Sunday, September 24, 2006

going silent for a time

My dad's taken a turn for the worse. He's got some organ damage which was totally unexpected--we thought he had a simple injury, not something related to his disease. He's got to have surgery this week, I've got to support my mom, so I won't have time to research fun articles to comment on, or rant about my life. Good wishes welcome. I will still check/answer email and moderate comments.

Thursday, September 21, 2006

Other lives, other stories, and secret decoder rings (a bit off topic)

I have six or so other blogs and websites under my other name. I basically am writing all day long, when I'm not doing art or some other form of creation. I just published a book and it's selling. I don't know if I'm amazed or just grateful that people want to hear what I have to say.
I also like to watch people's reactions to things.
My previous therapist's big thing was "stories" --everything's a story to her (I still talk to her, I just don't go to her for therapy). Reality is a set of experiences based on the stories we tell ourselves, according to her. Part of this is the old intention/attention thing--where we put our attention is what focuses our intention which makes our reality (watch What the Bleep).
I see this every day in myself and others. I could say a hundred and fifty different statements, more or less related, and I will get comments on only a few. It's about drama and button pushing.
I know most of my stories. I tell some of them on here, some of them in other places.
On some of the Yahoo groups I belong to, and in Yahoo Answers, sometimes I don't even post anything. I just watch. Part of it is poor written communication skills--people don't realize what they are saying could easily be misconstrued, or they speak poor English, or they aren't careful writers. Part of it is a desire to stir up trouble (mostly that's on Answers).
Someone will post, as a simple share, a beautiful metaphysical essay or poem on why the sky is blue and only mention God at the very end, and someone will jump in and say "why not say 'goddess'?" and someone else will attack the color choice of "blue" and some atheist will start mocking anyone who believes in ANY gods and the whole thing turns into a flame war and no one appreciates the sentiment behind the original post. The first response saw only "god" because their story revolves around only the goddess, and the next person's story is about questioning reality (blue sky) and the 3d person is completely submerged in a science story.
When I feel submerged in my fat story, my stories of helplessness and rage, I come here and post what I am seeing through those filters.
Did you ever have a secret decoder ring? A clear piece of colored plastic; you hold it over a jumbled color picture and a message is suddenly visible.
Stories are like that. You see only what the story's secret decoder plastic allows you to see. It's not a judgment. It's just a way of seeing reality.
A story, if you will. (wink)

Wednesday, September 20, 2006

forcing children to eat, part 2 (response to comment)

I didn't write the study, I only commented on it.

No, I don't have children, nor do I want them. But I stand by my comments that a child should not be forced to clean a plate. If the child is too full or not hungry enough to finish the main meal, then obviously there should be no dessert. Offering unhealthy food as a "reward" for eating healthy food doesn't make any sense to me. It sets up a pattern of eating that can be very destructive in later years.

Apparently I was an abused child because my parents swatted my behind when I was bad. I guess it's better to let a kid scream, cry and throw a major tantrum. Totally off-topic for this blog--end of that discussion.

Tuesday, September 19, 2006

Simplistic weight loss article

I found this rather simplistic weight-loss article. I'm paraphrasing it of course, but it's interesting. Read in its entirety.

You are too fat because you:

  • Eat too much fat.
  • Eat too much sugar.
  • Drink too much alcohol.
  • Eat too much processed foods.
  • Each too much in general.
  • Eat irregularly (many hours between meals, eating huge meals and then nothing).
  • Have a sedentary lifestyle (he calls it "a still sitting life").
  • Are bored.
  • Have a slow metabolism.
  • Have an abnormal appetite.
I think that pretty much sums it up. The last 2 could be caused by drugs (like steroids) or just bad genetics. I can't think of a reason for being overweight that isn't covered by one of these. Can you?

Kids in China are no longer starving. Don't clean your plate for their sake.

I had to laugh when I saw this just a few minutes after talking about the "guilt" method of making your kids eat: there's children starving in China.
Not any more.
Chinese Kids Are Getting Fat
(actual news headline--I didn't make that up)
Obesity rates in city-dwelling male Chinese students between seven and 22 had increased to 11.39 percent, up 2.7 percent since 2000, while the 5.01 percent of obese female students was up 1.4 percent.

So, mommies, STOP MAKING YOUR KIDS EAT! Stop putting more food on their plates than their little tummies can hold. Stop stuffing your child in order to add sugary desserts on top of the excessive food intake. Throw away some food once in a while. Make a compost pile. Feed the dog. (Oh, that's right, the crappy fast food would make the dog sick. But your kids eat it.) Do you want your child to grow up and look like me?

Miracle molecule stops weigh gain

Gimme some of this. Now.
Italians find 'anti-fat molecule'
Italian researchers have found a molecule that makes the body burn more fat, paving the way for new obesity drugs.Injected into mice, the molecule upped the animals' metabolism and stopped them becoming fat despite being fed a high-fat diet.....They injected it into the brains of normal healthy mice who were given fatty food for two weeks (and) noted that...this peptide prevents the development of obesity expected from such a diet, restricting fatty deposits.
I'm waiting for my delivery of this. Brain injections? Sure. Go right ahead.
What's that tracking number again?

Forcing kids to eat makes them fat.

This goes in the "Duh" file:
Pestering kids to eat increases their obesity risk Pestering kids to eat may be essential at times but it may also have adverse fallouts, as a research has revealed that mothersÂ’ unnecessary promptings to kidsÂ’ to eat may lead to obesity.... Low maternal education, the presentation of unfamiliar foods, and younger age of the child were factors that predicted more prompting from the mother. On the other hand, the mother being obese, the offering of familiar foods, and older age of the child were factors that predicted the child's compliance with the prompts.....
Prompting may cause the child to eat more, even when full, and therefore teach to child to ignore his/her own hunger cues.
I can't believe someone had to do a STUDY to figure that out.
Do I even need to comment on this any more? "Mommy I'm not hungry." "Clean your plate or you can't have dessert." Clean plate club membership + dessert = way more calories than the child's body is telling it to consume. If only we could all go back to that!
And don't forget guilt eating. "There are children starving in China. Eat everything on your plate." I used to say "Then send them my dinner" and I'd get whacked. Getting wacked isn't child abuse. Forcing your child to eat when it's not hungry, until a pattern of helpless overeating and weight-gain ensues, that's child abuse.

Killer spinach

I knew there was a reason I don't like spinach. It's deadly. Read article.
Federal health officials await test results from California farms and packing plants that could allow them to pinpoint the source of an E. coli outbreak that's sickened spinach eaters across the country.....It is the 20th food-poisoning episode since 1995 linked to spinach or lettuce, the Food and Drug Administration said. At least eight were traced to produce grown in the Salinas Valley....E. coli cases linked to tainted spinach have been reported in 21 states.
Seriously, I just don't like to eat leaves. I'm sure I've done my anti-lettuce tirade at least once on this blog. It's a shame people are getting sick through eating something you'd think would be healthy--fresh greens. I honestly don't hate spinach, not like I hate fish, I just don't choose to include it in my diet. Especially now.

Thursday, September 14, 2006

Comments are back to being moderated

I accept dissenting opinions, but not hatred. So don't bother commenting to tell me what a fat lazy piece of shit I am and how much you hate me.
For my faithful and the polite new people, of course I'll put yours through. It might take a while for me to get the notification, that's all.

Wednesday, September 13, 2006

Ouch, and strength training

I can really feel my workout this morning!
I did all the exercises to exhaustion, and I was sweaty and tired when I finished, but not in any pain or anything.
But now that I'm up, moving around, I can really feel it. The front of my shoulders. My upper and lower back. And my neck, which is bad, that means I wasn't in proper form for some of the exercises (probably the crunches, although I tried to be careful). A little across my abs.
It's not UNBEARABLE pain, it's just good muscle soreness. What's not good is that I'm going into the pool today and working out again. I'll go easy on my upper body. There's ways I can work out my lower body only (mostly) today and Friday and then I'm done there.
I just stretched and I can feel it in my chest too. And all this time I thought I was getting a decent upper body workout in the water. Apparently not.
My body just loves strength training. I wonder why? Since the first time I went into a gym and tried the Nautilus machines (they now own Bowflex, btw)--even before that, when we got to use the Universal machine in the gym at my high school. When we had free gym time to do anything, I always went into the weight room with the guys. A few of my friends would come with me, but only because they were after the guys. I was after the equipment.


Some person who is "not a fattie" actually spent the time to read my blog and post SEVEN comments telling me what a disgusting fat person I am and how I need to work out. Even though I talk all the time about my workouts.
They are pretty offensive comments but I think I'll leave them up for now because they made me laugh. Especially the one about how stupid I am for buying and using my bowflex, coupled with all the other ones about how I don't work out. Whatever.
I have always attracted lunatics. My other blogs under my other names attract lunatics too. One of my friends (a guy) once said he wished I could go out into the middle of a big field and turn up whatever it was about me that attracted assholes, and as the assholes flocked to me, he'd pick them off with a shotgun and make the world a better place for ALL woman. What a true friend. In fact he called me last night and we talked about how he feeds his kids McDonalds so they can get the toy they are screaming for, and then he has horrible guilt over feeding it to them.

Tuesday, September 12, 2006

Bowflex workout

I just did my first bowflex workout--upper body only. It seemed to take FOREVER because I had to keep stopping to look up how to set each exercise up in the book. In actually, it took 9 songs of a 10 song album. Maybe 40 minutes? They say you can do the whole body in 20 minutes 3x a week, I know, but I have never been able to. Probably because I don't like any of the workouts they suggest in the manual. I do 6 days a week, alternating lower/upper body with 1 day off, for 30-40 minutes each day.
So here's what I did:

  • Bench Press
  • Fly
  • Lat Pull-down
  • Reverse Pull-Down
  • Triceps Pull-Down
  • Lower Back Extension
  • Triceps Extension (which they call "French Press" for some reason in the book)
  • Concentration Curls
  • Wrist Extensions
  • Wrist Curls
  • Lat Row
  • Trunk Rotation
  • Resisted Crunch
  • Oblique Crunch
Of course all this with music blaring from the other room, and all kinds of animals hooting and howling and banging at me, & a manic cat leaping in terror on and off the machine thinking the power rods were monsters attacking it.
I can see that there's NO WAY I can bring the leg curl/leg extension machine in there. I'd have to move all the animals out of their room. It's their room, that wouldn't be fair. It's just too big. It's really a huge machine. It folds up kind of flat, but you still have the big leg attachment hanging out, and the seat which has to be removed if you fold up the machine, and the extra long bar, the extra short bar, the straps for squats and leg extensions, plus my gloves and my clipboard and the manual. Plus it's 7 feet tall. Whew. I need to build a damn addition onto the house for this thing, that's what I need.

Obese people denied drugs

The first line of this article sums it up nicely:
Blaming overweight people for their health problems may be counterproductive and deny them new treatments that do make a difference.
When Dr Nick Finer applied to treat his patients with a newly licensed drug, he received what he considered an extraordinary response from hospital authorities. "I was given quite a hard time. I was told I would only be allowed to treat 20 patients."
Cost was apparently not the issue. The medication...was not in the scheme of things an expensive one, costing about $84 for a month's supply. But it was for a condition - obesity - which many people inside and outside the medical establishment have real trouble accepting as a bona fide disorder that may require drug therapy. "This wouldn't have been the case if it had been an anti-cancer drug such as [the breast cancer treatment] Herceptin....I'm in absolutely no doubt there's a double standard with regard to obesity. There's still an almost universal prejudice towards people who are obese." (emphasis mine)
But it's not the doctor's fault. He was trying to treat his obese patients. It's the stupid hospital. They could be MAKING MONEY treating obese people rather than shunting us aside. There are a lot of us. Eventually our voice will be heard.

Great, just great

I switch from swimming to weight training. And now weight lifting gives you glaucoma.
I can't win.

Ending an era & crazies at the gym

I have 2 more sessions at the pool. I will miss going in the water. But it's not forever. I can re-join at any time. I'm not burning any bridges.

  • For instance, I'm not going mention the insane woman who was peering into the stall crack at me a few weeks ago making rude comments about what I was doing in said stall. Apparently USING a toilet is not an acceptable reason to be in a toilet stall. I'm supposed to hold it until I go home when there are 4 toilets right there? And why she cared what I was doing, or why she couldn't use on of the other 3 available stalls (or any of the also available shower stalls) for whatever it is she was screeching about, who knows.
  • Nor will I mention the worsening reek of urine in said locker room, from little boys spraying pee everywhere. How hard is it to hit a toilet bowl? I don't even have a penis, I can't aim, yet I don' t urinate on the floor.
  • Then of course there are the "mommy why is that lady so fat" perpetual comments which apparently are okay. Why can't I respond with "why are you such a rude little brat who needs a spanking?"
My bowflex is mostly set up. I might do some exercises today on it. I've got a lot to do in my "real" life--a book I'm working on with a tight deadline, a tag sale I'm planning, lots of thing that aren't part of this "fat" world you inhabit with me.
I started working out in a pool in June 2005. Except for when I broke my tailbone, and when I had my veins done, I went every week at least 2 times, mostly 3 times. That's pretty damn good. I'm very proud of myself. I have lost weight and reshaped my body.
Now my body and mind are both bored. A few months with the bowflex should change that.
I think my plan will be Bowflex in the summer, when I can have it outside, and pool in the winter. Right now of course that's reversed, but I think I'll rejoin the gym in January--no, it will be crowded, in February then, until June, and then switch back to Bowflex.

Seaweed diet?

Is this why Japanese people are thin?
Anti-obesity compound found in brown seaweed
Studies in animals suggest that brown seaweed, also known as wakame -- commonly used to flavor Asian soups and salads, contains a compound that promotes weight loss. The compound, called fucoxanthin, also has anti-diabetes effects.
Isn't weight-loss a "anti-diabetes effect" in itself?
(Researchers) reported seeing significant reductions in fat tissue in rats and obese mice fed the edible seaweed carotenoid fucoxanthin....(F)ucoxanthin induces expression of the fat-burning protein UCP1 that accumulates in fat tissue around the internal organs....(F)ucoxanthin-induced expression of UCP1 in fat tissue fuels the oxidation of fatty acids and production of heat energy in fat tissue mitochondria. Mitochondria, found in every cell, convert sugar and fatty acids into energy and play a key role in regulating metabolism.
Did you get any of that? Sounds impressive, doesn't it?
So the basic deal is that rats who eat seaweed lose weight. Also their diabetes improves and if they have prostate cancer that gets better too-an added bonus.
Seaweed, though--eww. It's one step from fish. A while ago someone who did kinsielogy testing on me said I had a borderline thyroid issue and prescribed seaweed pills to increase my iodine intake. I don't eat fish, ever, for any reason, and I rarely use salt. These seaweed pills were incredibly foul. I started using salt instead. Ironic that I picked up an unhealthy habit to make myself healthier? It's always a balancing act, always a choice.

Monday, September 11, 2006

Bony fashion models banned

Amazing. According this story, Madrid has banned fahion models with a BMI of less than 18 from an upcoming fashion show. At my height, that would be 104 lbs (17.8 BMI according to this calculator) or 121 lbs for a 5'9" model (17.9).
Excessively skinny fashion models will be barred from a major Madrid fashion show later this month for fear they could send the wrong message to young Spanish girls, local media reported. Madrid's regional government...has vetoed around a third of the models who took part in last year's show because they weigh too little.... (A) recent wedding dress exhibition in Barcelona banned fashion models who took a dress size below 38 (British size 10, US size eight).
Another story adds more details:
The council promised that a nutritional expert would be on hand to check every model taking part in the shows, and that any woman found to have a BMI of below 16 would receive medical treatment....Esther Cañadas, Spain’s best-known model, does not qualify under the new rules as she is said to have a BMI of only 14. Almost a third of the women lined up (to)appear to have been barred.... Sarah Doukas, Kate Moss’s agent, said that her agency, Storm, did not employ unhealthily thin women. “It’s useless to talk about body mass indexes. Who knows what that means apart from your doctor? It depends on different body types. Some people have different muscle density. I believe that girls should just eat healthily, exercise and just be normal. We just wouldn’t use someone who was really underweight or too thin.”
According to Wikipedia, she is 5'6" or 5'7" and 107 lbs. That makes her BMI 16.8-17.3 (depending on which height is correct). Which makes her too thin to go to Madrid.
But what does this really accomplish? A fashion model agent says (in the 2nd story) "(O)n the catwalk long dresses do look lovely on tall, thin girls.... Girls who model at 15 or 16 tend to be thin girls, whose mums are thin, it’s part of their genetics, and obviously they look great in clothes.” However, Lisa Armstrong, the Times fashion editor, asked: “Why do casting agents persist in using 15 and 16-year-olds to sell clothes to women in their thirties and upwards?”
Whatever the hell a "mum" is.
I don't see how this industry will ever change. Vogue is never going to put a plump-cheeked woman on its cover-- unless it's Oprah--and even she succumbs to the "thin is beautiful" virus and diets herself sick periodically, ends up looking great, gains it all back, starts over again.

Friday, September 08, 2006

Lose weight with pine nuts

I have to wonder if this is going to turn into the next "miracle" OTC piece of crap non-FDA approved doesn't treat any condition or disease diet pill or if the pharmaceutical industry will embrace it and produce something that actually WORKS?
New research indicates that an extract from the Korean pine nut could be effective in treating obesity by suppressing the appetite...
The levels of two hormones that act as appetite suppressors, cholecystokinin and glucagons-like peptide, increased by 65 percent and 25 percent respectively in the subjects...
Why not just give those hormones to overweight people? I wish I was more science-minded.
(In other encouraging news,)a new obesity drug ... called Accomplia, also known as Rimonabant...has been approved recently in the United Kingdom. It blocks receptors in the brain that stimulate eating, so you don't feel hunger.....
Ever? That's unnatural. That doesn't promote learning good eating habits. Do you take it forever? I'd have to hear more about it.
(E)xperts were also working to develop a vaccine against a virus called Adenovirus-36 which has been associated with weight gain.
What good does a vaccine do if you've already got it? Viruses can't be cured only contained. Antibiotics are for bacteria-caused illnesses. Where's the test for Adenovirus-36 so I know if I have it or not??
...(T)he social cost of obesity was staggering, with the United States spending $117 billion annually in health care in this area.
I'd like a breakdown of this number. Is this insurance company costs for obesity-related illnesses like diabetes, sleep apnea, high blood pressure, etc. Or is this consumer spending on "as seen on tv" weight loss gadgets and worthless diet aids?

Thursday, September 07, 2006

2 thumbs up for....broccoli?

This is kind of absurd. A chain of grocery stores in New York has started ranking their products by marking them with stars for how healthy they are, using a movie rating system of 0-3 stars.
Much too simplifed, in my opinion.
Under Hannaford's Guiding Stars program, "healthy" products are given 1 star, better choices get 2 and the best are given 3. Foods with no nutritional value get no stars at all.
The rankings are based on U.S.
Department of Agriculture guidelines, with points earned for meeting recommended levels of nutrients like fiber and taken away for having too much of the bad stuff — like saturated fats and sugar.
But we're only talking about a 4 point range here!
At United Supermarkets in Texas, for example, a color code marks heart healthy foods with red tags and diabetic-friendly foods with purple tags.
That makes more sense to me.
Wegmans Food Markets Inc., a popular chain based in Rochester, N.Y., has a "Wellness Key" that stamps house brands with symbols indicating high-fiber, low-fat, low-calorie or sugar-free.
That makes sense too. Corresponding tags should be for high fat, high calorie and high sugar.
"Consumers already know what's not good for them. This system isn't meant to police people's choices," said Lisa Sutherland, a professor of pediatrics and Dartmouth College professor who helped develop the system for Hannaford.
If people already know what's good for them, why bother with this expensive system and pointless (bad pun) system?
Here's the way to do it: A series of stickers. No fat. Low fat (under a certain percentage per serving). Contains transfat. Moderate fat. High fat. No fiber, high fiber. No calories. Low calories. Moderate calories. High calories. No sugar (of any type). Low sugar. Moderate sugar. High sugar.
Oh, wait. There's already such a thing in existance, isn't there? It's called a PRODUCT LABEL. Pick up the product and READ THE LABEL.
Sheesh. Gotta do everything for some people.

2 thumbs up for....broccoli?

This is kind of absurd. A chain of grocery stores in New York has started ranking their products by marking them with stars for how healthy they are, using a movie rating system of 0-3 stars.
Much too simplifed, in my opinion.
Under Hannaford's Guiding Stars program, "healthy" products are given 1 star, better choices get 2 and the best are given 3. Foods with no nutritional value get no stars at all.
The rankings are based on U.S.
Department of Agriculture guidelines, with points earned for meeting recommended levels of nutrients like fiber and taken away for having too much of the bad stuff — like saturated fats and sugar.
But we're only talking about a 4 point range here!
At United Supermarkets in Texas, for example, a color code marks heart healthy foods with red tags and diabetic-friendly foods with purple tags.
That makes more sense to me.
Wegmans Food Markets Inc., a popular chain based in Rochester, N.Y., has a "Wellness Key" that stamps house brands with symbols indicating high-fiber, low-fat, low-calorie or sugar-free.
That makes sense too. Corresponding tags should be for high fat, high calorie and high sugar.
"Consumers already know what's not good for them. This system isn't meant to police people's choices," said Lisa Sutherland, a professor of pediatrics and Dartmouth College professor who helped develop the system for Hannaford.
If people already know what's good for them, why bother with this expensive system and pointless (bad pun) system?
Here's the way to do it: A series of stickers. No fat. Low fat (under a certain percentage per serving). Contains transfat. Moderate fat. High fat. No fiber, high fiber. No calories. Low calories. Moderate calories. High calories. No sugar (of any type). Low sugar. Moderate sugar. High sugar.
Oh, wait. There's already such a thing in existance, isn't there? It's called a PRODUCT LABEL. Pick up the product and READ THE LABEL.
Sheesh. Gotta do everything for some people.

xxeditorial on sitting next to the obese xx

I'm having problems deleting this dup post. At least it's empty now.

editorial on sitting next to the obese

I just found this editorial by a guy who sat next to a fat man on a plane. It's full of stereotypes and intolerance.
I'll just quote it a bit, shall I?
I knew the odds were huge that whoever got the seat beside me would be what the airline industry calls, "a customer of size." After all, nearly two-thirds of Americans are overweight and about one-third are obese.
Of course he's not one of them, is he?
In his next breath, he confesses (it would be a whisper if he was speaking)
I don't mean to sound discriminatory because I'm not exactly an anorexia case myself.
Well, you DO sound that way because you ARE discriminating.
I'm guessing he was more than 6 feet tall and 300 pounds.
Really? I've noticed people have a tendency to overguess the weights of others, the fatter they are the more they are over-guessed. I bet to the media I'm 400 or 500 lbs.
I felt the heat from his body. I could smell whatever he'd just eaten on his breath.
Oh my god! He had BODY HEAT. He was alive? How DARE the airline put him next to you. You should have called a flight attendant immediately.
And I'm sure YOUR breath was fresh as a daisy. Especially since you can't bring toothpaste with you in your carry on anymore. You must purchase toothpaste at every airport, use it, and throw it out just so you don't offend the person sitting next to you with your breath. What a nice guy you are.
I didn't want to insult him by calling a flight attendant and demanding a seat next to a skinny person.
No, you'll just write a snide and insulting editorial about him later.
American asks wider passengers to buy a first-class seat, or two coach seats, but this policy is hard to enforce.
"People should be honest with themselves," (American Airlines spokesman Tim) Wagner said. "If you are scheduled on a full flight, and you are not honest with yourself, there's a possibility that you will get pulled from the flight."
Southwest Airlines has long made overweight passengers pay for two seats. It has been sued for discriminating against obese people, but it still stands by this policy, which I can now heartily applaud.

That is why I won't fly on Southwest. I just flew on American in July and wasn't asked to move or buy another seat, but I'll remember that for next time. I wonder HOW you buy a 2nd seat when you have to ID for every seat? In fact, when I was coming home without my husband, and his seat was paid for, I was told they would RESELL it but not refund our money. How would you keep them from reselling your "empty" seat? How could you check in twice?
And how do you know if you're scheduled on a full flight? If it's full, there's no extra seat to buy.

Then this gentleman (I use the term lightly) goes on to the most insulting portion of his editorial.
I would like to propose a simple solution to this problem, as well as the increasing problem of excess baggage.
When it comes to air travel, people are basically freight. And how is freight shipped? By the pound. Go to the post office, Federal Express, a trucking company, an overseas cargo carrier - it's all by the pound. How much fuel a plane burns is also a matter of pounds.

Airlines should make their customers stand on a scale, with all their bags, and charge accordingly.
I won't even get into how insulting this is.
Then he goes on to say he did find an empty seat away from the hot smelly fat man:
The man now had space to open his duffel bag. It was filled with packages of bite-sized cookies. For the next two hours, I watched him chomp and chew. "Want some?" he asked. "I've got plenty."
So this man was nice enough to offer to share his food, and instead this guy mocked him.
And maybe this guy did eat for the whole flight. I don't know. I wasn't there. But that doesn't mean all overweight people eat for the whole flight. Or have bad breath.

This also perpetuating the stereotype that fat people eat constantly and in a disgusting manner. I don't. Most of the overweight people I know don't. I have a feeling this guy ate a couple of snack packs of cookies because the flight time didn't allow him to have breakfast and this writer twisted that into two hours of gorging on cookies. Have you ever eaten cookies for 2 hours straight? I'm quite sure you'd puke. I ate a pound of chocolate once (solid easter bunny) over 2 hours and was so sick I thought I'd die. And you know what? I was thin then. I ate like a little piggy when I was thin, much more than I eat now, because there were never censoring eyes or comments about my eating habits when I was wearing size 4 Levi's on my cute little butt.

I'm having such trouble with Blogger on all my accounts. Double postings, lost postings, time-outs, and on several different computers. Be patient with me.

Wednesday, September 06, 2006

news flash: advertising influences what we buy and consume!

I want to mock this article but it's true.
Ads for junk food likened to pushing cigarettes
International rules to prevent promoting junk food to children should be modelled on health campaigns against tobacco and infant-formula marketing...
INFANT FORMULA MARKETING? There's rules against advertising baby formula? Are many 2 month old infants heavily influenced by what they see on TV? Mommy, I don't want the boobie. I want the stuff in the can!
Although food and tobacco were very different products, there were similarities in the way they were marketed and in their effects on health that justified much tougher advertising restrictions.
I always compare tobacco-caused lung cancer to fast-food-caused obesity and how differently they are treated. Especially since tobacco is 100% a personal choice, not required to live, and food is required to live. It should be the tobacco related illnesses that insurance companies refuse to treat, not obesity related ones. What's the willpower difference between giving up smoking and giving up food? Oh, that's right, you can't give up food. You have to be around it and be tempted. There's no "nicotine patch" for food cravings, nothing I can stick to my shoulder that makes me feel like I just ate some pizza. (Obviously I don't believe that people who have second hand smoke illnesses are the same as that of smokers--I lost a grandmother to 2nd hand smoke lung cancer.) yesterday for more detailed food labelling - to let children and parents know which options were healthier - would not contain the epidemic of weight problems....If you put a child in a sweet shop and say 'Choose not to consume that', it's an almost impossible responsibility from people who don't have the capacity to make that sort of choice...We need to remove the number of stimuli and opportunities for children to consume around the clock this sort of food. You've got to take them away so there isn't a constant temptation....
(T)here was clear evidence that advertising foods high in fat, sugar or salt increased the volume of such foods children ate, as well as influencing which brands they chose.

Isn't that the POINT of advertising and marketing campaigns? To make you think about, desire and purchase the products advertised? Obviously those places marketing to kids are doing a good job if that's what kids want. SHOULD kids want that stuff--well that's another story. I can remember as a child wanting things I saw on TV and my mother trying to explain that the things the toys did in the commercials they wouldn't do in real life. She did sometimes buy me the toys, and I was often disappointed.
I have to wonder if this is going to address product placement. I don't know if there's more product placement now in movies (and books!) or if I'm just more sensitive to it. I can't remember what movie I was watching, but a person came to visit another person in jail carrying a fast food bag. The bag sat on the table for the whole scene. No one ate from it. There was no reason for it to be there except to advertise that brand.
I went to see Talledega Nights cuz I like Will Farrell even if I do think racing is stupid and wasteful. It had so much blatant product placement in it I felt like I should have been PAID to watch it. And of course that's what racing is about, that's why all the ads on the cars and uniforms and whatever, and the movie made brilliant fun out of it...but all the ads were REAL and I'm sure the companies/products paid to have their logos there.

Calorie? What's that? How many? Hmm.

I believe this one. This doesn't go in the DUH file.
Fast-food eaters underestimate calories
Most people underestimate the number of calories in fast-food meals — a big problem as portion sizes have ballooned, a new study shows. People make more accurate guesses when the meals are smaller....
Or maybe no one wants to believe a quick on-the-run meal can contain your entire allotment of daily calories!
"This is not an issue of knowledge, of motivational biases that people want to lie (about what they eat). It's just ingrained perceptual bias that we can't control," said Pierre Chandon, a co-author of the study....
First, researchers asked 105 people eating at fast-food restaurants in three Midwestern U.S. cities to estimate the number of calories in the meals they had just eaten. In the second part of the study, 40 undergraduate students were asked to estimate the calorie content of 15 various sizes of fast-food meals.
The results were similar no matter how much the participants weighed or whether they were male or female, the researchers found. However, overweight people in the first part of the study tended to buy larger meals.
What this study shows is it's the amount of food on the plate that's fooling people.

Huh? That I don't get. If 6 chicken nuggets have 200 calories (no clue what they have--there's part of the problem) then a box of 12 or 20 must have a correspondingly higher amount of calories. I had an aunt who always ate a 20 pack of McNuggets by herself. Always. And she wasn't that fat--she was very active. (She's dead now--Alzheimer's got her.)
Portions have gotten larger, it's become harder for people to estimate what a standard portion should be. The amount people should eat seems puny compared to the mounds of food we have become used to seeing on our plates....
Yes, I absolutely agree with that. I sometimes look a "serving sizes" and think that even a child eats more than that, and that's the PROBLEM.
(They) suggest people eat smaller portions, use a smaller plate so the meal looks larger, and downsize -- not super-size--— meals when they eat out.
The idea here is that you can always get more food..if you are hungry...If you cut your portions down, at least you have a fighting chance.

WOW. That was like a light going off in my head.
I always thought if I ordered more food (2nd order) I'd look like a pig so I order what I THINK I want to begin with. And often, frankly, it is too much. I have to overcome this fear of ordering twice, or ordering more. Or maybe just by keeping the option open and never using it...
This has given me a lot to think about. Don't laugh.

It's not my fault I'm fat. It's the farmers.

I just love to blame my problems on someone else, don't you?
The agricultural policies of the world's top producing nations are contributing to the increasing problem of obesity in developing nations Such policies favor high-fat, high-energy products over basic fruits and vegetables...The trade policies that are currently in play are those which subsidize and distort the market to make fats and sugars cheaper and fruits and vegetables more expensive. As a result, many developing countries are now seeing dramatic increases in their rates of obesity, thanks to an influx of subsidized sugar and fat-based products from the United States and Europe.
I wish I understood the business policies behind subsidized farming. And pushing unhealthy food over healthy food. I've read Fast Food Nation so many times but I just can't wrap my mind around it. I'm fundamentally a kind person, not a greedy one, I guess that's why.
I KNOW that a lovely piece of watermelon is sweeter and yummier than a cookie. But I take the cookie. The cookie is easier. It doesn't rot and draw flies if I don't eat it right away. It doesn't need to be in the fridge. I don't feel like I should give the cookie to my vegetarian pets the way I do whenever I eat fruit (isn't that a weird sort of guilt?).

Being fat is bad for women

Here's one for the DUH file:
Obesity pandemic hurts women more than men The global obesity pandemic combined with society's anti-fat bias is more damaging to women than to men, an expert has warned at an international conference. Being obese and female is as bad as it gets....Not only were obese women socially stigmatised more than their male counterparts, but their health suffered to a greater degree....(O)ese women faced more job discrimination and earned less, not only compared to men, but also to women of normal weight and obese men with a similar education and job....Prejudice began early in life for obese females, with children as young as three shunning their obese peers...Family, teachers and healthcare professionals were also more biased against obese girls and women than boys and men....Obese women are deprived of friendships, intimate relationships, social interactions, education, income and respect....

How much did they pay for this study? I could have told them all that for FREE. They could have read it on my blog. I'll take that money and tell them all they need to know about being a fat woman in today's society. They didn't mention all the assumptions held about fat people. We're lazy, we have no will power, we have no sex life, we're ugly, we're stupid, we need help, we should all be killed.

So much fat news and "me" news, so little time

I forgot to post about my fabulous "prize" for the exercise challenge at the pool.
Are you ready for this? A small water bottle (didn't even have their logo on it!), a box of animal crackers, two wintergreen life savers, an energy bar, and a blueberry lollipop.
I know. My reaction was also "HUH?" Only the water bottle and the energy bar were appropriate. I don't get it. At all. Am I five? I need a lolly and crackers?
Anyway, my membership is about to expire and I'm not renewing. I've got the bowflex up and ready to go. Probably start on that tomorrow and have some overlap. I've been going over the book to remember how to set up all the exercises. I'm also buying myself a little machine that measures my body composition. I was going to get calipers for $19.99 but they really aren't accurate when you get to my size. Then I found this little hand-held machine for $29.99 free shipping from Target. I don't think I'll be able to use the Bowflex leg curl/extension attachment. I just couldn't find that much room even when I moved all my animals and even removed a large shelf unit from the menagerie room. That's okay. I can do other exercises. Or just walk.
I still have a lot of body disassociation going on. I'm not really sure what do to about it. People say it's good not to concentrate on my fat and others say if I'm not in touch with it I can't lose it. If I close my eyes and FEEL my body (that other sense, the one that tells you where body parts are when you aren't looking--what enables me to type without looking at the keyboard), I only feel the muscle. If I lean forward I'm surprised when I'm stopped by the desk against my fat. I think I am smaller.
I know part of 12 step programs are "fake it till you make it" but thinking I am small and muscular isn't making me wake up that way. I've lost a couple more pounds, that's all. I want to get below 300 by the end of the year. Maybe I'll go back on phentermine with the money I'm not spending on the gym. I have half a bottle left from when I got used to my last prescription. It might be too soon to go back on it.

Friday, September 01, 2006

Hate yourself for being fat...and get fatter

Gotta love these self-evident studies:
Body acceptance tied to healthy eating
Women who accept their bodies, flaws and all, are more likely to eat healthily or intuitively, new research shows. This suggests that women's typical reasons for dieting -- dissatisfaction with their bodies -- may backfire.....There is a lot of negative body talk among women; women think that they can best lose weight and feel better if they are first dissatisfied with their bodies....
I guessed I missed that segment of Girl Talk. Hey, Rosie, wanna lose weight? First you have to really, really hate yourself.
Done. Am I thin yet?
(T)his research shows that adopting a positive body image is more likely to be associated with intuitive eating.
How about...if we eat properly and look okay, then we feel better about ourselves? Did she find many overweight women who were happy with their appearance? There's no figures quoted anywhere.
Intuitive eaters don't diet -- they recognize and respond to internal hunger and fullness cues to regulate what and how much they eat....Intuitive eating has three components:

  • unconditional permission to eat when hungry and whatever food is desired
  • eating for physical rather than emotional reasons
  • reliance on internal hunger/fullness cues
The first and third are what got most of us into trouble in the first place.
I'm hungry and I want....hmmm. A salad? No, a cheeseburger. Make that two. And some fries. Supersize them, okay? A milkshake would be nice, it's hot out. And throw in one of those little pies. Oh, they are small aren't they? 99 cents? Throw in, oh, three. I'll give the extra one away. Don't look at me like that. This is called "Intuitive eating" I eat whatever my body craves whenever it craves it and I lose weight effortlessly, no dieting! It's fabulous!
....Intuitive eaters spend less time thinking about how their body appears to others and more time considering how their body feels and functions.... They perceive the body as an agent of action rather than an object of attraction...focusing on how the body functions rather than its appearance....

On what planet do any women who are not professional athletes think like that?
Intuitive eaters also reported receiving more positive messages from parents and others regarding their bodies.
Talk about circular reasoning.


My last post made me think about boobs and how stupid most men are over boobs.
If I was to tell a man I met online only one thing about me, and that was that I'm wearing a bra which is a 48-I (yes, I, as in A-B-C-D-E-F-G-H-I) he would probably break his wrist jerking off.
But men don't understand bra sizes.
Yes, the "I" portion means I have enormous knockers. An A cup is 1", B 2" (bigger than the chest), etc. You do the math for mine. Go ahead. I'll wait.
Impressed? Okay, we'll move on.

The NUMBER proceeding the almighty cup size is the size of my ribcage. That's a big rib cage. When someone gives their measurements as 36-24-36, they are measuring around the boob, not the ribs. And of course my rib bones aren't huge. They are well-padded. Very well padded indeed, by back fat and rib fat and underarm fat. Um-um good. Think of the baby back ribs you'd get off me.
This also illustrates why it's so hard for me to find clothes that fit. If I buy a larger size shirt, part of the extra material is across the back. I don't need more width in my shirts along the back. I need all the extra material up front. That's why I don't wear anything which buttons down the front--if I buy a big enough shirt that the buttons aren't straining, it hangs on me like a rag.
I talked yesterday to the woman who is going to be making shirts for me, and hopefully for me to sell, but she hasn't worked on them as she just moved and is settling in at her new place.

relative body size

Are women supposed to be wider than men?
Think about it.
In our society, the praised and attractive woman is very small. Her waist is in the mid 20's and her hips not much larger. The only part expected to be large is of course her boobs, even though boobs are made of mostly fat tissue and fat isn't acceptable anywhere else on the body.
A man can be larger. A trim man has maybe a 32" or 34" waist (36" if he's really tall), which means by definition that his properly sized woman is smaller (narrower) than he is.
However, a woman is supposed to have large hips for child-bearing. A woman with child-bearing hips, wide hips, is going to be wider than a "proper" man.
So which is right?
And why was I thinking of this?
I was lying on my side in bed this morning, awake as I usually am very early. My husband was also lying on his side. One of our cats loves to be on the highest place on the bed which always used to be me, and he was on my husband's hip. I reached across and as far as I can tell, my husband's hip was higher than mine. Even though I outweigh him by at least 50 lbs.
I'm not thinner than my husband. I know I have tiny hip bones though, from being skinny in the past. I've noticed lately that from the front, I'm not so broad anymore. My arms don't stick out, they hang naturally down.
It's early. I don't have any idea where I'm going with this. I'll just post it and see what kind of comments come in.