I've never been the "fat kid"
“Have you ever been the ‘fat kid’?”
I had a reader ask me this after my most recent blog post, and, coincidentally, had asked another blog writer whether or not they’d ever been the “fat kid” after reading an incendiary attack on fat people on their blog.
My reader sent this article – From Hunk to Chunk and Back Again.
It details the journey of Australian personal trainer P.J. James, who decided to gain 90 pounds (he actually put on 88) so he could better relate to his clients.
He noticed muscle pains, blood sugar spikes, and other physical maladies, but the most difficult ills were psychological.
“The transition back into training was the hardest moment for me because I just didn’t have any desire to train at all, and I was addicted to fat and sugar at the same time so my motivation was at an all-time low.”
He’s lost some of the weight now, and is planning on losing it all by January 1, 2010, which will give him six months of experience with being overweight.
The short answer to the question posed by my reader is “no.”
I’ve never been the “fat kid.” In BMI terms, I’m currently “overweight,” at a BMI of 27. However most of that overweight is muscle. Science says that it doesn’t matter…that a certain height can only support a certain amount of mass (there’s a ratio they’ve worked out). Only time will tell…
The reader’s comment was specifically in response to my saying that we need an “anti-fatness” campaign.
I just want to be clear – I’m not against people who are fat.
I am against people whose minds are “fat.” And by that, I mean, lazy. Is it not PC to connect those two terms? Am I contradicting myself? Well…okay.
This is why, though, my Surgeon General’s Warning warns against laziness…not fatness.
For my money, being physically active takes precedence over bodyweight. Though, again, science would disagree. A few recent studies show that you need to do both. There is definitely a “safe range” for overweight in the human animal.
However, our culture focuses on physical form to a large degree, so concerns over image often come first in people’s minds.
While it may seem that I’m one of those, for whatever reason – I’m not.
My concern is with function. Initially, in organisms, function follows form (structure), and then, during the course of the organism’s life form follows function.
That is a restating of “nature and nurture.” However, there has to be a “nature” there to “nurture” first. Form/structure comes before and mediates function.
And no, I’m not going to do the P.J. James experiment.
But I will watch my use of language more closely in the future. Thanks for the note!
“While it may seem that I’m one of those, for whatever reason – I’m not.”
Nope. I think most would know you’re not… you just need marketting skills. “How would the target audience react?” : )
Great post Josh!
It’s like I tell my athletes all the time: “There are no weak people, only weak efforts.”
It’s sad how much emphasis is placed on the aesthetics. I’ve learned that worrying about ‘looks’ leads to unnatural movement and inhibits learning of many possibilities. Once again the answer lies in our youth… before they are ’scarred’ by society.
We, as individuals, need to take back what’s ours. It takes a shift in consciousness, which is always easier said than done… but holy s**t, stop being a “slave”.
Amen!
Indeed.
Nice post Josh, but I have one concern:
Why worry about being PC when the truth is more helpful than harmful? The grown up “fat” kid will be better served with honesty about the ramifications of being overweight more so than the creative word play in your blog if you censor yourself.
I think your original point was dead on. Call a spade a spade. I am not against fat people either , but it is not fair to the ones who face chronic health issues because they are overweight to sugar coat it so they can make excuses not to do something about it.
Thanks Doug. I agree with you here. The other reason is that it’s entirely against my nature to be politically correct (as you know). Hahaha…don’t worry!!