And even though a post at Amir’s blog really started me thinking about writing this post, and was the origination of the title, it isn’t meant to be about his preferences or thoughts cuz…like I said, he has every right to prefer whatever he wishes. He didn’t say anything you can’t read or hear somewhere else. What this post is about is some common incorrect assumptions in our culture about weight and health. I’m not going to retread the steps I already have taken in this discussion in these two previous posts (part 1, part 2), but I am going to continue from where I left off at that time. So, I suggest you read what I wrote there to get the full picture.
Note: I removed the links to the classical nude paintings from my previous entry about beauty standards because 1. a commenter objected to them, and 2. you would not believe the number of hits I had on them…and the um…searches people used to find them. After a while it kind of creeped me out. If you want to view what I was talking about, an image search of any of the artists I listed will give you the general idea.
Ok, after that extremely long introduction/disclaimer let me get to my two points:
1. Weight does not equal health. I know I covered this in a previous post and said I would not repeat myself but it bears repeating because it is a firmly held though incorrect assumption that you can tell how healthy someone is by what they weigh. Activity level (not just exercise but also just plain old activities like gardening etc) is a far better predictor of overall health than body weight. In fact genetics, gender, race, and socioeconomic status are also much more accurate predictors of health and disease than weight. Ah, you say, but people can’t change their genes, gender, race or socioeconomic status but they can control their weight. But that assumes that everyone is physiologically capable of maintaining a lower weight and that assumption would be false. Which brings me to my second point.
2. You cannot accurately judge the care or degree of stewardship someone takes with their body based on their weight. Much of what determines what someone weighs may not be in their control. Genetics play a large part. A twin study published in 1990 in The New England Journal of Medicine studied 93 pairs of identical twins who were raised in different homes, 154 pairs of identical twins who were raised together, 218 pairs of fraternal twins who were raised in different homes, and 208 pairs of fraternal twins who were raised together. The twins who were identical had almost equal BMIs whether they were raised apart or together. The fraternal twins had more variation in BMI because like most brothers and sisters their genes are not identical. The researchers reported that the results meant that 70 percent of the variation in body weight may be due to genetics.
Conventional wisdom that urges us to “eat less and move more” does not actually result in lasting weight loss for the majority of people. Does it for some? Yes, absolutely it does, but only for a minority. It is well documented that between 80-97% of attempts to loose weight and keep it off for more that 5 years fail. That is because it is not actually all about what you eat. An abundance of studies over the last 50 years have repeatedly demonstrated that fat people normally eat the same as thin people. Regardless of diets people are naturally a wide range of heights and body weights. According to review of 500 studies by Garner and Wooley published in Clinical Psychology Review. "Multiple researchers, using a variety of methodologies, have failed to find any meaningful or replicable differences in the caloric intake or eating patterns of the obese compared to the non-obese to explain obesity".
The author of the same article I linked above in Technology, Science, and Commerce Daily goes on to say:
How Can This Be?
How can this be reconciled with the laws of thermodynamics? The findings seem at odds with what conventional wisdom might suggest to us about eating and weight gain. One of the country's foremost obesity researchers, Jeffrey M. Friedman, M.D., head of the Laboratory of Molecular Genetics at Rockefeller University explains that the commonly-held simplistic belief that obesity is just a matter of eating too much and/or not exercising enough is "at odds with substantial scientific evidence illuminating a precise and powerful biologic system." According to his research and that of numerous others, obesity is the result of differences in biology and metabolism, not behavior, diet or the environment. Through their own volition, people can control their weight long-term to a very small degree. Even voluntary physical exercise has minimal effect, according to Friedman and Glenn Gaesser, PhD., exercise physiologist and obesity researcher at the University of Virginia. So, while better access to foods can account for some of the increases seen in the average height and weight of all people in developed countries -- 7 to 10 pounds in the U.S. since 1980s -- it's genetics and not the environment that accounts for the largest proportion of the differences in size among people, Friedman explains.
"The propensity to obesity is, to a significant extent, genetically determined," he says. Someone genetically predisposed to obesity "will become obese independent of their caloric intake" even when it's restricted to that of thin counterparts. "The heritability of obesity is equivalent to that of height and greater than that of almost every other condition that has been studied," Friedman states.
So, do some fat people eat a lot and not move their bodies? Yes, and some thin people eat a lot and don’t move their bodies either. Do some thin people watch every bite they take and regularly hit the gym? Yes, but so do some fat people. Some women fight tooth and nail to keep their weight down to size 2 and some women have to fight tooth and nail to keep their weight down to a size 20. Are some overweight people poor stewards of their bodies? Yes, but so are some thin people. The bottom line is that everyone who cares for their body by eating moderately and being physically active is not thin, so you can’t accurately judge someone’s bodily stewardship by their weight.
In summary:
1. Does this mean you should be attracted to a fat person? No…you are free to not be attracted to a fat person, just don’t judge someone’s health or the care they take of their body based on their weight.
2. Does it mean you should eat nothing but twinkies and sit on your rear all day because there’s no point in not doing that if you’ll never be a size 2 (or a size 20)? Of course not! Activity is very important for your health and you’d probably feel like crap on an all twinkies diet.
Ok, I lied, I actually have another point. If you are someone who worries that you will never find someone to love you because of something about your appearance I hope that you will not worry but instead make the most you can of what you have and be confident in yourself and in what you have to offer. Even if fewer persons of the opposite sex are attracted to you, stop and look around you….people who are fat, skinny, short, tall, bald, hairy, flat chested, boob-tacular, freckled, pale etc. etc. have people fall in love with them and marry them every day. And you know what? Your value is determined by what God thinks of you, not what some man (or woman) thinks. And God thinks you are lovable and of highest value regardless of how you look. Remember that, and trust HIM with who you are.
18 comments:
:)
ummm ... i'll leave further comment for our next phone conversation!!! LOL!!!
Ame, LOL...hmm I am curious to hear what you'll have to say :)
I'd have to agree with the premise that weight alone tells us little about a person's health.
After all, a person can look otherwise healthy and be an abuser of drugs. Or alcohol. Or food.
(An ex of mine self-destructed with bulimia. I would not have known she was bulimic by looking at her: she looked very moderate in appearance, being neither fat nor razor thin.)
And, as I often point out on my blog: this issue of obesity is not all on the women by any stretch, as men are statistically almost dead-even with the women in that department (33% to 35%).
As for the conventional "exercise more" mantra, I can attest--as a gym rat--that this is also not a guarantor of bodily health. I know two people--a man and a woman--who are as fanatical about exercise as I am, and both are bodily obese.
(Strength exercises--weights and calisthenics such as pushups, dips, knee-lifts, sit-ups, and pull-ups--are also very integral to developing lean mass, increasing body metabolism, and burning fat. Without strength training, you don't get the bang for the buck in your workout.)
Diet is also important, and finding a calorie level and breakdown--carbs/fats/proteins--that is optimal with respect to your exercise is not easy and takes a lot of experimentation. Everyone is different, and small variations in the diet can lead to large variations in weight over time.
Personally, I'm less concerned about my weight than I am about my body fat percentage. I use a Tanita scale for that, and check it twice a day, and keep running averages. Lately, my weight has gone up while my body fat has gone down.
Personally, what a person finds attractive is up to the individual and God. We all have to decide for ourselves whether our preferences are reasonable.
On the other hand, speaking for myself, I'm holding out for a happy medium in that department.
Thanks for the comment Amir. As I said I think you have every right to hold whatever preferences you want to...it is between you and God.
It is tough for people to let go of the current cultural paradigm about diet/exercise/weight because it is so prevalent in the culture. But, according to research, obesity isn't "on" either men or women any more than height is because both are largely genetically determined. Multiple studies have repeatedly demonstrated that for the vast majority of people (80-97%) no change in diet and or exercise habits will result in significant weight loss that lasts. That is not to say that exercise and a what we eat is not important for our health...it is...it is just that while being active and eating a moderate and varied diet with plenty of fruits and vegetables (tons of research to prove the health benefits of fruits and veggies and being active)may be great for your health, it is unlikely to result in significant weight loss for the majority of people. Because, health does not = weight. Of course there is a lot of money to be made in the weight loss business so you won't hear them saying that the failure rate is 80% minimum. And who else are we going to blame for the fall of Western Civilization and Global Warming if not the fat people? ;)heh
As for the conventional "exercise more" mantra, I can attest--as a gym rat--that this is also not a guarantor of bodily health. I know two people--a man and a woman--who are as fanatical about exercise as I am, and both are bodily obese.
Ok, question for you- How do you know these other two people are not healthy? From reading what you wrote my first assumption is that you are saying they are not healthy because they are obese...am I reading that correctly?
Learner: Those two have told me that their physicians have given them warnings to get their weight down.
Here is what I've observed in their workouts, however: they do not stress themselves. They'll spend 30 minutes on an elliptical machine, but they'll barely break a sweat. They'll do some reps on some of the weight machines, but not enough to really stress the muscles.
Granted, that's better than doing nothing, but it's not going to really bust through that metabolism and start burning the fat.
I'll also take substantial exception to any study that "shows" that (a) diet and exercise do not work for the vast majority, and (b) obesity is a genetic matter. After all, that does not explain the spike in childhood obesity over the past 20 years. Unless you want to suggest that only the lardasses have been breeding during that time...
I would concede that some people are better at metabolizing calories than others, and that much may be genetic. On the other hand, obesity is ultimately a thermodynamics problem, as it is a direct application of the First Law of Thermodynamics.
Having coached my share of people in this department--I've been a fitness nut for most of my adult life, with the exception of a 3-year stretch between 1996 and 1999--here is what I've observed over the years: most weight-loss attempts are indeed successful.
Almost everyone I know who has gone on a regimen that included diet AND exercise--and stuck to it--has realized weight loss.
The problem is, once the person loses the weight, he or she resumes the prior regimen, which is what caused the problem in the first place. Ergo, they gain it back.
What is needed in their cases is not simply a regimen to lose the weight; this is about how one wants to live the rest of one's life. The people I know who keep their weight consistently down are folks who do the latter.
Ultimately, Americans are simply more sedentary than they were 50 years ago. On top of that, we are a culture that eats out more than we ever did, and the fast food we eat today is nothing like 30 years ago. At McDonald's, Wendy's, Hardees, Arby's, it's not just burgers and quarter pounders and Big Macs. It's doubles, triples, quads, super-sized fries, frosty's McFlurries, etc.
Even at more traditional restaurants, modest meals are going to carry well over 1,000 calories, and God-knows-how much sodium. You'd have to be a gym rat to burn all those calories off.
And God help you if you frequent those all-you-can-eat buffets, which are oh-so-popular here in the obese state of Kentucky.
Amir,
First, would be so kind as to tell me how to insert a hyperlink in a comment?
Ok, I assumed your acquaintances worked out aggressively since you said they were gym rats like yourself. And since activity level is a much better predictor of health than body weight even for obese people I wondered why you thought they were not healthy. The fact they told you about having medical problems though, is (obviously) a good indicator of health.
I'll also take substantial exception to any study that "shows" that (a) diet and exercise do not work for the vast majority, and (b) obesity is a genetic matter.
Well, I'm not sure what to tell you there except to point you back to the research I referenced in the post as well as the other posts I linked to...it speaks for itself (and if it doesn't there is lots more). What I said about the long term failure rates of weight loss attempts (not a 100% failure rate, but a majority failure rate) and the genetic component in obesity (I said 70% of the variance...not 100% as well) is not a fringe opinion or something that is debated in the medical literature (honestly). I can certainly understand though why you may think that because 1) we all know people who have lost weight (the ability of people to lose and maintain a 20lb weight loss is better than a larger loss...ok I am need to stop with all the parentheses), and 2) the media doesn't accurately report a lot of medical research. I only know this information because I am a health science researcher (though more related to activity and it's effect on health). I would not expect most people who don't make a habit of reading medical journals to know that, which is why I wrote the blog post to begin with.
Regarding the study you linked to, it is true that obesity rates increased among children between 1980 and 1999 (and have since plateaued) and while it is true that weight is not 100% determined by genetics (as I said in the post it is believed that 70% of the variance in weight is accounted for by genetics) we also don't have conclusive answers (though we have lots of opinions) for why children had increased rates of obesity over that period of time. One reason could be that the BMI threshold that was considered "obese" was altered to a lower weight in the 1990's. The effect of diet is not conclusively established. A study (Dortmund Nutritional Anthropometric Longitudinally Designed Study- or DONALD study) discussed in the article I linked to, found that there was no difference in the diets of thin kids and heavier kids that they followed for 17 years.
As far as the failure of weight loss attempts being due to not maintaining a change, there is actually some research into that as well that points to physiological causes (specifically metabolic changes that occur with weight loss and our body's incredible ability to accommodate) and not just a lack of discipline as the culprit in that case.
I agree that we are now more sedentary than we were 50 years ago, and 50 years ago they were more sedentary than 50 years prior to that too due to all the conveniences developed. And as I said before activity level has a large effect on health so being sedentary is very bad for your health and something important that everyone can address. It doesn't take much to get benefits from increased activity so it is something everyone can benefit from.
And yeah, restaurant portions are ridiculous.
Amir, As I mentioned in the post I have no expectation that people find me attractive, however, I do expect civility and I don't think referring to overweight or obese people as "lardasses" is civil.
I was thinking about this further and I think the following may help to further clarify. There are 2 qualifying elements in the statement I made in the post:
1. significant weight loss Many people can alter their weight within a 15-20lb variation through lifestyle change. Researchers refer to this as "set point". Though a set point may also be more that 20 lbs under a person’s current weight or alternately it may also be above someone’s current weight depending on a lot of factors, particularly eating disorders. The difficulty of losing weight below the set point becomes much more difficult because the body's metabolism typically slows down to maintain the set point.
2. weight loss that lasts It is the difficulty in maintaining significant weight loss over a period of 3-5 years that accounts for the long term weight loss failure of the 80-97% of participants referred to in research. If you examine many weight loss studies that demonstrate higher rates of success (whether the means is diet or exercise or both diet and exercise) most of them stop collecting data at 12-18 months. Longer term studies show the difficulty with maintaining significant weight loss. Studies have also demonstrated that following significant weight loss a person's metabolism can slow down to the point that they need to consume fewer and fewer calories to maintain simply their weight.
Very good article, Learner. We should all take heed to this before we quickly judge other people.
I wonder how much family of origin might play in who we are physically attracted to? Do we tend to be attracted to those that remind us of our relatives of the opposite sex?
Thanks for the comment Anakin.
I wonder how much family of origin might play in who we are physically attracted to? Do we tend to be attracted to those that remind us of our relatives of the opposite sex?
That is an interesting question. If I can find anything about it in the search database at work I'll write something about.
Anakin said: Do we tend to be attracted to those that remind us of our relatives of the opposite sex?<<
I think so. I also think that a man is not sinning -- he may be unreasonable -- but he is not sinning if he is not physically attracted to someone he might otherwise be but for the way someone looks. A wise man will let love grow, and a wise man will also know the degree to which he needs to be physically attacted to someone.
Hi Singlexianman,
Very wise words.
SXM - and that works both ways.
Anakin -
"We should all take heed to this before we quickly judge other people."
Yes. And as much as I long to broadcast that to others when they look at me as a divorced, single mom ... i find i must also remind myself of the same :)
Thanks for letting me know about your blog. You get lots more comments than I do! Very interesting discussion.
Jonathan,
Hi bud! Thanks for the comment :)
Body type and weight can be the outcome of illness as well. In my last serious relationship, she was a former olympic class athlete who in later years developed diabetes. This, coupled with having had children, she gained weight; an awful lot of weight.
Of course, she was deeply self-conscious about this despite all of my assurances that I found her singularly beautiful. The bottom line is that she needed a lot more validation than I could give, and she would seek out an endless stream of lovers.
It would seem to me, coming from an admittedly non-medical background, that body image is equally a mental process and not just physical. Unhealthiness starts in the mind, and can lead to some regretable decisions. It also occurs to me that beauty has little to do with physicality.
But that's just me.
Hi Curiepoint, thank you for the comment. Absolutely,illness can effect weight.
I agree that body image is as much mental as physical (if not more mental). When faced with onslaught of body hatred in the current culture it is hard for some women to accept themselves as beautiful because every magazine and television show says that they are not. It takes a lot to ignore those messages. I think it takes trusting God with who you are so when a man tells you that you are beautiful it is a blessing, but not the key to your validation. When we seek validation for who we are in other people they can't provide it. So some people end up like your ex, going from person to person tyring to find the one who will be that key for them. But, only God can be that key.
Post a Comment