The Power of Plus

Over the past week, I've been alternately seeing red and shaking my head in disbelief over weight-related stories that have appeared in two very different kinds of publications.

Everyone in my son's fourth-grade class receives Time for Kids, a spin-off of the weekly newsmagazine for the younger crowd. For some reason, the issue he came home with on Monday was from November 2005. I subscribe to TIME Magazine and I really enjoy reading and discussing Time for Kids with my son. Each issue is accompanied by a worksheet with a number of questions pertaining to the stories in the issue. The cover story in the issue he brought home last week was
"Reading, Writing, Rock Climbing" and began by talking about a new type of P.E. class - one that emphasized individual fitness over team sports. That sounded really great to me, as I have long advocated that team sports tend to leave out big kids, and that kids of all sizes should be encouraged to engage in activities in which they can excel and that will lead to a lifelong enjoyment of movement.

But, of course, Time for Kids couldn't leave it at that. The next section of the article proceeded to sound the alarms, telling children that "obesity will likely shorten the average life span of today's younger generation by two to five years," "nearly one in three U.S. schoolchildren is overweight, and one in seven kids is obese, or seriously overweight," and "Obesity can lead to heart disease and diabetes."

This completely ticked me off. First, they oversimplified the entire issue of childhood obesity. It's true that there are more fat kids today than in previous generations, but that's due to a number of reasons. Let's start with the lack of funding in schools for P.E., the lack of funding for after school park and recreation programs, the increased incidence of latchkey kids, and the reality that it's not safe to send your kids outside to play. Then let's acknowledge that there's a genetic component to weight, and that it's to be expected that plus-size parents have plus-size kids. Finally, with all the hand wringing that goes on in school districts about childhood obesity and nutrition (at least in our school district), it's more than a little ironic that teachers routinely give kids candy as rewards.

Second, the statistics and scare tactics that Time for Kids used only served to further stigmatize big kids - who most likely are already taunted by their classmates. Let's face it - other forms of discrimination are not tolerated at schools, but size-related discrimination is almost always viewed as acceptable.

Third, Time for Kids didn't address the dangers of dieting and the ever-earlier age that kids develop eating disorders. It didn't surprise me that they didn't discuss yo-yo dieting, because they never do, but it always disappoints me. I've always advocated that both kids and adults can be healthy at any size, if health and fitness - rather than weight loss - is the goal. I can't help but wonder how many kids read that article and hated themselves just a little bit more or decided that they were going to starve themselves into thinness. Kids are exposed to enough weight-loss brainwashing as it is; they don't need to read it in material specifically written for fourth, fifth, and sixth graders.

My response? Well, the worksheet that accompanied the issue asked my son to "List three negative effects of obesity." I had a long discussion with him, and he listed: 1) discrimination in employment, education, and accommodations; 2) low self-esteem; and 3) social stigma.

No sooner had I finished fuming about Time for Kids than I learned that Consumer Reports had issued findings about weight loss surgery. Consumer Reports? Weight loss surgery? I understand that they do an excellent job of rating everything from cars to cameras to toys to washing machines. But where do they get off commenting about weight loss surgery? Although I haven't read the report, my understanding is that they come out in favor of it.

Two things immediately come to mind. First, Consumers Union is supposed to set the gold standard for impartial analysis. How can an impartial analysis lead to a finding in favor of weight loss surgery? Who exactly were the analysts? Were they obesity researchers? Were they bariatric surgeons? Inquiring minds want to know. Second, isn't it more than a little ironic that weight loss surgery is seen as a consumer issue? Have they rated appendectomies lately? Or different brain surgery techniques? There's no doubt that weight loss surgery is big - in every sense of the word - business, and that there's a lot of money behind advocating that more people have the surgery. Even though, in the long term, it doesn't work. Even though, in the long term, morbidity and mortality rates are high. What if - take the leap with me here - instead of suggesting weight loss surgery, doctors worked with large patients to improve their health status through non-surgical methods, and psychologists worked with large patients to improve their self-esteem and body image. Again, I believe that, if health and fitness - rather than weight loss - are the goals, we'd all be better off.

Just as weight loss surgery is big business, so is cosmetic surgery. Dissatisfaction with one's appearance leads women - and an increasing number of men - to turn to cosmetic surgery. A recent joint press release by the American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery and the American Society of Plastic Surgeons tries to raise awareness about the dangers of unlicensed personnel performing medical cosmetic procedures in non-clinical settings. I'm sure they raise a valid point, but one can't help but wonder if there might be a financial motive as well.

With Time for Kids and other media outlets continuing to report from a place of bias, though, I'm sure that weight loss surgeons and cosmetic surgeons will have plenty of new patients in another decade or so.