Wednesday, May 27, 2009

17 - Overblown

Wednesday, May 20th was not a slow news day. That day, the missing person case of Victoria Stafford became a homicide investigation. But alas, newspaper editors had to find their stories the day prior, so on that day the front page of The Toronto Star led with the headline “The Incredible Shrinking Man.” [i] the story had actually been about an incredibly shrinking man, it might have warranted the great big font. But the story was only about Toronto mayor David Miller having dropped 50lbs and—shockingly—still being recognizable to 16 out of 20 people

Let me first just address this “still recognizable” thing. No one at a height of 6’3” becomes unrecognizable for dropping 50lbs. I’m 5’5” and I wouldn’t become unrecognizable if I dropped 50lbs. I’m pretty sure people that knew me 50lbs ago are still finding it pretty easy to pick me out in a crowd. I’m going to venture a guess that anyone who found it that difficult to identify the man after his weight loss probably didn’t vote in our last municipal election—for shame!

I’d also love to know who in the hell ran this survey. Who bothered to ask this question? Were there people running in the streets when Miller’s first “after” shot hit the internet asking “who is that and what has he done with my mayor?!” The whole idea of surveying people sounds a bit desperate. I’m all for the printed word, but if this is what journalists are coming up with, the death knell for newspapers just got a little louder.

The comments on the article were an interesting mix. Most of the posters simply voiced frustration with Miller as a mayor. Some of his detractors found ways to use the weight loss as a mildly funny means to get their point across about the job he’s doing (i.e. “maybe he’ll shrink into nothing and The City of Toronto will have shed 230 pounds of distruction [sic];” “must be all that hot air he expels”). And then there were the (sadly) expected digs at fat people in general because the issue of weight has been brought up at all. One poster suggested that there must be a lot of fat people posting since people were actually angry about the article. Another poster urged the rest of us “tubbies” to follow Miller’s lead.

When I finished raging over the “fat attacks,” there were two comments that stuck out for me. One echoed the first question that popped into my head when I saw the article—“slow news day?” The other rounded out what I was thinking by calling this “Paris Hilton journalism.” Well said.

I think it’s abhorrent that the weight of every celebrity is continuously monitored by the media. Unless one’s profession is an athletic one, no one’s weight should be worthy of mention. But I still expect, and frankly accept, that I’m going to see this sort of thing on the covers of People, US and any other magazine meant for mass consumption by, primarily, women. I wouldn’t even really be surprised if I saw something like this on the cover of a more tabloid-like daily like The Toronto Sun. But I always thought of The Toronto Star as a somewhat respectable paper. Perhaps not the most committed to hard journalism but still a reasonable read. And then they pull a front page like this.

I’m pretty sure there were still people dying in Darfur on May 19 before the paper went to print. There was probably something pertinent to say about the conflicts in Afghanistan or Iraq on May 19. Now some people feel that the future of newspaper is in keeping it local. Fine, let’s keep it local. Weren’t there still some pretty important talks going on between GM and the CAW on the evening of on May 19? Well, I have to admit, that story did make the news, but obviously it wasn’t front page worthy. But David Miller’s shrinking waist line and continued familiarity to the masses (sort of) apparently was.

In 2008, The Toronto Star was still the most read paper in the CMA (census metropolitan area) of Toronto with a total weekly readership of 49%[ii]. While I’m not in agreement with all of the comment posters, it does represent a segment of people actually questioning the relevance of the news they’re reading. I wonder though, how big is that segment? If even half of that 49% don’t question the fact that someone’s weight loss is front page news in a city like Toronto, that’s troubling to me. It’s troubling to me that there is conceivably this great number of people who think that David Miller’s morning runs, bagged lunches, Quarter Pounder with cheese boycott and subsequent weight loss is actually news.

Maybe I’m being censorial about this. Maybe all news is created equal, but I can’t say I believe that. I just don’t agree with semi-respectable newspapers implying that someone’s last weigh-in should be given the same space as wars, elections and economic melt-downs. I’m not okay with the implication that we should be monitoring David Miller’s weight loss as an electorate, rather than his policies. And I’m not okay with the increasing number of editors who feed the misconception that weight loss is something to congratulate people about, like they’ve just done something to secure world peace. Ultimately, I’m not okay with the idea that we should be worried about anyone’s weight except our own.

The “after” shot of David Miller was taken at a cities environment summit in Korea and while news of what was actually discussed at the summit did make into The Toronto Star the next day, I fail to understand why they felt the need to lead the day prior with a “wow, the mayor looks great” article. And if they just had to do the “wow, the mayor looks great” article could they not have buried it on page E4?

I’d love to hear what you think. Is weight loss news? Should it be news? Am I too sensitive to this because of my weight? While I love your e-mails, you can comment anonymously on the blog and then everyone can have the benefit of your thoughts which, I think, you’d all enjoy. So, over to you.




[i]The online version of the story was entitled “The Skinny on Mayor Miller’s weight loss.”

[ii]2008 NADbank Readership Study – check it out at http://www.cna-acj.ca/en/system/files/Press%20Release%200708%20NADbank%20Study.pdf

Wednesday, May 20, 2009

16 - BMI Begone!

For some time now, I’ve wanted to talk about the Body Mass Index (BMI), and last week a little nugget fell into my lap. I stumbled across an article in MacLean’s about a new measure being proposed by some obesity experts. Enter the Edmonton Obesity Staging System. What this measure does (that the BMI cannot) is take into account that not every obese person is at equal risk for weight-related diseases, even at the same BMI. In fact, it even allows for the novel idea that an obese person might be relatively healthy.

In the article, the following example is used to demonstrate how the same BMI means different things for different people: “Two people…One is a young woman, aged 24, who seems relatively healthy and plays soccer on weekends. The other is a large 32-year old man who suffers from hypertension and sleep apnea. The woman is five foot five, about 190lbs; the man is six feet tall, 265lb…both are ‘obese’ with a Body Mass Index of 30 or more.”

As the article goes on to explain, it doesn’t take much to ascertain that the only thing that these two people share is a BMI. Any potential medical intervention is going to look very different in each case and using the same approach for two people with such different lifestyles and symptoms would be silly. However, many practitioners are without a sensible guide and have only the BMI and its attendant diagnoses at their disposal when dealing with obese patients.

It seems like a measure as unrelated to specific information as the BMI leaves much to be desired. Yet, in a Frontline diet documentary mentioned in my third post, a nutritionist, going on host Stephen Talbot’s BMI alone, lists off (with a straight face) an array of horrible health risk factors: heart disease, stroke, osteo-arthritis, high cholesterol, adult onset diabetes and some types of cancer. The good doctor planned to check Talbot’s cholesterol and to do a blood glucose test to ensure that he wasn’t “already diabetic,” but all of her declarations were based on just his BMI. At 5’11’ and 210lbs, Talbot had a BMI of 29, which put him in the overweight category, edging dangerously close to obesity. Ironically, he hadn’t considered himself overweight at all prior to that day.

I’d like to believe that most nutritionists would run a few more tests before declaring that you were about to contract any number of terrifying diseases. It’s telling, though, that this nutritionist talked about using the BMI “a lot more” these days and seemed content to be seen on television making a lot of conclusions based on that information alone. I’m left wondering, if Talbot had been a naturally thinner man, with deceptively high metabolism and a normal range BMI, would the good doctor have bothered to ensure that he wasn’t “already diabetic?”

I have a great family doctor who doesn’t treat me like my size is the only thing that defines me. Knowing my 30+ BMI full well, she refers to me as “not that overweight.” Not every overweight person is blessed with a doctor like mine though; a system like this is a great way to begin and facilitate conversation between patients and doctors, so that interventions are tailored to the individual in question. Clearly the one-size-fits-all-BMI approach hasn’t worked thus far—this new kind of thinking is long overdue. My favorite quote in the article, from Dr. Arya of the Canadian Obesity Network, highlights something that I think we all know, but that most people don’t like to admit: “Size is health in many people’s minds, but it shouldn’t be.”

I’ll second that emotion.

To read the full MacLean’s article, click here. For more information on the Edmonton Obesity Staging System, check out Dr. Sharma’s blog.

Tuesday, May 12, 2009

15 - Freedom of Space

I ride public transit everywhere. I didn’t even learn how to drive until the age of 30, making me one of those terrible overly cautious (and thus somewhat dangerous) drivers. But I’ve always been vaguely offended by the cost of owning a car anyway. Also, without public transit I’d probably regress into illiteracy; most everything I’ve read in the past 15 years has been read while traveling on a bus or subway. I actually find it hard to read at home at all.

Having sung the praises of the service, however, I’m not always a fan of transit. Waiting for buses in the winter sucks and it’s not uncommon for transit vehicles to smell bad in the summer time. In addition, I can assure you that no one with a major psychological issue in this city owns a car. And there’s a reason that the 300 Blue Night is called the Vomit Comet. But my last beef is the issue of space.

Seats on public transit vehicles are really not made for people my size. I don’t tend to ride in rush hour so this is (thankfully) not an everyday issue for me. I’m often able to get what I consider prime seating on my bus to work—one of the four single seats on the left hand wall. And if the subway isn’t too busy, most (sane) people will observe appropriate spacing—meaning, in a row of three seats the middle one will be left open and you only sit in the open spot of a two-seater if there are no other reasonable options. This allows people like me to have a portion of their ass taking up part of the next seat. Regular sized folks put bags, dogs, children and other sundries there from what I’ve observed.

But when it’s busy, it’s a whole different story. If I’m stuck on the outside of a two-seater, about a quarter of my body will likely be hanging out into the aisle. If I’m on the inside seat, I’m folded up like a contortionist trying to avoid inappropriately touching my neighbor. As for a three-seater, if there are already two occupants, only enormously extenuating circumstances will make me sit (i.e. spontaneous conception or my leg suddenly breaking all on its own). Which brings me to a story.

The other day I was on a rush-ish hour bus that was required to take on the disgorged passengers of an out-of-service vehicle. This newly, exceptionally crowded bus was going to be nuisance enough, but then this dude gets on—and he’s huge. Not just overweight, but just an impossibly large man. I look at him in dread because I know the seat next to me is the best one left. I hold my breath a bit, anticipating being squished into the wall, his thigh melding with my own, as the two of us compete for too little space.

And then it happens. He manages to not only sit next to me, but to pass the entire remainder of the ride, without ever touching me. At all. If it wouldn’t have remanded me to the ranks of the insane, I would have thanked him—thanked him for understanding that we all want space, no matter how big we are and how the small the space is. I wanted to thank him for respecting my space even in rush hour. I wanted to thank him for understanding the hierarchy of seat comfort based on first arrival.

This strange happening got me thinking about personal space in the public realm and one’s right to it. In North American culture there is a bubble of personal space that we all strive to maintain. Only in very specific contexts do we give that space up, like crowded vehicles or schools or Black Friday sales. It’s why, when a dude sits in the seat next to you on an empty bus, you move the hell away toute suite. But the bigger you are, the bigger your bubble and I wondered to myself, did I forfeit the right to my personal space bubble when I got a little too big for one seat? And if that’s the case, is that fair or right?

Ironically, as a fat gal, I tend to walk around trying consciously not to take up too much space for the simple reason that I don’t want to be reminded of how much actual space I take up. There are days when I don’t even want to be seen, let alone felt to be encroaching on someone else’s space based on my size. It makes me wonder, did the man on that rush hour bus keep from touching me out of consideration, or was he just trying not to take up too much space that day? Maybe he just didn’t want to be seen or felt either.

I used to love air travel as a kid. As an adult who’s watched too many episodes of Seconds from Disaster and Mayday, I know too much to enjoy it much anymore. Also, my hips are becoming too wide for the standard airplane seat. Before every flight that I take, I send up a small prayer that the seat next to me will be either empty or occupied by someone insanely thin so that my time of terror in the skies will, at least, be comfortable.

So of course, after all this thinking about how much I attempt not to take up any space, I couldn’t help but think about people who want to take up more space than anyone should need. Now don’t get me wrong, I’ve seen some large folks who have zero qualms about taking up all kinds of space, but, in my experience, I see this propensity for being downright weird about the issue displayed most often by thin people. Maybe it’s just because, despite the “epidemic of obesity,” there are more average size people than any other kind. Whatever the reason, this seems to be the state of things. Some examples that come to mind: people who cross their legs (in any variety of ways) on public transit, as if the aisle was some sort of lounge area rather than a through way; the dudes (it’s always dudes) who sit with their legs two feet apart; the huge purse girls and the backpack boys; and the dreaded “SUV-baby-carriage” people*. These people appear to function with the idea that they are not only entitled to the space that they need, but to as much space as they might possibly want. I go about with the feeling like I should be grateful that I’m allowed to take up as much space as I do, and maybe, in light of these people, I’m being overly grateful. On the other hand, if everyone were as grateful as I am, public transit would be a lot more pleasant for all of us.

*Credit to the editor for that one.