Tag Archives: Size Diversity

Stuff that Weighs More than Me: Offshore Platform

oilrigI was just watching the History Channel series “The Men That Built America”.  One of the interesting bits was about how John D. Rockefeller got his start in refining oil in the great state of Ohio.  Apparently at one time, Ohio was the number one source of oil in the United States.  It was also the site of the first submerged oil wells or oil rigs.  These were located in Grand Lake St. Marys.

There are a variety of different types of offshore platforms or oil rigs including some that are fixed to the ocean floor, some that are artificial islands and some that float.  Offshore oil platforms represent some of the largest moveable man made objects.

The Petronius Platform located in the Gulf of Mexico stands 2,000 feet above the ocean floor and is currently one of the world’s tallest structures.

One of the largest and probably the heaviest offshore platform is the Hibernia platform in Canada.  This gravity base platform is located in the North Atlantic Ocean about 196 miles east, southeast of St. Johns in Newfoundland, Canada at N46°45.026′ W48°46.976′.

Here’s the stats:

Start of development: 1986

Start of oil production: 1997

Depth: The Hibernia rests on the ocean floor at a depth of about 260 ft.

Height: The topsides extend about 160 ft. out of the water

Capacity: The gravity base can hold 1.2 million barrels.

Weight Integrated Topsides Facility: 37,000 tons

Weight Gravity Base: 660,000 tons

Ballast: After the Hibernia was towed into place, 450,000 tons of solid ballast were used to secure the platform.

Total Weight: 1.2 million tons

Conclusion: Any given oil platform weighs more than a little bit more than me.

 

Like my posts?  You’ll love my stuff!

Buy my book: The Fat Chick Works Out! (Fitness that is Fun and Feasible for Folks of All Ages, Shapes Sizes and Abilities)–available in softcover and e-book versions

Buy my DVD: The Fat Chick Works Out! (A Safe, Easy and Fun Workout for Klutzes, Wimps and Absolute Beginners!)

Buy a book or a DVD for a friend and save $5!  Just enter FRIENDBLFT in the discount code box!

Check out my Training Programs–both in person and via Skype (Starting at just $25!)

or

Book me to speak at your special event!

Dear Dr. Terrible Your Bigotry is Showing…

professorterribleRan across this in my facebook feed today and almost wanted to cry.  This tweet from Evolutionary Psychology Professor at NYU & U. New Mexico Dr. Geoffrey Miller is really special.  It states:

Dear obese PhD applicants: if you don’t have the willpower to stop eating carbs, you won’t have the willpower to do a dissertation. #truth

Here’s somebody who is at least in theory, well educated and yet he felt that he needed to tweet that absolute garbage.  Since the tweet has gone viral, he has taken it down and apologized.  But in my opinion, that is way too little and way too late.  Plus, I have to say, I find the apology a little bit suspect.  Here, let me interpret for you.

Dr. Miller states:

My sincere apologies to all for that idiotic, impulsive, and badly judged tweet. It does not reflect my true views, values, or standards.

Which means, “Oh crap, I could possibly get fired for this.  I’d better retract my statement ASAP.  I’ll just say I didn’t really mean it.  That will work, right?”

Dr. Miller goes on to state:

Obviously my previous tweet does not represent the selection policies of any university, or my own selection criteria.

Which means, “Upon further reflection (or after some very tense phone calls) I realize that some of the folks who were rejected for anything by me or any of the universities at which I teach may be somewhat upset.  In fact, they may just sue us into financial oblivion.”

So hey Dr. Miller, here’s my tweet to you:

Nobody believes your stupid and transparently self serving apology. #Find a good lawyer

I can find no excuse for this sort of behavior.  None. This guy is supposed to be a teacher.  This guy is supposed to be a scientist.  And he’s drawing this conclusion based on what evidence?  None.  He doesn’t like fat people, therefore they are lazy and incapable of doctoral level work.  Oh except, not really.  He didn’t really mean it.

The fact that this guy clearly gets to make decisions about who gets to apply for a PhD is utterly terrifying to me.  And speaking of terrified, I hope that both Professor Prejudice and his university are currently shaking in their shoes.  Even if an actual lawsuit from a student who was turned away from the  university is not forthcoming, I think might just be the opening breezes of a PR poopmageddon about to go down.  In fact, I think there needs to be a social media storm of biblical proportions over this tweet.  Do you hear that my dear readers?  Let’s start twittering and peeping and let our voices be heard!  This is a rare opportunity to talk about bias at the highest levels of our learning institutions.  This is an opportunity for us to educate the educators.  Let’s get the conversation started and keep it rolling!

Love,

The Fat Chick

Like my posts?  You’ll love my stuff!

Buy my book: The Fat Chick Works Out! (Fitness that is Fun and Feasible for Folks of All Ages, Shapes Sizes and Abilities)–available in softcover and e-book versions

Buy my DVD: The Fat Chick Works Out! (A Safe, Easy and Fun Workout for Klutzes, Wimps and Absolute Beginners!)

Buy a book or a DVD for a friend and save $5!  Just enter FRIENDBLFT in the discount code box!

Check out my Training Programs–both in person and via Skype (Starting at just $25!)

or

Book me to speak at your special event!

Does this Blog make my Butt Look Big? Why “Fat Talk” may be Bad for your Social Life.

NotListening

La, la, la I’m not listening…

“Fat talk” is a bonding ritual that many of us learned at our Mother’s knee.  Many of us have participated in fat talk over the years because we felt social pressure to do so.  But according to a recent study, moaning about the size of our thighs or asking if our butt looks big, might not be the best move for our social lives.

We’ve long known that fat talk is bad for your self esteem (and the self esteem of those around you).  We’ve talked about that in the blog a fair bit.  But a recent study led by Alexandra Corning, research associate professor of psychology and director of Notre Dame’s Body Image and Eating Disorder Lab seems to indicate that fat talk may make you less likable to your peers.  In the study, college students were shown pictures of noticeably thin and fat women.  Each of these pictures depicted women engaged in body talk–either positive body talk or fat talk.  Those participating in the study were then asked to rate the women in the photos in a number of dimensions including likability.  When the results were tabulated, it seems that women who engaged in “fat talk” were considered less likeable than those who engaged in positive body talk.  In fact, according to the study, the fat women who had positive things to say about their bodies were considered the most likeable.  This result is very interesting to psychologists who have long thought of fat talk as a way that women “strengthen social bonds”.  But the study seems to indicate that women who engage in this behavior may be perceived as less likeable than their peers.

But, and this is a big but*, it’s important to remember this test simply measures personal perception.  It doesn’t indicate what is actually happening in a social setting where fat talk is happening or measure anything related to peer pressure.  This may explain why many of us may still feel pressured to engage in fat talk even in an environment where we may privately be perceived as less likeable for doing so.  And it is only one study.

That said, I am encouraged by the results of this study.  I decided long ago to refrain from engaging in fat talk with my friends, family and colleagues.  I’ve taken heat for not participating.  I’ve been teased for it.  But I for one, will choose to believe that I am also secretly liked and respected for my refusal to fat talk.  Because believing the best about myself seems to be working pretty well for me so far.

Love,

The Fat Chick

*You see what I did there?

Like my posts?  You’ll love my stuff!

Buy my book: The Fat Chick Works Out! (Fitness that is Fun and Feasible for Folks of All Ages, Shapes Sizes and Abilities)–available in softcover and e-book versions

Buy my DVD: The Fat Chick Works Out! (A Safe, Easy and Fun Workout for Klutzes, Wimps and Absolute Beginners!)

Buy a book or a DVD for a friend and save $5!  Just enter FRIENDBLFT in the discount code box!

Check out my Training Programs–both in person and via Skype (Starting at just $25!)

or

Book me to speak at your special event!

Stuff that Weighs More Than Me: Haul from the LA River Clean Up

FOLAR-flyer-color-print_no-DAY-726x1024It’s what you call a win-win situation.  You and 3,000 other people gather a big pile of debris (that weighs more than me) and you get to help clean up the river areas in Los Angeles County!

Every year (for the past 24 years) the Friends of the Los Angeles River have coordinated a huge 1-day event known as The Great LA River Cleanup or La Gran Limpieza.  This year’s event featured live music, free gifts, raffle prizes and refreshments.  The volunteers also had a chance to compare “river treasures” to see who had the wildest or strangest items pulled from the river.  Previous highlights included a mini trampoline and a valuable buffalo nickel complete with collecting case.

But aside from the fun and hijinks, the volunteers remove an astonishing amount of detritus, and make the river areas just that much more awesome.  Plus, in case you are wondering, this day’s exercise could definitely be called “fitlanthropy“.  Here’s the stats:

Collection Period: 3 hours

Volunteers: Over 3,000

Number of collection sites: 15

Total debris removed from the river: Over 25 tons

Conclusion: The Haul from La Gran Limpieza weighs more than me!

Love,

The Fat Chick

P.S. Want to volunteer next year?  Click here to learn more about the Friends of the Los Angeles River!

P.S.S. Like my posts?  You’ll love my stuff!

Buy my book: The Fat Chick Works Out! (Fitness that is Fun and Feasible for Folks of All Ages, Shapes Sizes and Abilities)–available in softcover and e-book versions

Buy my DVD: The Fat Chick Works Out! (A Safe, Easy and Fun Workout for Klutzes, Wimps and Absolute Beginners!)

Buy a book or a DVD for a friend and save $5!  Just enter FRIENDBLFT in the discount code box!

Check out my Training Programs–both in person and via Skype (Starting at just $25!)

or

Book me to speak at your special event!

Fashionably Impoverished

AppleCharlotteSo I ran across THIS story this past week about Charlotte a fashion student in London who dared, DARED to make a plus-sized collection for her graduate project.  Unfortunately (but not surprisingly) she received a lot of resistance from her school about her decision to create a plus-sized fashion line and use plus-sized models.  At least initially she was told that she couldn’t show her collection in the University’s London showcase.  She was told that she would have to source all her own models for her own showcase and create all of her own pattern blocks.  All this because she dared to suggest that perhaps some designs should be created for the 50 percent of the female population that can’t wear “straight sizes”.  (Hmm, isn’t “straight sizes” an interesting term in itself?)

All of this in the same week that we’ve seen the brouhaha over Abercrombie & Fitch’s CEO, Mike Jeffries and his hateful comment that his clothes are for the “cool kids”, and that he really doesn’t offer plus sizes because he really doesn’t want fat people wearing his clothes.  Why does Mike do that?  Simple.  He says that because he believes it will further endear him to his target market of young, thin, privileged, white kids.  And he says that because he really didn’t believe there would be any problem with it.  Oh after all the yelling Mr. Jeffries apparently made a half-hearted apology just to keep his name in the papers.  To which I say, F-you Mike Jeffries.  Oh and please enjoy this special video response to Mr. Jeffries recorded on the streets of my beloved Hollywood…

However you slice it, Mike Jeffries got a publicity bonanza for his brand as a result of this whole thing.  And while the surprising backlash probably prompted this apology, the reality is, all publicity is good publicity if they spell your URL correctly and drive traffic to your facebook feed.

But there is an aspect to this whole thing that puzzles me.  The scorn of the fashion industry to anyone who wears over a size zero is hardly new.  But we’re still climbing out of a worldwide recession.  You’d think fashion companies might be a tad more interested in making money.  You’d think that they’d want to give a little more attention to the basic principles of supply and demand.  And no matter how you slice it, the place where the market is under-served, the place where there is more market share to be got and less competition to fight is in plus-sized fashions.  Seriously.

Don’t believe me?  Do this experiment.  Go to any mall in America.  Count the number of clothing stores for women.  Now count the number of clothing stores for women that carry plus-sized fashions.  Let’s take the Fashion Square Mall in Los Angeles as an example.  There are 40 stores that carry women’s clothing.  The only two that offer any plus-sized clothing in the store are the two major department stores, Macy’s and Bloomingdales.  In both cases, the plus-sized clothing departments are a small fraction of the overall floor space.  Two stores at the mall offer plus-sizes via their web sites (J Jill and Forever 21) but not in the stores at this mall.  So of the 40 women’s clothing stores in this mall you can try on clothes over a size 14 at two of them.  This despite the fact that about half the female population of our country wears a size 14 or over.   Now I don’t have an ivy league MBA degree, but even I can figure out that the business opportunity lies with the plus-sized crowd.  So why oh why is the university discouraging the amazing Charlotte from creating clothes for the half of the population that is actively crying out for new clothes?  In this world of ballooning student loans and massive unemployment, why would they discourage a student from focusing on a market which A) the student has a great passion to serve, and B)The student might actually make some money?

The only answer I can come up with is stigma, pure and simple.  Charlotte has expressed pride at graduating and some consternation that she won’t know her final grade for some time.  But I for one, would be pretty indifferent to the judgement of any institution that taught me to be fashionably poor.

Love,

The Fat Chick

The Right Now Show 013: Finding the Right Fitness Trainer


In this episode, Jeanette DePatie AKA The Fat Chick shares some information about finding the right fitness teacher or trainer.  She shares a personal story about a really disastrous bout with a personal trainer and gives you practical tips for finding a personal trainer that is just right for you!

By the way, Jeanette also offers personal training both in person and remotely (via Skype).  You can learn more on her website right here: http://www.thefatchick.com/The_Fat_Chick/Training.html

If you sign up right away, you can try any of my monthly training packages for only $25.  That’s nearly $100 off my most comprehensive plan!  So don’t wait.

Love,

The Fat Chick

Stuff that Weighs More than Me: A Mil V-12 Helicopter

helicopter

Okay, I think it’s safe to say that pretty much any helicopter weighs more than me.  But there are helicopters, my friend, and there are HELICOPTERS.  I mean just look at that thing.  It’s so big that a regular helicopter nestles like a tiny baby upon it’s ginormous wing.  We’re talking HUGE.

The giant flying machine pictured above is actually an Aeroflot Mil V-12 (also known to NATO as a HOMER).  It is the largest helicopter that has ever been built.  It never went into full scale production and only two prototypes were ever built.  The large aircraft was built specifically to carry major missile components and was designed to carry a payload of 30,000 kg. (That’s 66138lb 10.944oz to us English System folks.)

The initial prototype took it’s maiden voyage on July 10, 1968.  It achieved a world record, lifting 44,205 kg to a height of 2,255m (7,398 feet).  Here’s the stats:

Crew: 6

Height: 12.50 m (41 ft 0 in)

Length: 37.00 m (121 ft 4 in)

Loaded weight: 97,000 kg (213,850 lb)

Maximum takeoff weight: 105,000 kg (231,500 lb)

Conclusion: I don’t think you’d need to lift the armrests to ride in this baby, and the Mil V-12 weighs more than me.

Love,

TFC

 

 

Just What the #$%&! am I Supposed to Eat!?!

eatmyshorts

So have you seen the article in the New York Times that says it might be okay to eat salt again?  It seems some recent research is calling into question the American Heart Association’s recommendation of 1,500 milligrams a salt per day.  Now on the one hand, this question is almost moot, because it’s nearly impossible to achieve 1,500 milligrams of salt a day and do things like occasionally eat food that has had any processing, eat out once in a while, or you know, live in the modern world.   On the other hand, there are some indications that consuming sodium levels as low as 1,500 milligrams per day might actually be harmful.  So it probably does merit a second look.

So according to the article, several recent studies have indicated that a sodium level goal of 2,300 might be better than 1,500 milligrams per day.  Some of these studies have even indicated that the 1,500 level might actually be dangerous for some people–potentially increasing risk for heart attack and death.  The American Heart Association has fired back suggesting that the more recent research has flaws and that they don’t want to confuse people by giving them the message that a little more salt is okay, because you know, people might then go hog wild and eat lots of salt.

And then, near the end of the article is this little gem:

Although the advice to restrict sodium to 1,500 milligrams a day has been enshrined in dietary guidelines, it never came from research on health outcomes, Dr. Strom said. Instead, it is the lowest sodium consumption can go if a person eats enough food to get sufficient calories and nutrients to live on. As for the 2,300-milligram level, that was the highest sodium levels could go before blood pressure began inching up.

Okay.  So the advice that has been cemented in stone, that is inevitably printed on that bad, multi-generation photocopied piece of paper handed to every fat person in the universe by their doctor when they go in for a check up or to get that funny looking mole checked out is based on what now?  It’s no wonder that we are confused about what to eat.  The competing nutritional studies along with the sensationalist, usually premature reporting is enough to give any potential diner whiplash.  Eat margarine!  No, eat butter!  Eat olive oil.  Eat nuts.  Eat red meat.  Don’t eat red meat.  Eat fish.  But watch out, most of the fish is full of toxins.  Eat dairy.  Don’t eat dairy.  Eat low fat.  Eat low carb.  Eat only plant-based foods.  Plant-based foods are genetically modified and full of pesticides.  OMG.  Eat my shorts!  It’s no wonder that we are going crazy trying to figure out what on earth to have for lunch every day!  Add to that the woeful lack of education among GPs and pediatricians about nutrition and you get the typical photocopied sheet of “black coffee, one piece of wheat toast, and one glass of orange juice” advice.

Now all this is not to say that we shouldn’t be concerned about what we eat.  But it is to say that nutrition is a very complicated science.  And that while we let the scientists duke it out about exactly how many milligrams of this and percentages of that we should consume, maybe we should simply focus on what foods feel good in our bodies and what tastes delicious.  I believe our bodies have wisdom, and that we benefit when we learn to listen to what our bodies have to tell us.  It may be hard to hear our “smarty-pants inner-selves” amongst all the screaming about “vitamin this” and “mineral that”.  But I for one, plan to make the effort.  Oh, and would you please pass the salt?

Love,

The Fat Chick

The Body’s Battle with Weight Loss

slide33.033I recently ran across this little gem on Cracked.com entitled “Fat is Officially Incurable (According to Science)” which offers a surprisingly accurate portrayal about just how likely those “before” and “after” shots in advertisements are to reflect the long-term experience of real, live people.  While proceeding with tongue firmly inserted in cheek, the author offers a nice summary of some of the scientific evidence offered regarding long-term weight loss:

  • Probability of long-term maintenance of very modest weight loss (10-15 pounds)–Very low
  • Probability of a fat person becoming (and staying) a thin person–Practically Non-existant.

One of my favorite things about this article (besides David Wong’s deliciously snarky attitude) is the plethora of links to some other wonderful content that I’ve read, but probably forgotten about.

For example, a lot of the math about Weight Watchers “success stories” (including why you may be 20 times more likely to survive being shot in the head than you are to reach and maintain your WW “goal weight”) is derived from this wonderful blog post by fat fu.

And David also references this comprehensive NY Times Article in which Tara Parker-Pope breaks down a lot of the recent research about why permanent weight loss can be so difficult.  She talks about a lot of the physiological changes that can happen with weight loss including:

  • Increased hunger hormones like ghrelin that make us feel more hungry.
  • Decreased leptin and peptide yy in the body which help to signal when our bodies are full.
  • Lowered metabolism.
  • Increased percentages of slow-twitch muscle fibers that make our bodies use calories more efficiently and burn fewer calories during physical activities.
  • Increased “reward response” to food in the brain leading to more intense cravings for and obsession about food.

Tara also reminds us that these changes in the body are often long-term–lasting months or even years after the dieting has stopped.  And while both she and David Wong admit that there are some “rare creatures” found in the National Weight Control Registry who have maintained significant weight loss, the vast majority of us are unlikely to experience the same results.

I don’t say this to depress you.  But I do feel very strongly that those of us who work in the health and fitness industries have a responsibility to help our clients to build realistic expectations.  Very, very few of us will lose a lot of weight and keep it off.  A very slightly larger number of us will lose a little bit of weight and keep it off.  But most of us will neither lose a significant amount of weight nor will we keep it off. Does that mean we need to give up on either wellness or well-being?  Nope!  As it turns out, bodies respond very well to healthy behaviors regardless of whether or not they are accompanied by any weight loss.  We can choose to de-couple wellness from weight loss and focus on simply doing the things that make us feel well.  So in my mind, it really makes more sense to take this Health At Every Size(R) or HAES approach and let the body’s weight settle where it will.

And even though telling the truth has seriously blunted my book sales and ruined my chances of ever starring in my own late-night, cheesy infomercial, I still must tell it.  Oh well, I’m more of a morning person anyway.

Love,

The Fat Chick

 

 

Only Fat People Need to Walk: As Indicated by Blue Cross Program

Study showing healthy habits most important for health outcomes.

Study showing healthy habits most important for health outcomes in ALL weight categories.

Oh dear.  I think it’s going to be hard to keep up with all of the discriminatory practices being rolled out by insurance companies to punish those who are fat.  But this new announcement from Blue Cross Network is really above and beyond.

Blue Cross recently announced that its program, offering cash discounts to obese members who agreed to add 5,000 steps a day and be measured via a pedometer was a “success”.  Discounts were significant–representing a cost savings of up to $2,000 per year per family.  Apparently these “discounts” were not offered to anybody who was not obese.  But Blue Cross is claiming success, due to the fact that most of those who enrolled in the program were still walking one year later.

I particularly love the fact that despite the fact that Blue Cross of Minnesota cites this press release as its source, the headline for their online blurb reads, “Money Motivates Weight Loss, One Step at a Time”.  I went back to the original press release.  I read it twice. Not one word is said in that press release about weight loss.  NOT ONE SINGLE WORD.  Holy “make it up as you go” reporting, Batman!  It is possible that there is some mention of the press release in the study announcing the findings.  But there is absolutely no mention of weight loss in the abstract.  And in my experience, were weight loss found in the study, it would be in the title of the study and the first sentence of the abstract.  If anybody has access to the full study, I’d love to know if this holds true.  But in any case, the piece on the Blue Cross webpage did not cite the study but rather the press release as its source.

Now, all of this leaves me with a few key questions.  First and foremost, is walking only beneficial to fat people?  Why in the world are they only offering this incentive to people qualified as “obese”?  There are so many studies that show that modest exercise is beneficial to everybody’s health.  And there’s plenty of evidence showing that healthy habits and not weight loss is what is needed to improve health outcomes?  So why are only fat people singled out for this treatment?  And are these actually “discounts” or are we really talking about being rescued from “fat penalties” not being faced by other insurance network members?

It’s also interesting to note that obese members were allowed to choose between this walking program (created by online biometric site, Walking Spree) or Weight Watchers.  Look, I would clearly pick a walking program over Weight Watchers any day of the week, but I wonder if these “obese persons” were interviewed to see if they had been exercising before this incentive was offered.  Were these people actually sedentary?  What about fit fatties like me who already exercise nearly every day?  Were we offered the same price increases/incentives?  Would I be expected to add this onto my already active exercise program?  Do I have to exercise three times as much as a thin person in order for my exercise incentives to “count” and my discounts to kick in?

I also find it extremely instructive that the first line of the press release reads as follows:

It was a controversial move when a health insurer began requiring people who were obese to literally pay the price of not doing anything about their weight – but it worked, a new study finds.

Okay.  First let’s look at the “not doing anything about their weight” line.  How do we know they weren’t doing anything about their weight?  We know that diet and weight loss attempts fail most of the time in the long term.  Some suggest they fail over 90 percent of the time.  So by “not doing anything about their weight” do we mean that people refused to engage in the dangerous practice of weight cycling? Do we know that people weren’t eating well or exercising before and that they are doing those things now?  Do we know that they were sedentary before and are now active?  Or were some of these people active before and have simply shifted to a less rigorous form of exercise (walking) than before in order to receive a discount on their health insurance?

It’s also interesting to note how the release defines “success”.  Again, nowhere in the release does it state that people lost weight.  Nowhere in the release does it state that there were positive health outcomes or lower healthcare costs.  In fact the final line of the release states:

“Comprehensive evaluations are needed to determine whether participation in these programs translates to meaningful changes in health and costs of health care.”

Overall, I have to state that this press release, issued by the University of Michigan Health System is astonishingly devoid of detail, definition or real facts.  While positively gleeful about the fact that most of the people who elected to participate in this program remained participants for over a year, it really leaves us with more questions than answers.  Did people who didn’t like the coercive nature of the program leave the network for a different insurer?  What were the changes in attitude towards exercise among participants?  Did they grow to like exercise more or see it as a punishment?  What are the long term effects on attitudes towards exercise?  And finally, why are we singling out fat people for this program?  Don’t thin people need to exercise too?

Aaaaaargh!

I guess I’m pretty worked up here.  Maybe I’d better go for a walk to blow off some steam.  Because some of us fat people go for walks even without “finger-wagging”, “pedometer-wielding”, “biometric-tracking” moralists telling us to do so.

Love,

The Fat Chick

P.S. If you’re looking for a form of exercise that doesn’t come with doom and gloom weight loss messages or any finger wagging whatsoever, you might enjoy buying a copy of my DVD.  And if you are a member of the Fit Fatties Forum, you’ll receive a special discount.  Just click here to order and type FFBL in the discount code box!