Orson Scott Card on Fat

After reading this article, i love and adore Mr Card. I'm sure i'll have something to say that's vaguely more intelligent than that after some caffeine. lol.

That's awesome, what he wrote. But I think there is room for skepticism, at least, when looking at who funds a study. For a class last semester, I was supposed to do a critical analysis of a peer-reviewed study. I found a short study, purely for convenience, read it, and immediately wondered why it was so terrible in design. I mean, the thing was crappy. I pondered over it for a while, and even asked a buddy of mine who designs protocol for clinical trials to look at it and give me his opinion. He thought it was crap too. Later that night, I noticed the fine print ... it'd been partially funded by Weight Watchers. I tore that thing up ten ways from Sunday in my analysis (not only was it poorly designed, but it had racist overtones as well as, obviously, sizist ones ... and parts of the study design that made no sense when looking at it from a non-Weight Watchers POV suddenly made a little too much sense when you realized who was funding it ... I'm referring to the fact that the study only followed females without giving any justification for it. I think it's pretty plain that Weight Watchers is interested in studying females because they make up the majority of their clientele), and got an A from my professor. It's true that you can't immediately look at who funded something and proclaim it crap, but if you notice something is terrible and then notice it's funded by the weight loss industry ... well, that's a conclusion that would be difficult to avoid jumping to.

MichMurphy, one of the best pieces of advice my dad ever gave me was "consider the source". In my earlier years i used it in a snide fashion, but after adding some years and experience to my life, i understand that it is applicable in a great many situations, and without any sarcastic intentions. When someone says something rude, something hurtful: consider the source. Think about the person it's coming from, remember that they're a person. Consider that something in their life may have been sufficient trauma to them for the issue to be a "button" for them. Or consider that they are really angry about something else, but the issue in question is "safe" to rant and rail about. Take into consideration that the things that the things we hate most about others are the things we hate most about ourselves. Take into consideration that it's safe to have a strong opinion about something that has no impact on your daily life. All of that said, is it really possible to not have bias, be it in our personal lives or in our business practices? If there's a study being done to determine potentially negative effects of platypi on the ecosystem, it will more likely be funded by the Platypus Prevention Society than by members of the Noble Order of the Platypus. Likewise, someone wanting to do a study on the "effects of weight on an individual" is more likely to get funding from WW than from any fat acceptance groups. It's not a conspiracy, it's apologia. It's a company/group helping create justification for their existance. And i agree: the funding source does not always indicate a bias on the part of the =researchers=, but it is hard to notice the correlations. Ultimately, just because someone "did a study" doesn't mean that their word is law and that's The Way Things Are. By all means, challenge it! Educate yourself, find out how they came to their conclusions, what sort of figures and numbers and people are involved. It can be a mind-boggling process, but potentially enlightening.

This is 90% terrific and 10% not-so-much, but since most articles on the topic are the reverse, I'll applaud it! The other posters have identified the one glaring lapse in logic. "And this makes far more evolutionary sense than the supposed dangers of weight gain. Our bodies are designed to gain reasonable amounts of weight in order to get us through hard times." I've always liked this argument; nice to see it here. But at the end, despite all the evidence that his fatness isn't a bad thing and that weight loss is horribly unhealthy, Scott is still trying to lose weight for what amounts to cosmetic reasons (he *thinks* his joints are being stressed, though he does not say they hurt). He doesn't like the look of his face in the mirror...but because his mind is colonized, and it's hard not to look through "fat is ugly" goggles. (It is for me some days, too, so this is sympathy, not finger-pointing.) He wants to buy off-the-rack clothes...but that's not evolution's/mother nature's/his fault they aren't available to him. He's falling into the trap of blaming the victim of the fatness prejudice and the body wars (i.e., himself) and as a result (I assume) punishing himself with starvation or semi-starvation or perhaps overexercise. I know OSC is strong in other ways, able to live with social disapproval (his politics are fairly conservative in a fairly liberal business world; he's a LDS and has lived with discrimination and disapproval because of that). But this one--being okay with your own natural body when it's an unpopular sort--is really a tough one to be strong about. I hope he finds the strength one day. And I know weight control is an easy trap to fall into. Hell, Campos, with all his knowledge, admitted to controlling his weight. Lots of us struggle with not returning to dieting or resisting the WLS sales pitch. This shows how powerful social disapproval is. Even when we KNOW the science of fatness (it's okay) and dieting (it's dangerous), we still do cruel things to our bodies to win the approval of...well, of the ignorant and bigoted. Amazing.

Funny! D & I were just talking about OSC. He wrote a short story called, I believe, "Fat Farm," which explores a future in which being fat leads to some heinous consequences. In a post-script to the story, OSC explains he has struggled with shame over his own weight throughout his life, and that this story was a way of trying to deal with that shame. I haven't read the story myself, but D found it disturbing and moving, and it gave him (a not-so-fat guy) some perspective. So, anyway, thanks, OSC, for getting some calm, thoughtful words on this subject out there. I hear you, man.

Card's conclusions about the funding of weight studies make perfect sense based on his assumption that a researcher wanted to do this study and went looking for money. On the other hand, what if Weight Watchers wanted a study to cite, and went looking for a researcher? That's when the "conspiracy theory" part kicks in, so the issue is knowing not who funded the study, but who *initiated* it.

This was surprisingly good overall. He should have just ended it with this terrific paragraph: "What we need is to live in a more compassionate, tolerant society -- instead of one that abuses and condemns people for having bodies that look exactly like their parents' bodies. It would make as much sense as ridiculing the children of short people for being short, or the descendants of bald people for being bald." Because it fell apart after that. "It's very, very bad reporting to make assumptions about motive -- to leap to the conclusion that people are overtly dishonest when there is not a shred of evidence that they have deliberately falsified or suppressed contrary results...." Sorry, but there IS considerable evidence in medical and science journals for several years now that financial and political interests have increasingly biased research and healthcare policies, suppressed contrary results, falsified findings, etc. It is naive to believe that money doesn't influence a study -- its design, the findings that are released and most importantly how the findings are spun, and it has been well-documented. But just read a study's press release and abstract and compare that to the data in the study and it's actual findings and increasingly you readily see bias and spin, and 90% of the time it favors whomever is funding the study. As last month's JAMA reported, half of academic research institutions let pharmaceutical companies and makers of medical devices who sponsor their studies draft the research articles that appear in medical journals, and a quarter would allow them to supply the actual results. And I do not let journalists off the hook as easily as he does. I believe that those in the public trust have a responsibility to know enough about what they're talking about to ensure that it is sound and that what they're telling the public is true. Virtually none of them have enough medical, science and nutrition background to even read a research study and understand it or recognize sound sources of information, and that is irresponsible on the part of media and that needs to change. All too often media are willing pawns for marketing. In fact, most of what's in the mainstream media anymore has been bought and paid for as 90% of it comes verbatim from press releases.

I loved this article. I especially liked it when he said that most of the criticism comes from thin people who can't gain an ounce if they tried, and they should keep their mouths shut when it came to issues of weight loss.

Weight watcher's has a committee to decide who gets funded. Scientists submit proposals. Usually they ask WW what they are interested in funding, and shape their proposals around that. Xavier Pi-Sunyer is the head of the WW Foundation that doles out these grants. To give you example from my own lab, I think the Atikins diet is pretty awful. I want to do a study where I feed Atkins diet type food to rats and then see how sick they get. So obviously I didn't go to the Atkins Foundation for funding with this. I might have gone to WW if it weren't for the fact that they hate me. So I applied to General Mills for money and proposed to use a whole grain diet as a control (Atkins diet versus low fat whole grain diet --which do you think would win there?). Unhappy ending --General Mills turned me down. But I will keep trying. Now imagine you didn't know me and you read my study entitled "Atkins Kills!" and it said "Supported by General Mills". You would probably say "What a bogus study! They were bribed by Genernal Mills to get that result!" What you don't know is that if the Atkins diet really turned out to be better, I would have reported that. In fact, it was my bias that came first, then the money followed (or hopefully the money will follow!). True believers are the ones that get special interest type money --it's not a bribe but reward for having a favorable personal bias. (My apologies for mangled verb tenses in this hypothetical scenario!)

when I see studies funded by questionable means and that go against everything I have ever learned about physiology and biology, then I know the study is probably bogus. the fact that weight watchers and jenny craige etc fund obesity research then I know to be careful what I read into it, there is a good chance the money tainted the type of study and results whether the researchers are aware of it or not. it would be wonderful if we had researchers that were funded by neutral parties who gain nothing no matter what the findings. but alas that is impossible, and most scientists are human and greed for money or desperation can cause even the most honest scientists to alter the studies to satisfy the funders, honest is not the best policy when money is concerned, if you are honest then you lose funding and are out on the streets, tweak it a little adn you get funded and get to keep doing research whic is alot better than working at car washes or resturant waiting tables. it is not like there are tons of alternative employments for unfunded research scientists, not unless they are real good at computer engineering or something. or are chemists who can work making drugs at a drug company, and I hate to go against what was said about motive, I can't beleive that money doesn't taint a person's results or belief system, or that money doesn't influence politicians choices of what laws to pass or whatever. money has a corrupting influence, and the more power (influence you have) the easier it is to give into temptations to do wrong. and of course that makes it difficult for the studies that are done well and the results that are true and complete to get through all the garbage out there too. RR

Hmmm. I've read and seen lots of obesity-related stuff with Xavier Pi-Sunyer's name on it. Interesting to know that he's head of the WW Foundation grants.

Wonderful essay from Card. It's too bad he's a big honking homophobe.

Most of the baised anti-obesity is funded by the NIH, a completely neutral source of funds that attaches no strings. So in most cases, it's not the funding that fuels bias. Bias may fuel funding, though, especially if you're applying to WW.

I have mixed feelings about the last paragraph - I mean, at least he's being honest about being shallow and superficial instead of couching his weight-loss efforts in high-minded, moralistic health language. I just always wish I could tell these people that I am living proof that you can be fat and terribly, terribly vain ;)

Quoth profe: "Most of the baised anti-obesity is funded by the NIH, a completely neutral source of funds that attaches no strings." O.o Please tell me you're being sarcastic...?

the national institutes of health funding is questionable, a name like NIH doesn't mean it is government funded, and even governement officials who approve funding for such things have their own bias about obesity. second there is no money to be had (since organizations like NIH give much of their research to drug companies to finish what they started in drug research etc) by saying oh people don't need drugs or any intervention for their health concerns because our studies shows that they will be okay, if they proved that obesity is not a disease or character flaw there would be no need for intervention, in their eyes, and they would lose even some government funding too. and they would lose credibility too. I am suspicious of government health organizations anyway, since there is so much hidden agendas it is not funny. RR

There are two sides to the NIH. They give money to the best scientists, as determined by panels of 20 scientists who review a couple hundred applications every three months and identify the top 15% best based on a vote of all present. The other 85% of applications are rejected. The studies that get funded are very good. The other side of the NIH is the side that it is the news making various pronouncements. This is the visible face of the NIH, which is sad because it makes the organization look very bad.