Weight: Mental Health vs Physical Health?

[nicoles]

There seems to be no doubt, to me at least, that fat shaming is a real thing in our society in general. People are discriminated against, and often feel deep disgust toward themselves and are subjected to the same kind of bigotry that plagues other marginalized groups with all the horror that entails. I know at my heaviest I could barely stand myself, which is actually quite a sad thing if you think about it. if I gained it back but was still not actively sick with my autoimmune disease, then would it be mentally "healthy" to hate myself for it? No, this is not good for one's mental health, to feel inherently bad. Accepting and loving oneself is incredibly important for mental health, and at the very least not something anyone should discourage.

Now I do personally believe that diet is important to health and that the diet I believe to be healthy will promote thinness. That is physical health. However, it is a struggle for many if not most to maintain healthy eating habits, as we define them here, and to maintain a lower weight. Is it "better" in terms of how we feel about people, and how we treat them, for them to be physically healthy at the expense of mental health? The cultural fat shaming, plus what could be seen as "health shaming", would seems to be no more helpful than any other type of shaming. By that I mean, not helpful.

"What is the point?" you might be wondering. I don't really have a point. I am just thinking about it and wondering if anyone else has thoughts or insights on the subject.

[Thrasymachus]

I don't understand if that was science fiction. The only type of health shaming generally going on is the unhealthy mocking the healthy, yelling at those who walk, run or bicycle too often as they breeze by in motor vehicles Or how about the ritual rejoining with, "I enjoy life," or "you cannot live forever" whenever the slavish public see someone trying to eat healthy. Recently I was cycling and someone threw out their car window an aluminum beverage can at me, and it actually got caught between my elbow, chest and forearm. At first I was so irate, but after a few more moments of riding, had to sort of begrudgingly admire the amazing feat. Such incidents are sadly not uncommon for physically active people at the mercy of motorists. I see druggies, smokers and drinkers applying massive peer pressure on those who abstain and no strong countervailing trend. If you are straight edge you are like a leper where I live socially.

Are you also trying to apply that someone at my height of 6 feet who happens to be 300 lbs or more, with most of it fat centered in the hips, gut etc., should be just comfortable and nonchalant about their weight as someone with a good bodyweight of about 160-170 lbs? That would be the worst outcome possible.

[roundcoconut]

Yeah, there are so many problematic and destructive messages re body size and weight, that I don't even know where to start.

I will say, completely truthfully, that while I DO think whole natural foods are the approach that will help people the most, I have never once recommended a talk or a book by a plant-based doctor or someone in the plant-based movement, to someone who is heavy. I just can't justify recommending a video or a piece of literature where there is an underlying message about needing to fix their outward appearance, rather than about fixing the lack of nutrients, lack of fiber, lack of water content and lack of satiety in SAD foods.

When Dr McDougall says the fat you eat is the fat you wear, there is again that message that body fat stored in the belly or in the thighs, is what constitutes an unhealthy person. And yet, I live down the road from a thin man who has had two heart attacks, and does not pursue a whole natural foods diet, because he doesn't see himself as "wearing" his dietary fat in his arteries. He is not one of "those" unhealthy people.

It is so unusual to say that thin people are hated on and discriminated against and blamed for society's health problems (re Thrasymachus's comments). We are at times a very hateful society, but I know of very few conversations, articles, and medical approaches that blame society's woes on thin people, even though thin people on SAD do develop nearly all the same conditions (asthma, heart disease, liver problems, lung problems, kidney problems) as their heavier counterparts.

My "normal"-weight relatives (three of them that come immediately to mind) have RA, osteoporosis, and COPD, just for starters, so it's hard to see how running at a weight that escapes social stigma, is really such a great feat for good health. It's just a matter of feeding your body unnatural processed foods, just makes things go haywire in the human body, no matter who you are.

When people start seeing the inputs as the locus of the problem (the intake of horrible processed substances) rather than one particular outcome (stored body fat sometimes combined with insulin resistance or full-on diabetes), then the message will change to give a truer picture. Until then, we're pointing the finger at the wrong culprits, and making people's lives much harder than they have to be.

[Lesliec1]

I think if you were to get heavy again, I think you'd "hate yourself" for the whole package, not just the way you look. If you became overweight, you are eating poorly - probably with sugar which causes emotional downs. You're probably not exercising which makes you feel guilty, among other bad emotions (maybe lazy, worthless, hopeless). I guess I'm saying self-hatred is caused by food and exercise much more than by what people say.

My weight used to swing wildly. I distinctly remember that while overweight, even a day into a new "healthy-ish diet," I immediately liked myself more and became optimistic about life. That's why I think it has little to do with looks and everything to do with food. In a couple days of dieting, my looks certainly didn't change (and society still said I looked horrible) but I felt great and optimistic about life.

Also, my sister is a skinny little thing and always looks the same. However, when she has a bad day and eats junk food, she gets very depressed for a couple days. Again, nothing to do with looks or society. Bad food (esp sugar and fat IMO) makes you feel terrible about your whole life.

Of course there's no excuse for shaming. We don't shame alcoholics as much as fat people. But I don't think overweight people always realize why they feel bad which is sad for them. (It's the food.)

[arugula]

There seems to be no doubt, to me at least, that fat shaming is a real thing in our society in general

I disagree.

This circus fat man's morbid obesity was once shocking.
https://modeledbehavior.com/2010/04/18/ ... iscussion/

Now, we see people like that often. Nobody bats an eyelash.

People like this woman are considered to be attractive.
http://i.imgur.com/zzMIprH.jpg

I think there has never been a time where there has been less shame associated with obesity than today. And I think that's a bad thing. People think it's ok now, but it isn't.

[Skip]

Ira Glass ( of This American Life) addresses this issue in his latest podcast:

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-a ... -me-im-fat

[nicoles]

Ira Glass ( of This American Life) addresses this issue in his latest podcast:

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-a ... -me-im-fat

That's exactly what got me thinking on the subject!

[Thrasymachus]

@arugula:
That is a good point. Just about everyone in the USA at a workplace with 40 or more co-workers probably has a co-worker or two about as obese or even heavier than that circus fat man people traveled and paid to see. Here is a photo of an Atlantic City NJ beach about a century ago circa 1910:
http://i.imgur.com/WRBr62T.jpg

Not an overweight person in sight. Last year I went to a waterpark in NJ called Action Park and it was full of overweight bodies.

People like this woman are considered to be attractive.
http://i.imgur.com/zzMIprH.jpg

I think that is a little too much hyperbole. A small demographic would consider her attractive, but it is probably a growing demographic as people's perceptions of what is a good bodyweight is shifting upward.

@Skip/nicoles:
That seems to be a fat acceptance podcast episode. Do you think that Marlon Brando in the 70's and beyond should have been as comfortable with his body image and bodyweight as in his prime in films like On the Waterfront?

I will say, completely truthfully, that while I DO think whole natural foods are the approach that will help people the most, I have never once recommended a talk or a book by a plant-based doctor or someone in the plant-based movement, to someone who is heavy. I just can't justify recommending a video or a piece of literature where there is an underlying message about needing to fix their outward appearance, rather than about fixing the lack of nutrients, lack of fiber, lack of water content and lack of satiety in SAD foods.

Sorry that is just a crazy strawmen. McDougall, McGreger, etc., don't write or say that a healthy bodyweight is the beginning and end of health, but it is a good start. McGreger has several videos up that show if you eat a fatty diet, you could have a normal bodyweight but fat will get stored in internal organs.

Also I didn't say healthy people are blamed for social issues, I said if you eat healthy you will face social stigmas and have to deal with stupid comments. If you actually dare to get around by bicycle or walking on roadways, you will get lots of passive aggressive anger from motorists. Recently a poor black women in Atlanta almost received more jail time than the drunk man, Jerry Guy, with two prior convictions who hit and her killed her son:
http://usa.streetsblog.org/2012/09/11/g ... qus_thread

Her crime being poor, black and jaywalking(a fake crime invented by the motor vehicle lobby. ) instead walking an inordinate distance for a proper intersection or crosswalk. The jury who judged her didn't even use public transport themselves and was all-white:

http://www.today.com/id/43896116/ns/tod ... ing-death/

During jury questioning for Nelson’s trial, when members of the jury that would eventually convict her were asked if any of them relied on public transportation, no one raised their hand. A handful admitted to occasionally taking the bus to go to Atlanta Braves games.

[Lesliec1]

The only type of health shaming generally going on is the unhealthy mocking the healthy, yelling at those who walk, run or bicycle too often as they breeze by in motor vehicles

That's a stretch to say there is such a thing as "health shaming." Morons drive by and yell stupid stuff at everyone under the sun: hippies, asians, gays, fat women, black people, people with blue hair. Who is exempt from getting mocked except someone in the exact same car as whatever drove by? And yeah, drivers hate bikers, sometimes for good reason. They can be treacherous where I live. Everyone in my town has a story about almost being killed because of a biker.

[vgpedlr]

And yeah, drivers hate bikers, sometimes for good reason. They can be treacherous where I live. Everyone in my town has a story about almost being killed because of a biker.

Just run us over and fix the problem for everybody else.

Seriously, once you mount a bicycle after the age of 12, you cease to be a human being, you're just an obstacle, a thing, not a person. Now belonging to a hated group, people routinely direct their anger at the whole group, not treating cyclists as individuals. People do not do that with motorists. Nobody says anything like "those cray MOTORISTS, they're so dangerous!" Individual drivers are treated separately as those who cause accidents and those who do not.

That consideration is rarely extended to cyclists.

Yet who causes the most fatalities? I can hit you as hard as I can on my bike, and you'll survive. The same cannot be said when it's car vs. bike.

[Spiral]

I don't know what is worse:

[*] A society where everyone is shouting, "You're fat!!"

[*] Or a society where everyone is saying, "Oh, you're not fat. You don't need to change anything you are doing. We love you just the way you are. Here's some more pills to control your blood pressure, diabetes and cholesterol. Oh, and would you like the other foot amputated too? We have a two for one special today."

The first type of society is brutal, merciless. The second type of society kills with kindness.

[Spiral]

Now that I think about it, we McDougallers really are a radical bunch.

If I were to teleport myself back to where I was, from a nutrition standpoint, 6 years ago, I would be sitting in front of a plate of food at Outback Steakhouse or Applebee's.

On that plate would be a 8 to 12 ounce steak or prime rib, a loaded baked potato with cheese, bacon, sour cream and butter and some mixed vegetables (either steamed or more likely slathered in butter).

It would appear, based on the paradigm I was looking through at the time, like a balanced diet.

Then, my current self would walk through the doors of that Outback Steakhouse and say to my prior self, "What you are eating is junk, junk, junk! Get rid of that red meat."

My prior self would respond, "I know, I should have ordered the grilled chicken instead or the salmon, but I was . . . . . "

My current self interrupts: "No chicken. No salmon. That's just another flavor of disease, you fool. And while you're at it, throw that loaded baked potato away. You ruined it with all of those toppings."

"Margarine, right? A more healthy fat?" my prior self would respond.

My current self would say, "Nope. All added fat is hurting your body. Those vegetables would be good if they were steamed and not topped with butter."

. . . . . .

All of this is very jarring to the average person who's never heard of McDougall. We often don't realize how far we have travelled away from the mainstream in the United States (and perhaps Europe, Australia, New Zealand as well).

That's why the fat shaming seems so unfair. When the only low-fat food most people can think of is skittles, low-fat doesn't seem healthy.

Maybe it's not just ignorance. Maybe it's just an unwillingness to defer gratification. Still, the way we look at the food world today is so different, so radical, we don't even realize it. So, we have take it easy on people who still see the world through pork colored glasses.

[Lesliec1]

And yeah, drivers hate bikers, sometimes for good reason. They can be treacherous where I live. Everyone in my town has a story about almost being killed because of a biker.

Seriously, once you mount a bicycle after the age of 12, you cease to be a human being, you're just an obstacle, a thing, not a person. Now belonging to a hated group, people routinely direct their anger at the whole group, not treating cyclists as individuals. People do not do that with motorists. Nobody says anything like "those cray MOTORISTS, they're so dangerous!" Individual drivers are treated separately as those who cause accidents and those who do not.

True, you're in the minority so your whole group gets the blame for the dangerous bikers. It's terrible (for so many reasons) that there aren't enough safe places for bikers. Europe I guess?

[roundcoconut]

My big problem with getting angry at people who are on the receiving end of the most toxic food environments ever, is that they have never once lived in a healthy food environment, given ways of living that are active rather than sedentary, or given them access to whole natural foods, and kept them safe from their own food addictions.

So, what we do in this culture, is we are set up for failure, and then we are blamed when we fail. Which is weird and not very nice.

The reason that some people are prone to food addictions, while others are prone to alcohol addictions, while others are prone to any number of unhealthy patterns, is just a matter of our human variations. Like, some people get born into families that hook them on junk foods right away, while other families use junk foods sparingly at least in a kid's younger years. Also, some people take to food addictions quite readily, while their brothers and sisters can be around a bowl of candy all day long with no problem.

Y'can't have it both ways, where we are given all the wrong food environments, all the wrong influences, all the wrong role models, and all the wrong access to food, and then turn around and say that we're letting you down when we wind up at our SAD weight.

Also, some people's SAD weight is higher, some people's SAD weight is lower. I can't see any point in comparing the relative merits of one person's unhealthy SAD outcomes, to another person's.

That's all! I'm done beating the dead horse for right now!

[f1jim]

"The reason that some people are prone to food addictions, while others are prone to alcohol addictions, while others are prone to any number of unhealthy patterns, is just a matter of our human variations."

I might disagree with this as a a juxtaposition of the problem. Human variation certainly is a reality. Thank goodness we are not cookie cutter people. But garbage food IS addictive by nature. Not by fate of birth of the consumer. Now some may not be affected by this addictiveness but it's still addictive food regardless of whether some people can avoid it's snare. My genetics doesn't turn the food into addictive or non-addictive food. It is addictive, period. Just like with drugs. Heroin is addictive. Because it doesn't draw in any particular individual doesn't turn on or off an addiction molecule in the substance. It truly is an addictive substance at heart. Human variation doesn't affect the addictive character of the compound.

Why is this seemingly innocent point important? Why is it germain to healthy eating? Dr. McDougall has discovered that eating a healthy diet isn't just good for those without chronic disease, it can keep chronic disease at bay. Healthy eating is not just the right choice for those with a propensity to gain weight, get heart disease, develop diabetes, etc. It's for people with zero outward issues of health for long term best results of even seemingly healthy people. Junk food is bad for EVERYONE regardless of predispositions to anything. Excessive alcohol is bad for EVERYONE regardless of addictive tendencies.
One of the things we are blessed with here is knowing about the effects of some foods on our health. With that carries the responsibilities of improving our society though a tradition as old as humanity. Passing on what we have learned to others. That can be perceived as a personal invasion of space. That can be perceived as delving into private concerns. Or it can be used as a source of life nurturing information. It's not our job to weave that knowledge into a persons brain. That's their job. Our job is to put that information out there in as honest and truthful way possible. The receiver of that knowledge has the responsibility of how they use this knowledge. Run with it or discard it. Make a good decision about it or a bad one. That's all our individual call.
What did you do with the knowledge of healthy eating? Did you incorporate changes to your diet? Are you still contemplating the worth of doing that? Is it knowledge that will be put into action and used to help you thrive or something you bury deep in the recesses of your mind, never to take action on.
We can spend our lives worried about how people will take our message. We can live in angst that we might offend people. Or we can fulfill our responsibility and share the message and let others sweat the emotional details. That isn't our job. I contend if you haven't rankled any eyebrows you probably haven't helped anyone. There are people upset at the personal style of Dr. McDougall. There are people that are upset with the personal approach of Dr. Esselstyn. That's the price they must pay to save peoples lives. Listening to the message and discarding the personal foibles of the messenger are integral to human growth. Those that can do this will move forward. Those that can't will be left behind.

It's crazy to sub divide ourselves into categories such as food addicted, alcohol addicted, etc, and see those categories as all encompassing. Junk food may not manifest itself as extra weight for someone but it still is a bad choice for ANYONE.
f1jim