On Being Fat

When I was a little boy, I was a normal kid, at a normal weight. I was a rambunctious male child from a divorced household, and, today, I’m sure, I would have been put on Ritalin. My mother, while not maternal, was very health conscious, and kept the food in the house normal, but healthy. There were not a lot of sugary snacks or sugared drinks.

However, I liked to eat, and would find ways to do so. I have the sort of metabolism that packs on the pounds, so after 2nd and 3rd grade, I became kind of chubby. And while I put on some weight through 6th grade, I wasn’t morbidly obese. But I felt fat. When I was skinny—and, after a 4 month stint in boarding school environment where my food consumption was tightly controlled, I was skinny—I still felt fat.

My mother spent a year in France when I was in 7th grade, so I began to live with my father full time. The food there wasn’t as healthy, and I put on more weight. By the time I was in high school, I weighed 300 pounds. After a few years of that, I got tired of it. I started eating less, without a specific goal, with just the idea of eating a little bit less and being a little more healthier, and maybe losing a little weight. I’d still be fat, of course, but I wouldn’t be quite as fat.

At about the same time, my best friend dropped out of school and was rail-roaded into the Coast Guard. Although he was skinny as a rail, a lot of my most egregious over-consumption I did with him. Since he was gone, I just stopped consuming bags of chips and entire tubes of cookie dough in a single sitting.

I smoked like a smoke-stack then–now, I had done that for years, but now it provided me a handy alternative to eating so much. Also, they were menthols, so they were flavorful, as well. But I think the most important thing was that I had resigned myself to being fat, and was only trying to ease up a little bit. I wasn’t going to be skinny–I wasn’t ever going to be skinny. It was an absurd thought. But I could lose a little weight, come down a few sizes. In any case, I could certainly get by on a little less food and eat a little healthier.

By the time I had lost 80 lbs, it occurred to me that I could, in fact, be skinny. And I became so. My freshmen year at college, I went from 215 or so at the beginning of the year to 185 at the end. I had continued to wear baggy clothes, my hair had remained unkempt, and despite having lost 100 pounds over about 16 months, nobody at that point had really noticed*. However, a few changes to my wardrobe, grooming, and a little more exercise over the summer made a big difference. At the beginning my sophomore year, I was now thin and fit, to the point where I got a few audible gasps. I relished getting together with old friends from high school who had not seen me for a year, and seeing their shock (this does eventually get old, when people you don’t even remember come up to tell you how fat you used to be, but at first, I loved it). And even good friends see you in a different way when you’ve lost 100 pounds.

I finally felt skinny. I believe it was over the summer, or at the beginning of my sophomore year. I would have weighed around 175, and was preparing to go out to Rocky Horror. Looking in the mirror, I noticed that I did not have a double chin. No doubt, this had been true for months, but this was the first time I really noticed it. I nodded my head. Still no double chin. I practically had to break my neck to produce anything that resembled a second-chin**. God bless! I was thin!

And I stayed thin for quite a while. I had assumed it would be the case for the rest of my life, and that I had that puppy licked (ah, hubris). But I stayed thin, actually getting down to 150 at one point (of course, I could not actually consume any calories to maintain this weight, so that did not last long). But I hovered between 175 and 185 for years. After working for a year, a crawled up to 195. As my wife-to-be an I moved in together, I put on another 10 lbs, and hovered between 220 and 210 for several years. Then, my wife got pregnant, and I gained 40 lbs. While I managed to get down a little from 250, she got pregnant (again!) and I surpassed it. I been as high as 275 . . . never quite 300 pounds, again, but more than 100 pounds over my idea college weight.

There’s a lot I could note about my first years of svelteness (and I suspect, though cannot confirm, that going from being very fat and fit and trim is a great deal more enjoyable than simply having been thin and fit from the outset), but I’ll just note one. The issue of weight, and how I had managed to end up as overweight as much as I did in high school, continued to occupy my mind. A lot of my writing at the time dealt with both direct and indirect psychological introspection. Specifically, songs like Big Fat Geek (I weighed 170 lbs when I wrote it), Fat, Fat (probably around 180, when I wrote it), My Big Fat Friend, with lots of other stuff that touched on similar themes without being quite so direct.I thought I had a great handle on my inner psychology that drove me to over eating and sedentary behavior . . . but, as time would demonstrate, I was a little cocky. Because, while I’m around 260 now (and, slowly, descending, but there’s no rush), I’ve spent a lot of time in the past 5 years around 270 and sometimes has high as 275. If you have told me my junior year of college that, at 40, I’d weigh over 270 and be routinely hoarding snacks in my desk like a chipmunk putting away nuts for winter, I would have told you to go fuck yourself and punched you in the face. Yet, you would have been right, and I would have been a tad hubristic and over optimistic in my projections.

There’s been a lot of dieting since leaving college that I haven’t chronicled. And a lot of eating. Sufficed to say, I have always gained that weight back. And usually in short order, and usually a little more besides. On more than one occasion, I’ve attempted to recapture the state of mind I was in when I lost so much weight from Christmas of 1986 to mid-1988. And it’s been very difficult. But, I’m trying again.

In this case, I’ve gone this way before, but I’m having a little better luck (so far), in that I’m not dieting. I’m just trying to change my eating habits. While I want to lose weight, the goal is to change my eating habits, and do so in increments. So far, this has worked all right. I remind myself that it’s a process of conditioning.

I greatly enjoyed Joel Spitzer’s Never Take Another Puff method of quitting smoking. An important point he makes is that it’s important not to confuse your withdrawal a day, a week, or a month into the process of quitting with how things will be in a year. It’s different for everybody; I’ve quit smoking enough to know it takes me about six weeks to get past the general addiction and, even then, I sometimes still really want a cigarette (if this weren’t true, I wouldn’t have had to quit smoking more than once).† When I remember I’m not trying to diet, specifically (if I don’t lose weight this week, that’s fine) but attempting to recondition myself in regards to how I eat, I have to remember: a lot of what I’m feeling is because my body is used to being fed a lot of calories, and that my body will eventually adjust. I felt fine for a long time eating a very modest diet; I know I can get by with much less.

I am trying not to confuse how I feel when trying to manage day to day life while feeling out-of-sorts, punchy, or light-headed with a state of permanence, and trying to focus on the things I enjoy about eating less (my sense of smell improves, bizarrely, and scents become much more sensual–that is, if they’re pleasant).

So, we’ll see how this approach works. I’ve fallen off the wagon, in regards to overeating, more times than I can count. Because I have an appetite, and I enjoy eating, and tend to over do it. But I’m focusing more than usual on changing eating habits first. No more second breakfast for me!

So, anybody else here overweight? Struggled with dieting? Fit and svelte, but formerly fat? I often debate politics and movies and economics and whatnot but, the fact is, nothing has much more impact on the day-to-day quality of my life than both what I eat, and how much I weigh (despite my undying love of cheese burgers, I miss the lightness and mobility of weighing 185, and try to keep that foremost in my mind when the leftovers in the refrigerator start calling my name).

There is more to be said: I suspect some, though not all, the migraines that I get would be gone with the wind, if I maintained a low calorie, low-consumption diet. I can tell you from experience, people who struggle with their weight really do struggle with it, even if to some they only seem fat and lazy (but I can understand why some people might think that). I wonder how much of the perceived negatives (for me) of low food consumption, and low blood sugar, are psychological. Am I oversharing? But . . . I’ll dip into that in the comments, if anybody is interested in discussing eating habits and weight history on an ostensibly political blog.

But, then again, it is called all things in moderation.


* In fact, we usually make a huge deal about our weight, when wardrobe and grooming actually make as much, if not more, and impact on how we are perceived by others. If I found myself waking up in my 300 pound high school body back in 1984, the first thing I’d do is upgrade my wardrobe and grooming habits).

** Ah, the wonders of youthful skin elasticity. While there was nothing to be done about my flabby stomach–300 lbs is too much stretching, and you’re never going to have six-pack abs after that without cosmetic surgery–I was able to rebound from being 300 lbs in high school to having a nice, tight firm skinny little neck by the beginning of my sophomore year in college. This would not be the case now, alas.

† At some point, I may do a post on smoking. I don’t know how many former smokers we have here, but I’ve got a few things to say about smoking, about enjoying smoking, about quitting smoking, and not being great about “never taking another puff” even though, of course, once you’ve gone through the trouble to quit, you know you’ll just have to go through it all over again the minute you pick up a cigarette.

We Are So Screwed

There were already lots of economic discussions today but I couldn’t resist this over-view for non-economists. I found a conservative economist I mostly agree with but don’t panic, it hardly ever happens.

This is seriously an interesting and informative piece from a conservative economist who helped develop Reaganomics. Of course he has since tried to re-formulate the plan and was also a huge critic of Bush, the Iraq War and Bush’s economic policies. I’m pretty sure I’ve quoted him before and gotten an onslaught of criticism for doing so from conservatives, but I’m just going to go ahead and do it again. I understand that he is no longer a revered voice in conservative circles and that some of his criticism of Bush was beyond the pale, but this is still a good read and gives an historical reference that some of us non-economists crave in order to understand the larger view of the mess that 2008 has wrought on the world. BTW, he is a critic of both Republican and Democratic economic policies and seems to place a high value on a thriving middle class, me too. I may be missing some essential economic reality or other so feel free to point it out, but most of what he says sounds about right to me. I placed just a few quotes below so read the entire piece if you’re interested. I’ve been accused, lightheartedly, of linking to rather esoteric economic journalism, so I imagine this is another one in that vein. I can’t seem to help myself.

Paul Craig Roberts (born April 3, 1939) is an American economist and a columnist for Creators Syndicate. He served as an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration earning fame as a co-founder of Reaganomics.”[1] He is a former editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal, Business Week, and Scripps Howard News Service. Roberts has been a critic of both Democratic and Republican administrations.

More of his bio from Wikipedia

Quotes from a piece in CounterPunch today:

Economic policy in the United States and Europe has failed, and people are suffering.

Economic policy failed for three reasons: (1) policymakers focused on enabling offshoring corporations to move middle class jobs, and the consumer demand, tax base, GDP, and careers associated with the jobs, to foreign countries, such as China and India, where labor is inexpensive; (2) policymakers permitted financial deregulation that unleashed fraud and debt leverage on a scale previously unimaginable; (3) policymakers responded to the resulting financial crisis by imposing austerity on the population and running the printing press in order to bail out banks and prevent any losses to the banks regardless of the cost to national economies and innocent parties.

To deal with the adverse impact on the economy from the loss of jobs and consumer demand from offshoring, Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan lowered interest rates in order to create a real estate boom. Lower interest rates pushed up real estate prices. People refinanced their houses and spent the equity. Construction, furniture and appliance sales boomed. But unlike previous expansions based on rising real income, this one was based on an increase in consumer indebtedness.

There is a limit to how much debt can increase in relation to income, and when this limit was reached, the bubble popped.

The Paulson Bailout (TARP) was large but insignificant compared to the $16.1 trillion (a sum larger than US GDP or national debt) that the Federal Reserve lent to private financial institutions in the US and Europe.

In making these loans, the Federal Reserve violated its own rules. At this point, capitalism ceased to function. The financial institutions were “too big to fail,” and thus taxpayer subsidies took the place of bankruptcy and reorganization. In a word, the US financial system was socialized as the losses of the American financial institutions were transferred to taxpayers.

He goes on to talk about Greece, the IMF and our very own Fed and QE3 and then concludes with this:

For four years interest rates, when properly measured, have been negative. Americans are getting by, maintaining living standards, by consuming their capital. Even those with a cushion are eating their seed corn. The path that the US economy is on means that the number of Americans without resources to sustain them will be rising. Considering the extraordinary political incompetence of the Democratic Party, the right wing of the Republican Party, which is committed to eliminating income support programs, could find itself in power. If the right-wing Republicans implement their program, the US will be beset with political and social instability. As Gerald Celente says, “when people have have nothing left to lose, they lose it.”

Jennifer Granholm Claims She Caused Michigan’s Woes By Cutting Taxes and Government

Jennifer Granholm claims, on Jon Stewart, that she causes Michigan’s problems with her crazed tax cutting and reducing the size of government. Although, eventually, some private-public partnerships yielded some results–thanks to Obama.
She has some interesting theories. She paints a very different picture of herself than, say, Rush Limbaugh does. 
…

Billionaire Wants Ideas on Job Creation — Offering Cash

Saw this over the weekend. Basically, this billionaire wants to move beyond simple charity to put his money to use in efforts that will lead to job creation and a more lasting effort. I think it’s kind of a “teach a man” vs. “give a man” idea.

But, he’s got an email address and is soliciting ideas. Perhaps a group letter is in order?

See the column here

Late edit: Obviously he should pay us to post on this blog.

Monday Morning Opening (or, Ramblings From a Tired Mind)

She’s baaaa-aaaack!

I’m going to throw this up as a somewhat rambling morning thread, since I’ve spent bits and pieces of the last 24 hours going through PL and ATiM threads to get caught up. I’ll just throw out there that moving is the pits, but it does tend to clear out the rubble!

What a weekend! Starting on Thursday, when I went offline due to moving and associated intertubes interuptions, I’d like to make a few quick hits to get up to speed:

NoVA: An absolutely wonderful post that I’m going to re-read and comment on later. I really appreciate the time and effort you put into writing this, and I just wish that 12BB would get her fourth point of contact over here to read it. Does anybody know why she seems to be boycotting us?

lms: I can’t make a direct connection, but it really burns me up that healthcare insurance works the way it does. It’s one of the few perks that we (state) government lackeys have, and one of my last bills for my ex came in at $17K for a less than 72 hour stay in a hospital. I’m not paying it for several reasons, but part of it is that they don’t seem to be able/willing to break it down. . . you can’t convince me that they provided $17K of care to a man who didn’t need divine intervention to make him better (I’ve seen what they do: stick an IV in his arm, pump him up with vitamins and let him sleep it off. For $17K??????) And because I’ve got such great insurance that’s what they’d “bill” me. . . except I don’t have to pay anything other than the deductible, because they’re passing the cost on to people like you. It doesn’t make any sense to me.

Troll: Your PT was done at a physician-owned practice, which goes against many ethical guidelines in the PT world (my ex spent several years working at the Federal level on practice guidelines and scope of practice rules.) While it isn’t illegal, it’s considered unethical in many ways for PTs to work directly for orthopods, so it doesn’t surprise me that you were less than happy with your tennis elbow rehab. Having said that, I had a similar injury that just couldn’t be rehabbed, no matter what was tried. About five years later it spontaneously got better. . . so I hope that happens for you!

okie: Sounds like you ran a marvelous event–congrats! If it makes you feel any better, I failed to get the starting pistol to the Honorary Chair who was starting our Race For the Cure last May because I was trying to figure out why our trash cans hadn’t been delivered. There he was (County Mayor), reduced to saying “Bang!” at the start. . .

Who is Mike? And I see that shrink has changed his name again (to mdash?).

And, finally, I have to say that these people strike me as idiots.

What else is happening this morning?

— Michigoose

Blast from The Past: January 30th, 2004

I originally blogged this on my own blog in January of 2004 (back when I blogged regularly).

Here it is, for posterity:

Finally, Republicans control it all, so it’s back to smaller government, right? Wrong! It’s back to Big Government–in fact, the Biggest Government ever!

From Deroy Murdock in National Review (read the article here):

A forthcoming Cato Institute study rates American presidents on real domestic discretionary spending. Lyndon Johnson hiked such outlays by 4.3 percent before they grew 6.8 percent under Richard Nixon. Jimmy Carter’s 2-percent increase preceded Ronald Reagan’s 1.3-percent reduction. Clinton’s expenditures advanced 2.5 percent, but Bush’s spending boom more than triples that figure to 8.2 percent. Most of this is beyond the war on terror.

Now, I say again: Bush –> Nixon. I keep on seeing it. And 98% of the Republicans (supposedly our beloved ’94 sweep, contract with America types) in congress are going: “Sure, let’s spend more. And more. And even more.”

But, as Roger Hedgcock, a conservative talkshow host and former congressman often points out, it’s hard to understand how intoxicating it is to spend Other People’s Money to a politician, unless you’ve been there. They’re all addicts. I haven’t been there. But I can imagine. There’s just so much tax payer revenue concentrated on one place. How much good could you do? How popular could you become in your district back home?

Never mind that spending is out of control.

And shame on the Democrats who, in the face of such bald-faced hypocrisy and utter fiscal irresponsibility, can only say deficits are up because of “tax cuts to the rich” and, simultaneously, demand more money for education (despite the highest outlay ever) and other social spending, and say that not enough is being done. They won’t say that $500 billion is “not enough” for the prescription drug benefit, but they have all complained that it doesn’t cover enough, that seniors are left to pay for too much on their own . . . what is one left to conclude, except that they think that the largest growth in real government spending is not enough and we should, instead, be spending more and make up the difference with what one would have to imagine for zero-based thinkers the highest tax hikes in history (because, if the only way to raise revenues is to increase taxes, then how else can you pay for even more spending than has come from the spendiest administration in history?).

I doubt I’ll do it myself, but I understand why conservatives are proclaiming their going to vote for a libertarian candidate. I can’t—there is a happy medium between “no government” and “all government” somewhere—but I understand it. I also understand why a lot of Democrats would vote for Nader. At least McGovern had some consistency. Carter had some consistency.

Although, for the most part, Bush has been very consistent for a politician—he promised outrageous social spending and the opening of the borders and, dammit, if he ain’t delivering. And, he promised tax cuts and constructionist judicial appointments, and he’s doing that, too.

And I understand certain “message” spending—increasing the budgets for the National Endowment of the Arts or being the biggest spender on AIDS in Africa and what have you, but the prescription drug benefit is a massive social spending boondoggle that will be rife with waste and fraud and essentially burn taxpayer money forever, without really providing a tangible benefit to society as a whole . . .

On the plus side, the liberalism of Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford provoked the “Reagan Revolution”, so maybe the compassionate conservatism of George Bush will provoke a response–an actual Reagan conservative who might, say, reduce government rather than just taxes.

Oh, well. Speaking of taxes, back to paying mine.

Links From The Daily

Speaking of the economy. Investors dumping equities in favor of cash and bonds (I’m a cash man, now, myself).

The rich get richer, but everybody else mostly gets poorer. Is it class warfare if it’s kinda true?

We invented the internet, but compared to many other places, our average broadband speed sucks.

This should tell you something about the current Republican field: 56% of registered Republicans don’t have a preferred candidate.

Troy Davis executed.

ashot, here, throwing in a link from The Economist about taxing the rich.

Saturday Night Random

I’m not sure if this should be a post, but since it’s Saturday night and things are quiet here, I’ll put it up in the spirit of the old Plum Line At Night segments that BGinChi used to host, often about books. (And BG’s planning to stop in here when he has time, which is nice news.)

Some of you may have checked out my publishing website, which is linked to at my profile. I’ve just posted an interview question Bernie asked me to answer about the sensory experience of writing fiction. If you’re interested in how writing fiction gets done, you might want to look.

At the Plum Line, I’ve occasionally commented about things Wisconsin since I lived there for over two decades. As a political junkie, I’ve thought a lot about what’s going on there–that persistent divide that gave the country both the Progressive tradition and Joe McCarthy. During my Wisconsin years, particularly when I lived in the country, I was very aware of the outlook of many of neighbors and how that played out in politics. I wrote a lot of short stories that were informed by my affection for those neighbors and my interest in their attitudes.

For those of you who’re curious about what the real Wisconsin is, those stories are collected in In the Land of the Dinosaur: Ten Stories and a Novella. There’s info on it (including excerpts and music links) and other titles, including my Civil War War novel, Suite Harmonic, on the site. There’s also a related interview question from David Douglas (not somebody from the Plum Line) about the isolation of living in the country in Wisconsin. You’ll want emilymeier dot com.

We’re Open on Saturdays (An Open Thread)

Andrew M. Cuomo – Governor


Joint Statement From Governor Cuomo, Christie, Corbett and Perdue Urging Congress to Put Aside Politics on Disaster Assistance

Albany, NY (September 23, 2011)

“Our states have been hit hard by Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee. While the flood waters have receded and the storms are passed, the damage to communities, businesses and infrastructure remains significant. Billions of dollars in loss and destruction pose a serious threat not only to local and regional economies, but to the nation’s economic recovery.

Our states’ governments and our citizens are doing their part to restore and rebuild.

The federal government must also do its part.

Federal assistance for the victims of storms and floods should be beyond politics. Within 10 days of Hurricane Katrina, Congress passed and the President signed over $60 billion in aid for the Gulf Coast. It’s been 28 days since Irene and Lee started battering our states. We urge this Congress to move swiftly to ensure that disaster aid through FEMA and other federal programs is sufficient to start rebuilding now.”

Governor Andrew Cuomo, New York

Governor Chris Christie, New Jersey

Governor Tom Corbett, Pennsylvania

Governor Bev Perdue, North Carolina

(Bi-Partisan Disaster Relief-lms)


On an encouraging, bipartisan note, I’m happy to report that we saw the trailer for The Thing today, and it actually looks … really good.

I could’t quite figure out how it relates to the first two. It looks like something of a combination of them. But, assuming it reviews well, I cannot wait to see it. —QB


One Man’s Heroic Quest for Truth

Why not a little Palinmania on a Saturday when everyone is looking forward to football, cooking, or other weekend diversions? I saw this semi-explosive piece airing dirty laundry of Joe McGinnis and Jesse Griffen, one of the hardy band of Palin web stalkers, over at Big Government the other day. John Hinderaker raised the obvious question of whether it could be evidence of libel. As interesting to me are the many nuggets the (alleged) email contains reflecting on McGinnis’s MO and agenda, as well as his candid if unintentional indictment of the anti-Palin muckraking web posse. These two paragraphs are striking to me, if in no way surprising for what they admit:

I’ve neither seen nor heard anything that indicates that Ms. Tripp’s story has any basis in fact. None of the endless crap Patrick posted about her before getting the boot from palingates.com offers any substantiation.


And even you write frequently that you know things you can’t yet post, but that soon “all will be revealed.” This has been going on since I first became aware of your blog, but as far as I know you haven’t substantiated a single claim or provided verification for a single rumor that you’ve posted about Sarah’s personal life, or the personal lives of any Palin family members. Thus, she gets to denounce what she calls “lies.”

Here we see a desperate and apparently angry McGinnis, betrayed! by his fellow Palinphobes. Amazingy, McGinnis appears to have submitted his manuscript containing all these rumours while knowing that they lacked any substantiation whatsoever. Tawdry and pathetic are words that come to mind. McGinnis moved next door to the Palins to spy on them but was still scrambling after his manuscript went to the publisher to justify the sleaziest accusations he put in it, and castigating amateur smear merchants for letting him down. The lament at the end is priceless and telling. He isn’t concerned that the internet rumors spread by hate hobbyists might be lies, only that they give Palin the opportunity to call them what they are. Unfair!