Thursday, January 31, 2008

I need someone who's better at math than I am for this:

Ok, I've been wondering about this for quite a while so I did some research. I just can't figure out how to use the numbers I found to make sense for the thought I had.
I've been trying to figure out how the number of overweight/obese people in 1960 relates to the number of overweight/obese people in 2000 (and the growth thereof) as far as population and its growth is concerned.
So here are the numbers I found:
% of population overweight/obese by year:
1961-1962 : 44.8%
1971-1974 : 47.7%
1976-1980 : 47.4%
1986-1994 : 56%
2001-2004 : 66%

US population by decade
1960 : 179.3 million (80.3 million overweight/obese)
1970 : 203.3 Million (96.9 million o/o)
1980 : 226.5 million (107.3 million o/o)
1990 : 248.7 million (139.2 million o/o)
2000 : 281.4 million (185.7 million o/o)

Where I get confused is by the following numbers* that I came up with:

1960-1970 : population increased by 24 million, o/o increased by 16 million
1970-1980 : population increased by 23 million, o/o increased by 11 million
1980-1990 : population increased by 22 million, o/o increased by 22 million
1990-2000 : population increased by 33 million, o/o increased by 46 million (but if you take into consideration that the standard for o/o was lowered in 1998 so that 35 million became o/o overnight, then the increase for o/o between 1990-2000 was actually only 11 million). ETA: I didn't see the footnote** that said they used BMI over 25 for ALL years for counting overweight/obese people in the population. So, they went back and made people fat retroactively (I thought I had read somewhere that the overweight/obesity rate for people back in the 60's was 1 in 4, or 25%, not 44.8%, so that's why they're saying NOW that more people were fat back then than they were saying back THEN were fat, if that makes sense). No wonder this epidemic is manufactured, they keep changing the rules on us, not just today, but for 10 years ago, 20 years ago, 30 years ago, 40 years ago.
**(until a troll pointed it out to me and told me what a fathead, stupid woman I was and that I should stick to eating and leave the math to people smarter than fat old me. Hey, I'm old and my eyes don't always see the really fine print anymore, even with glasses. After it was pointed out to me, I had to go back and magnify the page to 150% so I could see the footnote number and then actually read the footnote.)
Now, I'm seeing this as actually showing that the rates of obesity aren't increasing as rapidly as the population, except for the period from 1980 to 1990. So, if there actually was an obesity epidemic, wouldn't that mean that the rates of obesity should be increasing more rapidly than the population?
Am I reaching an erroneous conclusion here? I've never had a statistics class, so I'm not sure if I'm figuring things correctly or jumping to a conclusion.
Any opinions?

*numbers are rounded
CDC link for % overweight/obese by year
link for population by decade

Feeling fat may be worse for you than being fat...DUH!

Researchers who looked at a nationally representative group of more than 170,000 US adults found the difference actual weight and perceived ideal weight was a better indicator of mental and physical health than body mass index (BMI).

"The obesity 'epidemic' might have a lot more to do with our collective preoccupation with obesity than obesity itself," the study's lead author, Dr. Peter Muennig of Columbia University in New York City, told Reuters Health. "We still need to focus on healthy diet and exercise as public health officials, but we need to take fatness out of the equation. Were we to stop looking at body fat as a problem, the problem may well disappear."

Well, no kidding. Fat is not the problem, it's people's obsession with it (by people, I mean MSM, the diet industry, big pharma, and the medical community, who have made it an obsession for the rest of the world).
Some researchers have suggested that stress due to stigmatization could be a factor in the health problems obese people have, such as high blood pressure and diabetes, he and his colleagues note in the March issue of the American Journal of Public Health.

Stress? Stigmatization? Yeah, there's that, all right. (I don't know that stress can be a cause of diabetes or high blood pressure, but it certainly does make it worse if you already have those or have other risks for them besides weight.)
When the researchers used statistical techniques to control for the influence of age and body mass index, they found that the more dissatisfied a person was with his or her weight, the more "bad days" he or she had. The relationship was strongest in non-Hispanic whites and women.

This is really a no-brainer. Why the hell did it take so long for someone to get a clue and say "We really need to research this and get the word out there that obsessing about fat can be worse than being fat, as far as health is concerned"?
As far as how many bad days a month a person has, depending on how much weight they need to lose, I think the people who participated were under-reporting the number of bad days they had (not knowing how the questions were worded, and what constituted a bad day leaves a lot to be desired, IMO). Women who thought they needed to lose 1% of their weight had .1 more bad days, and women who thought they needed to lose 20% of their weight had 4.3 more bad days a month than women who were happy with their weight. Didn't say how many bad days a month women who were happy with their weight had, so we really don't have a good basis for comparison here. How many bad days did women who were happy with their weight have? I would think that a lot of this is subjective, depending on how well your day goes in other areas of your life (how easy was it to get the kids up and off to school, did you have an argument with a co-worker or your boss, did you get cut off in traffic, etc, etc as well as did you get nasty comments from passers-by/co-workers/doctors/etc about your weight on that day). Did they control just for feelings about weight?
Women experience more stigma for being fat than men, and excess weight may be less acceptable among white people than among African-Americans or Hispanics, the researchers note.

Ya think? That's all I can say, really.
In a study now under review, Muennig said his group found that being overweight doesn't increase mortality in ethnic groups that are more accepting of heavy people. "For instance, African-Americans as a group experience almost no excess mortality, even for women who are 5'5" and 250 pounds," he noted in an e-mail interview.

But that's coming to an end, folks. The diet industry/big pharma/medical community are hungry for more dollars so those of you who aren't white are the next targets of the OMG OBESITY EPIDEMIC hysteria. They're starting to work on you right now (witness Queen Latifah shilling for Jenny Craig).
"There needs to be a realization among public health officials and medical professionals that the messages we are giving the public could be doing more harm than good," Muennig said.

Really? It's about damned time someone figured this out. Now if doctors would just believe it and start to practice in earnest "First, do no harm" by seeing us as people instead of walking blobs of fat.

Tuesday, January 29, 2008

I can't believe I've been doing it wrong all these years!

Nuff said!

Breast size linked to diabetes risk

Young women with larger breasts may be at a higher risk of diabetes in adulthood, a Canadian study suggests.

The study, published in the Jan. 29 issue of the Canadian Medical Association Journal, found the larger a woman's bra cup size is at age 20, the greater her risk of developing Type 2 diabetes later in life.

Well, well, well. Did y'all know that fat women have big boobs and that correlates to a bigger risk of diabetes? And it's your cup size in your younger years that correlates, the bigger your boobs, the higher the risk for diabetes in your later years.
They found the age-adjusted risk of developing Type 2 diabetes was two times higher for a B cup, four times higher for a C cup and five times higher for a D cup or larger than for women with the smallest cup size.

After adjusting for conventional risk factors such as family history, diet and exercise, they found the risk to be 1.3 times higher for women with a B cup at 20 compared to women who wore an A cup. For women with C and D cups, the risk was found to be 1.7 and 1.6 times higher respectively.

I want to know how they decided the initial risk was 5 times higher for a D cup or larger, and then adjusted it down to 1.6 times? Notice that the risk for a C cup is 1.7 times higher, and a D cup is 1.6 times higher when it was originally 4 and 5 times higher, respectively. This makes me think that something is wrong with their data or how they analyzed it.
The study also suggests that women with the largest cup sizes develop diabetes on average about two years earlier, at age 44, than those with the smallest cup size, at 46 years.

That means, according to the article, that since I was a C/D cup in my teens and 20's, I had a 1.6 higher risk of being diagnosed with diabetes in my 40's (since they took out all the other risk factors, such as a family history of diabetes, etc). I'm in my 50's and still not diabetic. Hmmm, does correlation is not causation ring a bell for anyone?
What about fat women who were an A/B cup in their teens/20's and now have bigger boobs? What about fat women who were an A/B cup back then and still are? This just smacks to me of another reason to make women feel bad about their bodies. Not only is fat around your waist going to cause diabetes, now it's big boobs too? How many times does it have to be said "CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION!".
He said follow-up research is planned to see if breast reduction surgery causes any change in insulin resistance.

I don't know how they're planning on doing a study for this, since I don't know how many women have breast reductions every year, how many of them have other risk factors for diabetes, or would be willing to participate in a study. I have a feeling the number is too small to be statistically significant.
Doctors question whether large breasts carry particular risks or whether it is another sign of being overweight, a risk factor for the disease.

Dr. Thomas Ransom, an endocrinologist with Halifax's Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre says bra cup sizes are a marker of obesity.

Dr. Ransom has obviously never seen a fat woman with small breasts, has he?
"It's not so much the big breast size of itself, but I think women who are overweight or obese should be concerned. And this is just another marker," he told CBC News. "It sort of correlates and it's really not a surprise."

Yep, it all comes to back to TEH FATZ, as usual.

Monday, January 28, 2008

Rachel and Monique on The Morning Show rocked!!!!!

Man, rabidRoth spews the same old shit, there's nothing new, and it's inaccurate to boot. Did y'all know that 800 people a day die from TEH FATZ? That's 292,000 fat people a year dying just because they're fat. Ummmm, excuse me, bitch, but even the CDC lowered the number to less than 30,000 deaths a year from obesity. If you're going to quote statistics, the least you can do is get them right. She also said that fat acceptance wasn't a problem, since by 2015, 75% of the population is going to be fat. She said that if the headline in the NYT had been "Thin and Healthy is Acceptable", there would have been an outraged uproar over it. Ummm, what planet are you living on? Aren't we bombarded every fucking day of our lives with the fact that thin is healthy, beautiful, desirable, etc, etc, etc and that TEH FATZ is deadly, ugly, stupid, gluttonous, lazy, etc, etc, etc? If it's so fucking acceptable to be fat in this world, I sure as hell haven't seen it much. The really sad thing about rabidRoth? She doesn't see the garbage she's spewing as hatred, it's for our health, and "think of the children's health".
That doctor wasn't any better. If your BMI is over 30, even if you're fit and healthy, you are still automatically at risk of diseases that are going to kill you (I don't think she understands that "risk" doesn't automatically mean you're going to get any of those diseases). And her eating advice is a crock of shit. Don't eat white bread, white rice, potatoes, sugar (yeah, cut out whole groups of foods so that you start to obsess about what you can't have and your body might need so you end up binging on it, that sounds so healthy.....NOT), get lots of sleep or TEH CORTISOL is going to pack on the pounds. Not "get enough sleep so you are energized and refreshed" but "get enough sleep so you don't get OMG FAT". Don't drink your calories, but she didn't get a chance to elaborate on what she meant by that.
Rachel and Monique ruled!! Rachel made some awesome points about the BMI standard for overweight and obese being lowered 10 years ago, and that she's healthier now than she was when she was at her so-called normal weight. Monique was great when she talked about treating fat people with respect just because we're human, and that being shamed and ridiculed does nothing for us but discourage us (why jog, if that's what you like to do, when people are going to yell at you and throw garbage at you like happened to one of the women who posted on BFD).
They were TEH AWESOME at interrupting rabidRoth, and for once, she didn't get to spew as much hate and inaccurate information as she usually does.
I didn't take notes while I was watching this, so there's probably a few things I forgot to mention. For a very short segment, Rachel and Monique, you did wonderfully well and I'm so glad you both were able to do this.

Sunday, January 27, 2008

Catherine's Stout Shoppe, anyone?

Ok, I was going through my boxes of patterns last week, scanning them all so I can upload them to flickr and maybe sell some of them (or all of them, since none of them really fit me and I'm tired of altering patterns), and I found this newspaper clipping of an ad for Catherine's. Tells you how fucking old I am, I can actually remember when Catherine's was called Catherine's Stout Shoppe. I couldn't afford to shop there back then, but I remember going in and looking at the clothes and being so happy that there was a store that had clothes that would fit me, even though I couldn't afford them (and probably wouldn't have worn them, even if I could have afforded them, since they were more the styles that my grandmother would have worn). It's funny, but looking back at that, I don't even remember if I was offended that they called it Stout Shoppe. Granted, it's not what I would have called a store for fat women's clothing, but I never thought of "stout" as being a pejorative word for a woman's size (stout says to me sturdy, strong, capable).
A friend of mine (and she was not fat) and I were talking about opening a store for plus-size women in our town (this was in like, 1978 or 1979, I think). We had gone so far as researching suppliers, looking for a storefront, writing up a business proposal, thinking up a name (Large N' Lovely was the one we really liked), and going to the bank to see about financing. Neither of us had a lot of money to start up, we were hoping we could get bankrolled because we thought it was an idea whose time had come. Not according to the banks in our town. According to them, there weren't enough fat women with money to spend on clothes to make it a financially viable enterprise. I didn't understand their reasoning, not at all. After all, Catherine's was making money....right? Not to mention Lane Bryant and Roamann's.
A couple of years later, a lady I knew opened the store my friend and I had wanted to open. She called it BJ's (I had to get my mind out of the gutter every time I passed her store). Her grand opening was a fashion show, and I was one of the women she asked to model (I got to keep the dress I modeled too). It was fun, and she had a crowd of large women there that day. Her store was going strong when I moved out of town in 1983, but I don't know if her store is still in business today. It's been 10 years since I've been back to my home town, and I didn't have the time to drive through town and see what was still there and what had disappeared or changed.
Looking back at that ad, I think we've come a long way, as far as being able to find clothes that fit the majority of fat women. The styles, though, still leave a lot to be deisired in a lot of those stores. And we haven't come very far at all when you look at who is modeling the clothes for fat women. I don't know why Catherine's uses larger models now, they didn't back in the day, but I'm glad they do. I have a better idea how their clothes will look on me because they do use fat models.

Thursday, January 24, 2008

NYC passes law for calorie counts on menus

Passing a law to require calorie counts on menus isn't going to do a whole hell of a lot of good to end an obesity epidemic that really doesn't exist. Especially since it doesn't apply to every restaurant in the city. It only applies to those who have more than 15 locations nationwide. So all those local restaurants, that have one, or maybe two, locations don't have to do this. I'm sorry, if you're going to require this of fast food restaurants, I think it should be applied to every restaurant, no matter how many/few locations they have, across the board.
On the pro side, NYC Health Commissioner Thomas R. Frieden, obviously: "Obesity and diabetes are the only major health problems that are getting worse in New York City," he said Tuesday. "Today, the Board of Health passed a regulation that will help New Yorkers make healthier choices about what to eat; living longer, healthier lives as a result.

Ok, I have a couple of big problems with this. Obesity is not a health concern, it's not a disease, it's a variation on a body theme that people have little to no control over. They say it's to help people that are fat and/or diabetic. Well, I have news for them. Calorie counts don't do a whole hell of a lot to help diabetics control their blood sugar (and controlling blood sugar is what keeps diabetics from getting those nasty complications as quickly as they would if their blood sugar wasn't controlled). What diabetics need to see on menus are carb and fiber counts. I don't know about other fast food places, but McDonald's has all the nutrition information that you find on boxes in grocery stores on their boxes that food items come in (like french fries, McNuggets, chicken club sandwiches, etc). So if DH and I decide to eat at Mickey D's, we can look on the box and see how many carbs and how much fiber he's getting and know how his blood sugar is going to react to it. I don't give a rat's ass about how many calories are in what we're eating, I care about carbs and fiber. THAT'S what I want to see listed.
On the con side was NYRA spokesman Chuck Hunt, who noted: "It's been done in supermarkets for 13 years. Has it worked? Has obesity declined?"

Ummm, no, since this obesity hysteria is pretty much manufactured to sell more weight loss drugs/diets/surgery. You can put the information out there, and people will use it IF they think it's important to them.
Others called it nanny-state administration at its worst, or said consumers had the responsibility to use a little common sense when it came to their meal choices.

Since when is it a moral imperative that consumers have to use common sense when it comes to meal choices? Whose business is it what people eat? And just who in the hell gets to decide what common sense about meals is? Who sets up the standards and how the fuck are they going to enforce them? Police state? Yeah, riiiight. The government can't afford to repair/replace our deteriorating infrastructure, they can't afford to extend Medicare/Medicaid to all the poor people who really need it, but they can afford to enforce laws designed to regulate what we eat and how much we weigh and how healthy we are? Don't make me laugh.
I still say that every rat bastard out there who wants to force every fat person to lose weight needs to have their height, weight, and BMI published for the world to see. I want to know how many of those asshats are overweight and obese according to that damned BMI standard by which they hold the rest of the world accountable. Then I want to see them say that anyone who is overweight or obese, according to BMI, needs to diet or get WLS. How many of them would fall into that category and how loud would they be screaming if it was pushed on them and they were bombarded with all the fat hatred? How many of them would be saying "But I'm healthy, and I'm fit, so my overweight/obese BMI number doesn't really mean anything"? Sure, it doesn't mean anything for them personally, it just applies to everyone who isn't them.

Update on aging problems, a thank you to FA, and some news

Well, I had the ultrasound on Tuesday. They couldn't find my ovaries, not looking from the outside and not with the "dildocam" (I love that term). Evidently, menopause shrinks your ovaries, since they aren't working anymore. They did say my uterine lining is thin, which is good, and no fibroids, which is also good. I saw my doctor today for the endometrial biopsy and that was a bust (evidently I have cervical stenosis, which means the opening has shrunk enough that the 1 - 2 mm tool to get a sample wouldn't work). So now I get to see a gynecologist in Feb to see if he thinks I need a d&c or an MRI to figure out what's going on. Probably what will happen is that they'll want to wait and see if the bleeding recurs.
I also got weighed (lost another 4 1/2 lbs and I don't know how, I'm still not exercising any more than I have been for the last 3 or 4 months), and my blood pressure was a bit lower (it was 138/84 the last time I was in, this time it was 134/72). I asked if the weight loss could have started the bleeding, and the doctor said she didn't think so (maybe if I was 48, and had lost a lot of weight, and hadn't had a period in 6 months, but not at my age and not having had a period in 6 years). So now I get to wait a while longer to see what's going on, but I've decided it can't be too bad, no matter what the outcome because we're going to be catching it early if it is anything serious (doc thanked me for calling right away and having it checked, she said she was glad I hadn't waited).
And that's where the thank you to FA comes in. Y'all have helped me tremendously on this journey to loving my body, and part of loving it is taking care of it. Now, I will admit that, in the past, I have been lax about taking care of myself/my body. Part of that was because I was so damned sick and tired of hearing that all my problems were caused by TEH FATZ and if I would just lose weight, I would magically be healed of whatever ailed me. Part of it was probably due to the fact that I bought into the mantra that if you're fat, you don't deserve decent treatment, not from anyone else and not from yourself. Oh, outwardly, I told people to fuck off when they told me I was fat/ugly/stupid/worthless, but I internalized that hatred and did so many things to sabotage my self esteem and my health. I didn't fully realize that I was doing that until I found FA and then HAES. Y'all have opened my eyes, and my mind, to the fact that I don't have to be thin to deserve respect and I don't have to be thin to take care of myself. This body is the only one I'm ever going to have and I had better learn how to take care of it. That doesn't mean I have to be thin, it means I need to love me, ALL of me, and do what I know is best for me, no matter what size I am.
Now for the news. I got an email from FoxTV, asking if I would be interested in appearing on "The Morning Show with Mike and Juliet". Evidently my blog caught the eye of a talent assistant there, and they are looking for women like me with blogs to share our point of view with the world. Now, I don't watch TV in the morning unless DH has a day off work and is watching it, and I've never seen this particular show. Taking into consideration that it's FOX (with all that implies), the fact that DH works, is diabetic and squeamish about giving himself his insulin injections (I do those for him, and don't mind), I just couldn't figure out how I would be able to do something like this. I'm sorta kinda maybe flattered that they considered me, but I had to politely refuse. I did give her some recommendations of FA blogging ladies that I thought would do a great job, so if any of you are contacted by Fox, you can either blame me or thank me, depending on how you feel about the show and appearing on it. I don't know if this is good opportunity to get the word out about FA, I don't know what kind of viewership the program has, or how it will be treated (and I can guarantee you that if I decided to do the show, and they had MEMEMEME ROTH on there with me, they would have to tie me to the chair to keep me from decking that POS masquerading as a woman). Shades of Jerry

Monday, January 21, 2008

In the Fatosphere, Big is In, or at Least Accepted

Congratulations to Big Fat Deal, Fatgrrl, Shapely Prose, TheFWord, FatChicksRule, The Rotund, fatfu, RedNo3, and Feed Me. Ya'll made the New York Times.
The Harvard School of Public Health and Walter Willet are still just sure that the majority of fat people are fat because of their lifestyle. But he's been deluded about fat for a long time, and I think his mind is permanently closed (probably nailed and glued closed, at that). I must say, though, that his was the only negative part of the article and was refuted quite well by mention of studies that show fat can help heart patients and dialysis patients survive longer.
All in all, the article was a lot more fat-positive than I expected. Thumbs up to the NYT.

Tonight's episode of MTV's I'm Happy to Be Fat

I was pleasantly surprised tonight with this program. Roxie ruled with getting her club started, and I know the feeling of liking someone and waffling about "Should I ask him out/Should I wait for him to ask me out?" She had good answers when asked why she thought the club was a good addition to the campus, very well-thought out, very well-expressed.
Mike got his chubby chasers club going, but hasn't met anyone special yet. I thought he was a pretty neat guy, and will find someone in time. His nude calendar was pretty cool too, and the fact that he had the confidence to do that is awesome (I liked his comment that he didn't show "the jewels").
The only complaint I have was the way Sharonda was treated by her family, friends, and doctor. All of them have the idea that fat is deadly and automatically leads to diabetes and high blood pressure. Sharonda said she had more confidence at her current weight, and didn't really want to go back to being thinner. But she caved after seeing the doctor (the doctor said that overweight people are 10 times more likely to get TEH DIABETES AND DIE FROM IT, give me a break)and having her friend tell her that she doesn't want to see Sharonda die from something that could be prevented if she would just lose some weight. So now Sharonda is eating less and working out 5 days a week. She wants to lose 70 lbs by summer (she's currently at 320, and wants to get down to 250). I don't see anything wrong with working out if that makes you feel good and it's what you want to do. But to be pushed into it because OMG YOU HAVE TEH FAT AND IT'S GOING TO KILL YOU DEAD DEAD DEAD is just a crock of shit, IMO. And her friend who said Sharonda chose to be fat, so of course she's not going to be able to find cute clothes needs a swift kick in the ass. She spouted the same old cliche of eating 5 cheeseburgers at a time. Give me a break, you're using hyperbole there, and so what if someone does eat like that? Does that mean they have to stay in the house naked? Or wear tacky sackcloth and ashes to show how bad they are for being fat and not meeting YOUR expectations? I don't think so. With friends like you, darlin', Sharonda don't need no fucking enemies.
I wonder if MTV did the Sharonda section just to get in the expected TEH FATZ IS BAD rant to counter the fact that people can be fat, fit, and happy. If so, it ain't workin' with this fat woman. I know better, I don't buy into propaganda and hysteria anymore. There are other fat people out there who aren't buying it anymore either.

Saturday, January 19, 2008

Witt student to be featured on MTV's "True Life: I'm Happy to Be Fat"

I don't watch MTV, but this particular episode has me rethinking that. I'm wondering if they are going spin this into another one of those "she's nuts to think fat chicks are acceptable" shows, or are they actually going to let it be as fat-positive as it should be?
She became a "fat activist" and created the Body Beautiful Project, a new club at Witt that promotes size acceptance. With 25 members, the club is pushing for bigger desks on campus and would like to host an all-sizes fashion show.

Jessica Patton sounds like an awesome person to me and deserves to have this segment of the show treat her with respect, but I'm not counting on it. I do like what her college's director of multicultural student programs had to say though.
It's a natural fit at a liberal arts college, according to Forest Wortham, director of multicultural student programs.

"We have a group of young people that are taking a look at what's out there and they're not going to accept it," he said. "They're stepping back and saying they're going to be their own person."

I don't know how big this college is, but 25 members seems to be a pretty good start on getting the word out that size is just a number and not indicative of a person's worth or beauty. I think more colleges need Body Beautiful Project clubs on campus.

Friday, January 18, 2008

Problems never cease when you're aging

Ya know, I really thought things were looking up when I got that cortisone shot for my knee and the pain went away. Now I have an appointment for an abdominal ultrasound and then I have to go see the doctor after that. Why do I have to have the ultrasound? Because I've gone through menopause (and let me tell you, I was damned glad to see the end of periods and all that they entail) and up until last night, I haven't had a period in 6 years and haven't missed them at all (and I was lucky, my hot flashes, night sweats, and mood swings didn't last all that long). I started spotting last night, and today it's like a full-blown hiss. So I called the doctor's office and talked to her nurse, gave her the details, and she said she would talk to the doctor and call me back. When she called back, she said the doctor had set me up for the ultrasound, and when I see her she wants to do an endometrial (sp?) biopsy of my cervix. I don't know what they're looking for, or what the hell could be wrong, just that after six years with no periods, I definitely shouldn't be having one now. I don't know if I should be worried or not. I tried researching it online and can't find anything relating to my situation. Plenty of information about menopause (don't need that, been there done that), plenty of information about menstrual periods (don't need that, been there done that), no information about getting a period after going through menopause. Surely I'm not the only woman who has ever had this problem? I don't know if it could be a side effect of the cortisone shot, or a side effect of the 10 lbs I lost (and I think I might have lost more weight, my clothes are a little looser, but I'm not sure about that since I'm not dieting and I'm not doing a lot of exercise yet). My pap smear last year was normal, but I remember my mother always having abnormal ones and having to have some kind of freezing/burning procedure done to her cervix several times before they finally decided she needed a hysterectomy.
The other thing I'm worried about is how much good is it going to do to have an ultrasound? I mean, I have quite a bit of fat on my stomach around my waist, so is the ultrasound even going to be able to "see" anything inside me? I hate not knowing and having to wait until Tuesday for the ultrasound, and then I have to wait until Thursday to see the doctor and find out what's going on. I don't have a lot of patience when it comes to my health, I want to know what's wrong and I want to know now, dammit. The sooner I find out, the sooner we can work on fixing it, to my mind, anyway. Y'all keep your fingers crossed for me, kthnx.

Tuesday, January 15, 2008

WLS revision when it doesn't work - WTF!!1!

Ok, I read about this on one of the diabetes lists I belong to. It's a new type of surgery that's being done when the original WLS has failed (in that the patient lost a lot of weight, and then started gaining it back).
First off, what pisses me off is that the woman in question is being blamed for her surgery failing. She went from 269 to 175, and "with a little bit of soda here, and some snacks there, Squire started to gain some of her weight back, until she reached 186 pounds." She gained 11 fucking pounds and that's a reason to have this surgery? I don't care if it's supposedly safer than being cut open and mutilated, it's still mutilation, and in her case, it's further mutilation of an already mutilated stomach. How many times is she going to have this done? Every time she stops losing weight and regains 10 or 11 pounds? WTF are these people thinking?
Since the StomaphyX procedure is relatively new, there are no large-scale studies, or small ones for that matter, to show its long-term outcome, benefits or risks.

And "there won't be a study for a little while," Nguyen said.

But while the company is gathering outcome data from surgeons performing the procedure in the United States, experts believe that the procedure poses little to no risk to patients.

Where have we heard that before? No data on long-term effects, but we think it's safe so go ahead and do it. Yeah, right, I really believe you.....NOT!
The fact that someone came up with this gadget tells me that WLS doesn't work for a lot of people (gee, who woulda thunk it?) and doctors know it (and probably knew it all along). And like I said above, how many times are they going to be willing to do this revision? Because I would bet my last damned dollar that this lady will be back in a year or so to have it done again because she's regained whatever weight she loses the second time around. Now we don't just have yo-yo dieting, we have yo-yo WLS. Hooray for really fucking up our health, asshats.

What size are you - Really?

This sounds like a really good idea. Now, if they would just add all the plus sizes to it so we could tell if a Lane Bryant 4X is the same as a Liz & Me 4X is the same as a Cathy Daniels 4X (from experience, they aren't all the same). It's one of the main reasons I don't like shopping online, unless I've actually tried on the particular brand and know how it fits. I know I can wear a 4X in Liz & Me from Catherine's, I have a lot of them in my closet (bought in the store and online). But most Cathy Daniels tops are too short (for my taste, anyway) and the proportions are off on me. Lane Bryant, well, nothing in the stores I like, and the catalog, I haven't ordered from them because what's in their catalog isn't in their store, so I can't try before I buy. I'm not about to pay shipping and handling for something I can't wear and then have to pay shipping to exchange it for another size that may or may not fit.
And when it comes to jeans/slacks, forget it. Most of them, I need talls for the legs to be long enough, but when I buy talls, the waist in front hits me just under my bra band. Average length is too short in the legs, but the waist in front is still too high (I must have more ass than belly, because I can tell you the only way the waistband would hit me at my waist is if I was nine months preggers). Depending on brand, I wear anything from a size 26 to a 32, and going by the measurements on their charts doesn't do a whole lot of good (RightFit is a prime example of this, the chart says I'm a blue 10, but I ended up buying a blue 8 in average length since the talls were about 8 inches too long).
What I really wish would happen: Clothing designers/manufacturers would get together and say ok, a size 0 is this set of measurements, size 2 is this set, size 4 is this set, etc all the way up to whatever the largest size is (60 or however high they want to go) and these are going to be the measurements for every garment made from now on. And then the manufacturers need to get on QA's asses to make sure that the people who are doing the actual sewing aren't making the seams larger or smaller than designed (and this happens, I worked in a garment factory and saw it every time we were pushed to do more faster, quality goes down the drain when it's quantity that's demanded). But that's a dream world, sad to say.

Sunday, January 13, 2008

List of WLS complications

I recently found a group for people who have survived the complications of WLS and joined it. One of the emails I got today was the following list of complications:

Dehydration, Chronic Vomiting and Nausea, Stroke, Heart Attack,
Arrythmia, Kidney stones, Kidney Failure, Liver Failure, Anemia, Deficiencies (B-12,potassium, iron, B-1, B-6, etc.), Malabsorbtion of supplements
(calcium, minerals, nutrients from food), Blurred Vision, Muscle and
Bone Pain, Loss of Teeth, Bleeding Gums, Rotting Teeth Due to
Vomiting Requiring Root Canals, Hypoglycemia, Headaches, Black
outs/Seizures, Lactose Intolorant, Injury to Spleen during surgery,
Coma, Paralysis/Blindness after coma, Osteoporsis, Burst Pouch,
Lupus, Auto-Immune Disease, Looped Intestines, Ruptured Esophagus
from vomiting, Misfired Staper during surgery, Ulcers, Pneumonia/Lung
Problems, Arthritis, Weakness and Fatigue from Malnutrition, Overall
Pain, Metabolic Bone Disease, Food Blocking Stoma Causing Severe
Pain, Stoma Needing Stretched Repeatedly, Neuropathy, Beri Beri, Put
on Feeding Tubes/PICC Lines, Fibromyalgia, Chronic Fatigue,
Fistulas, Atrophy of Muscles, Hair Loss, Hernias, Blood Clots, Leaks,

Peritonitis, Heart Burn/Gerd/Acid Reflux, Bowel Obstructions,
Gallstones and Gallbladder Removal, Severe Depression, Anxiety, Loss
of Memory, Poor Concentration, Irregular Blood Pressure, Diahhrea,
Constipation, Opening Of Outer Incision-Needing Packing Until Healed
From The Inside Out, Insomnia/Sleep Disorders, Unforced Anorexia and
Bulemia, Gas, Silent Stroke, Vertigo, Malnutrition which is the caus
of many of the above problems, Many End Up Becoming Invalids, and
then there is death.

When I had my WLS 10 years ago, guess how many of these I was told about. Have you guessed it yet? NONE!!!!! Yeah, I was told about vomiting, but not that it could end up being a chronic thing (vomiting would happen only when I ate more than my itty bitty mutilated stomach could hold, or if what I ate wasn't chewed well enough). RIIIGHT...........lie to me some more, asshats.
I can guarantee you that if I had known ANY of these were possible complications, I might have had a lot of reservations about the surgery. I might not have had it, especially since the muscle and bone pain, arthritis, fibromyalgia, and neuropathy were things I already had BEFORE the WLS (and how much were they aggravated by having it?). Now I also have explosive diarhhea, depending on what I eat (if it's got milk in it, or it's fast food, I had better be right on top of a bathroom or I'll be taking a shower and changing clothes).
Unfortunately, it wasn't until about 8 months after I had the surgery (and was figuring out that it hadn't worked as advertised...duh!), that I got a computer and found the internet. And it was a couple of years before I got comfortable researching online, but by then, my WLS had failed, I was fatter than ever, and I didn't bother to check into all the problems I could be having because of it. I figured it had happened, I was at least smart enough to tell the doctor who wanted me to have it done again to fuck off, no way were they getting another chance to fuck me up even more than they already had, so why bother.
Then this last summer, after I got married and didn't have to work anymore, I had more online time than I've ever had and found FA. The more I learn from y'all, the madder I get at all the asshats who think that any risk(s) you have to take to get thin are worth it, just to be thin. Hindsight is definitely 20/20, and if I had known then what I know now, I'd have found other ways to deal with the arthritis in my knee (gee...why didn't my then-doctor recommend cortisone shots? 10 years of pain because she said it was my fucking fat making an arthritic knee hurt......what a fucking bitch she was). I'd have found other ways to deal with the back pain I have (and I'm thinking that the problems with my knee were contributing to the back thing). Ever since I got that cortisone shot, I've been able to walk through Wal-Mart for shopping instead of taking the electric you know how amazing that is for me? Yeah, I still have back pain if I have to stand still for any length of time, but I don't have much back pain when I'm walking, and for me, that is something totally new and different (and I love it, when the weather gets nicer, I'm going to try a walking regimen and see how it works). But of course, a lot of doctors tell you to just ignore the pain and exercise anyway. Yeah, doc, I'll do that when you're in just as much pain as I am and you exercise (and I can guarantee you that the pain I rate as 10 on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being worst, would be about a 15 or 20 on your scale). It's amazing how much pain you can tolerate when you have it every fucking day and no one will listen to you or give you anything for it (other than tylenol or ibuprofen or naproxen, which quit working if you take them all the damned time).
Sorry this has devolved into a rant, but it just makes me so freaking mad that doctors refuse to fully inform us of ALL the possible consequences, just because they are so focused on "fat is unhealthy, thin is healthy, no matter what".

Saturday, January 12, 2008

Lifetime's "Queen Sized"

Well, I watched this movie tonight and cried a lot. I thought it was pretty good, for the most part (yeah, the parts where she was upset or mad or hurt and went and ate will probably make fat-phobes think all fat people do that, but they think that already anyway). It was also a little predictable, but I don't know if that's because I'm older and have lived through a lot of the same crap so I could see where the movie was going and what was going to happen in future scenes. I did like the mother's co-worker and what she had to say about accepting oneself. And the store where Maggie shopped, and the owner's opinions about clothes (she said the average size for American women is 14, so you'd think manufacturers would make jeans that fit them) was totally awesome. There was a lot in there that advanced acceptance, not just fat acceptance, but for geeks and misfits of all kinds. And I thought the girl who was supposed to be homecoming queen and lost out (she voted for Maggie) was pretty neat too, there at the end, when she was talking about being seen only as the "pretty" girl and now people would have to see other things in her besides just the "pretty".
I'm thinking I really like Nikki Blonsky. I watched "Hairspray" the other night too, and thought it was pretty good. Yeah, I know some people have a problem with John Travolta in a fat suit, but I thought he did a pretty good job of it. There were a couple of scenes where it was pretty obvious that it was a fat suit, but there were also quite a few where he actually looked like a few fat women I've known, size and shape-wise. Again, there were scenes where food was used as comfort, stereotypical though it is, but it didn't seem to be for comic relief (and there was one scene where Edna was upset, went to eat something for consolation, and didn't. Not that that makes up for anything, but still......).
I think both of these movies ended up being pretty size-positive for the most part. Yeah, there were parts that could have been done better, but with the state of the OMGOBESITYEPIDEMIC!!!1!!!, the fact that they were done as well as they were is a good thing (to paraphrase Martha).

Friday, January 11, 2008

Body Mass Confusion

Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows the average American male in 1960 was 5 feet, 8 inches, 168 pounds. By 2002, he had grown up and out to 5 feet, 9 ½ inches and 191 pounds. Women added 1 inch and 24 pounds during the same period.

But guess what? While nearly every story written about obesity says that 1980 was the moment when America began getting fatter, the average American male in 1960 was overweight according to the BMI. He just didn't know it.

We just didn't know we were fat 48 years ago? Or it just wasn't as big a deal back then? And were we any less healthy at those OMG TEH FATZ weights? I don't know how big a business the weight loss industry was back in 1960, I was only 7 years old at the time, but I'm betting it wasn't nearly the behemoth then that it is now (and I do mean behemoth, the weight loss industry could stand to lose some of its lying, thieving, hysterical verbiage when it comes to fat and health).
Pushing back are people such as Sandy Szwarc, a registered nurse and food writer, whose blog Junkfood Science attacks the mainstream view that obesity is a looming health crisis. Critics of Szwarc, and others such as Paul Campos and Jon Robison, an adjunct professor at Michigan State, point to ties to the food industry and the restaurant lobby. But they also have data supporting some of their claims that BMI standards have no medical validity and are arbitrarily assigned.

They were quick to pounce on the methodology of a highly publicized CDC report in 2004 that blamed more than 400,000 deaths each year on obesity, which meant that weight rivaled smoking as a killer.

*edited to add that the above claim that Sandy Szwarc, Paul Campos, and Jon Robison have ties to the food industry and restaurant lobby is a claim from the quoted article and does not reflect my beliefs at all, neither is proof of these supposed ties given. When no proof is given, I assume it's a smear campaign to impugn someone's reputation (since the article is saying that those 3 people do have data supporting the fact that BMI standards have no medical validity and are arbitrarily assigned, and heaven forbid that anyone promoting OMGOBESITYEPIDEMIC hysteria should be proved wrong, the world might come to an end if BMI is proved to be a big fat fallacy).
Oh yeah, that statistic of 400,000 deaths a year from obesity is still quoted, even though it's been retracted and corrected to less than 30,000 a year. But if TEHFATZ isn't killing us off in those huge numbers, then people may not buy into the THIN-AT-ANY-PRICE mentality, and the diet industry/pharmaceutical industry/medical establishment would lose tons of money (and that couldn't happen to anyone better, IMHO).
More recently, the CDC issued a report suggesting those with BMIs between 25-30, that is to say overweight people, had lower mortality rates than people in the normal weight category. People who were classified as overweight had lower risk of a variety of diseases including Parkinson's and lung disease that counteracted their increased risk of heart disease, diabetes and some cancers.

The CDC is saying this, and MSM is ignoring it. Could it be that those types of headlines don't create enough hysteria to sell enough papers/advertising? Gee, follow the fucking money, and it seems pretty damned obvious to me that this whole OBESITY EPIDIMIC is nothing more than a scare tactic to get money out of our pockets and into the pockets of liars and thieves who could care less about our health.
Despite the bitter battle lines between the two groups, they agree on one thing: If you are out there, feeling remorse for the egg nog binge you went on in December, do not go to the Internet, find a BMI calculator and begin a crash diet that will, both sides agree, lead to an inexorable binge and eventual weight gain.

"Yo-yo dieting doesn't work," Brownell says. "At the individual level the only thing that works is to eat less and exercise more."

Ummm, Kelly, eat less/exercise more doesn't work either if you are a naturally fat person. If it worked, there would be a lot of formerly fat people who are now thin because they have eaten less and exercised more. You really need to pull your head out of your ass and get a fucking clue. Perpetuating myths like calories in/calories out makes most fat people fatter than if they had just not dieted at all (and I'm sorry, eat less/exercise more is a fucking diet, just like Weight Watchers, NutriSystem, Jenny Craig, and all the other liars out there). Not to mention all the doctors pushing WLS as a panacea. WLS should have to have "RESULTS NOT TYPICAL" branded across every ad for it in 1000 point type, because I can vouch for the fact that the very little bit of good it may possibly do is vastly out-weighed by the all of the complications it gives patients who are browbeaten/brainwashed into having it.

Thursday, January 10, 2008

Results from orthopedic doctor

Well, I'm back on the internets, and I hope there will be no more problems.
I went to see the orthopedic doctor on Tuesday. I printed out the papers on HAES with all the links, and wrote on the bottom that I had done diets and they didn't work, and had WLS and that didn't work, and I would not discuss weight loss as a cure for any ills. I handed that in with the paperwork I had to fill out for seeing a new doctor when I went for the appointment.
So, they sent me for x-rays (I hadn't had any done in 20 years, and those were in Illinois). Found out not only is the cartilage in my right knee almost totally gone, it's also very thin on the inside of my left knee (didn't know that, my left knee hasn't been giving me any problems). When the doctor came in with my x-rays, he showed me where the cartilage was thin, and gave me a couple of options. He could give me a shot of cortisone, and said that should help a lot with the pain for about 6 months. I guess they have to do cortisone shots first, and if those fail, then insurance may pay for a shot that's made from a rooster's comb. I told him that I had an appointment to check out Curves, to see what kind of exercise machines they had. He told me exercise could help, but it has to be low-impact, no stair-steppers. He never once mentioned my weight as being a problem. He did say that since both my parents have arthritis, and grandparents on both sides had it, that I was probably bound to get it too, and the injuries to my knee didn't help matters any, just started it earlier than it might have otherwise.
I said to go ahead with the cortisone shot, and dammers, am I ever glad I did. This is the first time in 20 years I've been totally pain-free in that knee. I still can't bend it enough to go down stairs like a normal person, but damned if I can't go upstairs like a normal person for a change. And I'm wondering how much my knee problems are contributing to my back problems. DH and I went to Wal-Mart the other day, looking for an ethernet card for my puter, and I actually walked from my van to the store, and through the store to the computer dept, and back out to the van without my back killing me. Then we went to Office Max and I walked there too, with no pain. If I had known years ago about the pain-killing properties of cortisone (or if my fucking asshole doctors had even bothered to suggest that instead of weight loss), I'd have been doing the shots back then.
Then on Wednesday, I went to check out Curves, and it looks like I might be able to afford it in a couple of months (have to get the budget worked out after all the money we had to spend on my puter, router, and ethernet card). Karen asked me what my goals were, why I wanted to do Curves, and I told her I wanted to be able to walk without pain, and to do stairs like a normal person for a change with no pain. I told her I didn't want any part of any diet talk, I didn't want to be weighed or measured, that if weight loss happens, it happens, but if it doesn't, that's fine too. I just want to be more fit at the size I am now. She said that was pretty cool, that at least I had realistic goals and didn't expect to lose 100 lbs in 3 months (yeah, like that would ever happen, even with my WLS, it took 4 months to lose 70 lbs). So, for about 50 bucks a month, I can go for a half hour a day, 5 days a week if I want. She also said that there were a couple of the machines I probably wouldn't use because they would cause problems with my knees and back (yeah, she wanted to know what kind of physical problems I had, and asked about heart/blood pressure/diabetes/etc). I'm thinking of going with the month-to-month plan, that way, if I have to quit for any reason, I'm not out any pre-paid money. I figure less than 3 bucks a day for a work-out is pretty good, if I decide to go every day (and I probably will, just because if I'm going to spend that much money, I'm damned well going to get as much value as I can for my dollars, not to mention the fact that the more I exercise, the better shape I'll be in, I hope).
Man, I can tell you, this has taken a load off my shoulders, finding out that it's not the fault of my fat that my knee is bad, it's genetics and injuries.

Monday, January 7, 2008

Internets problems

I love technology, but there are times when it drives me absolutely batshit. My computer went into the shop last week to have the hard drive reformatted and then I went back to Windows Millenium (I hate XP, and I'm not even going to go in to how I feel about Vista). Then I found out that our wireless router was shot. So the pc came home today, with a new router (not wireless this time, since the 2 pc's are less than 6 feet apart). Got it all hooked up and couldn't get online. Disconnected everything, hooked DH's pc up to the cable modem and couldn't get online. Come to find out, part of the cable in our end of town had gone bad and had to be replaced.
Now that the cable is back, it's only back for him, we can't get the router to work with the cable modem (and the only way we can get the cable to work for him is if I disable his Norton antivirus, WTF is up with that?). So I have to call the pc people tomorrow and see what they think the problem is.
I totally hate this, I don't have all of my bookmarks on DH's pc (and I really doubt that he would want me to put all of them on here, since I have at least 80 that are FA blogs, not to mention all the ones for clothes, etc, etc). So it's going to take me a week to catch up on everything I've missed that y'all have been writing once I can get my pc back online and replace all of my bookmarks. I've been able to reinstall all my games, and the programs/hardware I had before, but I miss my bookmarks. I just wish I was a little more computer-savvy than I am.
Anyway, that's why posting has been non-existent here, and may be for a while longer.

Thursday, January 3, 2008

Battle for weight-loss bullet on-going

This isn't a big surprise to any of us, but the part that grabbed my attention is this:
San Diego-based Arena Pharmaceuticals Inc. has an obesity product, Lorcaserin, already in late-stage trials. In March, the company is expected to report critical safety results. The drug, which hasn't shown safety issues so far, has been under intense scrutiny by analysts who are concerned about its marketing viability, since Lorcaserin is said to work similarly to now discontinued Fen-Phen, which caused heart problems.

I don't know if fen-phen showed the pulmonary hypertension side effect in clinical trials, but if it did, that sure as hell didn't stop them from marketing it or stop doctors from prescribing it (been there done that).
The other part that grabbed my attention is this:
Meanwhile, Amylin has seen success with its diabetes drug Byetta, after patients reported weight loss as a welcomed side effect, prompting doctors to prescribe it off-label to overweight patients.

This particular drug has as one of its side effects, pancreatitis in some susceptible people (including diabetics). It is also fairly new, so I'm betting that they don't know all of the effects for diabetics, let alone prescribing it for non-diabetics as a weight-loss drug, which was not its intended purpose.
I find this kind of thing very disturbing, as if being fat is such a bad thing (if you're fat, you have one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel) that it doesn't matter what side effects you have to suffer from drugs/WLS, it's all worth it just to not be fat anymore.
I have a suggestion for them. If you want to cut the rates of obesity, try going back to the BMI charts of 10 years ago (how many "overweight/obese" people would then be "normal" again...hmmmmmm?). Oh right, then there wouldn't be any obesity epidemic and diet companies/pharmaceutical companies wouldn't be able to take billions of dollars from unsuspecting consumers. Gee, that just breaks my heart (NOT).

Tuesday, January 1, 2008

OMFG! I can't believe this

My aunt sent me an email titled "You think fat is ugly?" I was expecting some joke about fat people, but what it was instead, well, the following pictures left me speechless and in tears for these women. I really don't think their bodies are in the shape nature intended for them. I don't pay much attention to fashion, and I don't watch fashion shows when they are televised. These pictures make me damned glad I don't, but at the same time, they also make me so fucking mad that models are pushed into this state in order to work. And they wonder why women have bad body image and low self-esteem.

This last picture is particularly bad, IMO. Are they trying to say that the model holding the cookie is the good model (because she's so thin?) and that the other model is bad (because she's trying to eat the cookie?). I'm assuming here, since we've had it beaten into us that it's what we eat that makes us fat, and it's usually the cookies, pies, cakes, candy, and doughnuts that are blamed. But I'm sorry, that model who's trying to eat that cookie? She is so far from fat that if that's the message, they're failing miserably.
To me, all of these models look like skeletons with skin, and I've never met anyone who was naturally that thin. I could be wrong about this, I've been wrong before, but damn................