Greta Christina's fat positive manifesto

[ciphergoth]

I froze the discussion here because I thought it deserved a top-level post of its own, rather than being under a general discussion of Greta Christina. A few weeks ago she posted a very interesting series of articles on the fat-positive movement and her own beliefs; I'd be very interested to read more about what people think of them.

"I was frankly shocked at how callous most of the fat-positive advocates were about my bad knee. I was shocked at how quick they were to ignore or dismiss it. They were passionately concerned about the quality of life I might lose if I counted calories or stopped eating chocolate bars every day. But when it came to the quality of life I might lose if I could no longer dance, climb hills, climb stairs, take long walks, walk at all? Eh. Whatever. I should try exercise or physical therapy or something. Oh, I'd tried those things already? Well, whatever."

• The Fat-Positive Diet
• The Fat-Positive Skeptic
• An Open Letter to the Fat-Positive Movement

Comments

[lizw.livejournal.com]

In this particular case, I think there are strong reasons to bet against the scientific consensus, starting with the fact that almost all of the science in question is of appallingly poor quality and skewed by a combination of politics and big money. I'd recommend picking out some specific studies and looking to see whether junkfoodscience has commented on them, or reading her obesity paradox series.

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

I'd recommend picking out some specific studies and looking to see whether [info]junkfoodscience has commented on them

This is a good recommendation. I can't find anything on any of the studies referenced here on junkfoodscience, though that's not to say they're not discussed.

Edit: I note they have a post specifically about junkfoodscience.

Edit: and she links with approval to global warming denialist Steven Milloy's junkscience.com. Top link on her list of recommended links. Last is noted nut Bjorn Lomborg. Um.

[valkyriekaren.livejournal.com]

Edit: and she links with approval to global warming denialist Steven Milloy's junkscience.com. Top link on her list of recommended links. Last is noted nut Bjorn Lomborg. Um.

I'm not sure damning someone for the company they keep is much of an argument.

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

I agree, but I think it's informative all the same.

[blackmetalbaz.livejournal.com]

It's amazing how many cranks there are out there that do ascribe to multiple branches of pseudoscientific thinking (of which this is one). I think that in itself can be very telling.

[djm4]

OK, maybe I do have a little time...

I just lost about an hour following the cited links on the scienceblogs piece. My conclusion: evidence of correlation is not evidence of causation. Even if Mark Hoofnagle says it is. Even if he cites six papers in a row showing correlation, but none showing causation. Even if he wishes very, very hard.

But you know this; you posted the nifty pirates vs global warming graph.

As you say, um.

(Note - please don't take my word for it, but follow the links yourself. You may see something I didn't - and with most, I do only have the abstracts to go on.)

I'm not saying MarkH is wrong, I'm just saying that the evidence he cites doesn't appear to back him up. There may be other evidence that does. He may be reverse-cherry-picking, for some reason known only to himself.

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

I don't immediately see how one might run a study which overcame this objection; if you can, could you outline it?

[lizw.livejournal.com]

For anyone who accepts that there is a correlation strong enough to warrant investigation of possible causation, presumably the next step would be to try to design studies to demonstrate the mechanism by which causation occurs. Perhaps not literally the same people, since the specialisms would probably be different, but funding bodies, say. I think one of the problems with this debate is that public health bodies actually jump directly from epidemiological studies that suggest correlation to health recommendations that assume causation, without making it clear that the mechanism is not understood, and therefore the recommendations are provisional at best (I would argue often premature, given that they are often also associated with serious risks.)

[djm4]

Quite apart from what lizw said, I see the value in long-term studies to see whether controlling weight is (a) predictably possible and (b) correlates with health benefits. This is one reason why I feel I need far more time than I have to research this; some such studies appear to have been done and the results are mixed. Diabetes seems to be a better target than blood pressure, and the reporting seems to assume that this is down to the people in question loosing weight even though the study doesn't actually usually (ever?) say so. Now, that might be because it was simply too obvious to mention in the study, but I'd like to see the figures. I may also have been looking at the wrong studies and - as always - getting to anything more than an abstract is rare.

Really, though, I simply haven't done enough research. I know that, and it makes me very uncomfortable. I'm very aware of the parallels between the way fat-positivity is argued and the way, say, climate change denialism is argued. However, there are also parallels with the some of the 'science shows obesity causes diabetes' studies and with the 'science shows that male bisexuality is a myth' study, and much of the language of the fat-acceptance movement is very similar to the language used by Ben Goldacre in Bad Science. Ultimately, whatever my unease about it, I try to read the green ink and see what I think that studies linked to by both sides actually show.

I do know that my experience with that Mark Hoofnagle article you linked to is typical. People say 'this study shows that obesity causes diabetes', when in fact the study shows a correlation. I'm not dismissing correlation as meaningless - possibly fewer pirates did cause global warming; it's certainly worth looking a reason for the correlation, even if in that case the reason is pretty obvious - but I don't think it helps the case of medical professional to mischaracterise it.

I'd also just like to highlight this paragraph:

"Losing weight [in the elderly - this is leading in from a paragraph talking about them rather than the population in general] therefore appears to be a risk for death, and it is also possible that dieting in an older population simply isn't a safe proposition anyway. The message you should take home from all these studies of obesity and weight loss or gain is simple. It is very difficult to improve health through making people lose weight, and diets rarely have long lasting effects. Exercise, even in the overweight, is the most likely intervention to improve markers of cardiovascular health. In the overweight, appropriate management of symptoms like hypertension, diabetes etc., is effective in decreasing mortality. And finally, the best way to prevent the diseases of obesity is to avoid obesity in the first place. It's called primary prevention."

Ignoring, for a moment the last two sentences (because I think it's a separate issue - I'm happy to consider them if you disagree), this is pretty much exactly what most fat-acceptance campaigners are saying, too.

[wildeabandon.livejournal.com]

My conclusion: evidence of correlation is not evidence of causation

But correlation is evidence of either correlation in one direction or the other, or a common cause (or, as I suspect is more likely, some combination of the three). Also, one of the problems with (parts of) the fat positive movement, and Sandy in particular, is that they seem to be denying that there's even correlation.

[lizw.livejournal.com]

I think Sandy's position is that some studies show a weak correlation at a level which is not normally thought sufficient to warrant further investigation of causation.

[djm4]

But correlation is evidence of either correlation in one direction or the other,

You mean 'but correlation is evidence of either causation in one direction or the other...', don't you?

[lizw.livejournal.com]

Yes, I don't trust her on issues other than fat and nutrition; she has some odd political views which skew her judgment outside her immediate area, and of course once you've arrived at the suspicion that Western science has failed colossally in one area, it becomes more tempting to think that it might do so in others. I've followed back enough links from her articles to studies on obesity and read enough around the subject generally to trust her quite a lot on that, though. She's hardly the only person to show good judgment on issues in her field and bad judgment on issues outside it. (And yes, I'm commenting on issues outside my field here myself, and I fully expect you to give my comments less weight on this than I hope you would on, say, refugee law.)

On the one part in your second link where they are actually discussing her reporting of a recent study, I don't see that their commentary really contradicts her. Fat people do better in later life because they can better afford the weight loss that comes with many illnesses of longevity, and when it comes to mortality, that outweighs any adverse health effect of obesity. For whether there are any such adverse health effects that fall short of a net effect on mortality, you need different studies, and I don't think she argues otherwise.

I can't find any discussion on her blog of the New England Journal of Medicine study mentioned in your first link either, but I'd certainly heard of the study. Paul Campos has criticised it here. The paper itself is here.

[booklectica]

That first article doesn't seem to address the idea that it's much better for your health to be rich and fat than poor and thin. (I know you weren't necessarily quoting it because you agreed with it, I just wanted to post that link.)

[palmer1984.livejournal.com]

Don't have time to read the article so sorry if it addresses this, but being poor is generally very bad to your health anyway.

[booklectica]

That's basically what the article is saying, yes. (The one I link to, I mean.)

[seph-hazard.livejournal.com]

And this side of the pond, veg *is* cheap and easily accessible in any city - but that doesn't cover all eventualities, you know? Say you're well-off and you need someting to eat RIGHT NOW, because you're starving hungry and light-headed and very very busy rushing between things. We've all been there. You go and spend six pounds on a salad-to-go from M&S, alongside a little pot of fresh pineapple and a bottle of water. If you're broke, though, you're going to spend a quid on a bag of chips instead.

[thekumquat.livejournal.com]

Veg and fruit are *not* cheap and accessible in many areas of cities in this country - when I worked on improving the food supply in London, there were many areas where people don't have any shop selling fresh fruit or veg within half a mile, covering a population of possibly 500,000 people.

Add that to ability to afford bus fares to a supermarket/taxi back/ability to carry shopping/the internet for a net shop and paying the delivery fee, the time and gas/leccy cost for food preparation, as well as your point about spontaneity, and it's a really enormous issue.

[seph-hazard.livejournal.com]

Really? Bloody hell. There are *thinks* eight places selling fresh fruit and veg within half a mile of my flat, three of which are within 200 meters of where I sit as I type this. If I suddenly had an insatiable desire for a cucumber I could get one for thirty pence within the next three minutes [laughs] I didn't realise how lucky that is!

ETA - I live in a very poor area of London, btw

[devilgate.livejournal.com]

I suspect we may be neighbours.