat dancer and feminist, that discussions like this make me reconsider my general disdain for conspiracy theories. Women spend SO MUCH time and energy and money and self on trying to fit in: into clothes, into crappy, narrow-assed theater or airplane seats, into a mold. What would happen if we took the billions of dollars each year spent on stomach mutilation (WLS) and diets and gym memberships that we were too ashamed to use, what if we took all that money and spent it on educating girls all over the world, or funding microcredit programs, or, jeezus, any number of worthwhile causes?

Okay, never mind those causes: what if we took that money and spent it on things for ourselves that are real, that last, that are, in the jargon of my arts world, capacity-building?. What if we took that energy and built ourselves up with it, took dance lessons, learned new languages, wrote poetry, built cabinetry, ran for public office or started a new organization that promoted __ rights.

Wow.

We could do a lot with all of that. We could change a lot.

Me, I decided 10 years ago that I was not going to wait around, that I was going to do what I wanted--dance--right NOW. I eat what I want, I wear what I want, I dance 4-5 days a week, and I'm 285 pounds. I have my health, I have my joy, I have admirers and lovers and a creative outlet.

I don't have the time to move about more than I already do, or move in ways that I don't like. I certainly don't have the desire to eat food that I don't wholly enjoy, in quantities that don't satisfy me. That doesn't make me weak. That makes me strong. It's hard work to follow one's bliss in this world.

Oh, and I'm not blaming anyone or holding anyone "responsible" for my being fat. There is no blame. I'm just the way I am. Other than stretching properly after dancing and wearing bandaids underneath my character shoes, I don't have time to worry about my body. I'm too busy doing wonderful things with it.

Yours in motion,

Marina
(google Big Moves!)

Just a note to all those who posted about the poor will power of people who can't lose wait. Do you also accuse poor people of being lazy? The research shows that diets don't work. Why don't they work? Because of non-compliance. But if no one can stick to a diet does that make everyone lazy and weak willed? Or is dieting just impossible to keep up for almost everyone?

What people don't seem to understand is that people come in different shapes. Some are fat, some are thing. The american diet sucks, but you aren't going to fix that through personal piety attacks. And some people are ALWAYS going to be fatter than others.

atrope, the way you keep talking about how you used to be poor, live in the "hood" etc just makes you seem more classist, like some anthropologist studying poor people and tsk tsking at the way "those people" eat.

you tell me to get real, but in your fantasy world everyone has ample time to cook fresh whole meals, excercise, and nobody is ever naturally fat or fat and healthy or too poor or busy to eat well. you skim over my actual reality, the one ive experienced for the last 26 years, as tho i am creating this reality out of thin air, as tho it is a lie.

you can buy a frozen burrito on sale at jewel for 25 cents, which makes a pretty filling meal. it cooks in under 3 minutes and can be microwaved on a paper plate which means no cleanup. you can buy those michelina frozen meals for $1 almost everywhere, which come in their own disposable microwave containers which require no cleanup time, and cook again in less than 3 minutes. i kno how long it takes to cook bagged rice and beans, and for some people that amount of time isnt realistic. you can call me classist til yr blue in the face, but i stand by my assertion becos it reflects the reality ive experienced, as have my friends, people in their 20s and 30s with missing and shattered teeth who have never been to the dentist in their lives.

you say i need to get real, i say you're classist and fatphobic.

i've got beer bread baking in my oven that demands my attention.

atrope, I'm not sure where you live, but you're right that buying a 50 lbs bag of rice and lentils is a pretty cheap and healthy way to go... if you're from the prairies like me, where having insects in your house is pretty rare, because of the cold. (And you're physically able to drag 50 lbs of something all the way home.)

I also lived in the Middle East, and when I was there, that rice would have had stuff crawling all over it very quickly. Having also lived in the Southern US, I can say that the climate is a lot closer to that of the Middle East than that of the Canadian prairies.

I also know that a lot of these kids are unsupervised, and I know one (who grew up perfectly healthy) whose mother was terrified of letting her children play outside in a neighbourhood that really wasn't all that safe. What about kids who don't get home until it's dark? (I lived pretty far north, but I remember not seeing the sun very much in the winter in high school. It would be dark when I left, and it would be dark when I came home.)

This is my first time commenting... hi!

This problem is really many different, but closely related & overlapping problems. We keep trying to define things in a nice little package that is one size fits all. I am 6 ft tall and currently somewhere between 275 & 290 lbs.... morbidly obese. This weight is newish, so my health has yet to be severely affected, but I know that won't last for long. I am also severely depressed and just recently started seeking professional help with the depression.

At this height, my thinnest was 165 and I didn't want to be any thinner. I was pretty happy with my body as long as I stayed below 190. Up until my late 20's, it was effortless to stay below 190. I ate what I wanted, drank heavily and smoked, but I looked healthy & fit. As I entered into my late 20's, I lost my taste for partying, grew an appreciation for nature & hiking & put on 30 lbs. I was never one to pay attention to media beauty standards so I never felt outside pressure to loose weight. I did recognize that I was happier with the physical me at bellow 190 so I looked into loosing the weight.

I educated myself on how metabolisms change over time and started looking into and applying healthy eating habits. I felt better, but the weight remained. My BF at the time was on Atkins and was raving about his increased energy level (as was I at the time) & he lost a few pounds so I gave it a try and a dizzy spell at work ended the Atkins thing for me. I gained back the weight plus a few extra pounds. I tried cutting back on my own but I either over did it or under. Anytime I restricted too much, I would eventually break the diet & gain it all back, plus a few more. I finally settled on Weight Watchers and it worked for me. I never went hungry and was glad of the flexibility which allowed me to find that balancing out my fats, proteins & carbs in a Zone like way worked well for me. I also learned to really love food. I taught myself to cook. I learned that spices added so much guilt free pow to foods. I became a chili head. Curry & yogurt were my new buddies too. I also tried new foods because cauliflower gets boring after a while. I was maintaining my weight, had a healthy (divine) relationship with food and physically felt grand for a while. Then change.

I quit smoking and replaced my oral fixation with candy. Gained 60 lbs in no time. Other things in my life started to fall apart in my life and I comforted myself with Taco Bell & Pringles. It was a 4 year downward spiral. I am now almost 35, weigh enough to qualify as morbidly obese and I hate my physical self. There is other kind self loathing adding to the funk as well. Frequently others confirm how I feel with their comments and looks. I have lost a (non-physical)job over my weight. I sit in the house all day because I can't take the stares and snickers. Every image on TV & magazines & at bus stops reminds me how I am unfit, ugly, fat, bla bla bla.

You can say that I have to learn to love me to get back on track & you'd be right (am working on that quite a bit lately), but the comments, stares & constant reminders of what I am *supposed* to be makes it so much harder. Calling it laziness, telling someone they aren't healthy, not accepting someone *as they physically are* is making it so much harder for them to help themselves. Believe me, we (the morbidly obese) *know* we are unhealthy. We are reminded every time we have to walk up the stairs or tie our shoes. How do you know if that person you are secretly judging (because that *is* what it is) didn't already loose 20 lbs & is in the process of getting his/her shit together?

um... sorry for the rant

sorry for the ugly grammar.

Don't worry about it (ranting), Absinthe, that's what these blogs are for. I'm glad you are getting help with your depression and trying to love yourself more. I'm sorry about the impossible beauty standards, no matter what size or shape a person is they are affected.:

"If you didn't fit the societally approved standard of thinness before, you're probably not going to fit it at 5-10 percent less,"

I'm a little overweight, and if I lost 5-10% of my weight I'd most likely fit societally approved figure standards even *less* than I do now. Given *where* my body burns fat fastest, losing 5-10% would be enough to wipe out my 34AAs and leave me with a flatter chest than my brother's. :/

"Being fat (let's not mince words here) isn't healthy.

"Not everyone is going to be thin, and it's harmful to people when we push that as the ideal. Being morbidly obese is unhealthy. Being 'fat'? Not necessarily. Weight is hardly the best indicator of health."

...and speaking of mincing words, could the ESL teachers please explain to their students that "obese" and "overweight" do not mean the same thing in English even if one's native language uses the same words for both, and so failing to teach your daughter who wears size 8 shirts and size 14 pants your native language is no excuse for constantly calling her "obese" in English...? >:( OK, personal rant over.

i am all about teh good comments above. atrope obviously is not on my good side- y'all have seen my comments before. ;)

i just wanted to say to Mina- oh goodness, another person who wears an 8 shirt and a 14 bottom! i thought i was the only one.

just want to add that i agree that size is not the tell of health. as a 14 yr old teenager, um back in my day, i played sports all year round- tennis and swimming in the summer, tennis again fall, basketball winter, softball/badminton spring. i was also 5'6" and weighed usually about 160-170 pounds. i was constantly called fat. i was not fat. i was muscular. i still am, under a little bit of a thicker layer. and the last time i weighed 150? i'd been in a deep depressive episode where i didn't eat full meals for, oh, about 9 months and then proceeded to be on a liquid diet for 2 weeks due to an infection after my wisdom teeth were extracted. have i weighed that since being back on solid foods? no. not ONCE.

so, atrope honey, we all got our sizes. its too bad you are so fed up with your own that you blame the rest of us for your own fears of being overweight. because those of us who have been considered "fat" since age 10 (when i wore a juniors size 1!!! before i hit puberty, funny that...) just ain't buying into that.

i applaud the dancer above- i want to be dancing more myself! my cruddy job schedule prevents classes, so i have to wait for a bit. but i am so glad it is getting warmer out- i have walks to take, pictures to snap, and rocks to climb.

It is not always easy to do, but eat to live don't live to eat. Some type of daily regimen is needed by everyone, but stop dieting, your body needs nourishment. Diets and diet aids do not help anyone! The only way to successfully lose weight and get the body that you deserve is by using the right information. This information is in the book Lose Weight Using Four Easy Steps which can be ordered through the website www.bbotw.com Everyone who has gotten a copy of this book has lost weight and become healthier.