In Praise of Obesity

[Joseph Kellard 0]

In Praise of Obesity

By Joseph Kellard

January 17, 2003

Americans are criticized for being the world's most overweight people. Yet our excessive bodyweight reflects on America's highest values and achievements.

Being obese is detrimental to one's health, resulting in the risk of stroke, certain cancers and premature death. Some researches estimate that obesity in America contributes to more than 300,000 deaths a year. How then can this problem be considered rational and an achievement?

Historically, before the United States existed, obesity was virtually nonexistent. In the West, people were fortunate enough to survive, since famine was common and disease was rampant throughout Europe. In parts of France during the mid-17th century, for example, life expectancy was 20 years, and in early eighteenth-century London, three-quarters of the children died before they turned five. Men, women and children labored for many hours doing some form of backbreaking work simply to feed, clothe and shelter themselves.

These dire conditions changed with America's pro-reason philosophy and unprecedented freedom and their consequence -- the Industrial Revolution, with its labor- and time-saving machinery. The 20th century witnessed the transition of an economy dominated by physical labor to one more intellectually driven, along with the continual growth of everyday labor-saving devices, including the automobile, vacuum cleaner, and remote-controlled TV. All of these developments created for the general population a dramatic explosion of wealth, food production and spare time for rest and recreation. For the first time ever, the average man had the opportunity to live a relatively sedentary lifestyle -- including the option to eat in excess.

Certain critics of American obesity often indict our productive but less physically demanding lifestyle as the cause of this problem. Curiously, they say we are too fat because we are "lazy," yet these same critics, usually from the political left, cry that Europeans have longer vacation time than "overworked" Americans. When these productive Americans then buy material goods or take vacations in exotic locals with their earnings, the critics decry these as "luxuries" that add to the notches on our belts. We Americans have become too removed from our "primitive origins," they chide, and we must get "back to nature."

In reality, the further man progresses from the cave and the generally brutish, short life he has lived up until the West established capitalism, the better he is due to the freedom and opportunities inherent in that economic system. While obesity is an unhealthy, undesirable state, the fact that people can put on many pounds is an historical achievement. It represents what our numerous emaciated and famished ancestors were unable to possess: the option of choosing their bodyweight.

When I once leafed through a five-and-dime movie magazine from the 1940s, I found something unseen in contemporary America -- an advertisement for skinny people wanting to gain weight. Observe that today obesity is more common among poorer Americans than with their wealthier countrymen. This fact indicates that America's problem with weight may greatly lie with the Left's "progressive" social and political measures than with our nation's capitalist-inspired lifestyle.

American obesity is rooted in attacks on personal responsibility, a virtue undercut by the progressives' expansion of the welfare state during the 1960s, when our waistlines began expanding like never before. With the expansion of a system that discourages people from saving for their own retirement (Social Security) and health care (Medicare/Medicaid), and that pays them for not working (welfare), came the spread of increased anti-personal responsibility in American life. A phenomenon reflected by the many people who fail to keep themselves in good health, which includes their overeating fattening foods.

Moreover, a crusade is growing, born of feminism's attack on objective standards of beauty, which asserts that weighing, say, 400 pounds is as "beautiful" as being a Victoria's Secret model; that people who exercise to earn trim or muscular physiques are aesthetically no better than people whose bodies are shaped by their sitting around indulging in sweets.

The fat-is-beautiful crusaders criticize Americans for being "obsessed" with thinness. Their criticism, however, is aimed at the same target as the critics of obesity. The fitness movement is also a product of the Industrial Revolution. Only when man's backbreaking labor was eased or eliminated by machinery did he have the energy and time to lift weights to build his muscles as a form of recreation.

Thanks to the Western values of reason, capitalism and productive achievement, he now has the choice to gain weight, lose it or develop his body to perfection. From here on out then, let America's fattest people be a reminder of how far we've advanced from the cave.

* Joseph Kellard is a journalist and freelance editorialist living in New York. Mr. Kellard hosts a website that feature his editorials and essays, The American Individualist, at www.theai.net. Contact Mr. Kellard at theainet@optonline.net.

[Carlos 0]

I understand what it is you are saying but I still can't find any shred of good in the skyrocketing obesity problem.

All it says to me is that in the last 2000 years mankind has advanced hugely in terms of technology, but still has advanced VERY little in terms of morality. For crying out loud, what is soon to be the number one killer amongst man in America is not disease but a consciously, purposefully, chosen lifestyle ! *note*: I understand that for a small number of people obesity is not a matter of choice or something they can change through exercise but a matter of very unfortunate genetics and physiology.

I remember driving by my old elementary school just a few months ago and nearly wrecking my truck in surprise when I looked over at the kids in recess: it is insane how much it has changed just in the last 10 years.

[JRoberts 0]

In Praise of Obesity

By Joseph Kellard

January 17, 2003

Americans are criticized for being the world's most overweight people. Yet our excessive bodyweight reflects on America's highest values and achievements.

Being obese is detrimental to one's health, resulting in the risk of stroke, certain cancers and premature death. Some researches estimate that obesity in America contributes to more than 300,000 deaths a year. How then can this problem be considered rational and an achievement?

Historically, before the United States existed, obesity was virtually nonexistent. In the West, people were fortunate enough to survive, since famine was common and disease was rampant throughout Europe. In parts of France during the mid-17th century, for example, life expectancy was 20 years, and in early eighteenth-century London, three-quarters of the children died before they turned five. Men, women and children labored for many hours doing some form of backbreaking work simply to feed, clothe and shelter themselves.

These dire conditions changed with America's pro-reason philosophy and unprecedented freedom and their consequence -- the Industrial Revolution, with its labor- and time-saving machinery. The 20th century witnessed the transition of an economy dominated by physical labor to one more intellectually driven, along with the continual growth of everyday labor-saving devices, including the automobile, vacuum cleaner, and remote-controlled TV. All of these developments created for the general population a dramatic explosion of wealth, food production and spare time for rest and recreation. For the first time ever, the average man had the opportunity to live a relatively sedentary lifestyle -- including the option to eat in excess.

Certain critics of American obesity often indict our productive but less physically demanding lifestyle as the cause of this problem. Curiously, they say we are too fat because we are "lazy," yet these same critics, usually from the political left, cry that Europeans have longer vacation time than "overworked" Americans. When these productive Americans then buy material goods or take vacations in exotic locals with their earnings, the critics decry these as "luxuries" that add to the notches on our belts. We Americans have become too removed from our "primitive origins," they chide, and we must get "back to nature."

In reality, the further man progresses from the cave and the generally brutish, short life he has lived up until the West established capitalism, the better he is due to the freedom and opportunities inherent in that economic system. While obesity is an unhealthy, undesirable state, the fact that people can put on many pounds is an historical achievement. It represents what our numerous emaciated and famished ancestors were unable to possess: the option of choosing their bodyweight.

When I once leafed through a five-and-dime movie magazine from the 1940s, I found something unseen in contemporary America -- an advertisement for skinny people wanting to gain weight. Observe that today obesity is more common among poorer Americans than with their wealthier countrymen. This fact indicates that America's problem with weight may greatly lie with the Left's "progressive" social and political measures than with our nation's capitalist-inspired lifestyle.

American obesity is rooted in attacks on personal responsibility, a virtue undercut by the progressives' expansion of the welfare state during the 1960s, when our waistlines began expanding like never before. With the expansion of a system that discourages people from saving for their own retirement (Social Security) and health care (Medicare/Medicaid), and that pays them for not working (welfare), came the spread of increased anti-personal responsibility in American life. A phenomenon reflected by the many people who fail to keep themselves in good health, which includes their overeating fattening foods.

Moreover, a crusade is growing, born of feminism's attack on objective standards of beauty, which asserts that weighing, say, 400 pounds is as "beautiful" as being a Victoria's Secret model; that people who exercise to earn trim or muscular physiques are aesthetically no better than people whose bodies are shaped by their sitting around indulging in sweets.

The fat-is-beautiful crusaders criticize Americans for being "obsessed" with thinness. Their criticism, however, is aimed at the same target as the critics of obesity. The fitness movement is also a product of the Industrial Revolution. Only when man's backbreaking labor was eased or eliminated by machinery did he have the energy and time to lift weights to build his muscles as a form of recreation.

Thanks to the Western values of reason, capitalism and productive achievement, he now has the choice to gain weight, lose it or develop his body to perfection. From here on out then, let America's fattest people be a reminder of how far we've advanced from the cave.

* Joseph Kellard is a journalist and freelance editorialist living in New York. Mr. Kellard hosts a website that feature his editorials and essays, The American Individualist, at www.theai.net. Contact Mr. Kellard at theainet@optonline.net.

←

Joseph,

I think I see what you are trying to say. However, I propose that there are a few points you should consider, and a few phrases that you should possible fix.

Americans are criticized for being the world's most overweight people. Yet our excessive bodyweight reflects on America's highest values and achievements.

(Emphasis mine).

Are you stating that gluttony, or excess in terms of food, is one of America's highest values?

To eat or not is a choice. Thus American obesity came about by Americans making the choice to eat themselves fat.

I think you might need to distinguish between value and achievement. Gluttony might certainly be one of America's highest values today (and that doesn’t make it a good value), but in no way is it one of America's highest achievements.

From here on out then, let America's fattest people be a reminder of how far we've advanced from the cave.

Or a reminder of how far we have to go…to get out of the cave?

Both starvation and gluttony are not good things. What ultimate value are you trying to uplift in praising obesity?

[RayK 0]

I agree with Joseph's general premise if I understand it correctly. My understanding of Joseph's essay is that you can not be obese without having wealth. So it takes wealth creation and every philosophical fundamental before it, to get to it. So a person must have a proper metaphysics, epistemology, ethics and political environment before they can achieve wealth, earned wealth.

The reason most people are fat is because of improper eating habits. Which I have found comes from a mis-understanding of the nature of man. Also, the average person has a mis-understanding of the nature of ethics. Almost everyone I meet through my business tells me they are busy all the time and cannot understand why they are still fat. Also a lot of people tell me they do not know how to set values or goals to achieve them. These two items are what I try and get my clients to understand.

Values have to be set and prioritized by each individual according to their long-term goals and values. So some people could choose food over being lean. People could choose that they value a little shorter life lived to extremes everyday, instead of a long life filled with boring food and food choices.

An example in a different area may be helpful to explain my point. Professional football players pay a price for their choices, a physically abused body. But ask them if it was worth it and most will without hesitation say yes. Most of these players wake up at forty in pain, and limited ability. They have chosen a life full of that which they value, playing football and prioritized it. For the average person that does not get the same reward, such as an NFL retirement and the pay, it would be unwise to abuse ourselves in this manner. One must choose their own priorities, and then not compromise them.

It is not obesity that leads us to death it is living life. Every action we take has a cost from our physical resources, and those resources are limited. In 50 years worth or research Dr. Hans Selye did thousands of autopsies and not once did he find a person that died of old age, where all organs failed at once. What he found is that one major organ such as the heart, kidney or pancreas is pushed to its limit and then fails, causing the rest of the body to fail soon after. As amazing as the human-body is it is not going to go on forever. Choose your values, prioritize them and be willing to pay the consequences, while enjoying your life.

[Free Capitalist 0]

While I appreciate the general thought behind the essay, I do have to question where the reason comes for saying that only in the last 100 years men have acquired the capacity to purchase more food than they could consume. At least that's the way I understand the underlying premise of this whole essay, that in earlier times the world had to endure subsistence diet. Certainly for much of history, large parts of the world (even Western world) have been impoverished, but there have also been times when food has been plentiful. I am more inclined to ascribe modern obesity (this trend does not extend from the Industrial Revolution, but is not more than 50 years old) to a general collapse of Western ethics -- not in the abstract sense of official and explicit philosophical claims, but in the personal, unsaid and unstated manner in which ethics has been held by men through history. There have been times in Western history when prosperity abounded, and excess food was not eaten up in gluttony but sold off, and excess fat in one's body was not left over to accumulate but was reduced through voluntary regimen of physical strain and exercize. Even most of American history falls under this description. The last 50 years, however, do not, and I would ascribe that to a vice, as I said, not to a virtue.

[erandror 0]

Obesity is vulgar and disgusting. It's true that it would have been impossible without economical and technological advancement, but so what? So would a nuclear holocaust.

[Wegason 0]

My only disagreement with the essay is what appears to me to be an insinuation that the industrial revolution started in America. I thought that the industrial revolution started in Britain before spreading elsewhere.

[Dan Cross 0]

Wegason,

The industrial revolution did start in Britain and more specifically Scotland and not in America, whereas America brought to fruition what was started there. I can lead you to Dr. Andrew Bernstein's excellent book, The Capitalist Manifesto, the History Section (which I just finished reading last night) to learn more about the amazing events that occurred from the late 18th century all the way to the beginning of the 20th century.

[Robert Sproule 0]

Obesity is vulgar and disgusting. It's true that it would have been impossible without economical and technological advancement, but so what? So would a nuclear holocaust.

Inescapable logic! Well said!

[Bob Kolker 0]

Obesity is vulgar and disgusting. It's true that it would have been impossible without economical and technological advancement, but so what? So would a nuclear holocaust.

Obesity occurs when one consumes more nutrients than one metabolizes into heat and muscle motion. Our eating is grounded on two factors: habit and appetite. We can do something about habits. For example, we can avoid starting bad habits or work hard in overcoming bad habits that we have started. (Not easy, as anyone who has given up smoking can tell you!). One bad habit is eating with our eyes (as it were). Mmm. Mmm. That food looks so good one can hardly help eating what one sees. Unfortunately satiation comes -after- we have eaten, not -while- we have eaten. That is what happens when one eats too much and too fast because that food looks, smells and tastes so good.

Which gets us to the second factor: satiation and appetite. For evolutionary reasons our appetite regulating mechanism favors eating more than one immediately needs. The excess is stored as fat and glycogen. This is a sound survival characteristic in a situation where one is not sure when or if he will find his next meal. Those hominids who put away more food than that needed -at the moment of eating- made a reserve of fat that stood them in good stead during times of scarcity. They had enough energy reserves to keep on looking for that next meal, which could be days or even weeks away.

Flash forward to modern times in a modern industrial society. Food is plentiful. There is no doubt of getting that next meal, real soon. Even the poor have places to go for that next meal. The ideal appetite regulating mechanism for this situation would be rapid satiation. As soon as one has eaten enough for the moment his appetite diminishes rapidly. He feels full. He really does not want another bite. That is the appetite regulator we -should- have. Unfortunately biological characteristics inherited over hundreds of thousands or even millions of years do not go away. There has to be natural selection against them. Most people who decease because of diseases following on bad eating habits do so only after a long time indulging in such habits. By that time they have gone upstream to spawn (as it were) and have had their children. In short, their bad eating habits do not affect their reproductive success. And that is why Natural Selection has not deleted these habits from our species.

A replacement must be found for natural selection. Some kind of a mechanism needs to be put into place to discourage bad eating habits when one is very young. In some cases, parents are wise enough to teach their children to eat in a manner consistent with long term good health. In most cases, children are told to clean their plate.

And so it goes.....

Bob Kolker

[Justin Roff-Marsh 0]

Flash forward to modern times in a modern industrial society. Food is plentiful. There is no doubt of getting that next meal, real soon. Even the poor have places to go for that next meal. The ideal appetite regulating mechanism for this situation would be rapid satiation. As soon as one has eaten enough for the moment his appetite diminishes rapidly. He feels full. He really does not want another bite. That is the appetite regulator we -should- have. Unfortunately biological characteristics inherited over hundreds of thousands or even millions of years do not go away. There has to be natural selection against them. Most people who decease because of diseases following on bad eating habits do so only after a long time indulging in such habits. By that time they have gone upstream to spawn (as it were) and have had their children. In short, their bad eating habits do not affect their reproductive success. And that is why Natural Selection has not deleted these habits from our species.

A replacement must be found for natural selection. Some kind of a mechanism needs to be put into place to discourage bad eating habits when one is very young. In some cases, parents are wise enough to teach their children to eat in a manner consistent with long term good health. In most cases, children are told to clean their plate.

And so it goes.....

Bob Kolker

We have evolved an appetite-regulating mechanism. It's called 'reason'!

I suspect (I'm not a doctor) that the problem is that processed sugars short-circuit our natural mechanism. But there's still no excuse for obesity. With reason, we can recognise the problem and compensate for it, either by regulating our caloric intake or -- better still -- by simply avoiding processed sugars.

Justin

[Bob Kolker 0]

Or a reminder of how far we have to go…to get out of the cave?

Both starvation and gluttony are not good things. What ultimate value are you trying to uplift in praising obesity?

While neither starvation nor gluttony (nowadays) is a good thing it has been discovered that being a tad on the hungry side may extend lifespan. See: http://www.longevitymeme.org/topics/calorie_restriction.cfm. It isn't exactly starvation, but a chronic undersatiation. Having that lean and hungry look might just extend our days.

Now for gluttony. I define gluttony as habitually eating past the point of satiation. Gluttony was actually a survival characteristic for our hunter-gatherer forbears. When food was scarce and the next meal uncertain, putting away a lot while one had the chance to, actually increased the chances of survival. If our ancestors became satiated while eating they might not store enough energy (in the form of fat) to survive until the next kill opportunity. In which case we would not be here to talk about it. Natural selection has endowed our species with this appetite regulation mechanism:pack it way while you can. Eat like there is no tomorrow because tomorrow the game may be scarce. This food packing strategy was proper for our forbears and how they lived. It is not healthy for folks like us who live in a society where food is plentiful.

Since our appetite regulation is wired in, we have to work real hard to overcome it. It is not simply a matter of choice. There is a lot of inherent physiology making it difficult for us to eat properly in a food-rich context.

What to do about it? We have to start with childhood eating habits. We have to train our kids to eat lean and walk away from the table just a tad unsatisfied (not really hungry, but unsatisfied). If we grow up that way, we will get used to it. Eating lean will become just another habit.

As the words to the old ballad say:

"I will eat when I'm hungry/

I will drink when I'm dry/

I will live every day/

till the day that I die"

Bob Kolker

[Betsy Speicher 0]

We have evolved an appetite-regulating mechanism. It's called 'reason'!

I suspect (I'm not a doctor) that the problem is that processed sugars short-circuit our natural mechanism. But there's still no excuse for obesity. With reason, we can recognise the problem and compensate for it, either by regulating our caloric intake or -- better still -- by simply avoiding processed sugars.

I agree that reason is the ultimate appetite-regulating mechanism and scientists are now discovering how appetite and metabolism work -- and it is a lot more complicated than processed sugars.

For instance, there is a hormone produced in the body's fat cells called leptin that depresses appetite and speeds up metabolism. People who are born with a leptin deficiency are hugely obese. Many obese people have plenty of leptin, but they are leptin-insensitive and their bodies don't process leptin properly.

There is another hormone produced in the lining of the stomach called ghrelin that increases appetite and slows down digestion and metabolism so that more calories are processed and stored as fat. Ghrelin knock-out mice -- animals that do not produce ghrelin at all -- can be fed an extremely high-fat diet and never become obese. Recent research on a ghrelin vaccine that triggers antibodies that destroy ghrelin and research on substances that block the ghrelin receptors in the brain also seem to show prevention of obesity regardless of caloric intake.

Another related hormone is adiponectin, produced in fat cells, that increases leptin-sensitivity and insulin-sensitivity (good for type 2 diabetics), decreases cholesterol, and has been associated with longevity (centenarians tend to have high adiponectin levels).

Also of interest is a new drug, rimonabant (trade name Acomplia), currently on sale in Europe but not yet approved by the FDA, that works on a different mechanism. It is known that people who smoke marijuana get "the munchies" -- a large increase in appetite. It seem there are natural substances produced by the body called endocannabinoids that do exactly the same thing. Rimonabant reduces appetite and weight by blocking the endocannabinoid receptors and it also raises adiponectin levels.

Yes, reason is the answer to obesity and I those who wish to lose weight would do well to watch the scientists.

[Scott A. 0]

Thanks to the Western values of reason, capitalism and productive achievement, he now has the choice to gain weight, lose it or develop his body to perfection. From here on out then, let America's fattest people be a reminder of how far we've advanced from the cave.

I also think I get the point of your essay and agree that without the great wealth and value-producing system of capitalism, obesity is not really a choice. However, quite a bit of the content of your essay seems to contradict the title. For instance, you describe how obesity is rooted in progressive policies (e.g., welfare state), attacks on personal responsibility, and a feminist attack on beauty. You also rightly point out the health risks that go along with it. I agree with these points, but then is it really appropriate to praise obesity given its ideological basis and negative consequences in reality?

While obesity is an unhealthy, undesirable state, the fact that people can put on many pounds is an historical achievement. It represents what our numerous emaciated and famished ancestors were unable to possess: the option of choosing their bodyweight.

These statements to me make the most sense. Capitalism produces enough wealth and other values that one can better control his bodyweight, even toward the "heavy" side. However, with all due respect, to go from this to praising a far more extreme and physically dangerous form of weight gain, i.e., obesity, really doesn't make sense to me, particularly given the basis of obesity you rightly point out.

[RayK 0]

There are principles to getting and staying lean just like there are principles in every field. Everyone of my clients that I teach how to apply those prinicples loses weight. Sure, hormones will always fluctuate and make it easier for some than others, so what. Getting lean requires an understanding of principles and then a heroic effort which I have found most are unwilling to attempt.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

There are principles to getting and staying lean just like there are principles in every field. Everyone of my clients that I teach how to apply those prinicples loses weight. Sure, hormones will always fluctuate and make it easier for some than others, so what.

The connection between Progressive Exercise and the consequent weight loss could be due to hormones. It might be interesting to see if Progressive Exercise might be raising your clients' adiponectin levels.

[Duke 0]

There are ways we can alter the hormones Betsy is talking about, methods I have used myself. For example, leptin rises as a consequence to overfeeding, and this response is very quick when the overfeeding is done mainly with carbohydrates. Bodybuilders recognized this and introduced the concept of the "refeed" into their cutting regimens. After reducing calories and carbohydrates for a few days or weeks, they do a full body workout and a carbohydrate refeed to raise leptin to normal levels. If muscle glycogen is already depleted, and the full body workout caused GLUT4 upregulation, then all the carbohydrate they eat goes primarily to their muscles even during this binge. It's interesting because the body is still running off stored fat for fuel for the first 24 hours, so you can be overeating and losing bodyfat. The glycogen replenishment allows them to do a strong power workout to help build muscle, and their metabolism will be raised when they start to diet again, making the next days more effective.

All the exercise and the diets we do effect these hormones. Leptin goes up in response to overeating, and down in response to a diet. Grehlin of course increases the signal to be hungry while you are dieting--but not when you're overeating.

[Free Capitalist 0]

I know this thread is old, but it seemed especially fitting to have this the place to post the following images (made by the Olympic Committee):