Big Fat Ad
I saw this poster in San Francisco over the weekend, put up by some public health initiative, I believe. Of course I thought of you, and snapped this picture!
The first dotted line says “STARTED GOING FOR WALKS DURING LUNCH HOUR.” The second line says “STOPS ORDERING TAKE-OUT AND STARTS COOKING HEALTHY MEALS.” And the third line says “JUST BOUGHT BIKINI THAT CHALLENGES SOME OBSCENITY LAWS.”
The first two lines, of course, are there to show that if the fat woman makes positive health changes and stops “ordering takeout” (you know, as we all do), she will lose lots of weight. It’s the third line where I have the real issue–once she no longer has any “unsightly” lumps (please notice that the shape of the line changes, not just the size) she’s “allowed” to buy a skimpy bikini. Isn’t that the goal, after all?
I have to say, I misunderstood this photo at first. My first thought was, “cool, a fat chick in a bathing suit!” and then I skimmed the ad and thought “hey, she’s going to get empowered and buy a bikini!” totally missing the whole weight loss thing. This obviously proves that I’ve been brainwashed by my own blog; there’s clearly no way a headless fattie in a bathing suit would be there to convey a positive message. But isn’t it nice that I thought so?
Posted by mo pie
Filed under: Advertising, Fatism, Feminism, Health, Media, Weight Loss
Email us
littlem – I just moved to the Midwest FROM LA and according to my boyfriend, apparently here I’m quite the swizzle stick. I would say that here they are more lax on what they consider overweight, but the truth is LA is more strict about what is thin.
Women – Universally Judged
La Wade,
“I figured that they used an obese model because obese people are the target audience of this campaign, as they are at increased risk of weight-related health problems, and therefore stand to benefit the most from weight reduction.”
Please explain what you mean by “increased risk,” but NOT by using statistics (which are faulty indicators, because they show correlation, not causation).
Thank you.
I’m sorry but a hugely obese person should not wear a bikini though. Really.
However, there are more important things in life (ie health)
BigLiberty, there’s a large body of research on the subject which is way too extensive for a comment here. But if you are truly interested in learning more about this, here are a few places to start:
Excess fat tissue has been shown to interact with inflammatory cells, which can result in induction of the metabolic syndrome. Metabolic syndrome puts people at increased risk for type II diabetes and heart disease.
In addition, fat tissue secretes a number of hormones that directly regulate insulin sensitivity and blood pressure. Since the levels of these hormones are in proportion with the amount of a person’s fat tissue, this is another mechanism by which obesity is thought to predispose one to heart disease and diabetes.
Furthermore, studies have found that modest weight loss can decrease your risk of hypertension and Type II diabetes.
By the way, “statistics” don’t show correlation or causation…they’re just a numerical representation of data. Statistical significance is the standard by which most scientific findings are judged, and those findings can either be correlative or causal in nature, depending on what the study is looking at.
[i]Ginger, just out of curiosity, can you think of a way to approach a campaign like this with greater sensitivity? Is it possible to have a campaign that promotes weight loss without the appearance of making generalizations or judgements about fat people?[/i]
I’m not sure. I’m pretty ignorant about advertising tactics. It’s anti-scientific, but it looks to me like testimonials are a pretty effective advertising method. Maybe some ordinary-looking people, some of higher and some of average weight explaining that they feel better since they took the small steps?
[i]Please explain what you mean by “increased risk,” NOT by using statistics (which are faulty indicators, because they show correlation, not causation).[/i]
I’m not sure what you meant to ask. Statistics don’t exist in a vacuum – what they show depends on the study design. What did you mean, please?
(And Stacy – I was proving to you that if we have to be healthy yet fat to judge the ad, then I had the credentials to do so. Ridiculous, beginning to end.)
La Wade,
Thanks very much for the links! I’m so used to people trying to throw statistics in my face, it’s refreshing to see some real science referenced.
Some initial points:
For the first studies, before I read them, just a point of logic (since I’m not a biological scientist): if excess fat tissue causes metabolic syndrome, which can lead to type II diabetes, why don’t all people with a certain threshhold of excess fat tissue have type II diabetes?
Also, on your second points, I can’t access the first article on hypertension, and the second article studies people who already have impaired glucose tolerance, which doesn’t apply here.
As for statistics, they can indicate causation, yes, but they really can’t conclusively be used as arguments of proof. For that one has to show the biochemistry suggested by the statistics is actually at play. I.e., they’re ultimately indicators. Sometimes really good ones, but depending on how the study is set up (and yes, it is VERY easy to “cook the books” by forgetting to mention certain assumptions in the summary/conclusion, for instance), they can be really, really bad. As an example, your second study about type II diabetes already assumes impaired glucose tolerance. A backwards correlation between how lifestyle changes effect those who already have impaired glucose intolerance can’t conclusively say anything about prevention of type II diabetes by the same lifestyle changes in people who don’t have impaired glucose intolerance.
Again, thanks for the links. I’ll read the others soon. :)
^Oh, okay, as another point: if you suggest that people should lose 10 – 15 pounds, because certain studies have shown (which has yet to be determined, in my book) that to do so can lead to decreased ‘risk factors’ of diseases X, Y, Z, and M, then why do you ignore the overwhelming evidence from several major studies (each of which I’ve lost the links to, d’oh! I know JAMA did a study on this, it should be searchable) that an overwhelming majority of people who diet not only don’t keep the weight off but gain more back than they started with?
How healthy is that? Also, since it would follow from this you’re advocating yo-yo dieting (since the weight will come back on, necessitating trying to lose it again), and it’s being shown increasingly that yo-yo dieting can *itself* lead to metabolic syndrome, in effect you’re advocating a method to perhaps cure that which the method itself may cause.
Mo, I apologize, I’m going to take this “off-line” to my blog. The next link I checked is also extremely fishy (still have a few more to go!). It’s this kind of scienterrific crap (which yes, even researchers aren’t immune from engaging in, if they’re trying to push forth a certain agenda…doctors, PhD’s, and so forth are political beasts as well) which is the ammunition for the people who claim they should step into our homes, control what we eat/do, and control what our children eat/do. It’s this stuff that perpetuates obesity as a “lifestyle” and a “choice,” and that we can just “choose” to not be so icky and disease-prone whenever the hell we want. Cheers! :)
if excess fat tissue causes metabolic syndrome, which can lead to type II diabetes, why don’t all people with a certain threshhold of excess fat tissue have type II diabetes?
Nobody knows the answer to this for sure, but it is known that diabetes also has a genetic component. It’s sort of like how smoking has been shown to cause cancer, but not all smokers get cancer because different people have different degrees of genetic susceptibility to it.
As to the feasibility of sustaining weight loss, it’s true that many people have trouble with it. But small losses put less metabolic stress on the body than large ones. And as for yo-yo dieting, I recently wrote a mini-review of the literature for my blog, and I don’t know of any papers that link it to metabolic syndrome in humans. In fact, there is very little evidence in human studies to support the folk wisdom that yo-yo dieting has any permanent effects on one’s weight or health.
Sorry about the one broken link. Here is an abstract from another study on modest weight loss and heart disease. There are many others. It’s true that most of the studies looking at the effects of modest weight loss on obesity-related health problems have been done in people who are already in early stages of the diseases, as that simplifies the study design. But if weight loss can actually reverse the progression of these diseases, I think there is good reason to believe that it may play a preventative role, as well. And in the case of impaired glucose tolerance, a study showed that in the early 1990s, 40.1% of American adults aged 40-74 years had impaired glucose tolerance and impaired fasting glucose, and it’s probably even more prevalent now.
Big Liberty — can you post a link here once you get this up?
I’ve just read Gary Taubes book, which is a huge indictment of the “science” about metabolism, weight loss, obesity and health.
Very interested to see if anything you come across changes my mind back to the dark-ages-thinking I had before reading it. As a journalist, it takes a *lot* to convince me of something, and that book (written by a multi-award winning science journalist) completely changed my point of view.
Most of the “science” published on this topic is, as you put it, “crap.”
I think it’s almost impossible for an ad like this to be seen as a neutral campaign at obese people with health risks.
I think it’s clear that A) the body in the ad is presented as a deterrent and B) as potentially pathologized.
For those looking for additional interesting reading, Gina Kolata, the science journalist for the New York Times, wrote two really interesting books about the science behind exercise and weight recommendations. The exercise one is called “Ultimate Fitness: The Quest for Truth about Diet and Exercise” (the title is tongue-in-cheek) and the weight one is titled “Rethinking Thin: The New Science of Weight Loss – and the Myths and Realities of Dieting”. (I love Kolata’s writing – she’s super-clear but very careful about her conclusions.)
I haven’t read Taubes’ book yet.
I’m going to go look up plus bikinis right now ;)
Ginger – Taubes book has changed everything for me. It’s amazing, and I’ve covered almost the entire book with pink highlighter.
It also made me revisit this crazy website I came across a while back:
http://www.westonaprice.org/splash_2.htm
I have to jump in and say that I think the implication that women can only wear a bikini if they are the “right size” is a terrible message that should not be coming from the government. How sad to live life without wearing a bikini in public at least once. It took me years to get up the courage, and I think that is sad that it takes courage to wear a swimsuit.
I have 2 bikinis (one red, one lime green) and I am sure the designers of the poster would find my wearing a bikini obscene. Size 42DD’s and an 18/20 tushy in bright red or lime green, for all the world to see. 225 pounds of tummy fat rolls and big thighs that aren’t hidden away. (The top and bottom both fit well (10 pounds of sugar in a 10-pound sack, if you will), and cover what they should cover.)
My tummy rolls would like to stay hidden, but my brain won’t let me stop living while I lose weight and get to a more publicly accepted size. It is hard sometimes for me to get up the courage to wear them, but now I’ve worn my bikini in Las Vegas, L.A., Hawaii, and many hotel swimming pools. I usually get dirty looks, especially from thin women in thier bikinis. Sometimes people laugh. I think they are pissed because they felt like they had to get thier bodies to look a certain way before they wore a bikini, and where do I get off wearing one at my size?
I spent years (years and years) not going to warm places for vacation, thinking they were for thin people, and that I had to wait until I was thin to be able to go and be comfortable.
If I could swim naked, I would (and have). I love being in the water without a top on. (Bottoms are a must when swimming with fishes and eels and other things). I refuse to let my size dictate what I wear in the water.
I spent 2 weeks in Malibu over Christmas for a college class one year. I have never seen so many thin, blond, breast-implanted women in my life. I hardly saw anyone over a size 4 except for some women on campus. It was a strange new world for me, one I see on tv but would rather not visit again.
So admittedly most of the readers of BFD are at their natural weights, don’t lose weight even when running 80 miles a week and eating almost nothing but small portions of incredibly healthy food. Ignoring that for a minute…
In this country there are many, many people who do – indeed – sit around all day and eat nothing but fat-laden take-out food. It happens. Hell, I used to be one of them.
For those people (and I include myself in this category), small changes in habits (eating less, doing more) can indeed have big effects (personally I lost about 70 lbs and stopped having knee/back problems, but that’s just me). And I know an awful lot of people who – like I used to – lament the fact that they’re “just fat” and don’t like it but never actually decide to do anything about it.
And you know what? If you don’t want to change your weight, you don’t have to. I’m totally cool with that. But if you do want to, this ad is trying to get the point across that (at least for many of us) there are simple ways that, for a lot of people, do actually work, and aren’t terribly difficult.
Wonderful: another public display of a disembodied fat person. I am embarrassed for my town.
I love that. Tagline!
I’m not precisely sure why the government thinks it has to have a say in my weight -or- my swim suit choices. We don’t have universal health care so any health care issues from obesity (which are questionable at best) fall on insurance companies right? Not that they are paying for anything…including thin people’s chemo therapy.
I don’t get this at all..she’s not so overweight that she’s unable to get out of bed and must be cut out of her house and taken somewhere on a fork lift, why is it that she has to fit into some stereotype before she can buy clothing?
This isn’t a healthy message on any level. This isn’t about her feeling better or avoiding health risks..this is about her loosing enough weight to be sociably acceptable. Blanketing it with some assumed concern for my health and well being is offensive. If it were about my health and well being then why wasn’t that the focus of the ad?
Playing off of people’s insecurities is never a nice thing to do. Especially when it comes from your government.
Richard — I detect a bit of sarcasm in your opening paragraph. So for the record let me state that the portions I eat are not small. They are normal. I don’t run, except when chasing our cat.
If you’ve lost weight and kept if off for more than five years, then you’ve managed to be one of the few who beats the odds. If, in fact, you have beat the odds, it’s not your small portions that made it happen.
Your smug opening paragraph indicates to me that you really aren’t very well informed, and the rest of your email confirms it.
No matter how much you sat around being lazy while you got fat, that doesn’t mean that other people got fat from sitting around. That “awful lot” of people you describe… did they get fat from, oh, I don’t know, *dieting*? Because that’s. what. happens.
And then of course, they *would* eventually realize that more dieting will make them…say it with me: even fatter. So hey, maybe they’re just smarter than you. Are they your friends? Because you are judging them for being fat, and “not doing anything about it.”
Check back in in five years and let us know if you’ve gained the weight back.
P.S. Guess what: eating fat is *healthy.* Trans fats aren’t, but real fat IS. Your government lies about that stuff. They get paid by industry to do so. Go figure.
Richard,
Congratulations on being one of the people who got big results from small changes. That’s honestly awesome.
Just try to remember that, just as there are people who eat “like horses” and sit around while being slim or skinny, there are bigger people who don’t eat like horses, don’t sit around, but still don’t drop 70 pounds.
And turn down the sarcasm a bit, too.
Try to disagree respectfully; this thread is getting a little prickly.
While I agree Richard was being sarcastic, I have to say I agree with what he is trying to say and also what the response to what he wrote is. The thing is, when people on here comment about things, the majority reacts from the perspective of people who say the don’t eat like horses and don’t sit around- and get angry when others, like Richard, imply that some people do.
I think we have both and neither side is understanding the other. One group is those of us who do eat too much and sit around and still wish we could lose weight with a magic pill- and the other group who says they do everything right but still are fat. I don’t understand that side because when I eat less and workout, I do lose weight- yet I have seen on biggest loser some women who are obviously doing what the other contestants are and yet they lose 2lbs when the others lose 15- so I believe it.
We all are coming from different beliefs and experiences and that is shading our comments. I like the differing opinions and that is why I keep coming back- but sometimes it does turn into, “If you don’t agree with me you are wrong and I don’t have to be respectful to you because of that.”
Let’s all agree to disagree or agree- but without the rudeness or the need to make anyone feel they are lying if their experiences are different.
Or not. lol
Not to re-open the gender wars in addition to the size wars, but has anyone ever noticed that it’s usually men who start the “I Lost Weight! You Can Too!” cheer/rant-fest?**
Anyone else think it has anything to do with the fact that men also have a significant muscle-mass advantage over women, so they burn calories faster??
**Not to say that there are some women who don’t go there as well; I have my theories as to why they do but
a) I’m talking about the majority of what I’ve witnessed
b) I’d rather make one point at a time
I’ve seen these ads around town, didn’t take the time to look at them. If losing weight were as easy as cooking instead of takeout, and walking during lunch, I’d be a happy camper. I am slowly losing weight, but I exercise my ass off, with bike-commute to work, 5-6 hours of gym/week, and no fast-food, no takeout, no starving myself. But, I have know men who notice their pants becoming tight, and eat one less piece of toast in the morning, lose the weight. I dunno if I screwed up my metabolism, or whether I even believe in it, but it is NOT EASY, at least for me, to lose this 50 pounds I wouldn’t mind losing
Maybe I mis-interpreted Richard. But when I read “many, many people,” I did indeed catch a whiff of the persistent belief that you can tell what people’s eating and exercise habits are by looking at their bodies — and a whiff of the “fat people are typically overeating, sedentary folks” mantra.
This blog and its commentors have, generally, *always* acknowledged the existence of malnutrition and sedentary lifestyles among all sizes.
Just saying.
And I’m not trying to sound prickly, either.
“In fact, I spend about 800 dollars a month ordering fresh, grass fed, organic lean meat, organic vegetables, beet kvass, and raw milk for myself and my husband. ”
You know, buying organic, or grass fed, or raw milk, doesn’t change the nutritional makeup of the food. Lean beef has the same nutritional value and fat content regardless of whether it is organic and grassfed or from Vons. Ditto on the milk. Whole milk has the same fat and caloric input whether it is organic or not, raw or pasturized, etc. Same for skim, 2%, 1% milk, same for beef, same for veggies. If you want to spend the cash on the specialty food items, it is a choice, but is not making you healthier or improving your diet over the same choices from conventional sources.
I think one could argue that eating organic foods is healthier than the alternative, and is improving her family’s diet. If you’re defining “healthier” as “lower in calories,” then no, but that’s not the be all and end all of health. Have you read The Omnivore’s Dilemma?
Mo — what do you mean is the ‘alternative’ to eating organic foods?
For the purposes of my comparison, the ‘alterntive’ is the same food from a conventional source. In which case, an organic, grass fed, raw or whatever-you-are-going-for food product is no healthier. From any nutritional standpoint, they are identical. :-)
(I’m not defining healthier as “lower in calories’… I am actually just saying ‘organic’ and conventional food stuffs have the same nutritional value, and hence are equivalent. One is not ‘healthier’ than the other.)
Michele, not to put words in her mouth, but I think Mo’s point may have been that organic foods don’t have the pesticides, herbicides, hormones, etc., that factory-farmed produce and/or feedlot livestock may have. Thus, probably healthier, despite whatever nutritional value it may have in exact scientific terms. Or at least that’s how I read it.
And while I’m here, I’d like to comment on one thing I keep hearing here: If I’ve lost weight within the last couple of years, is my opinion invalid until I’ve kept if off for five years or more, or until I’ve gained it all back? Because this “shut up until you’ve kept it off for five years or more” thing is kind of annoying. Yes, there are plenty of people who diet and are really irritating in that “recent convert” kind of way (and I think Richard should have laid off the sarcasm). But I’m still in the process of understanding and accepting my body as it was and as it is after losing 55 pounds; and I’m finding the hostility toward those of us who have recently lost weight rather off-putting.
With that little vent off my chest, I’ll hop on the topic: the ad is obnoxious, but I’ve seen much worse. To address La Wade’s question about being more sensitive in the approach, I can think of a few ways to address the diabetes issue, or the heart disease issue, but it’s always easier to “sell” an idea that offers a more immediate benefit or sense of pleasure, rather than the utilitarian “do it because it’s good for you in the long run!” message. What I mean is that long-term health isn’t a strong call-to-action; looking sexy in the near future is. Which is not to say that the woman in the poster isn’t sexy as she is — that’s why the ad falls flat, to me. (For the record, I work as a Creative Director at a small ad agency.)
“From any nutritional standpoint, they are identical.”
Michele, not, IMO, from the standpoint of added sulfites, nitrites, and polysorbate-20 and 80.
“cool, a fat chick in a bathing suit!” I have the same thought at the first sight. LOL
(Hi Folks — no prickly tone intended here, I very much enjoy talking about this stuff.)
Michele — actually, Mo and MizShrew are right. There are fewer chemicals in organic food, and conventional food is GMO tainted.
Raw milk is not identical to conventional whole milk. Conventional whole milk is pasteurized, and because of that, the natural enzymes are no longer present. Its nutritional value is severely compromised, for example, the lactic acid content is much, much lower than it should be.
Grass fed beef is not the same as conventional beef, because conventional beef is raised on grain and “feed,” which can include all manner of things that are not natural for the cows to eat (like textbooks). If the cows are raised on grass, which is their natural diet and which their stomachs are designed to digest, the nutritional value of the meat soars. This is what people used to eat, and it’s much better for us biologically.
I second the recommendation to read “The Omnivore’s Dilemma,” but also, I got interested in these more natural foods because the grocery service I use offers them. I started reading up on them, then tried them, and it’s hard not to want to run up to folks and make them drink a cup of raw milk and watch their reaction after 20 minutes. (When I first tried it, it was like I had been starving! Talk about intuitive…I drank 3 quarts in two days. Now I drink a cup or two a day.) :)
Regarding the 5-year weight loss, I’ll admit I’m guilty of not wanting to hear folks talk about that *if* it seems they are saying it will work for me. I’ve lost weight off and on over the years, and each time it comes back a little at a time with more. The last time, I lost 75 lbs in 1999. I was practically anorexic in my behavior to make it happen, and all it got me was down to 165.
Slowly, the weight has come back, while even my assistants remark things like, “you hardly eat!” and “Is that your whole lunch?”
So if you’ve lost weight, good for you! But if you’ve lost weight and are smug about it, I can’t tolerate that. And Richard’s remarks were sarcastic, which I find offensive.
Anyway. Blah, blah, blah. Sorry my posts have been so lengthy on this. Again, always good conversation here, and I really do support everyone’s efforts on the board.
Stacy, I totally agree with you that people should not assume that what works for one person will work for another, and I understand why people get annoyed with that attitude. I find it annoying and rude as well, and belive me I’ve heard a lot of that crap over the years. It’s like the rabid recent ex-smoker who makes me want to light up a whole pack of Lucky unfiltereds — and I don’t even smoke. And I also agree that Richard was out of line, as I mentioned above.
But by the same token, I also don’t think that someone’s opionions on body acceptance or overall health are invalid simply because they’ve recently lost weight, or that an individual is an idiot for even trying. Just as I don’t assume what others should do in terms of eating and exercise, I’d appreciate it if people didn’t make assumptions about me in the opposite direction, and I get a lot of that vibe (not at me per se, just in general) in threads like this one.
But it is a good/important discussion to have. I know I’ve learned a lot by reading this blog, and gained some valuable perspective on my own attitudes and body image issues.
Another headless fat person? When will the media learn that fat people have heads too?
I just find it really creepy and dehumanizing when they do this!
I think we need to start a headless person project to demonstrate how detrimental these things really are!
Well…
My very humble opinion is that EVERYBODY can benefit from eating less take-out or junk food and walking some more! Fat or thin, healthy food and exercise choices will benefit everybody. Just like smoking is bad for EVERYONE, even if you don’t get lung cancer.
And I also think it is possible to love and accept your body the way it is, and as a consequence of that, of that re-found love for yourself, you start making better choices food wise, and some people might lose weight, some peolpe might gain weight, some people might not see a change, but ALL PEOPLE will feel better! And be healthier!
Listen, this ad has nothing to do with health. Point to a study and yell all you want about fat people being doomed to a quick death and how everybody would feel better if they ate asparagus and skinless boneless baked chicken, but it has no bearing whatsoever on the message behind this poster. This ad is not about being healthy. This is about shaming fat people — women in particular, as is typically the case. This ad is saying, “All you have to do is take the stairs and stop eating Chinese food! Then you’ll earn a sexy hot body and you’ll finally be allowed to feel good about yourself!” It’s about making fat women feel that they can only be attractive if they lose weight. It’s about making thin women feel that they cannot gain not even one pound ever because then they will no longer be desired and beautiful. This about making sure women keep counting calories and feeling bad when they look in the mirror.
Whether or not fat studies are accurate is irrelevant. This ad is not addressing the health of an individual relative to her weight and diet. It is is addressing the physical appearance of thinness, a particular perception of beauty which is always equated with happiness, in relation to her weight. If this were legitimately about health, then there would be no reason to show a woman in a bathing suit and mention how kickin’ her bod will be in that two piece. The reward would be something like “Now my cholesterol is lower!” or “Now I’m no longer at a risk for diabetes!” (Even if, FYI, these health issues are related far more directly to nutrition and genetic than those pesky 10 pounds nobody is ever able to lose.) The reward offered for all your hard work and disordered eating is an obscenely skimpy bikini. This is not about health.
I hate this weird new government ad campaign working to get people on diets because it’s condescending. How many grown women honestly do not have any idea what a “portion” looks like? Hmm? I’d guess very few. In human bio, I didn’t even take notes on the “Health and Nutrition” lecture series because I KNOW this. I know it backward and forwards and upside down. (Aced the midterm, BTW.) I’ve counted my calories like a good girl my entire life and all it has ever done was make me unhappy and obsessed with my body and weight and, oh yeah: still fat. Every single time I tried.
When someone tells me that not only am I disgusting and ugly in my current “extra pounds” state but that I must almost certainly be eating all kinds of trashy food and that it’s so easy to lose weight if only I do X Y and Z religiously, it’s infuriating at best and incredibly damaging at worst. That’s how eating disorders get started, you know.
The government does not know me. It does not even know health and nutrition, since the food pyramid was created by the USDA who answers to meat and dairy interest groups, not to doctors and science (flawed as they may sometimes be). I’ve seen those new PSA posters up around government buildings, hung up in front of the elevators and vending machines. They offer sage wisdom and pithy advice like, “Free Exercise Machine, Available 24/7. Take The Stairs.” Well, thanks, poster. I was going to take the elevator simply because I’m a lazy fattie fat, not because I’m going to the 24th floor with a heavy box of legal documents and I’ve only been in this building twice so I’m not sure where the stairs are. I guess that skinny guy next to me waiting for the elevator is allowed to take the ‘easy’ way since he’s thin and good whereas I have to pay the penance of being fat and making all you skinny people suffer when I happen to be in your line of vision for a moment. Sorry, my bad.
Obesity is a public health issue. It causes more deaths than smoking each year in the United States. People are too busy, lazy, unmotivated, whatever to do something about their weight, even if they want to lose it. This campaign simply asks that people take “small steps” to become healthier. It’s not an attack on any fatties. Get over it?
Shannon, I think you missed the studies that have shown “obesity-related deaths” (a scientifically problematic term if I’ve ever heard one) have decreased since 2004. If you’re really concerned about health, there are some great scientific websites out there that can help you understand the evidence and studies – like Junk Food Science, for example. But if you’re just here to make us feel bad – well, I’m sorry you’re so bored with your life!
Hey, I’m a bit late to the party, just thought I’d mention I read the ad the exact same way you did at first.
x
I like the implication that even at appropriate levels of thinness, the human body is obscene. If I’m going to be obscene, I’ll do it by staying fat and staying clothed.