… so far, no-one has offered to pay me to lose weight.
The latest brain-fart by our government and the Preventative Health Taskforce here in Australia is that (among other things)
overweight people could be paid to lose weight under a radical plan to combat the nation’s obesity crisis.
This is being reported across the media under various charming headlines and all with varying brands of fat-hate, including Obese paid to lose weight and get fit, Lure obese to gym with cash carrot (surely cash donuts would be more effective?), Do you want tax cuts with that diet and It’s what you eat, OK?. As usual, the reporting in these stories makes me want to tear my hair out – they are all clearly written by people who have never struggled with their weight and have not read any actual research on the subject. The stories are littered with never-ending blame of fatties using their genetics as an excuse and the ancedata of successful weight loss – witness:
No matter how it is twisted, obesity is largely the result of behaviour and bad choices… For every three fat people who blame their super size and ill-health on (tick one or all of the following) family patterning, genes, a busy domestic life, the modern lifestyle or their stressful job, there is one who has decided to take charge of their tummy, mouth and mind… In the end, it is really very simple – eat smaller portions, eat better food, exercise.
Setting aside my purple-faced frothing-at-the-lips reaction to the reporting, what about the plan itself? They’re talking about providing tax breaks or subsidies for gym memberships or exercise equipment, which in principle I have no problem with. It would be great if the government could support people in accessing their exercise of choice – the problem is with the idea that this support will presumably only be for fatties. What about slim people who are unfit? What about people with asthma who will benefit from regular swimming? What about people who just like to exercise? Because in all truth, this is not about fitness, this is about getting people’s bodies to look more acceptable.
Which, if they actually bothered to review any research, they might see cannot necessarily be achieved by exercise. I already exercise regularly (with no subsidies from the government), and I’m still obese. I consider myself to be pretty fit though. So if this was really about fitness, the government should be happy with me, right? Yeah I don’t think so.
And how will they determine who gets these subsidies? Will there be a weigh-in, and if you have a BMI over XX, then you qualify? Will you be required to give proof that you are regularly using your subsidised gym membership or equipment? What will class as “regular” use? Will they be evaluating weight loss and removing your subsidies if you stay fat? Will they test fitness levels? I seriously don’t think they’ve thought this plan through…
And just for fun, I’m going to pull a couple of quotes from some of the submissions that the Taskforce received. Funnily enough, no-one can seem to agree on how to make the fats lose weight, of even why we’re so damn fat in the first place. For the record, I’m sure there are also a lot of excellent submissions, but I’m feeling snarky today.
Lets start with this quote from the Obesity Prevention and Treatment Society. Bold bits added by me.
OPATS is acutely aware that simple education of those suffering from overweight and obesity is relatively ineffective in dealing with these problems (umm yeah, maybe because what you’re telling us to do doesn’t work??). Just as was found in dealing with nicotine and alcohol addictions, higher level, psychology-based skills are required to effect change.
For example, clinicians need greater training into:
- motivational interviewing techniques (huh?)
- how to raise the issue of obesity in a non-judgemental way (YES! It’s a start…)
- managing the emotional attachment that many of the obese have to food (wtf? I would say this might be true for some, but not for many, and can you get any more condescending?)
- understanding of the different pathways to obesity and hence different interventions (yeah like the genetic pathway maybe?)
- the research into how exercise may promote adipose weight gain (wait, now exercise is actually making me fatter?? Show me this research…)
Frankly, I’m not sure how I feel about OPATS, and their website isn’t providing enough information for me to figure it out. They do have this interesting bunch of statistics on their homepage though:
Traditional, non-surgical weight loss strategies have 5 year success rates of typically less than 20%. With 60% of the population obese or overweight, the Society operates from the imperative of promoting prevention at primary, secondary and tertiary levels and improving treatment outcomes. Estimates of the impact of obesity in Australia show that obesity causes almost one-quarter of type 2 diabetes (23.8%) and osteoarthritis (24.5%), and around one-fifth of cardiovascular disease (21.3%) and colorectal, breast, uterine and kidney cancer (20.5%). With 1 in 4 children and young people overweight, the target population is the modern family in its many forms.
Can I get a hallelujah for the recognition that the widely accepted weight loss strategies have a very poor success rate? And yet, if 60% of the population is obese or overweight, and obesity “causes” 23.8% of type 2 diabetes (and I will bet my left boob that anyone who is fat and has diabetes has been counted in this!), doesn’t that mean the other 76.2% of type 2 diabetes is caused by being normal- or under- weight? Seems like the fatties are doing better than would be expected, if you ask me! I mean wouldn’t you expect that in a population that is 60% obese or overweight, at least 60% of the cases of type 2 diabetes would be in fat people? And ditto for the other diseases. There is no way they can say for certain that any of the people who make up the stats they quote would not have developed these diseases if they were simply not fat.
Then there are the submissions from the “MY diet program really works, NO I SWEARZ IT” crowd (grammar is all theirs – bolding mine, but only for emphasis):
Never before there is an urgent need for coherent and non-fad guidance for a healthy lifestyle and food. What should be a natural, generational family teaching – seems no more. Many people just do not know what and how to eat, falling willing victims to the cafes, fast food outlets, malls and bakehouses.
With so many easy options and alternatives to not only meal preparation but lifestyle
choices which in many cases exclude physical activity, it is no wonder that our nations are getting fatter, obese and feeling all the worse for it – despite weak excuses that its ok to be what ever you are and to love yourself. That’s baloney. Try that excuse when your loved family member has their first heart attack at 40, or teenager has diabetes!
For the first time our parents just might outlive their children. I guarantee if every individual, every parent followed these easy guides, health would be regained and physical appearance and true self-esteem would result if everyone would adopt the Ultra lite concepts.
Yeah, I got nothing on that one.
And here’s a quote from the UniMelb Obesity Consortium, supporting the setpoint theory, but blaming it on the pregnant woman (again, bold parts are mine):
Recent studies suggest that prevention strategies should start very early in life and thus should be focused on the intrauterine environment and the early nutrition of children especially in the first few years of life. This we can refer to as primary prevention. Secondary prevention strategies may not work as it appears that body weight is homeostatically regulated and defended.
There is now a strong and growing body of evidence suggesting that obesity, once established, is a chronic condition. The assumption that weight regain after weight loss is the result of simple return to unhealthy lifestyle as a free choice of the individual is not supported by the following facts:
- Very few people can maintain weight loss in the long term despite ongoing desire to do so.
- There is evidence from twin and adoption studies that the genetic influence on weight is greater than the environmental influence.
- Obesity can be epigenetically imprinted while the child is in the womb.
- Following weight loss there are many physiological adaptations that encourage weight regain, including;
- A profound reduction in the circulating level of the anorectic hormone Leptin.
- A reduction in the post-prandial release of the satiating hormone cholecystokinin.
- A doubling of the circulating levels of the hunger-inducing hormone Ghrelin.
- A switch in the conversion of Thyroxine from the conversion to T3 (the active hormone) to conversion to reverse T3 (the inactive hormone) reducing metabolic rate.
- Reductions in the circulating levels of insulin, free fatty acids and glucose (all of which have been shown to inhibit food intake when injected into the brain).
All this suggests that body weight is defended, hence the chronicity of the condition.
I’ve only looked at a few submissions picked at random, and even I can see that no-one really knows what is going on with THE FATZ. My question to the Taskforce is – how can you read all this conflicting information and then continue to mewl about the fatties just needing more encouragement to exercise? I know we’re not pretty enough for you, but GEEZ.
No comments:
Post a Comment