Diet Nation
John Luik has co-authored a new book, Diet Nation, which purports to take a hard look at the so-called "obesity epidemic" and how fat hysteria in general is manufactured. I have a couple of reservations but it sounds interesting, and Spiked Online has a lengthy piece about it.
Having looked at 28 separate papers on the long-term effects of dieting, Luik tells me that 24 show no benefit to losing weight. Even where a benefit is found, it’s small. ‘Here’s an example. One study concluded that if you were successful in losing 50 pounds and keeping it off for the rest of your life, you would have a longevity increase in the order of 11 hours.’
[Their emphasis.]
There are a lot of good things in the article, as I said. My reservations come from the source: Mr. Luik himself. As mentioned here a couple of years back, it's possible he has ties to big tobacco, as noted here. (Noted that that too is a biased source.) However - and this is referenced in the Spiked article - it's pretty easy to fall into an argument over "Who's more corrupt?" when it comes to the big fat questions. So do we side with the diet industry, or someone who is kind of out there on his own but has worked with the tobacco industry in the past?
If you can put that aside for a moment, that's a bonus. It's going to be hard for a lot of people and, while no one has a squeaky clean background, it is a bonus to have people like Luik out there with our message. Thing is, opponents will be quick to point out these connections in an effort to discredit him and/or his work.
It does look like Diet Nation will be another weapon in our arsenal, and time will tell if it becomes a seminal work in the realm of fat acceptance. I'm cautiously optimistic.
Shock and Awe | Big Dance, Big Shortage
- Login to post comments
| Kate_P |
February 1st, 2007 | Link |
I think you're right to be
I think you're right to be cautious. I, personally, don't want to be pointing people to a book where I have any concerns about the author's credentials or agenda. I'm already a little wary of the claim that there's a study that shows a 50 lb weight loss has an 11 hour impact on longevity. I know he's not making that claim himself, but I'm dubious that anybody else would make it, and I'm wondering if he's not misrepresenting somebody's words.
But even if I were 100% convinced of the accuracy and intellectual honesty of his book, just having the wrong people argue your case can be a problem. If he starts getting serious attention for arguing against the "obesity epidemic," and then is discredited based on his resume, it could discredit the whole movement by association. What a shame it would be, after all is said and done, if the impression that stuck in people's mind was that fat acceptance advocates are the same people who were shills for big tobbacco, or are basically just libertarians who believe in personal freedom no matter what the health consequences.
|
| paul |
February 1st, 2007 | Link |
That argument is already out
That argument is already out there in part, Kate, due to Sandy Szwarc's articles. Before she had her own blog her articles were published at Tech Central Station and, well, TCS has an enormously negative reputation so Sandy's (IMHO) well-written, good pieces got swept up in that mess.
|
| Meowzer |
February 2nd, 2007 | Link |
FWIW, there is a reference
FWIW, there is a reference to the "11-hour longevity impact" study finding on page 155 of the hardback version (in the "Diet and Die" chapter) of Glenn Gaesser's BIG FAT LIES. Endnotes on page 280 reference a number of potential sources, all of them looking pretty legitimate, although it is not specified exactly which one is the study showing the so-called "11-hour impact."
I know what you mean about the TCS stories on obesity, Paul. As important and well-done as I think they are, I know -- I just know -- unbelievers will pounce on who is financing that publication as a means to discredit them. "Aren't they the same people who don't believe in global warming?" I have to admit, that association squicks me a bit, too.
Never mind, of course, that these same people are all too happy to swallow every antifat lie promulgated by Michael Fumento, whose paws aren't exactly the cleanest either. Or that pretty much every antifat "study" out there is financed in some way by diet and pill companies.
|
| chondros |
February 2nd, 2007 | Link |
I also doubt the "50 lbs. =
I also doubt the "50 lbs. = 11 hrs." statistic, not because statisticians aren't capable of this kind of meaningless "accuracy" but because it's hard for me to imagine how this particular figure could have emerged in the course of an actual study. Is it possible that the study in question actually said that people who lost 50 pounds or more increased their longevity by 11 hours per pound? This would still not be a very impressive figure, but at least its conceivable that it could emerge from someone's calculations.
As for people's sources of income, I admit it's unfortunate if advocates for the fat acceptance aren't motivated 100% by altruism, but it's a great day when the message of fat acceptance becomes so strong that people have no choice but to attack the messenger. And whatever biases people may impute to John Luik or Sandy Szwarc, think how much less seriously they would be taken if they were themselves fat. Sadly, almost every one of us posting to this site will automatically have less credibility, in the eyes of most critics, than someone being financed by the fast food industry.
(Besides, shouldn't the tobacco companies want people to believe in the dangers of fat? They're selling the most proven appetite suppressant there is!)
|
| Meowzer |
February 2nd, 2007 | Link |
Sadly, almost every one of
Sadly, almost every one of us posting to this site will automatically have less credibility, in the eyes of most critics, than someone being financed by the fast food industry.
Critics are not about to give any size-acceptance advocates much in the way of snaps regardless of size. Didn't Fumento, or someone like that, once show up here (in the days before you had to pre-register) and tell Paul he wasn't fat enough to be credible on the issue, that Paul was just some fetishist who wanted to keep as many women around him fat so he could ogle them? That was pretty hilarious, but really, it's not the Fumentonians I'm concerned with; I consider them pretty much a lost cause. It's the fence-sitters in whom I hope to plant a nice big fat seed of skepticism.
|
| pani113 |
February 2nd, 2007 | Link |
Most honest obesity
Most honest obesity researcher will point out there is no real proof weight loss leads to an increase in longevity. (And after a certain age, weight loss increases the risk of early death) Before Glen Gaesser, there was Bennet and Gurin in The Dieter's Dilemma. As far as actual numbers, in any study the numbers are just aggregate statistics. For example, we are becoming aware of what it means when the drug companies tell us taking a particular medication reduces the risk of a condition by X percentage. That does not mean your risk as an individual goes down by that. It means that one in every so many people who use the drug see a reduction. I am just going to use this example as a hypothetical and make up a number for illustration. Drug Z can reduce your risk of the dreaded restless leg syndrome by x%, that means 1 out of every 100 people who take it see a reduction(the rest don't) and they they figure out the general percentage from that. Who said they are lies, damned lies and statistics?
|
| Carolyn |
February 3rd, 2007 | Link |
I think it was Mark Twain
I think it was Mark Twain who said "lies, damned lies and statistics".
|
| chondros |
February 3rd, 2007 | Link |
Okay, I think I've tracked
Okay, I think I've tracked down a credible source for the "11 hours" statistic. In a very good New Republic article (Link --subscription required), Paul Campos wrote:
So someone's misremembering of this article may be the source for the "fifty pound" confusion. There are rules even in statistics, and, without going into a lengthy explanation, suffice it to say that, while 11 hrs./lb., is still an absurdly small result (as Campos points out), it's at least a plausible result. 11 hrs./50 lbs., under any reasonable research parameters (e.g., achievable sample size), is beyond crazy. I'm not trying to defend the research in question -- far from it! It's just such a great talking point that we shouldn't squander it through exaggeration.
|
| Meowzer |
February 3rd, 2007 | Link |
Yes, actually the reference
Yes, actually the reference in BFL does say it is 11 hours per pound, also.
|
| paul |
February 4th, 2007 | Link |
Meowzer: Didn't Fumento, or
Meowzer: Didn't Fumento, or someone like that, once show up here (in the days before you had to pre-register) and tell Paul he wasn't fat enough to be credible on the issue, that Paul was just some fetishist who wanted to keep as many women around him fat so he could ogle them?
Good call. At one point it was tied to Fumento but later dissipated and was carried on by a couple of other folks. In addition, I've been criticized for not being "fat enough" without the fetishist angle anyway.
This all led to the running joke about "Paul's Harem". :)
|
| Morrighan |
February 4th, 2007 | Link |
"Paul's Harem" Hehe. I
"Paul's Harem" Hehe. I want a t-shirt.
As far as the main topic goes I have to say I'm a little concerned about this person's resume too. Though I hate that it matters.
|
| richie79 |
February 6th, 2007 | Link |
Unfortunately I sometimes
Unfortunately I sometimes wonder if the fact that only the right-wing pro-corporate libertarians (people that I normally can't stand) seem to have come out in favour of fat acceptance is damaging the cause in a way that not even the mainstream media and all their pro-diet propaganda can manage.
It needs to be remembered that despite having emerged from the wreckage of a magazine called 'Living Marxism', Sp!ked is basically a British version of TCS; other contributors to their site argue in favour of tobacco companies, hate speech and viciously attack green campaigners in the name of being against state interference and personal freedoms. It's Thatcherist 'anti-society' of the worst variety.
It's all too easy for the Left, in the form of the BBC, Guardian et al to shoot down anyone even remotely associated with such a site, and dismiss them as being in the pockets of Big Food and Big Pharma. Sadly it's also the Left, with their current penchant for big government and 'nanny-knows-best' who seem to be leading the charge against 'obesity' in the UK.
It almost scares me that I find myself agreeing with much of what is written by contributors to the likes of Sp!ked and TCS on this topic, whilst my ingrained lefty upbringing insists I question the motives of their sudden pro-fat stance. I don't want mainstream society to simply tolerate fat people simply because we keep the food industry in business.
We should be afforded all the rights granted to any other section of society, even previously oppressed ones, and in order for that to happen the Left need to be brought on board.
|
| Meowzer |
February 6th, 2007 | Link |
Everyone who eats keeps the
Everyone who eats keeps the food industry in business, Richie. That's a whole lot of everyone, not just fat people.
And the diet mentality is highly profitable for them, too, since they get to keep putting out premium-priced products to "address" it (as well as "binge temptation foods" for people coming off diets).
Naturally big corporations would tend to be supportive of articles that stated that Big Corporations weren't The Root of All Evil. But believe me, they do plenty of advertising in more diet-friendly climes also. They aren't stupid, they know what end their bagel is buttered on.
|
