Around the Fatosphere
Published 1.28.2025: Been awhile since I checked in on the “fat-o-sphere.” So long, that I’m pretty sure that’s not the current term for it. Certainly it has changed over the years. Many blogs are now moribund, and links to them dead. Were I to go back through the archival pieces here I might remove all the dead links, but that’s not likely to happen soon.
Anyway, I’m highlighting this link because I noticed that the average size for women is now considered 18, rather than 12. A few years ago the number was 12. Pretty sure that vanity sizing still occurs, so I guess that’s an indication that Americans are still getting fatter every year? Or maybe it suggests that the 12 number was too small. In any event, it caught my attention.
Otherwise the blather about diet culture is exactly as it used to be. To whit: it’s evil, it’s pervasive, and it controls us all. Even if you think it doesn’t control you, it does. You just aren’t aware enough to notice. My own definition of diet culture is more narrow. Basically if you’re following a fad diet (low carb, keto, Whole 30, Nutritarian, WW (formerly Weight Watchers), etc.) then you are waist deep in diet culture.
The word diet can be used to define any type of eating. Elephants have a typical diet, as do pandas. Humans are different because humans can basically eat almost anything to survive, as opposed to say, cats. which have to have meat or they die. (Sorry vegans).
The “science says diets fail” line has changed too. Now they claim that diets don’t work in the 2-5 year time frame. Bowing to the reality that in fact, diets do work while people adhere to them. The problem of course is that people don’t adhere long term to fad diets (see above) and if you go back to eating more, then you go back to weighing more.
This little ditty from Ragen Chastain (who may not go by that name other than professionally at this point) claims that Kaiser gets intuitive eating wrong in its policies. Well, as intuitive eating doesn’t make a lot of sense, it’s not surprising that Kaiser’s version falls short of the HAES arbiters. Kaiser, as health providers, knows that telling people to eat all they want without considerations beyond what they are feeling is a recipe for disaster.
Many health providers seem to like the concept of “intuitive eating” because they assume that intuitive implies eating only what you need to be healthy. Whereas others believe that intuitive means you eat anything you want whenever you want it, without regard to the implications for your health. (I include weight as an indicator of health, which automatically puts me outside the HAES confines. I can live with that.)
Your metabolism is NOT slower if you’re obese. EAT LESS is therefore more important than move more for weight loss. Moving more is good for longevity though, as is avoiding sarcopenia in old age (which I now resemble). It’s the food y’all. That’s why we’re fat.
CICO! (calories in vs calories out) Not carbs, not fats, CALORIES. It’s a 2000 study, but frankly, there are older studies that show the same results. It may not be easy, but it’s not complicated. Maintain a calorie deficit and you’ll lose weight.
Satiety per calorie… isn’t that Dr Furhman’s nutrient per calorie reborn? The effort is headed by Dr Andreas Eenfeldt… who used to be a low carb fanatic. hava.co is the website for the program, which of course they charge for. Unlike Fuhrman, he’s not a vegan.
Why you can’t lose weight. I feel like I’ve read this article a thousand times. Biology is not why you can’t lose weight. The energy balance is.
Because it’s NOT BoPo… it’s FaBoPo. I'm not sure when, but at some point fat people (mostly women) decided to claim body positivity for their own. You can't be body positive if you're thin, and weight is only allowed to change in one direction (towards getting fatter).
This type of nonsense results from HAES. You CAN choose to lose weight healthily, and there IS a way to eat healthier. And YES, Virginia, it can lead to weight loss. And It. Does. Not. Involve. Meal. Replacement. Shakes.
Obesity (despite fat liberation attempts) has been redefined as a disease. Which means that pharmaceutical companies can develop drugs to treat it and insurance companies will pay for them. And now that it will be paid for, drugs will be developed. The results from this drug seem better (in terms of weight lost) but 1) I’m still not convinced obesity is a disease and 2) who knows what the side effects will be. Will this be something you have to stay on long term (like BP drugs) or is this a short term intervention.
HAES (Health at Every Size) is killing itself… This is fat liberation, and there is no room for me, or anyone else who thinks that all parts of the human body (including adipose tissue) is related to the health of the body. Dietitians are eugenists was the assertion that cause my eyes to almost pop out of my head. But this is where you ultimately land if you cannot ever allow that reducing weight can be a positive thing for a given body. Weight is only permitted to move in one direction. It’s a deliberately obtuse take, and it’s asserted with absolute authority.
More on how HAES is killing itself: Lindo Bacon’s silence is over and she has left the HAES tent. Bacon will not update the seminal book (the treatise that still brings people into the HAES fold) and Bacon will no longer use the HAES name on anything. Bacon had created a directory using HAES, Bacon will now rebrand it— and apparently step away from it. Chances are Bacon will make a career swerve into writing about trans/queer issues, because that’s what Bacon’s new book is about and better reflects how Bacon identifies. Bacon is not fat, though did lose about 30 pounds after adopting the HAES philosophy. That, for the record, is part of the fat liberation case against Bacon.
It will be interesting to see if HAES as a movement survives. FaBoPo is already struggling because too many people are excluded for not being fat enough or even just black. If the Body Positive movement was supposed to encompass only fat black bodies, that’s fine… but boy is that a small niche.
So this article got a LOT of attention from those who want obesity to be a complicated issue. () Diverse people such as Taubes and Hall have touted it, though for different reasons. Taubes still wants his ridiculous bass-ackwards theory of obesity to be accepted, and Hall wants more funding. Simply saying that people eat too much is too simple and generates no funding, and no book advances for Taubes. But eating too much IS the answer.
NOW.. potentially Hall has a point (and the woman who blames fat and salt content in hyperpalatability) that ultrprocessed foods designed to be “addicting” may play a role. I also find the pre-digested argument suggestive too. It is easier to eat a greater amount of ultraprocessed foods without realizing, but the main point is eating more than you expend.
The article does list all of the current “theories”, including the CIM (carbohydrate-insulin model) and hyperpalatability, to basically indicate that we don’t know why people eat too much for what they expend, we just know that they do. I think I’m in the hyperpalatable camp because that explains how someone who doesn’t eat ultraprocessed foods can get fat.
Changes in physical activity cannot explain obesity— at least at a population level. Activity in particular has not changed since the 1980s, and obesity has surged since then. they reference most of the points they make (provide references for…)
Nobody’s genetics indicate that they should be 500+ pounds…. (My number used to be 300lbs, and I still doubt there are bio-women who are genetically prone to that weight) Mostly mouse data in the article. There are genetic variants that make you fat, but overall, common obesity is more a case of environment and actions. You are not a slave to your genetics.
Resistance training is good. Not for weight loss, but for increasing muscle mass and bone mineral density. There is some evidence that increased muscle matter increases metabolism, but muscle (absent steroids) is hard to grow.
This is Hall’s comparison of UPF (ultra-processed food) and not. This is the one that he is redoing taking hyperpalatability into account. It may be tough to come up with UPF that aren’t HP, but people are over terminology with UPF, at least HP is defined, a certain % of fat and salt. Sugar is not necessary (sorry Taubes). UPF is defined by NOVA, and it seems a bit arbitrary.
This is a talk where Kevin Hall participated. This is a youtube presentation. So UPF have much lower water content to increase shelf life.
So, Mark Bittman doesn’t think obesity is a disease (I remain unconvinced as well). Needless to say, the “obesity is a disease” folks are pissed at the article. Basically he argues that drugs like Ozempic and similar mask the effects of obesity without treating the root cause, which he seems to think is UPF. Also NOT convinced about that either…
Here’s an article only about UPF. I think there may be something to the idea that UPF cause more calorie ingestion because they are more calorie dense and are engineered to be delicious. But no one forces you to eat UPF. And even if you can’t afford anything else, you aren’t forced to overeat them. Perhaps it’s because I don’t really have an “addictive” personality, but it IS possible to avoid these foods.
There’s an argument over reformulate or regulate— but there’s no guarantee that people will eat the reformulated less hyper palatable option. Hall gives an example of chicken nuggets with fiber added and less salt… you can see the right wing headlines already…
But you know… health at every size…. High BMIs (flawed though they are) increase risk of cancers. This isn’t new news. This is a meta-analysis (study of studies) so caution is warranted.
The obesity drugs are dividing the fapobo people. Between those who want to be able to wipe their own ass and those who think bidets should be everywhere… She’s proud that she can't wipe her own bottom. This YouTuber highlights a woman who has left the fabopo movement and is taking an obesity drug (for 8 months now) and is happy she can wipe her own bottom.
Bidets are not cheap. Amazon lists them at over $500… which is a lot of toilet paper. And is it better for the environment? If water is scarce, then I’m thinking no. That was a discussion over the disposable diapers. If land is plentiful but water is not (aka the US west), then disposables might be the more environmental choice. In the east where water is generally plentiful but land is not, “natural” might be better. For the record, I always did disposables whether we lived out west or back east.
So in the comments under the YouTube video (yes, I braved the comments) someone noted that berating someone for dieting was like berating a drinking buddy who got sober. I never thought of that before, but I actually think it’s a good analogy. Of course, fat activists (or FaBoPo supporters, but really FaBoPo my own term that no one ever uses) will disagree.
Anyway, I’m highlighting this link because I noticed that the average size for women is now considered 18, rather than 12. A few years ago the number was 12. Pretty sure that vanity sizing still occurs, so I guess that’s an indication that Americans are still getting fatter every year? Or maybe it suggests that the 12 number was too small. In any event, it caught my attention.
Otherwise the blather about diet culture is exactly as it used to be. To whit: it’s evil, it’s pervasive, and it controls us all. Even if you think it doesn’t control you, it does. You just aren’t aware enough to notice. My own definition of diet culture is more narrow. Basically if you’re following a fad diet (low carb, keto, Whole 30, Nutritarian, WW (formerly Weight Watchers), etc.) then you are waist deep in diet culture.
The word diet can be used to define any type of eating. Elephants have a typical diet, as do pandas. Humans are different because humans can basically eat almost anything to survive, as opposed to say, cats. which have to have meat or they die. (Sorry vegans).
The “science says diets fail” line has changed too. Now they claim that diets don’t work in the 2-5 year time frame. Bowing to the reality that in fact, diets do work while people adhere to them. The problem of course is that people don’t adhere long term to fad diets (see above) and if you go back to eating more, then you go back to weighing more.
This little ditty from Ragen Chastain (who may not go by that name other than professionally at this point) claims that Kaiser gets intuitive eating wrong in its policies. Well, as intuitive eating doesn’t make a lot of sense, it’s not surprising that Kaiser’s version falls short of the HAES arbiters. Kaiser, as health providers, knows that telling people to eat all they want without considerations beyond what they are feeling is a recipe for disaster.
Many health providers seem to like the concept of “intuitive eating” because they assume that intuitive implies eating only what you need to be healthy. Whereas others believe that intuitive means you eat anything you want whenever you want it, without regard to the implications for your health. (I include weight as an indicator of health, which automatically puts me outside the HAES confines. I can live with that.)
Your metabolism is NOT slower if you’re obese. EAT LESS is therefore more important than move more for weight loss. Moving more is good for longevity though, as is avoiding sarcopenia in old age (which I now resemble). It’s the food y’all. That’s why we’re fat.
CICO! (calories in vs calories out) Not carbs, not fats, CALORIES. It’s a 2000 study, but frankly, there are older studies that show the same results. It may not be easy, but it’s not complicated. Maintain a calorie deficit and you’ll lose weight.
Satiety per calorie… isn’t that Dr Furhman’s nutrient per calorie reborn? The effort is headed by Dr Andreas Eenfeldt… who used to be a low carb fanatic. hava.co is the website for the program, which of course they charge for. Unlike Fuhrman, he’s not a vegan.
Why you can’t lose weight. I feel like I’ve read this article a thousand times. Biology is not why you can’t lose weight. The energy balance is.
Because it’s NOT BoPo… it’s FaBoPo. I'm not sure when, but at some point fat people (mostly women) decided to claim body positivity for their own. You can't be body positive if you're thin, and weight is only allowed to change in one direction (towards getting fatter).
This type of nonsense results from HAES. You CAN choose to lose weight healthily, and there IS a way to eat healthier. And YES, Virginia, it can lead to weight loss. And It. Does. Not. Involve. Meal. Replacement. Shakes.
Obesity (despite fat liberation attempts) has been redefined as a disease. Which means that pharmaceutical companies can develop drugs to treat it and insurance companies will pay for them. And now that it will be paid for, drugs will be developed. The results from this drug seem better (in terms of weight lost) but 1) I’m still not convinced obesity is a disease and 2) who knows what the side effects will be. Will this be something you have to stay on long term (like BP drugs) or is this a short term intervention.
HAES (Health at Every Size) is killing itself… This is fat liberation, and there is no room for me, or anyone else who thinks that all parts of the human body (including adipose tissue) is related to the health of the body. Dietitians are eugenists was the assertion that cause my eyes to almost pop out of my head. But this is where you ultimately land if you cannot ever allow that reducing weight can be a positive thing for a given body. Weight is only permitted to move in one direction. It’s a deliberately obtuse take, and it’s asserted with absolute authority.
More on how HAES is killing itself: Lindo Bacon’s silence is over and she has left the HAES tent. Bacon will not update the seminal book (the treatise that still brings people into the HAES fold) and Bacon will no longer use the HAES name on anything. Bacon had created a directory using HAES, Bacon will now rebrand it— and apparently step away from it. Chances are Bacon will make a career swerve into writing about trans/queer issues, because that’s what Bacon’s new book is about and better reflects how Bacon identifies. Bacon is not fat, though did lose about 30 pounds after adopting the HAES philosophy. That, for the record, is part of the fat liberation case against Bacon.
It will be interesting to see if HAES as a movement survives. FaBoPo is already struggling because too many people are excluded for not being fat enough or even just black. If the Body Positive movement was supposed to encompass only fat black bodies, that’s fine… but boy is that a small niche.
So this article got a LOT of attention from those who want obesity to be a complicated issue. () Diverse people such as Taubes and Hall have touted it, though for different reasons. Taubes still wants his ridiculous bass-ackwards theory of obesity to be accepted, and Hall wants more funding. Simply saying that people eat too much is too simple and generates no funding, and no book advances for Taubes. But eating too much IS the answer.
NOW.. potentially Hall has a point (and the woman who blames fat and salt content in hyperpalatability) that ultrprocessed foods designed to be “addicting” may play a role. I also find the pre-digested argument suggestive too. It is easier to eat a greater amount of ultraprocessed foods without realizing, but the main point is eating more than you expend.
The article does list all of the current “theories”, including the CIM (carbohydrate-insulin model) and hyperpalatability, to basically indicate that we don’t know why people eat too much for what they expend, we just know that they do. I think I’m in the hyperpalatable camp because that explains how someone who doesn’t eat ultraprocessed foods can get fat.
Changes in physical activity cannot explain obesity— at least at a population level. Activity in particular has not changed since the 1980s, and obesity has surged since then. they reference most of the points they make (provide references for…)
Nobody’s genetics indicate that they should be 500+ pounds…. (My number used to be 300lbs, and I still doubt there are bio-women who are genetically prone to that weight) Mostly mouse data in the article. There are genetic variants that make you fat, but overall, common obesity is more a case of environment and actions. You are not a slave to your genetics.
Resistance training is good. Not for weight loss, but for increasing muscle mass and bone mineral density. There is some evidence that increased muscle matter increases metabolism, but muscle (absent steroids) is hard to grow.
This is Hall’s comparison of UPF (ultra-processed food) and not. This is the one that he is redoing taking hyperpalatability into account. It may be tough to come up with UPF that aren’t HP, but people are over terminology with UPF, at least HP is defined, a certain % of fat and salt. Sugar is not necessary (sorry Taubes). UPF is defined by NOVA, and it seems a bit arbitrary.
This is a talk where Kevin Hall participated. This is a youtube presentation. So UPF have much lower water content to increase shelf life.
So, Mark Bittman doesn’t think obesity is a disease (I remain unconvinced as well). Needless to say, the “obesity is a disease” folks are pissed at the article. Basically he argues that drugs like Ozempic and similar mask the effects of obesity without treating the root cause, which he seems to think is UPF. Also NOT convinced about that either…
Here’s an article only about UPF. I think there may be something to the idea that UPF cause more calorie ingestion because they are more calorie dense and are engineered to be delicious. But no one forces you to eat UPF. And even if you can’t afford anything else, you aren’t forced to overeat them. Perhaps it’s because I don’t really have an “addictive” personality, but it IS possible to avoid these foods.
There’s an argument over reformulate or regulate— but there’s no guarantee that people will eat the reformulated less hyper palatable option. Hall gives an example of chicken nuggets with fiber added and less salt… you can see the right wing headlines already…
But you know… health at every size…. High BMIs (flawed though they are) increase risk of cancers. This isn’t new news. This is a meta-analysis (study of studies) so caution is warranted.
The obesity drugs are dividing the fapobo people. Between those who want to be able to wipe their own ass and those who think bidets should be everywhere… She’s proud that she can't wipe her own bottom. This YouTuber highlights a woman who has left the fabopo movement and is taking an obesity drug (for 8 months now) and is happy she can wipe her own bottom.
Bidets are not cheap. Amazon lists them at over $500… which is a lot of toilet paper. And is it better for the environment? If water is scarce, then I’m thinking no. That was a discussion over the disposable diapers. If land is plentiful but water is not (aka the US west), then disposables might be the more environmental choice. In the east where water is generally plentiful but land is not, “natural” might be better. For the record, I always did disposables whether we lived out west or back east.
So in the comments under the YouTube video (yes, I braved the comments) someone noted that berating someone for dieting was like berating a drinking buddy who got sober. I never thought of that before, but I actually think it’s a good analogy. Of course, fat activists (or FaBoPo supporters, but really FaBoPo my own term that no one ever uses) will disagree.