<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/1.5.1-alpha" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Different paths to the same goal</title>
	<link>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/10/23/6223/</link>
	<description>Just another WordPress weblog</description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 22:39:39 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.1-alpha</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: junk science</title>
		<link>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/10/23/6223/#comment-461608</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Oct 2007 02:44:06 +0100</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/10/23/6223/#comment-461608</guid>
					<description>&lt;i&gt;they talked about split brain patients and how your left brain will just make shit up to explain the right brain’s behavior. (Or maybe the other way around, can’t remember.)&lt;/i&gt;

I remember that study. The researcher would flash a command to the right brain to stand up and walk out of the room, and when the patient obeyed, the researcher would ask them why they just got up, and they would say &quot;To get a Coke.&quot; That was what finally convinced me consciousness is a lie, we don't have souls, and there's no god. It was awesome.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p><i>they talked about split brain patients and how your left brain will just make shit up to explain the right brain’s behavior. (Or maybe the other way around, can’t remember.)</i></p>
	<p>I remember that study. The researcher would flash a command to the right brain to stand up and walk out of the room, and when the patient obeyed, the researcher would ask them why they just got up, and they would say &#8220;To get a Coke.&#8221; That was what finally convinced me consciousness is a lie, we don&#8217;t have souls, and there&#8217;s no god. It was awesome.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: yugenue</title>
		<link>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/10/23/6223/#comment-461515</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Oct 2007 20:50:31 +0100</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/10/23/6223/#comment-461515</guid>
					<description>FWIW, there are a couple of insights available into this discussion from other blogs.  First off, on Sandy Szwarc's Junk Food Science, there is a &lt;a href=&quot;http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2007/10/junkfood-science-exclusive-big-one.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt; two &lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2007/10/jfs-exclusive-part-two-of-countrys.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt; part &lt;/a&gt; post that relates the results of a large, federally-funded, but somehow unpublicized study that basically found no health differences between people eating a &quot;healthy&quot; diet vs a regular unrestricted diet--no statistically significant difference WRT breast cancer, colon cancer, heart disease, strokes... or weight loss:

&quot;These findings could, and hopefully will, relieve guilt and anxiety for hundreds of millions of women worried that what they eat could be to blame for their cancers or their chances for survival. Similarly, a recent clinical trial showed that eating gobs of fruits and vegetables doesn’t affect cancer recurrence. All foods can be enjoyed and shared as pleasureable nourishment of body and soul, rather than toxins or cures.

&quot;The WHI trial data showed a few other points that may help women feel less worried. Other things that made no difference in risks for the invasive cancers between the dieters and control group included: diabetes; dietary fats, grains, or fruits and vegetables intake (in separate analyses); physical activity (from less than 1.5 to more than 14.8 METS/week); and BMI. Yes, despite all of the fears about body weights, incidences of invasive cancers were not significantly different among women who were fat (in the “overweight,” “obese” and even “morbidly obese” medical categories).&quot;

And as an example of how prevalent and harmful anti-fat prejudice can be, even among &quot;liberal&quot; &quot;feminists,&quot; check out &lt;a href=&quot;http://bitchphd.blogspot.com/2007/10/i-am-so-sorry-sarah.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this post&lt;/a&gt; on Bitch PhD's blog.  I heart Bitch PhD, but when a fat woman who is a *triathlete*gets &lt;a href=&quot;http://kateharding.net/2007/10/22/guest-blogger-sarah-why-the-fat-girl-on-a-bike-blog-is-going-on-hiatus/
&quot;&gt;shamed into silence&lt;/a&gt;  by a *feminist* blog's commenters, for the &quot;crime&quot; of being fat and athletic and in public... well, something is wrong.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>FWIW, there are a couple of insights available into this discussion from other blogs.  First off, on Sandy Szwarc&#8217;s Junk Food Science, there is a <a href="http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2007/10/junkfood-science-exclusive-big-one.html" rel="nofollow"> two </a> <a href="http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2007/10/jfs-exclusive-part-two-of-countrys.html" rel="nofollow"> part </a> post that relates the results of a large, federally-funded, but somehow unpublicized study that basically found no health differences between people eating a &#8220;healthy&#8221; diet vs a regular unrestricted diet&#8211;no statistically significant difference WRT breast cancer, colon cancer, heart disease, strokes&#8230; or weight loss:</p>
	<p>&#8220;These findings could, and hopefully will, relieve guilt and anxiety for hundreds of millions of women worried that what they eat could be to blame for their cancers or their chances for survival. Similarly, a recent clinical trial showed that eating gobs of fruits and vegetables doesn’t affect cancer recurrence. All foods can be enjoyed and shared as pleasureable nourishment of body and soul, rather than toxins or cures.</p>
	<p>&#8220;The WHI trial data showed a few other points that may help women feel less worried. Other things that made no difference in risks for the invasive cancers between the dieters and control group included: diabetes; dietary fats, grains, or fruits and vegetables intake (in separate analyses); physical activity (from less than 1.5 to more than 14.8 METS/week); and BMI. Yes, despite all of the fears about body weights, incidences of invasive cancers were not significantly different among women who were fat (in the “overweight,” “obese” and even “morbidly obese” medical categories).&#8221;</p>
	<p>And as an example of how prevalent and harmful anti-fat prejudice can be, even among &#8220;liberal&#8221; &#8220;feminists,&#8221; check out <a href="http://bitchphd.blogspot.com/2007/10/i-am-so-sorry-sarah.html" rel="nofollow">this post</a> on Bitch PhD&#8217;s blog.  I heart Bitch PhD, but when a fat woman who is a *triathlete*gets <a href="http://kateharding.net/2007/10/22/guest-blogger-sarah-why-the-fat-girl-on-a-bike-blog-is-going-on-hiatus/<br />
">shamed into silence</a>  by a *feminist* blog&#8217;s commenters, for the &#8220;crime&#8221; of being fat and athletic and in public&#8230; well, something is wrong.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Sniper</title>
		<link>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/10/23/6223/#comment-461492</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Oct 2007 19:25:47 +0100</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/10/23/6223/#comment-461492</guid>
					<description>&lt;i&gt;Is it asking too much to consider them before going back for that second piece of pie? &lt;/i&gt;

Jesus Christ. Where are the bunnies?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p><i>Is it asking too much to consider them before going back for that second piece of pie? </i></p>
	<p>Jesus Christ. Where are the bunnies?
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: G.L.Horton</title>
		<link>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/10/23/6223/#comment-461486</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Oct 2007 19:01:36 +0100</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/10/23/6223/#comment-461486</guid>
					<description>
I have fought weight all my life.  My parents' pediatrician put me on diet pills when I was nine.  I once weighted over 200 lbs.   But I've kept my weight &quot;reasonably plump&quot; more often than &quot;obese&quot; and since I had a knee problem in my fifties I've not allowed it to creep up at all.  How?  A modified Atkins: no starch, no sugar,  lots of fiber and vegetable protein. (yeah, boring tofu)  My narcissism and obsession is reinforced by my husband's diabetes-- controlled by strict Atkins, subject to heaven knows what side effects if he has to go back onto medication.  So the research and shopping and cooking and nagging are for both our benefit.  I want to be able to continue to dance and play tennis and ride my bike-- and I want him to be alive and not blind or missing his toes.  But it is so so hard!  Read the labels in the grocery-- everything, including stuff labeled &quot;diet&quot; and &quot;healthy&quot;-- has corn syrup and food starch!  Things that were once ok -- low fat yoghurt -- have been going up in carbs as the manufacturers add &quot;texture&quot;, while still marketing it as &quot;healthy&quot;!  WHY should tomato soup have 40 carbs per serving-- more than my day's allowance!-- when canned tomatoes have only 7?  You can't buy canned or frozen cranberries that aren't drenched in sugar, yet the sales pitch insists that they are &quot;good for you&quot;.  Well, no.  Nothing with added sugar is good for you: it is addictive and screws up your metabolism.  When Atkins was popular, a fad, there were prepared and party foods available and social eating was easier. It's not easy now. I'm no fun at parties.  The only thing I can be reasonably sure is not sugar-or-starch laden is the cheese, and half the time that's spread on forbidden crackers.  Social bonding through feasting is one of the most pleasurable activities there is, reinforced through group approval and the release of brain-altering chemicals.  What kind of antisocial whacko have I become, turning birthday parties and weddings and cast parties into willpower wrestling matches?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>I have fought weight all my life.  My parents&#8217; pediatrician put me on diet pills when I was nine.  I once weighted over 200 lbs.   But I&#8217;ve kept my weight &#8220;reasonably plump&#8221; more often than &#8220;obese&#8221; and since I had a knee problem in my fifties I&#8217;ve not allowed it to creep up at all.  How?  A modified Atkins: no starch, no sugar,  lots of fiber and vegetable protein. (yeah, boring tofu)  My narcissism and obsession is reinforced by my husband&#8217;s diabetes&#8211; controlled by strict Atkins, subject to heaven knows what side effects if he has to go back onto medication.  So the research and shopping and cooking and nagging are for both our benefit.  I want to be able to continue to dance and play tennis and ride my bike&#8211; and I want him to be alive and not blind or missing his toes.  But it is so so hard!  Read the labels in the grocery&#8211; everything, including stuff labeled &#8220;diet&#8221; and &#8220;healthy&#8221;&#8211; has corn syrup and food starch!  Things that were once ok &#8212; low fat yoghurt &#8212; have been going up in carbs as the manufacturers add &#8220;texture&#8221;, while still marketing it as &#8220;healthy&#8221;!  WHY should tomato soup have 40 carbs per serving&#8211; more than my day&#8217;s allowance!&#8211; when canned tomatoes have only 7?  You can&#8217;t buy canned or frozen cranberries that aren&#8217;t drenched in sugar, yet the sales pitch insists that they are &#8220;good for you&#8221;.  Well, no.  Nothing with added sugar is good for you: it is addictive and screws up your metabolism.  When Atkins was popular, a fad, there were prepared and party foods available and social eating was easier. It&#8217;s not easy now. I&#8217;m no fun at parties.  The only thing I can be reasonably sure is not sugar-or-starch laden is the cheese, and half the time that&#8217;s spread on forbidden crackers.  Social bonding through feasting is one of the most pleasurable activities there is, reinforced through group approval and the release of brain-altering chemicals.  What kind of antisocial whacko have I become, turning birthday parties and weddings and cast parties into willpower wrestling matches?
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: pablo</title>
		<link>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/10/23/6223/#comment-461479</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Oct 2007 18:29:37 +0100</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/10/23/6223/#comment-461479</guid>
					<description>Ms. Kate- While i applaud the Washington State law, it is hardly a panacea.  It simply mandates the formation of committees, and while we all know that forming committees instantly solves the problem addressed, i still have a couple of issues with it.  While it provides a financial incentive in the for of reduced worker's comp rates to hospitals that implement such programs, it does not mandate increased funds to public hospitals for the extra staff and equipment they'll require.  Conspicuously absent is any mention of EMTs(i used to be one). There are typically 2 EMTs to an ambulance and they have to carry obese patients down stairs. in peoples' homes where there is little access to specialized lifting equipment.  Is it asking too much to consider them before going back for that second piece of pie?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Ms. Kate- While i applaud the Washington State law, it is hardly a panacea.  It simply mandates the formation of committees, and while we all know that forming committees instantly solves the problem addressed, i still have a couple of issues with it.  While it provides a financial incentive in the for of reduced worker&#8217;s comp rates to hospitals that implement such programs, it does not mandate increased funds to public hospitals for the extra staff and equipment they&#8217;ll require.  Conspicuously absent is any mention of EMTs(i used to be one). There are typically 2 EMTs to an ambulance and they have to carry obese patients down stairs. in peoples&#8217; homes where there is little access to specialized lifting equipment.  Is it asking too much to consider them before going back for that second piece of pie?
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: anony</title>
		<link>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/10/23/6223/#comment-461236</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Oct 2007 09:55:53 +0100</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/10/23/6223/#comment-461236</guid>
					<description>carovee:
&lt;i&gt;In the last thread most people seemed to agree that having personal experience with something generally made one more compassionate to others going through the same thing, but maybe this is not as true as we would like.&lt;/i&gt;

Maybe it's more likely to be true for those who lean left (and maybe it's part of the reason we do lean left). I'm thinking of the article about right to lifers getting abortions, or all the recent GOP scandals...I don't know. People are weird and seem amazingly able to rationalize things when they want to. I attended a lecture a few weeks back on neuroscience and the law where they talked about split brain patients and how your left brain will just make shit up to explain the right brain's behavior. (Or maybe the other way around, can't remember.) We are weird creatures.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>carovee:<br />
<i>In the last thread most people seemed to agree that having personal experience with something generally made one more compassionate to others going through the same thing, but maybe this is not as true as we would like.</i></p>
	<p>Maybe it&#8217;s more likely to be true for those who lean left (and maybe it&#8217;s part of the reason we do lean left). I&#8217;m thinking of the article about right to lifers getting abortions, or all the recent GOP scandals&#8230;I don&#8217;t know. People are weird and seem amazingly able to rationalize things when they want to. I attended a lecture a few weeks back on neuroscience and the law where they talked about split brain patients and how your left brain will just make shit up to explain the right brain&#8217;s behavior. (Or maybe the other way around, can&#8217;t remember.) We are weird creatures.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Sniper</title>
		<link>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/10/23/6223/#comment-461231</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Oct 2007 09:19:26 +0100</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/10/23/6223/#comment-461231</guid>
					<description>&lt;i&gt; am curious as to how much of the anti-fat prejudice has to do with past associations of fat with upper-class wealthy people who were perceived as having plentiful food supplies and the leisure time to not have to undergo strenuous manual labor. &lt;/i&gt;

Actually, in the U.S. fat hatred is yet another form of class warfare against the poor and anyone who doens't live up to the &quot;fit&quot; (upper-middle class, thin, white, well-dressed) ideal. There is some pretty good research to suggest that &quot;obesity&quot; (a bullshit term, but that's another rant) is related to periods of food scarcity. Sometimes food scarcity is the result of societal pressure (dieting) and sometimes it's because there's just no money for food. I know a lot of kids who eat two meals a day - both at school.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p><i> am curious as to how much of the anti-fat prejudice has to do with past associations of fat with upper-class wealthy people who were perceived as having plentiful food supplies and the leisure time to not have to undergo strenuous manual labor. </i></p>
	<p>Actually, in the U.S. fat hatred is yet another form of class warfare against the poor and anyone who doens&#8217;t live up to the &#8220;fit&#8221; (upper-middle class, thin, white, well-dressed) ideal. There is some pretty good research to suggest that &#8220;obesity&#8221; (a bullshit term, but that&#8217;s another rant) is related to periods of food scarcity. Sometimes food scarcity is the result of societal pressure (dieting) and sometimes it&#8217;s because there&#8217;s just no money for food. I know a lot of kids who eat two meals a day - both at school.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Elaine Vigneault</title>
		<link>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/10/23/6223/#comment-461227</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Oct 2007 08:24:36 +0100</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/10/23/6223/#comment-461227</guid>
					<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;In my mind, the more convincing argument for fat acceptance has always been that—it’s not mine to tell you what kind of food to put in your mouth, or to dictate to you what your pleasures are.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

The trouble with these arguments is that they ignore the very real pressure from advertising/marketing/publicity to eat this or smoke that. It shifts the blame of dangerous foods and habits from the creator of those dangerous foods and habits to the consumer. 

Fat acceptance shouldn't come with a pass for the cigarette and fast food marketing gurus. And it shouldn't come as a justification for ignoring our neighbor's health and wellbeing. 

Not saying that's what you're implying; just pointing out that's something we need to be careful of. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<blockquote><p>In my mind, the more convincing argument for fat acceptance has always been that—it’s not mine to tell you what kind of food to put in your mouth, or to dictate to you what your pleasures are.</p></blockquote>
	<p>The trouble with these arguments is that they ignore the very real pressure from advertising/marketing/publicity to eat this or smoke that. It shifts the blame of dangerous foods and habits from the creator of those dangerous foods and habits to the consumer. </p>
	<p>Fat acceptance shouldn&#8217;t come with a pass for the cigarette and fast food marketing gurus. And it shouldn&#8217;t come as a justification for ignoring our neighbor&#8217;s health and wellbeing. </p>
	<p>Not saying that&#8217;s what you&#8217;re implying; just pointing out that&#8217;s something we need to be careful of.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: jon</title>
		<link>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/10/23/6223/#comment-461223</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Oct 2007 07:45:04 +0100</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/10/23/6223/#comment-461223</guid>
					<description>Being fat is related to diet, exercise, a supposed lack of affordable healthy food, a conspiracy of statisticians or agribusiness interests, genetics, environment, possibly even vaccinations, as well as salt intake, school districts, home builders, immoral behavior, sexual stereotypes, and the fact that even our dogs have become lazy.  And a whole lot of individual choices.  And depression.  And bad math skills.

But no matter what the cause of obesity is, the one thing many if not most will admit to opining is that it is unattractive.  That's the drive behind the rudeness and discrimination.  Not a valid reason for someone to be an asshole, but it's the starting point.  (And I say it's the rude person's views that stoke their inability to not be rude, so lay off the idea that I'm blaming fat people for their discrimination!)

And when I'm at a bar having a beer or three it's not the time to be judging someone's allegedly unhealthy lifestyle.  Healthy people come in all (maybe not all, but damn near most) sizes, and loads of unhealthy people don't display any outward signs of disease at all.  But, to me and many others, attractive people are in a much narrower range of sizes.

Fat people are of the Other that appear across all the different racial, class, and even political demographics.  They are vibrant and hardworking, lazy and obnoxious, the butt of jokes and the writers of great comedy, healthy and on the edge of death.  Kind of like everybody else.  They just don't tend to be that attractive.



</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Being fat is related to diet, exercise, a supposed lack of affordable healthy food, a conspiracy of statisticians or agribusiness interests, genetics, environment, possibly even vaccinations, as well as salt intake, school districts, home builders, immoral behavior, sexual stereotypes, and the fact that even our dogs have become lazy.  And a whole lot of individual choices.  And depression.  And bad math skills.</p>
	<p>But no matter what the cause of obesity is, the one thing many if not most will admit to opining is that it is unattractive.  That&#8217;s the drive behind the rudeness and discrimination.  Not a valid reason for someone to be an asshole, but it&#8217;s the starting point.  (And I say it&#8217;s the rude person&#8217;s views that stoke their inability to not be rude, so lay off the idea that I&#8217;m blaming fat people for their discrimination!)</p>
	<p>And when I&#8217;m at a bar having a beer or three it&#8217;s not the time to be judging someone&#8217;s allegedly unhealthy lifestyle.  Healthy people come in all (maybe not all, but damn near most) sizes, and loads of unhealthy people don&#8217;t display any outward signs of disease at all.  But, to me and many others, attractive people are in a much narrower range of sizes.</p>
	<p>Fat people are of the Other that appear across all the different racial, class, and even political demographics.  They are vibrant and hardworking, lazy and obnoxious, the butt of jokes and the writers of great comedy, healthy and on the edge of death.  Kind of like everybody else.  They just don&#8217;t tend to be that attractive.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Godless Heathen</title>
		<link>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/10/23/6223/#comment-461222</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Oct 2007 07:24:21 +0100</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/10/23/6223/#comment-461222</guid>
					<description>The problem with taking that framing route is that most people are pretty screwed up about food and almost &lt;i&gt;do&lt;/i&gt; think it should be a crime to eat.  Women especially are expected to talk about what a meal is going to do to their thighs, hips, and ass.  Everyone is counting calories, fat grams, fiber grams, and carbs; advocating that people just eat the damn food without analyzing it under a microscope is almost blasphemy.

There's this idea that fat people shouldn't get to sit around &quot;eating whatever they want&quot;, probably because they think nobody should ever &quot;eat whatever they want&quot;.  We've stopped trusting ourselves to eat what our bodies are hungry for and to listen to our appetites to find out what we're lacking in our diets.  Fat people end up paying for everyone's food issues.

&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8dm5VpYGH4&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Joy Nash has another Fat Rant about &quot;compulsive eating&quot;&lt;/a&gt; that's just too delicious to pass up.  Really illustrates how dumb it is to beat yourself up  over something your body needs you to do every day.  I love that woman.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>The problem with taking that framing route is that most people are pretty screwed up about food and almost <i>do</i> think it should be a crime to eat.  Women especially are expected to talk about what a meal is going to do to their thighs, hips, and ass.  Everyone is counting calories, fat grams, fiber grams, and carbs; advocating that people just eat the damn food without analyzing it under a microscope is almost blasphemy.</p>
	<p>There&#8217;s this idea that fat people shouldn&#8217;t get to sit around &#8220;eating whatever they want&#8221;, probably because they think nobody should ever &#8220;eat whatever they want&#8221;.  We&#8217;ve stopped trusting ourselves to eat what our bodies are hungry for and to listen to our appetites to find out what we&#8217;re lacking in our diets.  Fat people end up paying for everyone&#8217;s food issues.</p>
	<p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8dm5VpYGH4" rel="nofollow">Joy Nash has another Fat Rant about &#8220;compulsive eating&#8221;</a> that&#8217;s just too delicious to pass up.  Really illustrates how dumb it is to beat yourself up  over something your body needs you to do every day.  I love that woman.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
