A Seminar, and So Much More

The source document here is a podcast transcript that combines the best features of two genres. The official title is “Fatness and the Body – Episode 2: Being fat or having obesity: combining social constructivism and biomedical research on childhood obesity.” On the other hand, much of the content is less like a scientific paper and more like talking with an erudite friend, in the quietest corner of a Saturday night house party.

The scholarly content comes from Adam Mickiewicz University, a research center which, under various administrations and with a few name changes, has existed in Poznan, Poland, since 1611. This episode is part of a larger program, Unit for Biocultural Variation and Obesity. Author Zofia Boni is absolutely tireless in her pursuit of both usable facts and of ways to present them to the concerned public.

It’s multifactorial

Her academic career has emphasized anthropology, socialist studies, feminist scholarship, epidemiology, climate science, demography, and other areas of interest, all to capture the big picture regarding childhood obesity. She notes that for children and youth, typical BMI calculations are not used, but rather percentiles and databases correlated to the child’s sex…

[…] and either according to the WHO standards, you can end up with around 30% of 8 year olds in Poland having overweight and obesity, or if you end up using the standards which are the oldest ones, then it’s around 20%… And among those numbers, it is assumed that around 3 to 4% are children with obesity.

In other words, “overweight” and “obesity” are shifty characters who refuse to stand still and have their pictures taken for the record. Boni recommends a viewpoint outside the North America-centric one, from which to gaze at the past decade or so from the perspective of a European graduate student asking questions about the distinction between obesity and fatness, which is always awkward terrain both methodologically and ethically. Furthermore, why does the distinction even matter, and not incidentally, who gets to decide?

Two faces

Boni, the excellent student, is comfortable seeking facts, precision, and certainty; while at the same time, it is almost as if someone else’s brain shares her skull:

So what I want to take from those perspectives in my own future research is on the one hand, recognizing that fatness is alright, so that people are thin and fat as they are small and tall, and not pathologizing or stigmatizing it, but then also recognizing that obesity has very troubling health consequences and physical and physiological consequences. And that there is such a disease as obesity. This is in a way connected I guess, but not every fat person has obesity, right?

Throughout years of research, the author has concentrated on two questions: How and why did obesity make the shift from being chiefly a personal problem, all the way to becoming a matter of public concern? And how do actual people, especially children, experience not only obesity, but the role of public enemy into which some factions of society often try to cast them?

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Source: “Fatness and the Body’ Episode 2,” Podcasts.ox.ac.uk
Image by RaniRamli/Pixabay

Mutual Demolition Society

Seventy years ago, the American public loved a catchy tune whose lyric proclaimed, “We belong to a mutual admiration society.” The song celebrated a romantic relationship where each partner vied to outdo the other in proving their devotion.

Today, as Childhood Obesity News has mentioned more than once, our way of life embraces and encourages a “mutual demolition society,” where obesity and poverty tirelessly compete to see which one of them can do the most damage. Obesity leads to poverty, and as surely as night follows day, poverty leads to obesity, in a futile reciprocal see-saw effect that shows no sign of improving any time soon.

Ongoing folly

It has been argued for years that the medical profession and several government agencies waste a ton of resources in the service of a (mistaken) belief that gathering the Body Mass Index statistics of children is the ultimate road toward solving the childhood obesity problem. However, this view is not shared by all scientists in the field.

In 2014, Rodney Steadman wrote,

The BMI has become a big problem for some researchers… BMI does not accurately measure body fat in individuals with a high level of lean body mass (body weight minus the fat) and some ethnic groups. Furthermore, the BMI can be difficult to calculate in field settings when body weight cannot be accurately measured.

Meanwhile, parents who simply did not care for the whole idea argued with schools, and some challenged the ultimate usefulness of BMI information. As the Toronto Sun described in 2015, cultural and economic factors are involved:

[…] BMI information alone may not be enough to help parents in high poverty areas where fresh produce and safe playgrounds to encourage exercise may not be available.

Around the same time, a study found that BMI measurement failed to identify “as many as 25% of children, age 4 to 18 years, who have excess body fat.” The Mayo Clinic’s director of preventive cardiology, Francisco Lopez-Jimenez, said, “BMI is not capturing everybody who needs to be labeled as obese.”

And if they pass…

If someone is officially labeled obese, what then? That person now holds the credential of eligibility for bariatric surgery.

Leaving all other factors aside for the sake of discussion, it is possible to question the benefit of bariatric surgery overall. It cannot be considered a societal good to have a large proportion of society’s members absorbed by the overwhelmingly intense preparation agenda for an operation like this.

In contrast to even a limited public existence, the mundane routine of a person gearing up for, or recovering from, this type of procedure is not easy. For practical purposes, like holding down a job, the patient may be quite unable to conduct anything like a normal life.

However much of a blessing it may be in a particular case, in the long run, for that person, bariatric surgery is a very life-consuming project in terms of burning up time, energy, goodwill, money, and other resources.

Then, after the actual procedure, there is a similarly unproductive spell, as the patient is, to a greater or lesser degree, disabled for a considerable period of time. Even barring any unexpected side effects, there are new routines to learn and new norms to become accustomed to, on every side.

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Source: “Teresa Brewer ‘Mutual Admiration Society’ on The Ed Sullivan Show,” YouTube.com, undated
Source: “Absurd, but True,” WordPress.com, 07/15/14
Source: “Screening teens for obesity may not help them lose weight,” TorontoSun.com, 07/03/15
Image by geralt/Pixabay

More on Additives and Advertising

Weird stuff inside the food, and enticing, persuasive words about the food: Both in their own distinctive ways are responsible for the overwhelming wave of obesity that has engulfed society.

Actually, nowadays, words are pretty superfluous, except to identify where to get the stuff. People who sell just about anything tend to rely mainly on pictures to do the convincing for them. Matters in that realm are definitely advancing. Still, in certain situations, like in cars where they are not supposed to have their attention fixed on screens, people are still quite able to be influenced by words alone.

When it comes to pouring enormous amounts of money into the economy, visual and auditory stimuli both play their parts. Every little purchase of a convenience-store doughnut, glimpsed by someone who just went in there to pay for gas, performs its role in the overall ascendency of food.

Or maybe automotive fuel has nothing to do with it. Maybe somebody pulled off the highway after listening to a radio advertisement for McDonald’s. Even if this isn’t Mickey D’s place, the ad has elicited hunger pangs in the driver, who is not taking any chances on the odds of spotting yellow arches any time soon. He or she will happily chow down on whatever they can get right now.

Children grow up to be that driver, and that driver produces more children who will take after him or her. They become accustomed to hearing constant demands that they drop whatever they are doing, and lay their hands on something that can be quickly conveyed to their mouths. Like devout zombies, they hear and obey.

Two for the price of one

The bizarre chemicals added to food and the words said about food both play their parts to account for enormous expenditure by individual members of the public. Additionally, we pay even more via the government agencies and bureaus that exist to try to stem such evils as the damage caused by obesity.

All these financial demands could be alleviated by more widespread awareness and a stronger resolve on the part of the public to do something about them. There is no need to arm ourselves with pitchforks, like the townsfolk in an old-time monster movie. We are not asked to roam beneath a full moon to hunt down the entrepreneurs who make and peddle the chemicals, or the ad agency moguls who sell us sugar and bright colors and substances that could only with the most lavish addition of imagination be described as nourishing.

One way for members of the public to effectively react would be to band together, raise our voices, and demand that the government Do Something. Of course, as always, when the government is asked to, or assumes the right to, intervene in the sale of a product or service, differences of opinion may arise.

For instance, when any market commodity is in short supply, should the government allow another company to also sell it? For how long? But what if Company B offers it to customers at a lesser price than Company A, the one that invented the stuff and holds the patent on it? Should the government then intervene again, and put a stop to that seemingly unfair practice? After all, it was that first corporation that hired all the scientists and bought all the test tubes so the product could be deemed fit for consumption.

However, in the business world, “shortage” has more than one meaning. There may be a worldwide shortage of titanium, for instance, because mining companies can’t locate accessible deposits of it in the earth, or dig it up fast enough to meet the demand.

But — the ingredients of GLP-1 agonists are not as rare as titanium. In manufacturing those drugs, the unavailability of the raw materials is not a factor. Any company that can lay its hands on the raw materials can make some. They just can’t sell it unless the government says okay. However, critics believe that to prevent them from doing so — in order to give one pharmaceutical giant a monopoly — is wrong.

This is why Thomas L. Knapp wrote the accusatory article, “Semaglutide: Artificial Shortage is Novo Nordisk’s Business Model.” The fact that other companies — if allowed — can whip up a batch of the same potion any day of the week, and sell it at a fraction of Novo Nordisk’s price, looks like a conspiracy against the vast public who clamor for medication that helps them lose weight without losing the deed to the house, their kids’ college funds, and great-grandma’s wedding ring.

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Source: “Semaglutide: Artificial Shortage is Novo Nordisk’s Business Model,” TheGarrisonCenter.org, 02/10/26
Image by kaboompics/Pixabay

Another Junky Year

To look back a year into U.S. history does not promote a warm, fuzzy feeling of nostalgia, but rather something closer to revulsion. Toward the end of May in 2025, New York Times reporters Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Dani Blum told readers that a recent presidential commission had just painted a “bleak picture of American children.”

They discussed what the government was saying, doing, and not doing, about a list of conditions and circumstances affecting childhood obesity — like ultra-processed foods; stress; insufficient exercise; drugs, including antidepressants; and exposure to chemicals that either are or should be avoidable to varying degrees.

Perhaps unwilling to recall the tremendous effort that former First Lady Michelle Obama had exerted to bring awareness to the problem, the 68-page commission mentioned the word “obesity” only three times, although it divulged the information that 40% of Americans were obese. Also, Americans were getting pretty much half their calories from ultraprocessed foods (UPFs). This is a real head-scratcher, and maybe above our pay grade, but… could there possibly be a connection?

Regardez-vous les autres…

Meanwhile, compare three European countries — France, Italy, and Portugal — where the citizens obtain only between 10% and 30% of their calories from UPFs. Reader, prepare for a shock: only fewer than one-quarter of those folks qualify as obese.

Anyway, about a year ago, a presidential commission led by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. issued a report that included the phrase, “the sickest generation in American history.” The officials who were expected to identify the reasons for that found plenty. A case was made that this country’s medical research establishment has been placing too much emphasis on eradicating specific diseases.

Historically, in many cases, that has been proven possible, yet somehow a feeling seems to exist that more energy should be expended on treating illnesses and identifying their causes, rather than trying to eliminate them from the biosphere altogether. Why there should be any controversy over this point is difficult to understand. We are America. Why not boldly aspire to do it all?

Do corporations exert too much influence on policy?

Probably, folks of any political persuasion would agree that corporations are too powerful in this aspect of life, differing only in their assessment of which corporations have too much influence, and of what sort, and what ought to be done about it.

In fact, upon first hearing, most generalizations sound pretty much the same. Two people might agree that American children are over-medicalized, and at the same time operate from very divergent sets of assumptions and beliefs.

Anyone may read the entire MAHA report. It says unkind things about topics also discussed here at Childhood Obesity News, like the diets of American children, which are rife with such engineered substances as ultra-processed fats, grains, and sugars. This dreck makes up two-thirds of their total caloric intake.

The authors note that Mr. Kennedy is happy with neither America’s food system nor its plethora of environmental toxins. Various of his viewpoints are contrary to those favored by his supporters, while many of his thoughts also disagree, as might be expected, with other opinions and beliefs.

2,500

By a strange coincidence, the report issued in 2025 included a very similar figure — 2,500 — which happens to be the number of dicey, or at least questionable, additives found in what the kids are eating these days. The strange brews include “emulsifiers, binders, sweeteners, colorings, and preservatives” with names like Propylparaben, Butylated Hydroxytoluene, and Titanium Dioxide, which (whether honored with capital letters in their names or not — it seems to be optional) do not look or sound attractive.

According to the report,

Studies have linked certain food additives to increased risks of mental disorders, ADHD, cardiovascular disease, metabolic syndromes and even carcinogenic effects. Additionally, preliminary evidence suggests a possible association between the consumption of food colorings and autism…

Many substances also disrupt the gut microbiome, which increasingly appears as vitally important as the brain. It is possible that parents who worry about their kids sustaining brain damage through drug use might appropriately be just as concerned over potential gut microbiome devastation from some of those 2,500 food additives.

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Source: “Kennedy and Trump Paint Bleak Picture of Chronic Disease in U.S. Children,” NYTimes.com, 05/22/25
Source: “The MAHA Report,” US-Gov-West-1, 2025
Image by Pat Hartman/Pixabay (Squirrel_photos, JohnHain)

People. Just. Don’t. Care.

Quite recently, Childhood Obesity News examined the phenomenon of breakfast cereals. Among 1,200 examples in this one product class, only a very small percentage of the choices — when judged by sugar content — are deemed acceptable, or even eligible for consideration, by a conscientious expert in any scientific discipline.

So, why do people buy the stuff? And in the wider field of all available groceries, why do they scarf down so many tons of dreck, festooned with ludicrous amounts of salt?

In the realm of total disregard for the human body’s actual needs, sugar, salt, and fat are the unholy trinity of devastation. By no means, however, do they represent the extent of the problem.

Food industry “engineers the confusion”

Dr. Josephine Connolly-Schoonen, a highly-placed medical professional with Stony Brook Medicine, defends the seemingly oblivious public by opining that “the food marketplace is very confusing, and that’s not by accident.” Others familiar with the situation might disagree. Even moderately concerned consumers with limited spare time to do research can easily learn which types of breakfast cereal contain elevated levels of bad stuff, and jot a little note to themselves titled “Don’t buy.”

As the wise old saying goes, it’s not rocket science. Considering the overall importance of vetting the stuff that kids eat every day, the price of self-education is not overwhelming. Information about sugar content in a particular brand of cereal is easily available and does not change with dizzying frequency like some other purported facts. In the vital knowledge department, this stuff is a pretty easy “set it and forget it” variety of data.

Your cereal journey

Reserve a morning to consult a source that has studied these queries for years, like Consumer Reports or JAMA Network. Choose several brands containing the least offensive kinds and amounts of crap, and limit your purchases to those. Trust us, your kindergarteners are not going to call an Uber and set off on a shopping trip. You are a grownup, a citizen, a parent, and totally in control of this situation to an extent probably not experienced in any other area of life. Learn to identify the bad stuff, and don’t buy it. Figure out the good stuff, and buy it.

Put on your grownup cloak of sophisticated discrimination and choose a brand, or several. Or skip the tacky breakfast chow and feed the kids eggs and fruit and stuff. Or get some plain, inoffensive cereal and experiment with harmless substances to put in it, or on it.

Pull your cold cereal game up a notch by raiding your fridge and pantry for creative toppings that add flavor, color, texture, and… dare we even hope? Some actual nutrition.

Handle this challenge not just because you are a thoughtful, considerate parent with no desire to aid and abet the obesity of your children. Step up and take care of the issue for the sake of your own mental health. In a place and time where we increasingly are made to feel powerless, grab hold of this seemingly modest yet incredibly effective opportunity to enjoy a meaningful amount of autonomy over a vitally important realm of existence.

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Source: “American Breakfast Cereals Are Becoming Less Healthy, Study Finds,” NYTimes.com, 05/21/25
Source: “Nutritional Content of Ready-to-Eat Breakfast Cereals Marketed to Children,” JAMANetwork.com, 05/21/25
Source: “Best Breakfast Cereals From Consumer Reports’ Tests,” Consumer Reports, 01/17/22
Source: “Breakfast Cereal Hacks to Build a Better Bowl10/24/24,” MomsKitchenHandbook.com, 10/24/24
Image by Pexels/Pixabay

Cherished Belief Bites the Dust — Or Not

Bats are blind; seeing red infuriates a bull; freezing prolongs battery life; rice can dry out a wet cell phone? No way.

When Columbus set sail, people believed the Earth was flat, and the Jonestown Massacre victims were killed by poisoned Kool-Aid. Nope.

Does marijuana cause users to “get the munchies” and consequently grow obese? It ain’t necessarily so, because grass “could actually have surprising effects on your waistline,” as Lester Black recently reported for SFGATE.

This news emerged from work done at the University of California, Riverside. The subjects of these experiments were not humans, but mice, whose metabolisms were remarkably affected by ingesting concentrated cannabis oil, with results that included weight loss.

Say whut?

Prof. Nicholas DiPatrizio led a team in tinkering with molecules, as researchers will often do in efforts to bend nature to our will. They obtained results that encouraged them to believe this is only the beginning of a totally unexpected series of beneficial discoveries.

At first, this all sounds as heretical as believing that the sun rises in the west. Everyone knows the correct answer is east.

But it only rises in the east because humans decided to give that name to the sunrise side of the sky. If we had named it “west” instead, that is where the sun would absolutely rise.

Only, it doesn’t rise at all. That is only another myth, one that was eventually debunked when people finally figured that the sun stays in relatively the same place, while the Earth actually revolves. In defining scientific truth, many factors are involved.

Anyway, the scholars obtained some obese mice and divided them into two teams. Some were fed an isolated form of THC, while others received cannabis oil containing “a broad spectrum of cannabis compounds.”

Head to head

Both teams lost some weight, but “the outcomes differed noticeably on other metabolic functions.” The THC mice “still had impaired metabolic function that mirrored diabetes.” The cannabis oil mice “saw their metabolic function return to normal.”

Obviously, much work remains to be done, but the expectation exists that “targeting this widespread system could unlock new therapies.” Some products are already on the market, resulting from earlier work done by other researchers. For example,

Tetrahydrocannabivarin, a natural cannabis compound shortened to THCV, has been shown to cause reduced appetite and increased stimulation.

Of course, Dr. DiPatrizio’s team specifies, just because a new discovery looks promising when tested on animals, there are no guarantees about eventual human benefit. No guarantees, but plenty of hope that obesity and/or diabetes in humans will eventually be defeated by new discoveries. Meanwhile, the scientists involved in the quest are feeling the intoxication that may match or exceed any sensation available from cannabis.

Are they a bunch of deluded hallucinators? Not hardly! According to a recent Cleveland Clinic page, medical marijuana is already in use for more than 20 medical conditions, including Alzheimer’s disease, cancer, fibromyalgia, multiple sclerosis, glaucoma, Tourette syndrome, intractable pain, and the list goes on.

Many questions remain about why cannabinoids can do what they do, and also why different people react in unexpected ways. Factors include age, genetic predisposition, gender, dosage, method of consumption, possible conflict with other meds, and more.

But the verdict so far is that the gains outweigh the difficulties. Another problem, of course, is getting the law on the appropriate side of any issues that are involved.

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Source: “15 Common Science Myths and Misconceptions — Busted,” RD.com, undated
Source: “13 Widely Believed History Myths,” BuzzFeed.com, 3/23/26
Source: “New Calif. study finds evidence cannabis could treat obesity, diabetes,” SFGATE.com, 05/14/26
Image by Erin Hinterland/Pixabay

More on the Psychology of Fat

As we have noted more than once, there are oddities about how obesity has been regarded in different places and at various points in history. In some parts of the world, civilization has entered a phase where, rather than causing people to be emaciated, a shortage of money could (against all logic) make them fat. Today, low-income people are sold a plethora of products filled with more fattening ingredients than nutritious ones.

In the Middle Ages, to be fat and to have fat wives and heirs was way cool, a power move, a proud public assertion of worthiness, and a self-declaration of importance that was widely accepted as such, regardless of the thoughts of any lower members of society.

In the present day, a big waistline might mean either wealth or poverty. In circumstances where the wealthy are viewed as greedy parasites, to call such a person fat is an insult. At the same time, in any societal environment where the poor are viewed as undeserving sub-humans who eat up all the taxes that are unfairly extracted from the wealthy, to be called fat is an equally potent insult when hurled at them.

The vagaries of earthly life

Some people enter the world with blue eyes. Others are born deaf. Some emerge from the womb left-handed. And some arrive with a genetic predisposition to obesity — or are thrust into circumstances which (for them, anyway) will make it inescapable.

Skip ahead four decades. In which of those situations, after 40 years of existence, is a human most apt to be mocked, ridiculed, disrespected, scorned, rejected, vilified, blamed, or shamed? Which of those conditions is most likely to cause a grown adult — who may be successful, and even fulfilled, in one or more aspects of normal life — to seek help from a mental health professional? Obesity, of course.

Plus, the lack of choice

Another factor here is that while a person may quite readily have the freedom to choose between being left-handed and wealthy, or left-handed and impoverished, other situations are not so amenable, and obesity is one of them. In the past few years, advances have been made in this area of knowledge, to the point where more people realize that obesity can definitely influence a person’s prospects, and even lead them into a life of relative financial deprivation.

A typical citation comes from the journal BMJ Open:

Studies suggest that the obese are more likely to be perceived as lazy, unsuccessful, weak-willed and undisciplined. On basis of these negative stereotypes, the obese face various weight penalties in the labour market, which include higher job insecurity, lower chances for a job and general discrimination.

Along with many other sources, that one has noted the mutual disadvantages of being both fat and broke:

[L]ower income is associated with higher levels of psychosocial stressors which include decreased control over life, and higher insecurity, social isolation, stress and mental disorders.

[T]he stigmatization of the obese also correlates with material (ie, less income through weight penalty), behavioral (ie, change in health-promoting behavior through discrimination), as well as psychosocial factors (ie, self-stigma may inflict lower control over life, social isolation, stress, lower self-esteem) that may, again, lead to a higher risk of obesity.

One reason why such individuals seek counseling is to escape the curse of self-stigmatization, which all too readily transmogrifies into psychological malfunction. It’s bad enough to have other people metaphorically beating you up, but when you start doing it yourself, the situation really calls for intervention.

(To be continued…)

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Source: “Income and obesity: what is the direction of the relationship?,” BMJ.com, January 2018
Image by Kaz_Graphics/Pixabay

The Historical Psychology of Fat, Continued

As a previous post noted, to be called skinny used to be an insult. It implied that no one cared whether you lived or died, or that you were too stupid and inept to earn enough to feed yourself. Anyone who was that poor would be considered worthless and deserving of starvation.

Then some parts of the world grew a little softer, and a person who was skinny because of poverty might be pitied and even helped. Then, we got to where if someone is thin, it might only mean they can afford to belong to a fitness club.

At any rate, for thousands of years, the norm was for poverty to cause undernourishment and low weight. But now, because of some creepy ingredients being added to food, it appears quite possible that poverty can cause obesity.

Food on the brain

Moving on, here are a few more glimpses from the documented past. As in many other departments of human experience, a lot of the accepted wisdom doesn’t even make sense, or makes sense only within a limited repertoire of assumptions about life and the world.

There are some broad observable trends. For instance, along with what people eat and the amount they eat, the centuries have also seen the politicization and weaponization of other factors, like how, when, and where they eat.

Is there really such a thing as a great restaurant critic? Why should that person receive any sort of reward, or even a salary? Why does society tolerate the existence of a cult that fetishizes food? What if we simplified life by all just existing on a canned energy drink or an IV infusion?

And naturally, if humans insist on placing such importance on food, controversy will unavoidably stem from the inevitable results of eating, or not eating, that food. The most noticeable results in those cases are underweight people and overweight people.

End obesity before it ends you

In the 60s, the social movements that swept across the United States asked such questions as, “How dare anyone criticize what race I am, or what I smoke?” And, “Who is that politician, anyway, to tell me I have to go halfway around the world and kill some rice farmers?” Or, “If I want to sleep with a hundred different partners, whose business is that?”

Maybe the day will come when people rise up and march, carrying signs like “Fat As I Wanna Be!” How about, “Bigger Is Better!” “I’m Not Overweight, You’re Insubstantial!” Might it even be possible to legislate against discrimination and bring anti-fat bigots to justice through the law?

For some corpulent people, is their main problem a stubborn reluctance to do what a slew of busybodies see fit to demand? What part should the sciences of psychology and psychiatry play in the obesity issue?

One of the most influential Bible stories is about the original Christian using superhuman powers to share nutrition with a large crowd, no questions asked. The Prophet of Islam told his followers they should absolutely feed people who don’t have enough to eat. Among spiritually inclined humans, to have a bad attitude toward the hungry is pretty much universally frowned upon.

Other sides

According to some segments of pop culture, to become obese gives the world permission to make the accusation: “You don’t care what other people think about you!” — as if that were a bad thing.

But… Indifference to the opinions of others is a trait that has often moved humanity forward. As one example, people who choose lives of service, dedicating themselves to caring for the poor and the sick, are indifferent to the opinions of relatives and friends who ridicule them for bypassing the possibilities of wealth and privilege.

If Mother Teresa had cousins who criticized her for hanging out with beggars, she didn’t care. So maybe there is more to it than that.

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Image by Boy-Employee and OpenClipart-Vectors/Pixabay

The Historical Psychology of Fat

Over the centuries of human life on Earth, obesity has always been a judgment magnet. Through a long chapter of European history, vast populations of serfs were ruled by a tiny minority of “nobles,” or people with inherited wealth. To the average peasant, a wealthy person’s obesity translated as a painful reminder that peasants were always expected to get along on almost nothing.

For a rich man to be fat was the classic example of adding insult to injury. For him to have a fat wife was what we today would call a “flex,” the cultural equivalent of owning a car that every man who saw it would envy. He was telling the world, “I can afford to support a human who does nothing but eat, and pop out a kid once in a while.”

An overweight member of the royal family was a man whose appearance publicly and proudly announced, “I spend half my day devouring rare, expensive, and fattening foods that you peasants can’t even dream of tasting. Furthermore, there is no such thing as an overweight duke, because however much a duke weighs is, by definition, the correct amount. And oh, by the way, I have never done a day’s actual work in my life.”

Times were hard

Long before money as we know it had arrived on the scene, there were many possible reasons for the lack of food. Maybe no seeds were available to plant because their storage space flooded, or rodents ate them. Maybe there was a drought, or an insect invasion. Or all the healthy men were taken from their fields and sent off to fight the king’s stupid war.

At a different stage of history, there might be no harvest because farm machinery parts were unavailable. Or the civilian population’s food resources might be limited because of rationing, necessary due to another king’s unnecessary war.

At any rate, if some people looked emaciated, the reasons for lack of nutrition were widely comprehended. Regular people understood that only the rich could afford to be well-nourished. Also, the rich could get away with insulting the poor for not carrying much body fat, and thus publicly announcing their low status in the class system, as if it wasn’t clear enough already. In various times and places, this attitude persisted through the centuries.

Bad attitudes

The sight of a skinny person could inspire such cruel reactions as, “You are not worthy of the expenditure of food required to keep you alive” (which would, of course, be verbalized in a much cruder and crueler way). On the most basic level, the obvious implication of pointing out someone’s thinness is “Your mother didn’t love you enough to feed you.” That universally applicable insult is a rude assertion that can be expressed in numerous ways and cause a literal gut reaction.

At the level of least ugliness, the hidden meaning behind insulting someone’s thinness is, “Obviously, you are too lazy to work for your daily bread.” (Otherwise, there would be some meat on your bones.) Some societies do try to feed people.

And of course, there are always a certain number of citizens who hate to be taxed just for the sake of feeding children. Such folks may not even recognize why they feel so strongly about it. But the subconscious mind of this person may be putting up an objection like, “Why should I care about, and be financially responsible for, babies whose own parents don’t even care enough to nourish them?” The thought process here is, “People are required to deserve every bite of food, and if they can’t manage to do that, too bad for them; it’s not my problem.”

There is plenty of blame to go around. A well-fed person might look at a starveling and think, “You don’t work, so why should you eat?” In other contexts, no such resentment has occurred. In India, over the centuries, millions of people have earned spiritual merit by filling the rice bowls of monks who give up everything to spend their whole lives praying for the world and every creature in it.

Nowadays

Recent history has shown us that, counterintuitively, poverty can cause obesity because of the weird ingredients added to hundreds of food products. When it comes to emotions about body size, a lot of deep subconscious material is involved. In recent history, it has been relatively easy to understand why a low income has so readily caused people to be underweight. Quite obviously, the main cause of malnourishment is: not enough money for groceries.

During what is called the Great Depression, for instance, Americans understood this equation all too well. By and large, on the whole, it was a pretty well-settled and comprehensible fact that poor people tended to be thin and rich people tended to be obese.

There seems to be an overwhelming number of reasons to scorn people who are visibly obese. It used to make more sense when it meant, “I hate you because you obviously are rich, and probably keep all the food for yourself, and don’t share.” Except now, that instinct misses the mark, and it is actually more probable that an obese person is not rich. Of course, in some quarters, it is considered okay to hate skinny people.

According to one study,

[I]ncome […] is linked to higher health literacy which, in turn, is positively related to health-promoting behaviors (ie, healthy nutrition, physical activity).

(To be continued…)

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Source: “Income and obesity: what is the direction of the relationship? A systematic review and meta-analysis,” NIH.gov, January 2018
Image by jcoope12/Pixabay

That Reciprocal Causation Trap

Journalists in the obesity field have written about why poor people become overweight, and also about how overweight people can become economically disadvantaged. Between those two inconvenient facts, a mutual causative relationship exists, which has been mentioned previously by Childhood Obesity News.

To say “mentioned” is an understatement, because the issue has many facets, and to effectively illustrate them all requires more than a few words.

Brief generalization: People on the lower end of the economic scale are vulnerable to obesity because financial conditions often restrict their access to health-inducing foods, and also preclude many sorts of healthcare, both preventive and curative.

Limits and caution

When some thought is invested in the issue, it is easy to pinpoint specifics. For example, people with low or no income are unlikely to travel across town for more reasonable food prices. Volume discounts are tempting, but even if all three of the kids wear backpacks, there is a limit to how many cans of beans can be transported home on the bus.

Vegetables can last a long time in a freezer, if a family is fortunate enough to have one. If the opportunity arises to get hold of multiple large bags of peas or corn on sale, a supply of low-calorie veggies is a wonderful asset for a health-conscious family. But first… You need to have a freezer.

Low-income people often have no choice other than to live in a dangerous neighborhood. A walk after supper, to burn a few calories, sounds like a swell idea, until you get mugged. Low-income people generally can’t afford gym memberships, and while there is no guarantee that a person with that opportunity will make the best use of it, the odds are certainly better than when they are not even allowed through the door.

Official documentation

Let’s look at a typical, fairly recent government-published report on a systematic review and meta-analysis that explored the phenomenon in depth, pointing out that obesity can be a causative factor of poverty, as “obese people drift into lower-income jobs due to labor–market discrimination and public stigmatization.” It was by no means the first document to highlight this reciprocal effect, and will certainly not be the last.

That meta-analysis encompassed 21 studies: two from Canada, three from the United Kingdom, and 16 originating in the United States. Its conclusions did not cause worldwide headlines, but indicated that persistent examination of the topic could potentially lead to a meaningful increase in attention, especially when a growing awareness of what goes into food products does not correlate with any serious efforts to change the habits of food manufacturers.

Society’s ability to ignore signs of corporate malfeasance is only one roadblock. Individuals are acutely aware of inequities in their everyday lives. Even when other factors are equal, obese people tend to be passed over for job opportunities. Clothes that fit may be prohibitively expensive. Even if people can afford gym memberships, the embarrassment factor may prevent them from doing so.

Thousands of individuals, if asked, could add thousands of examples of how body weight and size can turn everyday life into an ordeal:

Findings suggest that there is more consistent evidence for reverse causality. Therefore, there is a need to examine reverse causality processes in more detail to understand the relation between income and obesity… Obesity is a major risk factor for all-cause mortality, a number of non-communicable diseases and reduced quality of life.

Why does this even matter? Because in general, all the associated numbers are going up, with no indication of reversal any time soon. A very specific possibility on the horizon is the shadow of a reinstated military draft, along with hints of war that are more than subtle. Once America wakes up to the reality of how few conscription-ready individuals are suitable to be trained as soldiers, there might be a problem.

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Source: “Income and obesity: what is the direction of the relationship? A systematic review and meta-analysis,” NIH.gov, January 2018
Images by hellbergstina and Mohamed_hassan/Pixabay

FAQs and Media Requests: Click here…

Profiles: Kids Struggling with Weight

Profiles: Kids Struggling with Obesity top bottom

The Book

OVERWEIGHT: What Kids Say explores the obesity problem from the often-overlooked perspective of children struggling with being overweight.

About Dr. Robert A. Pretlow

Dr. Robert A. Pretlow is a pediatrician and childhood obesity specialist. He has been researching and spreading awareness on the childhood obesity epidemic in the US for more than a decade.
You can contact Dr. Pretlow at:

Presentations

Dr. Pretlow’s invited presentation at the American Society of Animal Science 2020 Conference
What’s Causing Obesity in Companion Animals and What Can We Do About It

Dr. Pretlow’s invited presentation at the World Obesity Federation 2019 Conference:
Food/Eating Addiction and the Displacement Mechanism

Dr. Pretlow’s Multi-Center Clinical Trial Kick-off Speech 2018:
Obesity: Tackling the Root Cause

Dr. Pretlow’s 2017 Workshop on
Treatment of Obesity Using the Addiction Model

Dr. Pretlow’s invited presentation for
TEC and UNC 2016

Dr. Pretlow’s invited presentation at the 2015 Obesity Summit in London, UK.

Dr. Pretlow’s invited keynote at the 2014 European Childhood Obesity Group Congress in Salzburg, Austria.

Dr. Pretlow’s presentation at the 2013 European Congress on Obesity in Liverpool, UK.

Dr. Pretlow’s presentation at the 2011 International Conference on Childhood Obesity in Lisbon, Portugal.

Dr. Pretlow’s presentation at the 2010 Uniting Against Childhood Obesity Conference in Houston, TX.

Food & Health Resources