Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Maybe I'm just restating the obvious-- but it seems to me that societal definitions of beauty/handsomeness are based more on shape, and less on weight. But most people see weight gain or loss as a solution to the attractiveness problem, and certain media (perhaps basing their judgments on unflattering portraiture) reinforces that point.
Pot Belly? Lose the weight!
Bony Shoulders, Ribs showing? Gain some Weight!
But it doesn't work that way. I lost a good deal of weight, perhaps encouraged by the thought of minimizing my pot belly. Well, guess what-- it's still there in vestigial form, and I now have bony shoulders, a defined rib cage, and waist hip ratio that looks less than masculine. Clothes that ft my peculiarly slender shape are hard to find. I suppose I could gain some weight, in hopes of returning to normality, but I'm done with obsession.
Eat well, get plenty of exercise, and let the chips fall where they may.
As others have noted, nutrition education and fresh-food availability aren't as easy to come by as they should be. And if you grow up not knowing this information, it's easy to develop bad eating habits and gain weight in a short amount of time.
I find that nearly impossible to believe anymore. 30 years ago perhaps, but despite all the "fat bad-carbs good, no wait! carbs bad-fat OK, no wait! some carbs and fat good-sugar bad, no wait!..." messages, the one constant message has always been: consume fewer calories. This message has never changed, not one bit.
You can't tell me that parents feeding their children soda and Cheetos still haven't heard that the more calories you consume, the bigger you will be. This information is *everywhere*. Even the nutrition labels on the back of a pack of cookies has the most basic information possible: calories per serving, and the number of servings in the package. The information is on everything we purchase, literally in black and white.
What's the disconnect?
You can't tell me that parents feeding their children soda and Cheetos still haven't heard that the more calories you consume, the bigger you will be. This information is *everywhere*. Even the nutrition labels on the back of a pack of cookies has the most basic information possible: calories per serving, and the number of servings in the package. The information is on everything we purchase, literally in black and white.
What's the disconnect?
Poverty.
Weight is overwhelmingly a poor folks problem. Rich white people tend to be thin. It's poor people who tend to wear plus sizes.
Anyone here been urban, working poor? One has to rely on fast food and convenience food because it's cheap, easy and unlikely to go bad. Fresh veggies rot if you're working 60+ hours a week and don't have time to cook, and they're awfully expensive. Chips stay good indefinitely, though, as do things like cookies and frozen meals. Soda is tons cheaper than juice. Add to that the fact that your kids are probably going to be feeding themselves at a young age, and that the grocery store may be poorly stocked and inconveniently located, and you can start to see the problem.
The lectures are everywhere, yes, but there is very little by way of practical help when it comes to making changes. Whole wheat pasta is a more expensive than the white kind, and cooks differently. Ditto with rice. Fruits and veggies are horribly expensive and also take a bit of preparation. Lentils? They're cheap and relatively easy, but most people have no idea how to make them palatable.
I can turn lentils and brown rice into something young children will scarf down, but that's because I was raised by hippies. Most people were raised on meat and potatoes, and now eat the quickest, cheapest version they can find. The poor also tend to have crappy medical care, so conditions that co-exist with obesity go untreated for years.
Until everyone has access to decent food plus the time and knowledge to prepare it, we will have an obesity epidemic. As the middle class keeps sliding downward, the problem will continue to get worse.
the supply and variety of food has nearly always been limited in some way, by money, time of preparation, availability, etc. As long as everyone has instantaneous access to a freezer full of food designed to be appealing there is always going to be a need for "artificial" means whether cultural/social or biological to limit the intake (at least for people who are genetically predisposed to gain easily) to something lower that what it will "naturally" be under these unnatural conditions.
Debra Dickerson has once again written an article that off the mark and dishonest. black folks KNOW the difference between a "thick" woman like beyonce and someone who is morbidly obese. it would be nice if dickerson wrote to black people and not about them, but thats too much to ask, i suppose.
Drug Addicts, unlike fat people, don't claim minority status. They are also a significantly smaller % of the populace than fat people, thus they present a much less significant expense on healthcare and resources. Like fat people, they are addicts by choice, but at least they have the common sense not to demand special treatment, form a fat club (see "curves", nightclubs just for fat women, NAAFA, etc.).
Reality, lose that large ass. Again, it is mostly women defending fatties, with reality leading the charge (or should I say the roll downhill). Funny how that works
Anyone here been urban, working poor?
Yeah, me. Food stamps and everything.
My parents still *never* fed me potato chips, soda, fast food, canned "prepared" foods, white bread, or any of that stuff. I never tasted any of those sorts of things until we moved out of the low-income city neighborhood that we lived in and out to the suburbs/rural part of the state with middle class families who all bought that stuff and fed it to their children.
I know one anecdote does not make anything resembling a rule or a trend or whatever, but it is certainly possible to be "urban working poor" and not shovel garbage into your children's bodies.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
