Fat Shame.

We've all heard the saying that kids are cruel, but adults aren't much better.  One of the worst things that happens when we grow up is that most of us forget what it was like to be a kid.  If we remembered what it was like, then maybe we would treat each other a little better.

When kids are cruel, it seems to me they are doing 2 things. First, they are experimenting in methods of verbal communication. Second, they are learning how to deal with emotions and emotional arguments.  They learn what language or inflection is threatening, coercive, or hurtful to others.  We learn to be mindful of other people's feeling, but as kids, we hurt a lot of feelings in the process.

Calling someone fat or ugly, or saying someone is ugly or stupid because they are fat is a part of kids figuring out boundaries.  What we are seeing now is adults engaging in the same hurtful rhetoric that they should have gotten over as children.

Adults are cruel.

The way I see it, fat shaming among adults stem from 2 things. Some adults engage in this as a push-back against what they see as political correctness run amuck. 'You can't make fun of anybody anymore!' Adults also see Fat Shaming as some sort of tough love for all of us fatties out there. Fit or even just average people can't wrap their heads around fatness and tend to oversimplify the causes of fatness.

If you think being thin is only as simple as, 'not eating so much' or 'putting the fork down', then you may logically conclude that fat people are just lazy or unaware of how fat they've become.

There is also some dubious health information out there that enable these attacks on people of heft.  We see many stories online where every conceivable ill in society is 'linked' to obesity.  So adults may feel they are fulfilling some duty as a citizen to make you understand that you or myself are just lazy and gross.

Regardless of the reasons, there really isn't a pathology ascribed to fatness where you can pinpoint the exact weight or body fat percentage where heart disease or diabetes starts.  Keep in mind that all the literature talks of 'links', not a causation.

You can't tell someone's health just by looking at them.  Rubenesque Governor of New Jersey, Chris Christie, was given a clean bill of health that runs contrary to conventional wisdom concerning his large frame. He made a joke at himself by coming onto a late night talk show and eating a donut.  

But notice that despite being healthy, Chris Christie quietly had bariatric surgery done.  Why? Because being fat means you are not taken seriously.  This is a stigma aided by misinformation from public health advocates and fueled by a push back of what some perceive as an overwhelming amount of political correctness.

Here, you see Joe Rogan reacting to fat advocate's reaction to a picture posted by a fit mom with the phrase, 'What's your excuse'.  

Listen to the inflection in Joe's voice and how he talks over his guest who tries to tell Joe that it isn't quite as easy as they think to lose weight.  Unfortunately, his guest is a 'biohacker' with some pretty interesting and unproven theories about weight loss and supplements.

Joe Rogan was a national Tae Kwan Do champion in his youth and working out has been so normalized that he feels ill if he misses a workout.  So from his perspective, anyone can do what he does because he does it.  His guest tried to make a point that certain exercises are probably too hard on large people's joints, but was talked over by Joe's tirade.

So you have this sort of unempathetic 'bro' attitude toward fat people as well as a lashing out against fat people if they speak up about being marginalized.  Athletes get a high from exercise, and fat people feel run over by a truck.  Do these guys think that their tough love really motivated people to go out in public and run/walk/lift weights?

'It's so great to be associated with people feeling good about themselves'

So is Adam Richman saying that fat people feel bad about themselves?  Some do, sure, but our body size is a lot more complex than some mental issue.  The trouble with this statement is that success and confidence are associated with a body shape, and nothing else.  Does Adam Richman really think that he got so big during Man Vs. Food because he lacked self esteem?

We can't all afford to have a dietician design a diet for us and we all don't have the time to break our day's eating down to a 150 calorie mini meal every 2 hours like Adam did to try to recharge his metabolism.

Metabolism is often the answer, too.

I can safely say that I eat much less than I did when I weighed 100 lbs less.  This doesn't seem possible until you account for metabolism.  I used to eat way more, and this, added lots of weight.  At a certain point, I started eating less with only brief moments of hero eating mixed in.  It didn't work.  My metabolism slowed.  Eating doesn't energize me, it makes me fall asleep.  To lose weight is arbitrary, but if I make an effort to weigh a lower number, then the best bet is to do it slowly and incorporate exercise and surround myself with people who won't snicker at me in a gym or make fun of my bike with the oversized seat.

People who have their pictures mocked online aren't motivated by the abuse, they are withdrawn further... depressed, not really wanting to join the cruel world that waits to mock them in person.

In the end, this debate on fat shaming has nothing to do with what people look like, it's about treating people with kindness and dignity.  Don't laugh at a big person trying to lift weights or ride a bike or run...or just go for a walk.  Befriend them.  Introduce them to your girlfriend's single friend.  Let them know it's ok to be a person and exist in the world.


This sums up the feelings many normal sized people have, unfortunately.

I'll leave you with an image of what is in all of our best interests to fight against.  This is Hollywood actor, Nick Searcy.  He plays the Chief on Justified.  Patton Oswalt guested on this show... How would he feel about working with Nick Searcy, knowing how vile he is?

Traceability: Jet Packs of the Food Industry.

Lyndsey Layton wrote an article about traceability in the Washington Post today.  For those unaware, traceability is the idea that food companies can trace exactly which of their ingredients went into each of their products.  Of course, they already know what type of ingredient is going into a specific product, but they may not be exactly sure when that ingredient was received or what lot # is associated with that exact ingredient where it was shipped.

It's confusing, I know.  I'll try to explain a little better and also give my ideas on how this can work.

When the major food safety overhaul passed, it contained a provision that food companies must be able to track where all their ingredients came from and where it's going.  It sounds simple in theory, but there are complications involved.  It's basically how we think about jet packs.  As Joe Rogan said in his stand-up act, 'Where's the jet packs, bitch?!'  We've heard about jet packs since the 50's and yet it never comes to fruition.  We have the technology... so where are they.  Traceability has the same sort of dichotomy involved.  Small problems and a matter of organization make this simple matter, simply complicated.

Here is the situation:  A wheat farmer brings his wheat to market, where it is bought by a mill.  This mill takes in the wheat, cleans it, and mills it into flour.  The mill then sells this flour to one or many food companies for a variety of applications.  The food company may use this shipment of flour on one product, several products, or even several different runs of several different products.  To further complicate matters, the wheat may be mixed with other winter or summer varieties from other farms before it's milled, so if there is a problem with the flour, it can come from anywhere.  This situation is the same for peppers, cilantro, onions, or whatever.

What each buyer/seller in the supply chain must do is track the place they bought from and the place they sold to.  I see the solution involving either rfid tags or upc bar codes.  The original source i.e. farmer, prints a code to affix to any paperwork as well as to the shipment.  This code or tag, when scanned, stores their farm's establishment number as well as a lot number for that item, as well as a time stamp. The next person in line must scan this bar code/tag then print their own.  The tag they print out contains the code from the original source.  This tag/code is printed and affixed to every shipment that contains THAT source. Fast forward to a bakery that is baking multiple products that day and multiple products the next day.  When they got that ingredient in, they scanned the code/tag and replaced it with their own as everyone else has done in the supply chain.  So now their code shows the time location and lot number for that ingredient for EVERY step of the supply chain.  

This is where it get's tricky. The bakery is going to run brownies and two types of cookies with the ingredient.  For each product they create, they must embed a code/tag with the ingredient's information... which contains every step in that process for every ingredient.  This bakery has the codes tied into their inventory system so they can look up and see some sort of a flow chart that shows every step for every ingredient, which can become hundreds of locations/lot numbers.  They can also use this to ensure they're using 'first in, first out'.

Traceability has a number of logistical problems.  First is how to figure out how a system for the lot numbers.  It can't be whatever the farmer/plant manager comes up with because we can't have duplicate codes floating around.  So the lot numbers must somehow use part of their establishment number to differentiate.  Each entity must have compatible computer systems, but honestly, you can do this with an Excel spreadsheet and a bar code scanner gun.

The feds must be the leaders here or what is simple and a little complicate becomes impossible.  They must act on how this framework will exist and they'll need a lot of resources($$) to get it right the first time.  Republicans need to realize this and not fly off the handle and defund it because it grows the government.  You know what's worse than an overblown government?  An inefficient government.  This part of the regulatory system can be a huge bonus to the industry, but if we start smoking and drinking while this baby is in the womb, it's going to be born slow and defective.  So let the government spend the money and staff the agencies with smart people(I'm available) to piece this together the right way so it can run efficiently.