I Take Up Space

Examining fatism and its consequences

The Protestant Health Ethic – Clinical Calvinism?

Fat people have become the canary in the mine of American public health. No matter what size body you have, you should be paying attention to the economic, political and cultural realities of fatness in America. It will tell you a lot about what is wrong with our medical systems, including our lack of compassion for the sick. Read More

Clinical Calvinism

May all your wish come true for your sake and all of our sakes! Your logic is sound and your heart is, in my opinion, in the right place. There is no room for bigotry in health care. Thank you!
Warmly, Dr. Deah Schwartz

Thank you!

Thank you!

The Irony of the new serfdom!

Brilliant Patty! As usual. So ironic that the work ethic we inherited might be HARMING our health. U.S. workers are among the hardest working, with the most hours and shortest vacations in the industrialized world. Overwork and stress can contribute to many of the conditions obesity is always blamed for. How many of these fascist work place wellness programs who harp incessantly on our weight are also advocating for fewer hours, more time off, health care and stress reduction! We are like serfs, if you kill yourself making a buck for your employer you are a good American. But don't you dare get any pleasure for yourself along the way!

Excellent points!

Excellent points!

You Are Spot On, Dr. Thomas

As I have said for years, if you see a fat person and a skinny person walking down the street, you can no more assume that the fat person is a compulsive overeater, than you can assume the skinny person is bulimic or anorexic. Animals, including us big brained humans, come in a diversity of sizes. Many people, through years of dieting, diet drugs and surgeries, have messed with the body’s intrinsic knowledge of a healthy size and in doing so; we have caused great harm on many, many people. I, too, wish for a future with a sane medical system that is weight, class and economically neutral. Let’s treat people AS people.

Let’s treat people AS people.

I like that. Thanks!

What we do best...blame others for our own problems

Dr. Thomas - I must diagree with you vehemently over your characterization of what you call healthists. Blaming the health industry is a red herring argument which deflects from the real problem which is diet and exercise. You point out that it is cheaper to promote diet and exercise, which may be true, but it is also evolutionarily and biologically sound solutions to the problem.
The issue is not changing the culture to accept fat people for who they are, or ‘social justice’ as you term it, for rat people. The issue is returning to the diets and daily regimens that have kept us healthy and svelt for the past few hundred thousand years. Not eating processed foods, getting lots of exercise, and limiting caloric intake are the keys to this change. You blame everyone but fat people for their situation and speak from emotion instead of scientific and medical fact.
I also disagree with your claim that the basis for a strong social group lies in empathy. While empathy does have a place in cementing ties within a certain group, it is the common goals, common purposes, group survival that forge social bonds. If a person is different from ourselves they are immediately considered an outsider, whether it is their skin color, social class, or weight. It is an evolutionary adaptation from our deep past that allows us to form coalitionary groups. Just because you may be outside what may be considered the norm for a group does not mean that you can just change the norm. Don’t blame the group for your own failings.
I will never apologize for being, as you term us, a healthist. I run, lift weights, am fit, and healthy. I do not force others to be like me and don’t blame others for my health issues if I have any. If I gain weight, it is my fault and I get rid of it. Half of our population needs to try to do the same instead of blaming others for their problems.

"Rat people" -- really? typo or slip?

I do believe you when you say "I also disagree with your claim that the basis for a strong social group lies in empathy." -- I hope you will remember all of this when you are older and your training and self-care isn't enough to prevent disease or health issues. What many forget is that they someday may be in the weaker position.

As far as "blaming." I don't recall blaming anyone for a health condition or a problem. I do not believe myself or other fat people to be failures. In fact, I think that is sort of my point. We are not failing. We are human.

I also hope your sake that when others see as "an outsider" they are kinder to you than you are to them.

Faulty logic

Mark wrote:

If a person is different from ourselves they are immediately considered an outsider, whether it is their skin color, social class, or weight. It is an evolutionary adaptation from our deep past that allows us to form coalitionary groups. Just because you may be outside what may be considered the norm for a group does not mean that you can just change the norm. Don’t blame the group for your own failings.

Great argument for perpetuating discrimination - racial, socio-economic, and fat.

change the norm, it is possible

Changing norms through human history is what creates peace. I'm reminded of http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence.html

Failure and blame

I am unclear why being fat is considered a failure.

Typo?

Pattie,

Great article! I think there may be a typo, though.

In paragraph six, you say, "Health, like wealth, is not perceived almost exclusively as being under the control of the individual."

Don't you mean "now perceived" rather than "not perceived?"

Keep up the great work!

Priscilla

Fixed :)

Yep -- thanks for the catch -- thanks for the support.

No evidence

Mark,

Aw, yes, the old "just eat right and exercise and you'll be thin fatty fatty" argument. It simply isn't true. NO real evidence exists that diet and exercise will make a fat person permanently thin. In fact, studies show that fat people eat and exercise much like their thinner counterparts. Fat people are blamed time and time again for their bodies, told to just lose weight if they want to be treated well. And, yet, we have no scientific evidence that it is even possible to lose weight long term. We also have NO evidence that weight loss improves health. Plenty of evidence that nutritious eating and exercise are good for you -- even if you stay fat, but no evidence that weight loss alone improves health.

What we do have is a great deal of scientific evidence suggesting that humans come in diverse sizes. We have evidence that healthy eating and exercise will make people healthier, but seldom lead to permanent weight loss. We have plenty of evidence that attempts at weight loss tend to cause weight gain.

Healthism is a real prejudice that is causing many people reduced quality of life. Consider yourself lucky if you have never suffered from it.

morality

This article makes me think of some of the research that came from http://yourmorals.org/ (related blog at http://www.yourmorals.org/blog/). I'm also reminded of http://www.eskimo.com/~largesse/Archives/healthism.html. Great read, and I look forward to the rest!

Why is it called "fit"?

I'd love to find out the etymology of the word "fit" as a state of health. It has always bothered me because it really carries a kind of scary antonym "unfit." How do we judge people to be "fit" or "unfit"? I think it says a lot about a society when a particular state of body is regarded as "fit" and all others as "unfit." It reminds me of the use of "unfit" mother to refer to poor women and women of color. I do believe people act in ways that make me think less of them as a person. But I find this kind of talk is usually motivated by judgements based on appearance, not behavior.

Thanks for the links Felicia. They stimulated my brain a bit.

Great links and ideas

I learned much from this piece, and by following the links I'm learning more. The idea that all health is a result of individuals' behavior is deeply flawed. Environment, stress, and genetics have much more to do with outcomes, as I explained in my book Diabetes: Sugar-coated Crisis (Hunter House 2006.)

Health and illness are socially created. Blaming individuals for being the way they are never helps. People should be encouraged to live healthier, happier, more meaningful lives, not told to obsess about their weight or their lab results. Then you'll see healthier people and a stronger society.

Thanks for noticing the links

I do hope others will follow. I actually learned a lot myself researching them. My specialty in Sociology is Medical Sociology, meaning medical systems and I have done and still do (in preparation for classes) a lot of comparative work among medical systems in the world. The US does not fair well even though we have incredible technology and we talk about weight and health and support a huge industry to that end. Poverty is by far the greatest predictor of who has worse health outcomes (life expectancy, disease rates, infant mortality, epidemics, etc.) Wealth, however does not always correlate with better outcomes.

The CIA Worldbook publishes life expectancy (at birth) comparisons on a regular basis.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/21...

I visit it once a semester in my SOC 101 classes. The United States sits at around 49 or 50 for the past 3 years. The top 10 are wealthier countries. But some not so wealthy countries sit ahead of us. Bosnia? South Korea?

My assessment is that equality in social class, wealth and access to health care are probably the leading factors that explain these disparities and rankings. The United States has a growing socioeconomic gap and unequal access (no universal health care).

And for those who want to play the obesity card at this point, pay attention:

http://www.infoplease.com/world/statistics/obesity.html

Note that of the top 20 fattest countries per WHO stats, only 2 of these countries have life expectancies below 70, there is no linear relationship between life expectancy and % of higher BMI. In addition, this does not support the hypothesis that it is our wealth that is leading us down the fatten path as the GDP per capita of these countries are all over the place.

Now I'm inspired to do a more serious analysis. Where did I put my stats text book?

Laughable

Mark - In the first place, you are projecting your own laziness on to fat people. If you did a little research, u would find that weight is not just about diet and health. We were not all lean for centuries, fat people existed at least since agriculture. Maybe not as many, but even a little historical research would tell you they existed. Several of our founding fathers were fat. In fact, we can thank fat for the reason we are here in such good shape, it helped us survive the famines. The more diverse a species, the better its chance of survival. Thinking and researching is much harder than spouting ill informed opinions, try it sometime!
Furthermore, I am unimpressed by your health regime. So you go to great efforts to avoid gaining weight because: you seek approval, you care what others think, you want the psychological comfort of controlling ONE of the infinite health risk factors out there (the talisman effect), or you want to eek out every last millisecond in an overcrowded planet. The theme is YOU, you do it for selfish reasons. It is all about narcissism, conformity and fear, all the things that are brining us down. You sticking to a rigid fitness regime does not give you a free pass for self-righteousness or lack of compassion. Many of us go to great efforts in areas we care about, it doesn't make us any better than anyone else. I gave up my car years ago for environmental reasons, but if I were to criticize drivers I would be considered judgmental and flaky.
One more point, if keeping fit was so fulfilling to you, you would not need to judge or condemn others. I run into this argument all the time, if I have to do it (jog, gym, starve) so should they. Funny do you hear mountain climbers or concert pianist expressing such antagonism against others? They have grueling regimes too. NO, because they are following their inner voice. You caved to social pressure, then hate anyone following a different path. Your resentment itself indicates at some level there is conflict between what you truly want and feel you must do to fit in be a "good soldier." And you will get the social approval you seek among many. But ironically, when society sheds this cultural dysfunction of weight obsession, it will be the ones who think for themselves that get the most admiration in the long run!

To work at staying healthy

To work at staying healthy and fit one is subjected to judgments of "starving to fit in?" To defend someones right to live at any weight, you don't have stereotype others regardless of their preferred size. If you don't put time into educating yourself on the nutritional value of the foods one consumes or the amount of physical activity one participates in, don't complain about the aftermath. All people, regardless of size, can have health issues.

Emotional arguments versus Scientific facts

SSanders – I find it interesting that from a couple paragraph posting you can deduce not only my work ethic, but also my psychological profile and my education level. You immediately attack not just my argument, but also me personally, calling me narcissistic and scared (of what, I don’t know). When someone loses, or can’t win, an argument they almost always are reduced to personal attacks.
To your first point, I actually have done a lot of research regarding the evolution of human diet. You are correct that since about 10,000 years ago, humans have gained weight, and some have become fat. That is due, as posited in my first post, to the increased intake of grains and processed foods. The rate of obesity can be mapped to the increase of fast food restaurants and processed food intake. The last 30 years has been especially telling. Just because a couple Founding Fathers were fat doesn’t make it okay. Moving from a hunter/gatherer diet of mainly meats and greens to one of grains and carbohydrates will do that and has been shown in studies of Polynesian cultures assuming modern diets. Diversity is good for a species, but genetic diversity, not weight. Fatness has nothing to do with genetic diversity. If you said melatonin levels or something like that I would agree. Fat is not a genetic trait. Also, yes, fat did help us survive when food was scarce, but not 400 lbs of fat… that is a red herring.
To your second point, my health regime is not here to impress you, and I don’t work out to impress anyone, other than my wife. We have a deep-rooted desire to look good for others, yes, and that is narcissistic, but that is an evolutionary adapted trait to foster social status and desirability to the opposite sex. I’m glad you gave up your car for “environmental reasons” but I’m sure there was some narcissistic reason as well, to look good to your mates and show everyone you “care” about the planet. Every human action has some sort or narcissistic reason for it. That’s how we are.
And lastly, your optimistic view of society shedding its weight obsession is misguided and not scientifically supportable. There is an evolutionary adaptation from deep time which has shaped the human ideal of what “healthy” body types are and what each sex finds desirable in the other. You cannot legislate or dictate that away.

Scientific Fact?

Science does not produce a "fact" often, especially in medicine. Science is a body of literature that is interpreted on the basis of several parameters: reliability, validity, and data quality are among them.

Reliability is established through repetition. The more often a relationship is observed by more people at different times, the stronger the case for reliability.

Validity is established through argumentation. A scientist must demonstrate that what is being measured is, in fact, what is being measured. In other words, especially in human studies, some consideration for what the subjects thought they were responding to is important.

Example of validity: Every couple of years, a general social survey is conducted. This is a large questionnaire that around 1500 randomly chosen Americans answer in person from an interviewer. One of the questions on this survey is "What is your social class?" with 4 possible answers: upper, middle, working, lower. The vast majority of people answer "middle." Also on this questionnaire, later in the interview, the subject is asked about household income. People with as high as $2,000,000 a year and as low as $14,000 a year will have answered "middle class." It is quite obvious that "middle-class" does not describe household income validly. If you are going to use the data to learn about household income data, you would not look at the self-identification factor, you would look at the household income factor because it is the more valid measure.

Finally, data quality is important. How were respondents recruited? How was data collected? How were questions or observations constructed? Was there a control for comparison? How was data inputted for analysis? How good were the analytical tools? Any of these factors and more can affect data quality and should be considered.

This does not even begin to address interpretation of results once analysis is made. Cause and effect is most difficult to establish. (Read my post about cause and effect if you want to know more: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/i-take-space/201107/lesson-in-cause-...).

What this boils down to is that a good scientist does not speak of "facts." We present conclusions to colleagues and make cases for various claims. We expect our colleagues to test our claims and make other claims or confirm our claims. We make arguments. We build cases. We do not state facts.

The physical world, especially the human physical world is mostly unknown and things that we were sure about 50 or 100 years ago are now regarded as wrong. Science is always changing, always growing. Medicine, which is an applied science grows and changes with it.

“Science is based on experiment, on a willingness to challenge old dogma, on an openness to see the universe as it really is. Accordingly, science sometimes requires courage - at the very least the courage to to question the conventional wisdom.”
― Carl Sagan

I submit to you, and to anyone else who is reading this, that there are few facts when it comes to fat. Not much has been studied directly about weight loss and health, why some people are fatter than others, or WHY (not "if") there are comorbidities with higher BMIs. The data that is quoted over and over again is usually derived from other studies(large surveys, longitudinal studies), and is mostly observations of correlations with little control for extenuating circumstances.

Yes, there are correlations between body size and certain health issues. (BTW, these correlations are not always detrimental-- read up on the so-called "obesity paradox" for beneficial correlations for higher BMIs.) But correlations are insufficient to establish causation, even if they are necessary. Alternative explanations are plentiful with little direct research being conducted.

Data quality issues abound mostly because funded studies have financial interests that leave suspicions regarding biases.

The bottom line is no one (including me) can claim "fact" about this. I am not disputing "facts." I am doing what every good scientist should do. I am skeptical.

Skepticism is not emotion.

Finally, Mark, you originally offered what I thought was an extremely emotional response. (Quote: "I must diagree with you vehemently" [sic]) Though you do not know me, you are sure that I am a failure. Though you have no knowledge of my dietary habits or my exercise habits, you are sure I need to change both. Though I did not once lay blame for my size on anyone or anything, you concluded that my research and informed opinion on the state of the health care system was emotional and a matter of blaming others ("You blame everyone but fat people for their situation and speak from emotion instead of scientific and medical fact.")

I did not offer a scientific argument in this piece, though I did connect dots; however, I did not offer an emotional argument. What I offered is an informed commentary on our medical system. Something I've studied extensively for 15 years now, counting grad school.

I do not know what your background or training may be, but the way you speak of what you know is not scientific and you do not seem interested in an honest debate. You do seem quite invested in your beliefs and unwilling to consider other points-of-view. For the record, in the 15 years I've been studying medical systems, my opinions have changed, including my understanding of weight, fatness and health. I did not arrive at my current opinions easily. I suspect that some of these will change over time as I learn more.

From what you have written here, I don't expect you to change your mind, but since this is my blog, I am responding to you for the value of the teaching moment regarding science.

When I personally here someone speak of "scientific fact," red flags go off and I lock down my wallet, because I know someone, some where (maybe not you, but the people you learned this from) are trying to sell me something. Sorry, I'm not buying it.

Carbohydrates are healthy, even "processed" ones, according to Glenn Gaesser

Mark, MSSI wrote:

To your first point, I actually have done a lot of research regarding the evolution of human diet. You are correct that since about 10,000 years ago, humans have gained weight, and some have become fat. That is due, as posited in my first post, to the increased intake of grains and processed foods. The rate of obesity can be mapped to the increase of fast food restaurants and processed food intake. ... Moving from a hunter/gatherer diet of mainly meats and greens to one of grains and carbohydrates will do that and has been shown in studies of Polynesian cultures assuming modern diets.

I think Dr. Glenn Gaesser, Director of the Healthy Lifestyles Research center at Arizona State University, has a way better response than I could offer to your research. http://youtu.be/5Q-sHS27PZU

There is evidence in the other direction as well and you might consider it. Also, you use the word "evolution" a lot. You seem to think that it is a synonym for "history." Just because you can show that something is historically accurate does not make it "evolutionary."

Anecdotally, I will tell you that I have lost weight in the past on low-carb, high protein diets and each time of 3 attempts, I had to end the diet because my potassium levels were too low (even while I was taking a supplement) and my ketone levels in my kidneys were dangerously high. Kidney disease runs in my family and my doctor threatened to put me in a hospital if I continued. It is true that going back on carbs was the precursor to weight gain, though I think it is more complex to say, the carbs "caused" the gain.

Finally, on what basis do you make this statement?

Mark, MSSI wrote:

Diversity is good for a species, but genetic diversity, not weight.

Almost all mammals have weight diversity. Several genes have been identified with fatness. Twin studies have demonstrated that perhaps as much as 80% of body size is determined by genetics. Why are you so sure weight diversity is not genetic? Citations? Evidence?

Studies for Paleo

Dr. Thomas,

I have read much of what Dr. Gaesser has written about his high-carb, low fat diet. His conclusions have been mostly debuked by many in the dietary community, especially his claim that sugar intake has been "consistantly linked to lower body weight." The 2007 study that Dr. Gaesser cites has also been challenged by more recent studies on high-fat, low-carb studies as well as research into "original" or paleo/Atkins style lifestyles. See research regarding paleo diets and their outcomes from Dr. O'Dea, Dr. Frassetto, and Dr. Lindeburg as references.

Also, my use of the term "evolutionary" is not synonymous with "history." Evolutionary studies regarding human development over our 1.5 to 2 million years, from the fields of evolutionary biology and anthropology have developed strong theories covering human diet. The term "history" denotes the coverage of human life only back to recorded time (about 5,000 years ago). My research has attempted to incorporate the past hundreds of thousands of years. History is only a sliver of the Homo sapien timeline and we cannot ignore the vast deep time that preceeded it.

I would like to read the twin studies you noted about genetics and body size. From my research I have not found any studies that link the increase of obesity rates to genetics, only the propensity for retaining fat as genetic. Actual obesity or fat retention is caused by polygenic factors and environment. Drs. Boutin and Froquel's piece on genetics and obesity from 2001 is a good reference. Also regarding genetic diversity, I would read The Red Queen by Matt Ridley.

My apologies for my seemingly emotional reactions to your previous posts, and to your article in general. I try to stay as even-keeled as I can regarding these types of discussions, but it sometimes gets the best of me. From my foxhole, I see the obestiy epidemic as one of the top national security risks to our country (financially, militarily, socially) and don't see anyone taking it seriously. We give lip service to the problem, but never actually deal with the underlying causes.

Twin Study References

Mark (and please, call me "Pattie")

You asked:

Mark, MSSI wrote:

I would like to read the twin studies you noted about genetics and body size. From my research I have not found any studies that link the increase of obesity rates to genetics, only the propensity for retaining fat as genetic.

4 Studies of BMIs and twins who lived apart. I will correct myself here -- though I have heard different interpretations with 80% being the highest estimate, reviewing these studies, I see that the highest speculation is 70%. Albert J. Stunkard seems to be leading scientist in this area, so there may be more about his work in other places.

Albert J. Stunkard, et.al."An Adoption Study of Human Obesity," New England Journal of Medicine, 3154:4 (1986): 193-98

Albert J. Stunkard, T.T. Foch, and Zdenek Hrubec, "A Twin Study of Human Obesity," Journal of the American Medical Association, 256:1 (1986): 51-54

Albert J. Stunkard, et.al. "The Body-Mass Index of Twins Who Have Been Reared Apart," New England Journal of Medicine, 322 (1990): 1483-87

David B. Allison, et. al. "The Heritability of Body Mass Index among an Internal Sample of Monozygotic Twins Reared Apart," International Journal of Obesity and Related Metabolic Disorders 20:6 (1996): 501-06.

==================

Before we get too deep into dietetic references, I want to make it clear that this is NOT my area of expertise and I am not making a claim to it. As a medical sociologist I've had to learn how to read medical studies and I have a cursory understanding of data analysis. But I have not ever (and I made this clear to the Psychology Today editorial staff from the moment I was invited to blog here) meant for this blog to be a debate on healthy eating, healthy habits and so forth, because I could not write for long about this.

Also, note that there are many within the Health at Every Size and Fat Acceptance community who would agree with your take on the current problems with our diets and who advocate paleo-diets, most especially as it relates to increased prevalence and treatment. Some of them have lost weight adhering to these diets, some have not, but most report that they are healthier nonetheless. I indicated that I have not had much success in the past as my kidneys seem to not like it much. But I certainly would not suggest that my personal experience is conclusive in any way. Have you seen any research on gender differences regarding this? I don't want to sound like I'm advocating gender inequality (via caveman icon), but I've noted anecdotally that men seem to have much more success (defined by either weight-loss or health indicators) than women with the paleo-diet approach.

My personal experience regarding diet and exercise at the moment is that exercise is much more important to my health than diet, but this is not a scientific opinion, per se. I do have readers who are trained in this area and I hope they might engage you here. I am always interested in lively discussions.

I know that the social issues I address here do have overlap with health, medical, dietary and exercise scholarship, and so I know that these disciplines will want to offer their perspectives on what I have to say. But I am addressing the social aspects and implications of these bodies of work and not the bodies of work themselves. As such, I will address your other points in a different comment to keep the health/medical debate and the social debate separate.

Thank you for responding and sticking with this discussion. My first impression of you seems to be inaccurate. I am always willing to discuss these things in a respectful manner and I appreciate your coming back and clarifying your intent and your knowledge.

Risks and the "epidemic"

Mark,

Mark, MSSI wrote:

I try to stay as even-keeled as I can regarding these types of discussions, but it sometimes gets the best of me. From my foxhole, I see the obestiy epidemic as one of the top national security risks to our country (financially, militarily, socially) and don't see anyone taking it seriously. We give lip service to the problem, but never actually deal with the underlying causes.

I submit to you that your research and knowledge of diets and your social and political concerns are not inextricably connected. In other words, I think you can be right about the food issues and still be wrong about the risks. I would also submit that social contexts to the rhetoric surrounding these risks can offer information that mitigates the case for these risks. You are not alone in seeing what you see, but if you turn the same scientific eye on these "risks," I think you might find that they do not hold under scrutiny.

I have written a lot this morning in response to this and I have realized it makes a better blog post than comment. So I'm going to ask you to come back and visit on January 20 -- I want to develop my arguments and support them more fully. I will publish a full posts on risks at that time: financial, military and social. I hope you don't see this as a cop-out, but I think you have raised common concerns and they deserve fuller attention than a comment would have.

Thanks again for stimulating discussion. I have the impression that we may not really be able to change each other's minds, but I do think public discussions regarding these issues are important and I appreciate your time and your viewpoint.

Patti, You may be right

Patti,

You may be right regarding the potential "risks" that I see, and I appreciate your candor in our give and take. I really look forward to your next posting on 20 January. I certainly do NOT see it as a cop-out, and welcome more study regarding the issues you will attempt to frame.
Being in the national security realm I have, of course, been following certain trends that I see as detrimental to it. I am very interested in your post and would love to assist in any way I can with anything I may be able to help you with. Please do not hesitate to ask for anything...

Disagreement on issues does not necessarily mean there is no common ground that cannot be reached. I hope discussions like the one we, and others on this blog, have had can find that common ground someday.

Cheers

Update on Risks blog post(s)

So I'm reminded of a friend of mine who told me that her book that took her 5 years to research and write started out as a small paper for a conference presentation.

What started out as a comment response to Mark grew into a promised post that I have been unable to deliver because I think it might end up being three or four posts. Mark, you may have inspired inadvertently a number of future posts.

So I just wanted you to know that I'm still researching, but the first week of school has gotten in the way and so rather than do a shabby job, I'm going to put off posting about risks until February when I will begin with a critique of the much cited Finkelstein, et.al. estimate of $147Billion in health care costs. From there I may be posting about several tangential issues as well as looking at the questions about security and social costs.

Thanks for your patience. Sometimes the paid work gets in the way of the unpaid efforts. But I will get there.

It's a good thing

Thanks for the update, Dr. Pattie. I checked yesterday to see if your new post was up, since I’m looking forward to it. It’s a good thing when our ideas multiply and grow.

I had similar experience recently. I wrote two long posts on history of healthism and healthy lifestyles. Then I started reading more sociology literature on the subject and discovered all sorts of things I didn’t know and would want to include.

Take your time. I enjoyed your interview with Dr. Asbury.

Thank you Jan and Thanks for

Thank you Jan and Thanks for Tweeting about the blog!

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • You may quote other posts using [quote] tags.

More information about formatting options

Subscribe to I Take Up Space

Pattie Thomas, Ph.D., is a medical sociologist and author of Taking Up Space: How Eating Well and Exercising Regularly Changed My Life, a sociological memoir about living as a fat and disabled woman in unfriendly territory.

more...