So, I read the article–I mean, the actual scientific journal article–upon which the news articles have been based. (Some of you may be able to access it here.)
You may recall that the general understanding of the research is that genetically obese people would have to exercise three to four hours a day in order to be “normal.” See, for instance, Kate Harding, who says
Seriously. Just exercise moderately for three to four hours a day, and you won’t be fat! LIKE MAGIC.
which is no knock on her. That’s what the news article seems to imply.
But, let us look at the actual wording of the journal article:
Activity levels in the “high-activity” stratum were approximately 900 kcal higher than in the “low-activity” stratum, which, depending on body size, corresponds to about 3 to 4 hours of moderately intensive physical activity, such as brisk walking, house cleaning, or gardening. Although this seems to be a large amount of physical activity, the OOA demonstrate that this level of activity was typical of an agrarian lifestyle without modern machinery. Of course, our cross-sectional study is unsuited to determine the amount of activity required to negate the effect of an FTO-related genetic predisposition to weight gain; however, in a retrospective analysis in which weight regain was measured as a function of physical activity energy expenditure, Schoeller et al found that the addition of 80 min/d of moderate activity or 35 min/d of vigorous activity to a sedentary lifestyle was sufficient for weight maintenance. Prospective intervention studies will be necessary to define these parameters more accurately. [Emphasis mine.]
May I repeat?
Of course, our cross-sectional study is unsuited to determine the amount of activity required to negate the effect of an FTO-related genetic predisposition to weight gain;
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. Oh, fuck me, that’s rich.
The best part? Remember how we were all supposed to believe that we should all be living like the Amish because the Amish have no Fatty McFattersons (though, I suppose being German, they’d be Fattick McFattersons)?
Well? Not so much.
A total of 704 subjects with both physical activity and genotype data were included in our analyses. The mean (SD) age was 43.6 (3.4) years, and the sample included slightly more men than women (53% vs 47%). The mean BMI was higher in women (27.8) than in men (25.7). The prevalence of overweight and obesity in OOA men was 54.0% and 10.1%, respectively, and in OOA women was 63.7% and 30.5%, respectively.
Tiny Cat Pants 
I hope Rachel will clarify if I’m wrong, but I believe what that study is saying is that there were among the OOA, no non-fat Amish women. So much for using the Amish lifestyle as a diet.
I can’t access the article. But it must state clearly somewhere whether the study includes “obesity” as a subset of “overweight” or consider sthem two discrete categories. If “obesity” is a subset, then slightly more than a third of OOA women are not “overweight.”
Well, we need Rachel to make heads or tails of it because I can’t.
Why, yes, today at Tiny Cat Pant is “Make my readers do all my work day.”
Clearly, you need a librarian signal equivalent of the cooter signal. :) *off to check out article*
Okay, this is a really tough paper, and so I’m less confident of my reading than I would be with something that’s purely clinical, but I’ll give it a go (that’s my disclaimer that I may, but hope I don’t, eff it up).
First, overweight is not a subset of obesity. If you look at Table 1, they’re using the current standard definitions of overweight as BMI ≥25 but <30, and obese as BMI ≥30. So overweight is one range less than and not including obesity. So for those of the AA type, Amish lifestyle or no, fully 91% were either overweight or obese. It’s less for for the AG and GG types (~75 and ~72), and the study indicates that there is some association between overweight & obesity and having the AA type.
They then go on to suggest that for those with the AA type, having high levels of physical activity seems to reduce that association between genetics and being overweight/obese. This is not as true for the AG and GG types. So, one of these groups is more likely to be overweight/obese, but seems to get some/more benefit from high levels of physical activity making them less likely on average to be overweight/obese. Clear as mud?
The inference here, though, is that even with a strenuous lifestyle (by modern standards) and an enhanced ability to benefit in terms of weight loss from that high level of activity, those with the genetic marker for obesity really are obese or overweight 91% of the time.
So, please, let’s stop having these blamey conversations about “well, being fat is a valid choice, but it is a choice and if you just really wanted to take the necessary steps, you too could be thin.” If you blamed women with the BRCA mutation for giving themselves breast or ovarian cancer, you’d be one heartless motherfucker. So just stop with the “everybody can be thin if they just had the discipline to commit to it.” Healthier, maybe. Thinner, maybe not.
Right, bridgett – it may be a less modern/more strenuous lifestyle, but it’s not preventing 70-90% of them from being overweight/obese.
Healthier, maybe. Thinner, maybe not.
That’s always been my thing. I think everybody ought to strive to be healthier. Personally, I’d rather weigh 800 lbs and be fit as a fiddle than to weigh 120 and be in poor health.
If we’re going to push people towards a goal, make it health not body shape.
I want to read the article but can’t. I’m curious, though. Does it address the Amish directly? Does OOA mean “Old Order Amish” and if so, are they using that term as a blanket term for all Amish from various sects or are they specifically studying only members of the Old Order branch of the Amish?
Because there are about 1350 different sects of Amish–many of which have a different genetic makeup because they come from different parts of Europe.
“Study participants were members of the OOA community in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania” – with OOA being Old Order Amish.
Thanks, Rachel.
That’s an AWFULLY narrow band to study. Not only are they a pretty limited genetic group, but they’re also so geographically limited as to affect the type of activity they get.
I imagine the study would also be affected by the fact that the women don’t use birth control and are often pregnant or nursing for the majority of their fertile years. How’s THAT going to skew a weight study?
I know I’m not a doctor but it just seems a little off to me to use such a limited scope of subjects to draw wide conclusions on.
Geek alert — Kat touched on something that is important to understand about studies such as these in general. The reasons that scientists would see the OOA as a great group to study (small number, geographically limited and proximate to some major research centers, all doing relatively the same type of work and eating similar foods and living similar lifestyles, closely related to one another so that it makes it easier to study genetic markers, not likely to get up and move away during the duration of the study) — that is to say, their unrepresentativeness — is the reason that case study research cannot be easily used to draw conclusions in a general population who will share few of these characteristics. Of course, the general conclusion is what sells newspapers.
I think everybody ought to strive to be taller, but some people have other ideas. Go figure.
Must be nice to have a choice.
The other thread on this subject mentions ableism over and over and over again; I was expecting to have a bit of a break from ableism in this thread as a result.
What bridgett said. They were chosen for genetic study precisely because they are so similar to one another (but not necessarily the general population) in many ways.
I think everybody ought to strive to be taller, but some people have other ideas. Go figure.
Is there a need to be such an incredible asshole? Really?
If you want to strive to be less healthy, I’m not going to stand in your way, so chill out a bit. If you really think everybody should strive to be taller, then I’m not gonna crawl all over you about it, even though I don’t think people can control their height.
Must be nice to have a choice.
Actually, I don’t have a choice, but I do have a preference.
The other thread on this subject mentions ableism over and over and over again; I was expecting to have a bit of a break from ableism in this thread as a result.
Nothing in my comment is ableist. I challenge you to find anything that is.
“I think everybody ought to strive to be whiter.”
“I think everybody ought to strive to be maler.”
“I think everybody ought to strive to be straighter.”
lauredhel, you’re not doing a service to your movement for justice when you assume that people are always willfully trying to be unjust. Why not actually try to show people what it is you think is wrong with what they are saying instead of continuing to hurl labels or comparisons to labels? Build bridges rather than digging ditches.
Also, you assume to know lots about what dolphin, or anyone’s, definition of “healthy” is. I’m not convinced that he has some static notion that all people must fit into or that he wouldn’t allow for significant human variation. In fact, he’s actually defending a position that allows for more variation among bodies and health.
I – having done some work in disabilities studies – am not even sure what you’re objecting to exactly. One guess would be that people with some chronic disorders cannot always improve their health and yet one person said “everybody ought to strive.” But still, many people with chronic illness do strive manage their pain and suffering, and I think that would be sufficient for dolphin. Of course, he can disagree all he wants, if I am wrong.
Not one of those statements appears in any comment I’ve made (nor they even remotely analogous to any statement in any comment I’ve made), and not one of those comments is ableist. I don’t think you have a very good grasp of what the word “abelism” means.
Aunt B.,
I’ve got to join everyone in agreeing that you have the strangest trolls.
Professor, you’re spot on in understanding what I was trying to say.
All right. Lauredhel is not a troll, but a long-time, though infrequent commenter.
And though I love raucous comment-threads as much as the next person, please, let’s keep in mind how much this subject sucks for a lot of us. People don’t get the healthcare they need because of the kinds of attitudes doctors have towards fat people. I know I’ve avoided the doctor because I didn’t want to hear yet another lecture about how fat I am. And I now know I’ve had an undiagnosed condition for most of my reproductive life because doctors assumed that my fat was a sign of my just not trying hard enough and not a symptom of something.
Having to prove that you’re trying hard enough to be normal in order to be recognized as deserving basic stuff is ridiculous. It’s just be annoying for me, but it’s actually harmful for other people.
And we do have in the other thread someone carrying on at length about how exercising three or four hours a day is perfectly reasonable, just because she can do it; not keeping in mind that most everyone else cannot.
So, I’m not lecturing anyone in particular, but I just want folks to keep in mind that there are a lot of high stakes for a lot of people in these discussions and for us all to take a step back and come at this again from a place of understanding.
it’s like bizarro world for me to see Lauredhel and Dolphin having such a strong disagreement because I know y’all are on the same side.
Well, I’m certainly willing to come at it from a different angle, but I’m not sure what exactly I said that was offensive to lauredhel. I recognize that on touchy subjects sometimes something meant innocently enough can come across as horrifically offensive to a listener more sensitive to the subject at hand, but (in my opinion) lauredhel hasn’t expressed what I said that she interpretted differently than I had intended and has instead simply launched a bizarre attack against me out of nowhere.
Well. Not entirely out of nowhere. I know you fairly well and I know what you meant and that you meant it in the way the prof clarified. But I must admit my first thought on seeing “everybody…strive…healthy” is to freak out and say “easy for you to say”. Being suddenly chronically ill and disabled can give a person (I.e. Me) a chip on her shoulder.
Pingback: When You Know The Chip On Your Shoulder Is Out Of Hand « Just Another Pretty Farce
I’ve tried to come back to this thread quite a few times, but failed each time – my irritation hasn’t faded and just isn’t going to fade, because as someone with a stigmatised disability I live this every day, and it’s not going away. And the followups about being a touchy, oversensitive asshole who is bad for disability activism doesn’t particularly help (seriously, take out disabied and substitute feminist (or antiracist, or whatever) – ring any bells?)
I can’t become healthier any more than someone who is black can become white, or anyone who is trans can become cis, or a duck can become a swan. Yet people think I “should”. People think I “ought”. If I’m not “striving” every second of every day, I’m a failure – I haven’t lived up to expectations.
If I strove the way society thinks I should, I would never do anything else. Instead, this is my life, and it’s a worthwhile one, and I’m living it. Furthermore, it’s the only one I’ve got. Constantly wishing I had some other one, spending all my energy and money and concentration and will into pursuing a life that doesn’t exist and can’t exist, means I don’t get to live this life.
And when I call people I know out their healthist generalisations, they typically respond “Oh, well, when I said “everybody”, obviously I didn’t mean you!!” Um, way to make me invisible. Glad to know that, for you, I’m not included in the human race.
Aunt B said it better than I could on this reformulation. No-one has a right to tell me what I “ought” to do about my health, no one has a right to instruct me on what I “should” do to become “healthier”. The attitude of people who do believe they do have that right or that knowledge does me damage. There is no “water off a duck’s back” opportunity here, because these attitudes do affect me, materially, in ways that surround me and threaten me, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.
tl;dr: Constant moral judgement, typically based on able-bodied privilege that disappears people like me, gets pretty wearying.
I can’t become healthier any more than someone who is black can become white
Actually you can and you are. I assume that you got out of bed to type this and if not, and you’re writing it from bed on a laptop, you’re still engaging your mind and interacting socially and standing up for something you believe in. That’s ALL healthy behavior. The only way I can think that somebody couldn’t make any decision that would be healthier than another is if they were in a coma and could make no decisions at all.
Secondly, you are a hypocrite of epic proportions. You don’t think I have any right to suggest what others SHOULD do, but in saying so you are asserting your right to suggest what I SHOULD NOT do. You are a hypocrite.