[TW: counting calories]

I apologize in advance; this is long.

I’m not even going to frame this in the “thin privilege is…” format, because, I think the only way to do so would be to state the obvious: thin privilege is not being subject to the following sorts of discrimination.

So let’s call a spade a spade shall we? This is fat discrimination. Period.

First, this article in The Atlantic discusses the Obama administration’s new measure requiring that restaurants list the calorie counts on menus. Now, you can feel however you want to feel about this particular action (I happen to be grateful for the information but that’s me). That does not mean, however, that you get to imply, however subtly, that fat people are just ignorant people who can’t keep their mouths shut. Take a look at the excerpt below. It’s from the implications section of the article, you know, the part that is supposed to keenly and shrewdly break down this new measure for us from the perspective of this author so that we might consider something that might never have occurred to us had a person, so well-versed in the matter, not discussed it with us. It’s supposed to be the section that carefully considers nuance.

Nuance my ass.

IMPLICATIONS: Most people eating at these restaurants were obese, and most underestimated how many calories they were actually taking in. So, maybe calorie-counts on menus are a good thing. The researchers also discuss Subway’s branding as a sort of “health halo” of which to be wary.Of course, calorie count isn’t the only measure of foods’ healthfulness – a Most people eating at these restaurants were obese, and most underestimated how many calories they were actually taking in. So, maybe calorie-counts on menus are a good thing. The researchers also discuss Subway’s branding as a sort of “health halo” of which to be wary.Of course, calorie count isn’t the only measure of foods’ healthfulness – a 230-calorie veggie sub is better than 230 calories worth of jelly donut – it’s just the only measure in this study. A footnote: 41 people were excluded from the study as outliers because their meals exceeded 4000 calories.

All that that says to me is that maybe us silly fat people would eat better (and, thus, be less fat) if only we knew what we were eating, which is a dumb fucking assumption considering that who said that the “obese people” in the article were the same people underestimating their calories???? By definition, most just means one more than half and since the article used most twice, the only logically sound conclusion that sentence can come to is that at least one fat person underestimates his/her calories. And look, maybe some of us would be slightly smaller if we constantly and accurately counted calories, but 1) that’s exhausting 2) that’s unnecessary 3) that’s a recipe for disaster, and 4) way to try to shame us into it. I’m confused by this entire section as it doesn’t present anything that isn’t completely asinine so I really don’t understand why we’re calling this section “implications.” As if it took an “expert” to let us (any of us, not just us fat fat fatties) know that a veggie sub is probably a better food choice than a jelly donut. Oh and don’t get me started on that italicized bit.

Secondly, this article in The Wall Street Journal is about a couple who could potentially change the philanthropic world, by donating not only to those causes which seem to be the most pressing, but also have a clear-cut game plan for attacking their problem of choice. The article also discusses the implications (there’s that word again) of this approach to philanthropy and whether or not it is right. I’ll leave that all for you to decide, but can we step back for a second and focus on the fact that this couple, with all of the money in the world, wanting to effect change, chooses to make their first cause why people get fat???? As if AIDS or world hunger or food insecurity or racism or sexism or public education are just so passe.

The man was intrigued by Taubes’s theories on why people get fat […] The Arnolds want to see if they can use their money to solve some of the country’s biggest problems through data analysis and science, with an unsentimental focus on results and an aversion to feel-good projects—the success of which can’t be quantified. No topic is too ambitious: Along with obesity, the Arnolds plan to dig into criminal justice and pension reform, among others. […] Today, the Laura and John Arnold Foundation is bankrolling a $26 million nutrition study by Attia’s nonprofit, an effort that involves the use of metabolic chambers and that Attia likes to call “the Manhattan Project of obesity.”

Of course, no one in the article is saying it, but the clear implication (that word again) of this study would be: now that we know why people get fat, how do we stop it from happening and/or reverse it permanently once it has happened. That means, this man, spent $26 million of his own money to change us, because how we look is so offensive to those around us that it deserves to be studied and fixed much the way that we ought to study and fix the problems in the criminal justice system and with pensions.

I’m just… I’m done. I just LOVE how people will fight tooth and nail to talk about how fat discrimination is not a thing and about how people don’t subconsciously hold these views that other fat people, but what else is it but othering when you commission million-dollar studies to figure out why we look the way we look? What is it but othering when you italicize words in your article as if to imply shock and disbelief that someone could eat so much (and, presumably, be so fat)? What is it but othering when your “implications” do nothing more than equate fat people with those who are too ignorant to know what they’re eating?

Mod add: Great post. I’d also like to point out that in the “implications” section quoted above, there’s no reference to whether thin people similarly underestimated their caloric intake. This is something I see in “fat and food” studies a lot, this begging of the question of whether the behaviors being noted in fat people (underestimating caloric intake and overestimating exercise) are also present in thin people. Let’s do a little thought experiment, just a simple logic chain: The people who diet the most are naturally fat people. Most diets teach participants to count calories (and/or carbs, and/or fat grams). Therefore it stands to logic that naturally fat people would do a whole lot better than naturally thin people at knowing the calorie counts of foods. -ATL