Hoppin' John, the Black New Year's staple of black eyed peas and veggies (yes, veggies...)

A couple of years ago, John McWhorter wrote the most ridiculous thing I’d read in a long time for The Root, attempting to refute both basic Capitalism and common sense by implying that “food deserts don’t exist and, therefore, are not the reason why Blacks in America are fat” because, basically, “Blacks don’t want healthy food, y’know, since they’ve always eaten fried chicken and fritos since they’ve been free in this country.”

And, no, I’m not overexaggerating:

Culture, too, creates a palate — and to point that out is not to find “fault.” Example: Slavery and sharecropping didn’t make healthy eating easy for black people back in the day. Salt and grease were what they had, and Southern blacks brought their culinary tastes North (Zora Neale Hurston used to bless her friend Langston Hughes with fried-chicken dinners). Fried food, such as fried chicken, was also easy to transport for blacks traveling in the days of Jim Crow, when bringing your own food on the road was a wise decision.

But that did help create what has lived on as a palate even after the circumstances that created it have changed.

Excerpted from The Myth of The Food Desert: Where The Root Went Wrong | A Black Girl’s Guide To Weight Loss

And ever since I wrote my post in response to that, this has been on my mind. Where does this idea that all soul food has ever consisted of was fried food, cheap food and garbage? Why is it so easy for us to assume that obesity is “so prevalent” (I use those quotation marks for a reason) in the Black community because of something inherently wrong with Black culinary culture? Why is it so easy for us to believe that the flaw was, immediately, us and not, say, food manufacturing in this country? It was us – our fault, the fault of our culture – for why we are, collectively, fat. Nothing else is even worth considering?

McWhorter says, “Culture, too, creates a palate – and to point that out is not to find ‘fault.’” No, it’s not to “find fault,” it is to “lay responsibility at the foot of culture,” or to “place blame” in said culture’s lap. To try to head me off at the pass by saying that blaming culture is “not to find fault” doesn’t make it so.

“Salt and grease were what they had,” “Fried food, such as fried chicken, was also easy to transport for Blacks traveling in the days of Jim Crow, [because, since you knew that no restaurant would be willing to accept your little colored money,]“… statements like these both astounded and intrigued me.

When I think back to my almost 100 year old great grandmother and her garden in Selma, Alabama, I don’t remember all-fried everything. I don’t remember “salt” and “grease.” I don’t remember “fried chicken,” and am pretty sure she’s never cooked it for me. I got that from my Mother, arguably 50 years younger than Aunt Sissy.

Then, I listen to what my peers are saying around me. Such denigration for what they’ve identified as stereotypical “soul food,” a culture rich in flavor, skill and – yes – nutrition. After reading approximately 9 books on African, Caribbean and diasporic African foodways as I healed from an annoying leg injury last year, I can straight up and down say that most of these people have no freaking idea what they’re talking about.

How do you go from gumbo, crab cakes, deviled eggs, and roasted pork (possum?) to “soul food wasn’t nothin’ but salt and grease?” How do you go from a plant-based diet (yes, our ancestors, despite the drop ins of pork and other meats, ate a plant-based diet) rich in fruits and vegetables, light on meat (because, hey hey, they couldn’t afford it), and supplemented with unprocessed grain as a filler, to having some man in an Ivory Tower tell you that the reason your people don’t eat healthy food is because they have a hereditary slave palate that determines whether or not they are healthy eaters?

Let’s get something clear. Black Americans aren’t the only ones overweight in this country. Black Americans bought into the same swindle that the rest of the country bought into and were hurt even more because, while the rest of the country had enough money to pull itself out of the rabbit hole of processed food and obesity, Black Americans by and large did not. Two thirds of Black America may be fat, but guess what? Two thirds of America is fat, too.

Soul food is not to blame for our nutritional woes. A willingness to blame soul food for Black America’s current ailments resulted in complaints about “vegetables being boiled to death” replacing what used to be excitement for receiving a plate of braised string beans with corn bread. Why corn bread? Simple: the corn bread was used to sop up the “pot liquor” from the string beans. (“Pot liquor” is what’s left in the pot after vegetables have been treated. Studies – studies, mind you, that were done long after our ancestors were doing this – show that vegetables that are boiled actually have the vitamins and minerals boiled out of them, resulting in a vitamin-rich broth left in the pot after all the servings.

Hell, the corn bread of today isn’t even the corn bread of yesterday – is your corn meal organic? Your ancestors’ corn meal was. Is your corn meal from genetically modified, hyper-processed corn kernels? Your ancestors’ corn was not. Do you have a propensity for “sweet corn bread?” That’s neither a “North” nor a “South” thing – that’s a processed food thing. You can thank “Jiffy” for the popularity of sweet corn bread.

You can also thank processed food for the increase in saltiness in soul food, too. Sure, soul food always used cured pork, but it was used so sparingly (very rare was the occasion that a Black family had access to the “better” parts of the pig and, therefore, were reluctant to squander what they had access to by eating whole parts at a time.) that it would’ve never had the same effects it had today. (And, while there are studies out regarding hypertension in the early 1900s, there are far more mitigating factors in blood pressure than simply “salt” and “smoking.” Think “factory conditions,” for starters.)

You know what else you can thank processed food for? Your “fat” tooth. Fried chicken was fried, not deep fried nor triple battered. It also wasn’t fried in genetically modified oils, replete with omega-6 and considered to be deleterious to one’s health. We didn’t stick solely to the “fat parts” of the animal. Hog jowls, pig’s feet, sweet breads, pig intestines? All low in fat and incredibly high in protein. And before anyone brings up “macaroni and cheese” to me, let me make life easier on you: macaroni and cheese, though it is a soul food staple now, did not originate with African Americans.

Who is cooking soul food seven days a week, three times a day? No one, that’s who. For all of you people who consistently advocate for “cheat meals,” isn’t your “cheat meal” that Sunday dinner when Big Mama throws down for the whole family? Isn’t that Sunday dinner the only meal you’re eating that big throw down? And, furthermore, aren’t you eating Big Macs, Chicken McNuggets, Whoppers, Lean Cuisines and goodness knows what else during the week? The height of processed food? But it’s Big Mama’s “cheat meal” every Sunday that you want to blame. The rest of America isn’t sitting at Big Mama’s table, but they’re certainly in line at the drive thru… and they’re just as overweight as the rest of us. Mexicans that come to America and eat their traditional dishes using American ingredients? They’re gaining weight, too.

Neither our pies nor our cobblers had two crusts – again, processed food. (I am totally guilty of this.) Manufacturers were eager to sell us the idea of a two-crusted dessert because it’d require us to use up our butters and flours faster, thereby needing to purchase more at a faster rate. Our banana pudding wasn’t made up lazily of “nilla wafers.” It was pound cake, with arguably less sugar. We didn’t use white sugar – couldn’t afford it – we used molasses, far easier on the blood sugar levels and still could be reduced to be made sweeter. The sugar we did use, was purified with ox blood, lime, egg whites and a blanket. Not dimethylhexachloroferodextrol. (I completely made that up, but damn if it doesn’t sound an awful lot like what’s in the food now.) Our rices were, by default, brown and wild – there was no hulling of rice grain, thereby making it “white,” until around 1902. Processed food, processed food, processed food.

The willingness of the Black community to assume that the reasons why we are experiencing unfortunate circumstances is because of something inherently wrong with ourselves and our culture, instead of acknowledging that those same unfortunate circumstances have befallen everyone in society… as cliche as it is to say “that’s self hate,” I don’t know what other way to put it.

I started the month off with the lead in from “The Problem With Processed Food” because, quite frankly, there is a lot of road to hoe, here. Just last week, I attended a seminar for personal trainers [insert innocent face here], and one of the only other Black women in attendance approached me and, after lengthy conversation, said “Man, it’s that soul food. It’s killing us.” All I could do is smile and say, “I don’t know, but whatever it is, we’ve got to do something.”

I just… I wanted to hug that woman. Hug her and tell her, our culture didn’t do this to us. The disparaties in income did this to us. The availability of fresh produce, or lack thereof, did this to us. The trust we placed in food processing and manufacture did this to us. The same things that did this to the rest of our country, are the same things that did this to us, and it’s time that we stop pretending otherwise. Stop buying into a mentality that says Blacks are inherently bad and wrong, and any problems that affect us specifically (regardless of whether or not they affect others) are our fault as Blacks and not as Americans or even as human beings. I’m over it, and I hope you are, too.

Neither Soul Food, Nor “Slave Food,” Made You Fat is a post from: A Black Girl's Guide To Weight Loss. Thanks for reading!

Related posts:

1. Lies In Your Food: Made With REAL Blueberries? But I Thought…
2. Refuse To Be A Slave To The Scale
3. The History of The “Big Meal” And Why It Made Us Fat

The FULL list of meal plans is currently available. Check it out and get your copy today!

Get BGG2WL delivered wirelessly to your Kindle! Click here for more info!

© Erika for A Black Girl's Guide To Weight Loss, 2012. | Permalink | 14 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: african americans, blackness, crab cakes, culture, gumbo, john mcwhorter, macaroni and cheese, slave food, soul food, the root

In a couple of weeks my mother turns 65.She takes yoga and Zumba every chance she gets and if you sneeze more than twice around her, she’ll cook you a pot of collard greens. My mother believes her collard greens can fix just about anything.

She has a fiery personality that can rub people the wrong way. But those who know her don’t mind, because it was that same fire that helped her overcome poverty, beat cancer and protect her five cubs.

My mother is a black woman.

And she is beautiful.

So to the editors of Psychology Today who thought it was a good idea to post a blog item calling black women ugly, I suggest you watch your back… my mother’s cubs are looking for you.

And we are not happy.

Satoshi Kanazawa’s post, “Why Are Black Women Less Physically Attractive Than Other Women?” appeared Sunday and quickly circulated around the blogosphere. It drew a great deal of criticism, which I suspect led to the post being pulled, though you can still find it elsewhere on the Web.

While it’s not quite as bad as Golfweek magazine putting a noose on its cover in relationship to a story about Tiger Woods, it is still rather disturbing that Psychology Today’s editors needed public outcry to clue them in that the post was offensive and irresponsible.

It’s challenging enough to see popular culture publications such as People and Maxim struggle to include black women in their annual most-beautiful listings, but at least their editors don’t try to justify their choices under the guise of science.

“Because they have existed much longer in human evolutionary history, Africans have more mutations in their genomes than other races,” Kanazawa’s post read. “And the mutation loads significantly decrease physical attractiveness.”

I do not dispute Kanazawa’s credentials as an evolutionary psychologist at the London School of Economics, but I do wonder why he even approached the topic.

I question a methodology that asks random people to judge the attractiveness of other random people without taking into account the influence of background and culture. Without taking into account a Westernized standard of beauty that has not only haunted some black women into buying cream to bleach their skin but prompted some Asian-Americans to undergo surgery to make their eyes more European looking.

That’s not to say white skin or round eyes are necessarily unattractive. Rather, a system that declares one set of physical attributes as the standard to which a multiethnic society must adhere is destructive.

And racist.

And yet as much as I detest Kanazawa’s post, I do recognize it as just another chapter in the ongoing assault on black women in our culture.

He says they’re ugly.

The statistics say 42% have never been married.

Some rappers say, well, we know what they say… and apparently we don’t mind, because they keep topping the charts.

If you comb through Donald Bogle’s book “Toms, Coons, Mulattoes, Mammies and Bucks: An Interpretive History of Blacks in American Films,” you’ll find a long celluloid history of black women being portrayed as anything but beautiful. Their sass is a constant source of comedic relief, but rarely are they seen as complete human beings, to be romanced or capable of being vulnerable.

Nowadays the most popular black female characters in film are not even played by black women. Tyler Perry’s “Madea” and Martin Lawrence’s “Big Momma” characters are unflattering caricatures of figureheads who for generations on top of generations held the black community together.

Funny, maybe.

Fair, definitely not.

His write-up continues on the CNN website, and is worth you clicking over to check it out, if for no other reason than to make sure he and his post get credit for bringing CNN that kind of traffic. Maybe they’ll see it’s worth posting uplifting commentary about Black women. Giant hugs go out to Granderson for using his platform to get this message out (and if only he could manage to also moderate those comments, but I digress.)

I’ve no desire to get into a “woe is me” parade, here, but the perception of Black women is affected by a lot of things… all of which make it difficult for us to exist the way we want in our day to day lives. We are always assumed to be the “lowest common denominator” (do we automatically assume every white woman is a single parent, poor, and moves her head and neck around like crazy whenever she’s upset?), always assumed to be promiscuous, and must always be “strong like bull.” We can’t be who we are – or work toward being who we aspire to be – without being told that there are reasons to focus elsewhere. We can’t even walk down the street in peace, in most cases.

It’s difficult to be us, but we still do it. And according to that faux-study – the only thing that was interesting to me about the entire “study” – we still think highly of ourselves despite it all.

I saw someone comment on the study and state that “we” – meaning Black women – are the only ones who continue to consume media that denigrates us. I disagree. We’re denigrated as women – something we share with all women, and that plight shouldn’t be minimized – and then we’re devalued as Blacks, something we share with all minorities, regardless of race. And we all still consume this media because many of us still feel like we have no other choice. I’ve always felt like the problem isn’t, so to speak, the consumption of media. The problem is what we do with what we’ve consumed.

Something awesome happened the other day. We all consumed, so to speak, the horrific post by Kanazawa, and what did we do with that? We complained. We wrote letters. We tweeted (twote?) about it and called it to the attention of others. We e-mailed our contacts. We shared with our peers – Black, white, Latina/o and otherwise – what foolishness was passing for science, and we built up among our collectives a very strong stance that we wouldn’t tolerate this from outlets to whom we extend credibility. If Psychology Today were going to maintain its credibility and respect, it would need to address this matter.

Needless to say, all that tweeting, facebooking, emailing and whatever else (carrier pigeon?) we were doing got the attention of the right people. Sent to me this morning by @YoungFlynMommy:

Evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa stooped to new levels of awfulness in his post claiming “black women are significantly less physically attractive than women of other races.” His racist remarks could cost him his job at the London School of Economics.According to the Guardian, many LSE students lodged complaints after Kanazawa’s offensive post made the rounds. Said Sherelle Davids of the LSE students’ union, “Kanazawa deliberately manipulates findings that justify racist ideology. As a black woman I feel his conclusions are a direct attack on black women everywhere who are not included in social ideas of beauty.” And Amena Amer, the union’s incoming education officer, said,

We support free speech and academic freedom, but Kanazawa’s research fuels hate against ethnic and religious minorities promoted by neo-Nazi groups. Not only does he use the LSE’s credentials to legitimise his ‘research’ but this jeopardises the academic credibility of the LSE.

The union has voted unanimously that Kanazawa should be fired. Now the school has launched an internal investigation that will evaluate his claims and decide whether to punish him. They’ve already issued a public statement saying he doesn’t speak for the LSE: “The views expressed by this academic are his own and do not in any way represent those of the LSE as an institution.”

Amer is correct that Kanazawa’s comments are an embarrassment to her school. Even if his views are his own, as long as they continue to employ him, they’re implicitly vouching for his merit as a scholar. And unless they’re prepared to say that his bar graphs about black women’s supposed ugliness are actually good science, it’s time for them to let him go. [source]

So no… the problem isn’t consuming the media. The problem is choosing to do nothing about it. We did something about it… and not only did we send a message to Kanazawa that his poor standards are a problem; not only did we send a message to evolutionary psychologists everywhere that a social construct – like beauty – cannot be explained through genetics; not only did we send a message to racists everywhere that their imperceptive attempts to sneak in racist “studies” will always be sniffed out and justice will be metted out for it; not only did we all speak out against such foolishness together?

There was an outpouring of reminders that there is love and support for Black women out there. We just have to be more judicious in surrounding ourselves with it.

CNN Op Ed: “Black Women Ugly? Says Who?” & Consequences Of The Study is a post from: A Black Girl's Guide To Weight Loss. Thanks for reading!

Related posts:

1. Stupid Study: Why Black Women Are Fatter, Dumber, More Manly And Less Attractive Than Others
2. Update: “Why Black Women Are Less Physically Attractive Than Other Women?”
3. “Healthy” Waist May Be Larger For Black Women

The FULL list of meal plans is currently available. Check it out and get your copy today!

Get BGG2WL delivered wirelessly to your Kindle! Click here for more info!

© Erika for A Black Girl's Guide To Weight Loss, 2012. | Permalink | 15 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: black women, cnn, kanazawa, lz granderson, media, psychology today, relationships, society

Image: Whole Foods Market in the East Village of New York, a Creative Commons Attribution (2.0) image from shankbone's photostream

You know, I spent an entire week writing about shopping at grocery stores and how to get the most bang for your buck.. but it’d be wrong of me to fail to acknowledge that access to those kinds of stores is a privilege. I mean, thinking of all the options and opportunities that I have to get what my daughter and I need.. but it wasn’t always that way.

I can remember being very young – maybe around age 5 – and going to my Grandmother’s house every day as my Mother would go to work. I cling to these memories because she passed away when I was about 10. As my Mother was always working like a dog to care for me, Grandma pretty much raised me during those years.

Grandma, quite frankly, lived in the projects during the majority of the time she spent watching me. I hated fighting the other kids (and hell, let’s be real – my other cousins and Uncles) for the TV, so I was always outside playing or reading when I wasn’t in school. I mean, I was gone, man. Didn’t really love the other kids in the neighborhood – and Grandma knew that – but she wasn’t about to let me grow up “by myself,” so to speak. I guess after raising 7 kids of her own by herself (her husband, my Grandfather, passed away too soon), she knew what she was doing.

For me, my thing was always asking my Uncles for $0.50. Two quarters was all I needed to creep across the street, grab a bag of potato chips and a Big Red pop. That’s all I wanted. In fact, if I’m not mistaken, that served as lunch some days. It wasn’t every day that I had to enjoy the …deliciousness of a Dorito, because one of the houses in the projects was devoted to offering up free lunch.

Ahh, yes. Free lunch. The equivalent of a lunchable with a carton of milk. All the kids in the projects would come running at a quarter to noon because if you were late, you were out of luck! You got your two pieces of bread, your piece of bologna, your packet of mustard, a piece of cheese, two cookies and chocolate milk. I can remember free lunch days being the only days I got chocolate milk. Grandma just… could never keep stuff like that in the house. Everyone would always beat me to it.

I can also remember spending summertime, as a child, in Selma, AL with my great Grandmother. She, who was and is still anti-processed foods, gave me these fantastic memories of playing in her garden and watching her tomatoes, squash and lettuce every day. I even remember her neighbor, Mr. Sandman, who made his own vanilla ice cream – in my mind’s tongue, I can still taste it. Whenever Aunt Sissy (for anyone unfamiliar with proper Southern diction, that “Aunt” is actually pronounced “Ain’t“) didn’t get to me first, he was always stuffing me with something fresh from his stash. A summer of squash, fried green tomatoes, corn pancakes and other dope-yet-somehow-still-not-fattening delicacies was how I… “got by.”

A whole community of folks who were pretty much used to only having each other to “get by,” and used to being reduced to only what they could get access to in order to make it. I mean, keep it real – if you can’t afford to buy a $3 carton of ice cream, you can certainly grab some ice, salt, vanilla extract and milk from your fridge and make your own, right? My Aunt Sissy, who is looking forward to her 100th birthday today… is still tending to her garden and frying the hell out of some green tomatoes, no doubt.

Why the trip down memory lane? This:

In the Seattle area, a region with an average obesity rate of about 20 percent, only about 4 percent of shoppers who filled their carts at Whole Foods Market stores were obese, compared with nearly 40 percent of shoppers at lower-priced Albertsons stores.

That’s likely because people willing to pay $6 for a pound of radicchio are more able to afford healthy diets than people stocking up on $1.88 packs of pizza rolls to feed their kids, the study’s lead author suggested.

“If people wanted a diet to be cheap, they went to one supermarket,” said Adam Drewnowski, a University of Washington epidemiology professor who studies obesity and social class. “If they wanted their diet to be healthy, they went to another supermarket and spent more.”

The findings held true for the three highest-priced grocery stores in the Seattle region, including Whole Foods, where an average market basket of food cost between $370 and $420, and obesity rates went no higher than about 12 percent.

By contrast, at the area’s three lowest-priced stores, including Albertsons, the same basket of food cost between $225 and $280, and obesity rates went no lower than about 22 percent. – [found via "Skinny People Shop At Whole Foods"]

I keep thinking of my Grandma who, on her fixed income and the money she made from sitting for children, would’ve had quite the tough time trying to feed us all on the pricier diet. Conversely, my Aunt Sissy wouldn’t have cared. Her stuff was just as good as theirs… maybe even better since it grew by her hand and with her love.

But wait – there’s more:

His research team studied 2,001 shoppers in the Seattle area between December 2008 and March 2009, tracking their choice of supermarkets and comparing it with their education, income and obesity rates. They measured obesity by asking consumers to report their height and weight, then calculating body mass index. People with a BMI higher than 30 were identified as obese.

Drewnowski was quick to note that the study focused only on Seattle, which has an obesity rate much lower than the U.S. average of about 34 percent. He doesn’t claim that the same rates would bear out in other cities.

But, he said, it’s likely that similar patterns might be found elsewhere: Wealthier people who shopped at higher-end stores would be thinner, while poorer people who shopped at cheaper stores would be fatter.

It’s not a matter of availability, Drewnowski said. All of the stores in his study stocked a wide range of nutritious food, including plenty of fruits and vegetables.

Instead, he contends it’s because healthy, low-calorie foods cost more money and take more effort to prepare than processed, high-calorie foods. In a separate study two years ago, Drewnowski estimated that a calorie-dense diet cost $3.52 a day compared with $36.32 a day for a low-calorie diet.

I just.. I don’t know. Aside from the fact that I have a few questions about some of the numbers this study offers up, this is a bitter pill to swallow. And let’s face it. Considering the locations and resources that a vast majority of the Black community has to cope with, where does that leave us as a collective? Two thirds of us overweight? Dying of wholly preventable diseases?

I look at my Mother now. Successful by her own hand. A beneficiary of her very hard work who, after sticking with that same company for several decades, has access to opportunities and options that are incomparable to what her Mother – or her Mother’s Mother, for that matter.. regardless of whether or not she would’ve made use of them – would’ve had. I imagine my Grandma would be proud of her for having resources she did not, and hope that she was taking advantage of ‘em. My Aunt Sissy, though, would probably tell her to save her money and grow her own damn tomatoes, already.

At this point, all I have are questions. Is this the bitter reality of society and, mind you, Capitalism? The more money you have, the more access you have to better opportunities? Or is it a matter of not taking advantage of the community and resources you have and making it work? Or hell.. do we even know whether or not people know they have options and resources to use? If the disparaties are caused by money, how do we make it easier? If the problem is time, how do we make it quicker? If the issue is that it’s too daunting a task, how do we fix that?

‘Cause really, at this rate… without effort, movement, education and progress? We ain’t gon’ make it.

Skinny People Shop At Whole Foods: A Poor Kid’s Perspective is a post from: A Black Girl's Guide To Weight Loss. Thanks for reading!

Related posts:

1. Cleaning Up The Happy Meal: Do Toys Advertise Unhealthy Foods To Kids?
2. Why Your Kids (And Probably You Too) Don’t Like Veggies
3. Study: “There Are Good Foods And Bad Foods”

The FULL list of meal plans is currently available. Check it out and get your copy today!

Get BGG2WL delivered wirelessly to your Kindle! Click here for more info!

© Erika for A Black Girl's Guide To Weight Loss, 2012. | Permalink | 40 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: capitalism, family, grocery shopping, obesity, poverty, studies, tradition, university of washington, whole foods

Victim blaming. The idea that a victim has culpability in being victimized. Hold on to that definition for a minute.

We’d been sitting on the phone for a little over an hour, at this point. I laid sprawled out across my bed, nail file in hand, beaten-up cell phone attached to my face, listening to him talk. I’m not entirely sure what I thought he might be doing on the other end of the phone, but I remember the point where I legitimately stopped “half-listening” and had to sit up, anxiety overpowering my obsessive desire for perfectly straight nails.

“I mean, it’s hard to say it, but I’ve been raped before.”

“Wait, what?” There was a long pause before I could finish. “What happened?”

Apparently, as a basketball player in school, he went home with one of his team mates to spend the night at his house instead of going home. That night, sleeping on the couch, he woke up to find a woman – his friend’s mother – on top of him, taking advantage of the fact that he’d developed an erection in his sleep. He was terrified, confused, and – I could tell – crushed: this was his “first time.”

He never told his mother. She’d never understand. Men don’t get raped. Men do the raping, right? She’d simply tell him to never speak of it again… so he figured he’d get a jump start on that and not speak on it at all. This left him with countless misunderstanding about masculinity, his place in society, and whether or not he should trust his own body. It led him to misunderstand what “signals” are and what part of himself allowed this to happen.

He was a kid who got a hard-on in his sleep. That’s it.

As I recall this unfortunate story, I sit here, right now, with my jaw completely and totally in my hands. I am dumbfounded.

Across my screen flew this link, and I immediately felt anxiety all across my chest, my arms and down my spine.

A few…quotes… of… interest:

It seems as if the considerable push back again victim-blaming has pushed all the way past prudence and levelheadedness, making anyone who suggests that “women can actually be taught how to behave too” insensitive or a “rape enabler.”

…as the article continues, and lines such as “Consent can be withdrawn by the words “no “or “stop” and in many states, a woman doesn’t have to say no at all. Consumption of alcohol can prevent a woman from being able to legally offer consent” begin to seep in, the tone seems to shift from “men need to take full responsibility for their actions” to “men need to take full responsibility for their actions…and women have carte blance to act as recklessly and stupidly around men as possible without any trace of accountability.” and I just can’t agree anymore.

Sparkling little beauties, those quotes.

I look at those quotes, and I am astounded by the naivete they display.

People far more eloquent than myself have commented on the foolishness of telling victims (and potential victims) that they have some culpability in their ability to be victimized. I’d be a fool to re-mow that neatly manicured lawn.

However, I think we need to fully understand what the world looks like in a space where it is acceptable to tell people that they can protect themselves from being raped. It’s easy to talk about the immediate consequences of a society that thinks that women invite attack by “dressing like sluts” or by “drinking too much” (and yes, I am saying “women” on purpose, despite the story above) and how wrong-headed that thinking is, but what does the world look like when you are told to live in constant fear of being victimized?

You know what it looks like? It looks like young girls, suffering from the advances of grown men who should know and be encouraged to do better, who carry their books across their chest because their breasts attract too much attention. It looks like Mothers of young girls, buying their pre-teen and teenaged daughters giant sweaters to wear to try to hide their breasts, because they “know the boys will stare.” And, right now, as someone says, “Of course they will stare!” I have to wonder – do we even bother to tell our boys (and, hell, grown men, too) how wrong that is? That no, it is not simply “hormones” and “natural urges” to gawk at and objectify a young girl because she’s got a large rack?

A victim-blaming world looks a lot like Mothers calling their daughters (or someone else’s daughter) “fast” for attracting too much male attention, instead of wondering about, asking, or checking the men lavishing attention upon her (particularly when it appears that the male in question is hella old.) I remember hearing “Mmmmmm, she fasssssss…” all the time, but not once can I recall hearing anything similar for men. Also worth noting, Google apparently doesn’t know the male equivalent of “fass.”

A victim blaming world looks like women who disconnect from their bodies – caring for them and appreciating them – because they are going out of their way to discourage rape. You know, because they have to do what they can to assume responsibility for rape, right? A victim blaming world looks like a place here young girls are discouraged from learning about their bodies because if they actually started to love and appreciate the things about them that signal their femininity – curves, for example – then it’d be their fault that they attract attention and, eventually and potentially, rape. It’d be their fault. You know, for dressing like sluts.

A victim blaming world looks like the women who participated in this post, who thought that they were raped because they were just “too damn sexy” for a rapist to even bother to ask whether or not she deemed him worthy enough to receive her body. It looks like women who do not and may never understand that rape isn’t about you being “too sexy for a rapist to wait for your consent;” it looks like women who will never understand that this violent, reprehensible crime wasn’t about them as people, individuals, human beings at all.

A victim blaming world looks like a space where women believe that the reason they were raped was because they were too attractive and, therefore, must remedy this situation by making themselves unattractive. Throwing away makeup, no more high heels, no more fancy dresses, and no more svelte figure. (We can talk, all day, about what’s wrong with society thinking these are what make a woman attractive, but it doesn’t change the fact that this is what society thinks is attractive.) It is a space where women “make themselves ugly” by “making themselves fat.” It is a space where women cope with that fear (of it happening again) and that shame (because, you know, they have to take responsibility for their rape, too) by eating with their emotions. Except… fat women an be victimized, too.

A victim blaming society looks like a space where women, taught to perpetually fear assault, don’t know how to respond to men who say “Damn, boo, can I get that?” or the man who says “How you doin’, miss?” In a victim-blaming society, every man is Schroedinger’s Rapist – every man is a potential rapist, and I have to treat you as such. A victim-blaming society also is the space where the victim is also chastised for being an angry and bitter Black woman for not speaking to said potential rapists, and we are expected to swallow our fear and efforts to protect our vulnerability so that we can speak to you, potential rapist, because how dare we not respond to you?

A victim blaming world looks like a place where men can be victimized, and because we’re so used to women being the victim… we don’t know what the hell to do with male victims. Do we… tell him it was his fault? Do we… give him the screw face and tell him he should’ve gone home? Do we… question his manhood for being overpowered by a woman? (Remember, we tell men don’t hit women.) Or do we high five him and tell him “Dude, old chicks are the BEST first time! I had one my first time, too!” And, do they never understand that this, too, counts as rape?

A victim blaming world looks a lot like a child-ass curfew for a grown ass woman. Because she’s not supposed to be out after dark anyway.

A victim blaming world looks a whole hell of a lot like women who intentionally avoid alleys, construction sites, overpopulated street corners, large groups of men and certain stores because they are notorious for catcalling and street dominance. We don’t say “Hey, guys, you don’t show your masculinity by publicly dominating and embarrassing a woman.” We tell women “Dress in a manner wholly unacceptable to you to avoid being raped.” Because, of course, they have responsibility in this, too.

I said this a long time ago, and I’m saying it again – not only is rape about a rapist having control, but victim blaming is about controlling the female population: what better way to cajole women into standards of purity, decency, “learning how to behave” and sobriety than dangle the threat of “Well, if you don’t, you’ll surely invite rape upon yourselves?” What better way to get “these hoes” and “these broads” to understand that they don’t “know how to behave” than to help drive home the point that rape happens because women do bad things? Better yet, bad things happen to women who aren’t perfect, or at least striving to be. And who defines that “perfect?” Certainly not women.

That’s what “rape responsibility” and “victim blaming” look like – each phrase looks like another way to tell women that they can have the very essence of their humanity, femininity and womanliness taken advantage of if they don’t adhere to society’s standards. You aren’t an “acceptable” rape victim if you a) weren’t chaste before the attack; b) wore anything above the knee; c) wore anything form fitting (mind you, all three of these are marks of whoredom); d) were out past your grown ass woman society-imposed curfew (only whores are out after dark); e) had on red nail polish or red lipstick (only whores do that, of course); f) do anything that requires you to leave your house unaccompanied by a man (you lesbians? y’all are out of luck, here); g)are an actual prostitute (they’re whores for a living… of course they deserve to be raped.)

Think about how many women you know who break those rules on the daily. Now, think about the fact that, of the few rapes that are actually reported, only 20% of those actually end in conviction. While that may speak to the theory that many acts that are reported aren’t actual rape and the jury was simply effective in figuring that out, that kind of fail rate also means that more than a few actual rapists are walking these streets with us… and therein lies the rub.

When will we ever see advertising, blog posts, books and TV specials telling men how to be men? How to treat women with respect – yes, even when they show little respect for themselves (whatever that means), we should still feel called on to respect them – and how to value sex that consists of two people who are sober, able and capable of feeling and expressing not only passion… but consent? How to take no for an answer? How to appreciate but not objectify? How to safely approach a woman you’re interested in without being creepy, being obnoxious or making her feel like she needs to break into a full on jog to get away from you? When will the media ever set its sights on telling men how to be men for men’s sake, instead of telling Black women to be what men want them to be… because the height of Black womanhood is “finally getting a man?”

We’re not going to. We will, however, see perpetuation of the “there are no Good Black Men” myth. Women will desperately seek out one of the remaining twelve Good Black Men, jumping through various hoops and contorting themselves like Cirque du Soleil acrobats (or Magic City strippers, take your pick) to be deemed worthy. Other women will snag whatever raggedy man they “can get,” ignoring his faults because they have fallen for the “get a man” mentality: they believe that “the worst thing a Black woman can be is alone.”

And that’s why I know things won’t change. After hundreds of comments, the original author of the post didn’t take it upon himself to apologize for throwing grenades and smiling at the damage (I’m sorry, but bringing up potential server costs and popularity – Facebook likes, son? – is not only tres gauche but tacky as every available f-ck.) Instead, he apologized for “being so flippant.” His male privilege flew out of his zipper, and he’s sorry that you’re offended by the sight of it, but at least you get to see how big it is. Stop playing… ’cause I’m still not impressed.

A victim blaming world looks like a space where a grown ass man can bring up rape on a “humor” website, say he “definitely reached for the inferences” he made about the article he read that “inspired” his post, say he “shouldn’t have brought it up” on his site and pair that with bragging about the hits the post got him as well as “all this success has undoubtedly made my large head even bigger.”

It’s a world where we use sexual violence to garner attention, and wax faux-apologetic for it. In the words of the great philosopher, Pharrell, “Got damn. It’s a new day.”

Y’all can have that, though.

What A Victim-Blaming World Looks Like To A Victim is a post from: A Black Girl's Guide To Weight Loss. Thanks for reading!

Related posts:

1. World AIDS Day: Go Get Tested!
2. “World’s Fattest Woman” Too Overweight For Medical Help?
3. Genetically Modified Foods: The World According To Monsanto

The FULL list of meal plans is currently available. Check it out and get your copy today!

Get BGG2WL delivered wirelessly to your Kindle! Click here for more info!

© Erika for A Black Girl's Guide To Weight Loss, 2012. | Permalink | 14 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags:

How you doin’? How’s [insert loved one]? Good, that’s good to hear.

Listen, I wanted to talk to you because I know you’re pretty comfy in your own skin and really happy with where you are in life… I think that’s awesome. However, I cannot help but notice how often you are scarfing down the fast food, ice creams and various and sundry peanut butter cups… all day. Not all day, but all day.

I know, I know, but your metabolism… your figure… you’re blessed. Got it. I mean, I hear you. “As long as you don’t look the way you eat,” (obviously acknowledging that you eat like a hot high fructose corn syrupy mess) because looking fat would be a sin, right? I mean, that’d be too much to bear, right?

I’ve got to tell you, girl, that there’s far more to being “skinny” than just “thin” or “petite.” See, society has spoiled you into thinking that you don’t have to worry about “anything” as long as you don’t look like them… so no, your health isn’t an issue. And I get that. No one wants to be pointed out on the sidewalk and featured in one of those headless ambiguous shots that newscasters use in their reports – the anonymous fat person with their pants so ill-fitting they’ve got a wedgie – and no one wants to ever be known as “the fat one.”

But do you ever think about the fact that you could be known as “she was so cute too, so skinny! You would’ve never thought she’d have heart disease!” or even “dang shame what happened to that girl.” I’m not playin’ – I know what kind of blank pass your peers and loved ones might be giving you because you’re not “wearing your food” like the rest of society, but please believe your insides are taking a beating for it. 67% of Americans are overweight, almost 40% obese… trust me – you don’t want to listen to too many of us when it comes to whether or not you’re “ok” to eat what you’re eating.

For instance, did you know that you lose about .5% of your ability to burn calories properly every year after about age 20? Our metabolism is high in our teens because our bodies are growing; but since the older we get, the less we grow, our metabolism actually slows down. So with each passing year, the amount of food we can eat without it penalizing our figures… decreases. It gets harder to maintain that body with dwindling metabolism and bad habits.

Or how about, regardless of whether or not you’re petite, you can absolutely be fat? Just because you don’t have rolls or whatever doesn’t mean that you aren’t carrying fat. A little fat is normal of course, but if you are eating acidic foods… your body is intentionally building fat around your organs as a means of protecting them from the acid! (And no, that’s not acid like citric acid in fruits. That’s acid like in things like coffee, creams, some beans, corn..) And if you’re really eating like crap, guess what you’re most likely to be eating in abundance? Corn! High fructose corn syrup, corn syrup, corn meal, corn flour, corn, corn, corn. Sigh. Sucks, don’t it?

What about the fact that being petite in size does not protect you from the diseases and problems that society has come to expect from overweight people? Type II diabetes, heart disease, on and on and on…. it is risky. Very risky. Trust me, I know – food tastes good. Hellagood. But presuming that you’re not at risk until you start packing on the pounds is a dangerous game. Don’t do it to yourself.

Really, mama, I say this out of love. Don’t walk away thinkin’ “She’s just sayin’ that ’cause she wishes she could be skinny like me.” I’m not tryin’ to be skinny like you – I’m tryin’ to be skinny like me. More importantly, I’m tryin’ to be healthy and I’d like you to try right along with me. As a friend, of course. I’m not trying to knock you off of any pedestal, but I am trying to call to your attention the fact that your health is a gift, girl! Just because it’s not what you see in the mirror when you wake up every day doesn’t make it any less worthy of attention, effort or consideration. Go the extra mile to take care of yourself, and maintain your internal health for as long as you can! Your inner (and outer) body will definitely thank you for it!

With love,

Erika

An Open Letter To Skinny Women is a post from: A Black Girl's Guide To Weight Loss. Thanks for reading!

Related posts:

1. An Open Letter To The Black Blogosphere
2. Update: “Why Black Women Are Less Physically Attractive Than Other Women?”
3. Skinny People Shop At Whole Foods: A Poor Kid’s Perspective

The FULL list of meal plans is currently available. Check it out and get your copy today!

Get BGG2WL delivered wirelessly to your Kindle! Click here for more info!

© Erika for A Black Girl's Guide To Weight Loss, 2012. | Permalink | 19 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: bad eating habits, diseases, eating habits, fast foods, fat, junk food, metabolic syndrome, metabolism, skinny

One of the first rules of HuffPo is… don’t read the comments. And that’s not a knock at the website, but it is a critique of the people who use anonymity to make some pretty untoward comments on a large stage. Don’t get me wrong – the typical “fat whore” and “finely-aged hooker” comments (both of which I’ve received, here) come with the territory. As a  woman (a Black one, at that) who covers issues relating to body image and women actually eating… you just get used to it. Women aren’t supposed to have ownership of their bodies, they aren’t supposed to eat (we’re supposed to perpetually
diet, fear food and strive to shrink ourselves down to toothpicks with two watermelons at the top…because even though our bodies are supposed to have NO fat in them, we’re supposed to have huge boobs too… boobs, which are ALL fat) and they for damn sure aren’t supposed to speak, be it out of turn or IN turn. The “she looked better fat” and the like comments weren’t what annoyed me.

What really got my goat was the number of “OKAY HERE WE GO WHAT IF THERE WAS A WHITE GIRL’S GUIDE TO WEIGHT LOSS? THAT’D BE RACIST AMIRITE AL SHARPTON WOULD BE ON US OMG WTF BBQ NAACP WOULD HAVE OUR HIDES REVERSE RACISM DEATH SQUAD AHHHHH INORITE” comments. There’s even the gem of “When I talk to people, I don’t see color.” in there. I mean, I’m just stupefied by this. This isn’t a rebuttal to the commenters who didn’t give enough of a damn to take five minutes to read a single article on the site, namely the one where I address whether the blog can helps non-Blacks as well as nongirls. This is for the people who, with trepidation (and rightfully so), enter a space that they feel may not be for them or with them in mind, but believe this could be a place where they garner valuable information.

Why do I write this for you? Because I, along with every other Black woman who has even a passing interest in fitness, can relate. It’s what we go through every day, and I think it’s only fair that I address you and your concerns in a way we wish ours were addressed.

Let’s legitimately look at the question, though. Why isn’t there A White Girl’s Guide To Weight Loss? If I felt like being snarky and dismissive, I’d ask you what the hell a lot of the current fitness magazines are out here. Alas, I’m honestly willing to answer it.

The reason my blog carries the title it does is not because it is “a guide to weight loss for Black girls; it is a guide to weight loss by a Black girl. That means the author is Black and female. The acculturation that created the mentality behind the
blog posts on this site is Black and female. What is Black female acculturation? The idea that while society places limitations on what I am capable of as a woman, I have to dually face the challenges of facing those limitations as well as the limitations society places on me for being Black. Society has a very specific idea of what “women” should look like. Society rewards those who look that way, and shames those who do not. My friends who are struggling to keep their brunette roots from showing under their blond hair may simply like being blondes, or they may be trying to fit into society’s definition of beauty. My friends who are starving right now may just not have time to eat, or they’re starving themselves to fit society’s definition of beauty.

I exist in a society where the people who set the standard for what is beautiful are not “women,” like I am, and they certainly aren’t Black, like I am. I contribute to a culture (because culture is, in fact, dynamic) where the people who set the standard for what is “beautiful” and “desirable” may be Black, but they certainly aren’t women. The standards for these two places are, in no parts, similar. At all. Ever. The ridiculous part of this all, though, is the fact that beauty is subjective. All things aren’t beautiful to all people, but all people are beautiful to someone, most importantly themselves, and that needs to be okay. We don’t work that way in America, though. Someone else sets the standard for what is beautiful. The  rest of us suck it up and buy the products and get the procedures it takes to be desirable. (See: consumerism.) As a Black woman, though, I am given a safe haven from the bashing. Even though I’m morbidly obese, I’m “still beautiful” and “don’t need to change.” Even though I’m morbidly obese, I’m told “I love a big fine woman,” because male attention should be the deciding factor in my self-satisfaction. Even though I’m morbidly obese, I’m told “you can do side bends or sit-ups, but please don’t lose that butt.” I’m not a human with a brain, I’m a two-legged (sometimes four-legged?) stand for a ginormous booty.

In a society that shuns me because I look so different from the “ideal,” I’m lulled into comfort by my own culture that tells me that my (talking about myself, here) inability to cope through anything but food, lack of physical activity, poor habits that were causing improper functioning in my legs and the consequences of such were okay. It’s wrong, the way society harps on women and demands their thinness, but it’s equally questionable how acceptable poor health can be in my own culture. That… is the intersection of being Black and a woman in fitness.

When I seek fitness, on a general scale I may not see too many people who look like me. I have to go against what I believe (however inaccurate it may be) to be the  accepted standard in my culture, leave behind what left me feeling beautiful in search of living a healthier life. All women should be granted the space to be beautiful, but that doesn’t outweigh the necessity of being honest with  ourselves about our bodies. Are our bodies, and the habits we have that make them and keep them in their current condition, healthy? And if not, are we willing to relinquish our perception of and value of that beauty to achieve that health we desire?

I appreciate any person who, in this day and age, can say “I don’t see color when I talk to people.” I think that’s fantastic.

That being said, it’s difficult for me to take the idea of “a color blind society” seriously when, just this past Sunday, I had an elder white woman shout – loudly, mind you – “Nigger!” at me three times as my daughter and I crossed in front of her in a Whole Foods. (Grew up in the whitest city in one of the whitest states in the Union, and the first time I’m called a “nigger” is when I move to New York City.) No one apologized, no “I’m so sorry you went through that,” no one even looked at me. My daughter, completely oblivious to the entire event, was the only reason I simply laughed as she turned the aisle. I can appreciate the fact that you, Miss Color Blind, can “overlook” that I’m Black. I can not. I’m reminded of it  often, when little white women can attempt to debase me in front of my child and no one offers me even a look of sympathy, when presidential candidates can make statements about how Blacks need to go out and earn their own money (as if we aren’t already… as if something like 70% of welfare recipients aren’t white) and when there are still stories of redlining (and reverse redlining – hello, recession!) happening in America. I just… I don’t have that privilege of “not seeing color.”

So while I can appreciate the people who talk about color blindness, I don’t believe that “forgetting” or “ignoring” culture is the answer. The real answer is to respect culture and the beauty it brings. Fight for its representation, even if that means taking a back seat. Respect that while the lives led by people of different cultures may share a lot of similarities,
there are nuances created by culture that make a difference.

All in all… everyone is welcome, here. I work hard to keep the community chill, and I hope you find value in what we share here. And, just as we Black women venture out, fearing and fearless at the same time, and find kinship along the way…. I hope for the same for you. Besides, we don’t bite around here. Unless it’s food… then we’re gnawin’.

Blogging While Black: On Having An Accidentally Controversial Blog Title is a post from: A Black Girl's Guide To Weight Loss. Thanks for reading!

Related posts:

1. Weekend WTF: Accidentally Vegan Meat Product?
2. Vanity Sizing: Accidentally Masking Weight Gain?
3. An Open Letter To The Black Blogosphere

The FULL list of meal plans is currently available. Check it out and get your copy today!

Get BGG2WL delivered wirelessly to your Kindle! Click here for more info!

© Erika for A Black Girl's Guide To Weight Loss, 2012. | Permalink | 51 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags:

Trying to attract men… or trying to keep a man… or trying to please a man.

This isn’t some man-hating thesis… I love my men just as much as the next hetero chick (or gay dude, for that matter) but for crying out loud, I have to set some boundaries in regards to just how much of my life revolves around them.

When I chat with women about fitness, we inevitably have the “boo” conversation.

“Hey… I’m just tryin’ to get a boo.”

“Girl, you’re crazy. I get plenty of boos right now with all this booty and all these thighs!”

Then, you get your skinny minnies joining the conversation and pissing everybody off:

“I just want thicker thighs, but I can’t eat all that cornbread! I’m tired of being called skinny!”

Sure enough, we all leave the conversation a little more angry, a little more tired, and a little more depressed than when we entered.

I see three major issues, here.

Firstly, to the woman losing weight solely to get the man – once you get the man, are you pretty much done caring for and maintaining your body? Are you going to skip the working out and eating properly because you “got your boo?” I mean, really – talk about a bait and switch. We’d be mad as sin if he (or she?) only opened doors and pulled out chairs to make us swoon and once he felt like we were deep enough in love, gave up on that stuff. Find yourself valuable enough to be a person worth pleasing. If you’re at a point where appearance is important, be invested enough in pleasing yourself with your appearance… that you’ll work to maintain it for all time. Not just for now… or until he puts a ring on it. Sure enough, you’ll be forced to adopt healthier choices and everyone will be healthier in the long run.

Secondly, to the woman who believes she doesn’t need to lose weight specifically because all the men are praising her frame. There is nothing worse than a woman who uses outside validation as an excuse for not keeping herself in check. It’s one thing to appreciate outside validation (“Oh, girl, you look great!” or the “Wow, you’re getting small!”), but to use it as the basis and/or grounds for decisions in my personal life? Unacceptable.

It’s bad enough that society tells us, on a daily basis, that the end goal for women is [not a successful career, not a dope loft in a bustling metropolitan city, not even CEO status.. but] a happy family and a man. It’s bad enough that we keep being told “Have babies or your eggs will shrivel up to nothingness and you will be worthless, girl!” Letting men (or any outside factor, for that matter) play such a huge role in how concerned (or unconcerned, for that matter) we are with our overall health is just doing too much.

When I first started out on my own path for weight loss, I had a supportive boyfriend. He wasn’t pushing me in either direction – in fact, I think he knew this was a journey I needed to figure out on my own for me. I needed to stand on my own two feet emotionally. I needed to support myself. I needed to be my own cheerleader first, and allow the support of others to come second. I’m thankful for that, because our relationship didn’t last. I can only imagine where I’d be had he chosen otherwise and I’d relied on him to keep me focused, because heaven knows I wasn’t that emotionally stable when it came to self-care. I just now happen to have the hindsight to appreciate how things worked out for me, and how I developed an ability to spot what I needed (notice all the italicized “I needed”s in this paragraph.) and how important it was to make sure that I had what I needed emotionally. No one takes care of you better than you. Ever.

And speaking of hindsight, now I know that the “support from others” is not only conditional, but temporary. Since you, shrinking down in size, means you might be looking more like them/better than them, they become less and less likely to cheer you on in the future. Just like how I wrote about friendships either helping or hindering our efforts to be healthier, those friends might’ve been keeping you around because [in some sick and twisted way] you made them feel better about not being… like you. Becoming a healthier version of yourself – regardless of whether or not that includes weight loss – not only shines an uncomfortable light on their own habits, but makes people feel competitive. Especially if they saw you as beneath them.

Not saying everyone is like that, but dang if it didn’t happen. Please believe the “Wow, you’re getting small!”s eventually turn into “Wow, you’re too skinny, now! Here, have some more [insert crap], girl. Eat up.” and behind your back? It’s probably “That bitch needs a cookie… or a cheeseburger.”

Now, I get questions like “So are you dating much more now that you’ve lost weight?” and get blank stares when I reply, “I’m not dating at all. I’m too focused on me right now to get to know anyone new.”

“Awww, girl, you’re wasting all that hard work!”

Aw, word? So.. my losing weight, escaping diabetes and hypertension, and changing my habits was… to expand my dating options? I mean, forget the fact that I wanted to make sure that if I needed to protect my child and I, I could. And forget the fact that I wanted to make sure that I’d be around long enough to see my grandchildren graduate college. And even forget the fact that I needed to know that I wasn’t actively contributing to my own demise all for the sake of something stupid like the kind of food I insisted on shoving down my throat.

My hard work was wasting because… I wasn’t dating. Priorities, people.

I’m convinced that there’s a conspiracy out there meant to prevent women from valuing themselves and their own opinions enough to be comfortable with shutting out society. Heaven forbid we be empowered enough to tell someone exactly where they – and their silly opinions – can go.

I think that we can all say that 80% of weight loss is eating properly. I think we can also say that for so many of us, our eating problems come from an emotional place. If there’s an emotional void, why allow someone other than ourselves to fill it? Why allow ourselves to rely on something or someone so flimsy?

Let’s be honest about it: no other person, no outside source of validation – whether you’re seeking that validation or already have that validation – can replace how we feel about ourselves… and if we feel like we need to tune up our habits, tighten up our physiques or eat better? Then we need to believe enough in ourselves, have enough faith in ourselves, and value our own opinions enough to make it happen. It’s as simple as that.

Men And Your Weight is a post from: A Black Girl's Guide To Weight Loss. Thanks for reading!

Related posts:

1. Did I Just Plateau? Why Am I Not Losing Weight?
2. 5 Reasons Why You Won’t Lose Weight
3. “Weight Loss Is For People With Low Self-Esteem”

The FULL list of meal plans is currently available. Check it out and get your copy today!

Get BGG2WL delivered wirelessly to your Kindle! Click here for more info!

© Erika for A Black Girl's Guide To Weight Loss, 2012. | Permalink | 41 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: dating, health, men, perceptions, relationships, selfishness

$55 -- Lobster-and-black-truffle salad at the Four Seasons;Credit: Johnathan Beskin

“It’s insanity!” says 28-year-old public relations consultant Erin Ward, who was recently on line at a Midtown salad bar. “You’re not paying for the food at that point. You’re paying for the name.”

Indeed, a salad with similar ingredients — diced chicken breast, bacon, blue cheese, hard-boiled egg, avocado, tomato and baby greens — from run-of-the-mill takeout joint Café Metro costs just $9.57 with tax.

And yet some New Yorkers are willing to pay even more green for their greens. Now that summer’s officially here, the city’s most exclusive restaurants are awash in exorbitantly priced rabbit food. The luxe leaves are selling so well that chefs are staffing up the garde manger cold station just to meet the warm-weather demand.

Call them “status salads” — among them the $55 lobster-and-black-truffle salad at the consummate Midtown power lunch spot Four Seasons and the $25 chopped chicken salad at Fred’s at Barneys.

All of which begs the question: How much can you get away with charging for a salad?

“It depends on what’s in it and where you’re eating it,” says guidebook CEO Tim Zagat.

C’mon, out with a number!

“$100 — if you sprinkle enough caviar on top,” he replies.

That artfully plated $55 lobster-and-black- truffle salad at the Four Seasons ­— with a sculptured village of seasonal vegetables — is certainly selling well. When it was a special last week, the titans of industry who gather in the Grill Room gobbled up 30 of them in a single day.

But the popularity of double-digit salads isn’t just about the ingredients, it’s the swank surroundings.

Unlike Michael’s, Café Metro doesn’t have art by David Hockney on its walls, Christofle silver on its tables and actor Michael Douglas lunching with the powerful, Gekko-esque Henry Kravis a couple of seats over. And let’s not forget the impressive size of the Michael’s salad.

[...]As it turns out, New Yorkers are fiercely loyal to their status salads.

“It’s my death-row salad,” says p.r. maven Diana Biederman of the famous Gotham Salad at Bergdorf Goodman. Currently served in the department store’s swanky seventh-floor restaurant BG, it combines diced chicken breast, ham, gruyère, tomatoes, bacon, beets, hard-boiled egg, lettuce and Thousand Island dressing.

Price tag: $25.

Admittedly, it was cheaper back in the ’80s, when Biederman first got hooked. At the time, she was making $6.25 an hour as a salesgirl at Laura Ashley, scrimping and saving just to indulge every few months.

“Since they’ve gone fancy, it’s a little overpriced,” she concedes.

Still, die-hard dieters maintain their salads amount to much more than mere washing and assembling.

“All that meticulous chopping — it would take me an insane amount of time to make,” says Biederman.

‘21’ executive chef John Greeley, who serves a $31 Cobb salad complete with quail eggs and artisanal bacon, agrees. “Each vegetable is cut in a certain way to enhance texture and flavor,” he says. (Note to the hoi polloi: The Cobb will appear as an appetizer on the Summer Restaurant Week menu — three lunch courses for $24.07!)

According to defenders of double-digit salads, the brawny entree-size bowls offer a fairly priced fine-dining meal — especially since they’re so sizable, they’re frequently eaten without an appetizer.

And then there is the simple matter of setting. After all, the pricey greens are often just a civilized pretext for wheeling and dealing.

“If I’m having a business lunch, obviously I’m not taking them to Dishes,” says ‘21’ regular Alexandra Lebenthal, referring to the East 45th Street assembly-line salad spot she occasionally frequents.

The CEO of financial firm Lebenthal & Co. and author of the forthcoming novel “Recessionistas,” Lebenthal is something of a salad connoisseur. In addition to regularly nibbling on the Cobb at ‘21’ (hold the blue cheese), she’s also a fan of the $25 chopped chicken salad — a mix of shredded chicken, avocado, onion, tomato, pears and bibb lettuce tossed in a Dijon mustard-balsamic vinaigrette — at fashionista-friendly Madison Avenue eatery Fred’s.

“At the end of the day, is there anything as satisfying as a salad — except maybe chocolate cake?” she muses.

Still, she’s a bit surprised when told the ‘21’ Cobb salad costs $31.

“I actually never looked at the price,” she laughs.

So, what’s the most she’d pay for a salad?

“$32.”

And what will she do if ‘21’ raises the price?

“Hopefully they’ll grandfather me in,” she says. “I’m a longtime customer.”

For Pulse: Freds @ Barneys Freds Chopped chicken salad $25 Dollars - Credit: Johnathan Beskin

I didn’t want to paste those parts out of context, but I think it’s important to see the highlighted passages.

To me, there are a couple of interesting aspects to this article. For starters, I’ll tell y’all the same way I responded when I first saw this article: “If all of the ingredients are organic, if the blue cheese is homemade, if nothing comes from a bottle and if that chicken is organic and free range… if everything is chopped and pitted correctly and I’m not bothered by seeds or other vegetable innards? You’re darn straight I’d pay that much for it. No bacon though. #TeamAntiBacon”

I place a high value on the food I bring into my body and share with my daughter. Some people value their shoe collections (believe me, I am one of those people), some people place a high value on their clothing and for others, it’s their jewelry. I.. I value food.

I appreciate the experience. I make a big deal out of eating. I like pomp and circumstance. I like simplicity. I like dishes and dining experiences that find an appropriate balance between the two. As someone who worked both in a franchise restaurant (think Applebees, Fridays, Chili’s type places) and a small fine dining restaurant, I’ve learned a lot about the difference between dining and feeding. One includes an experience worth every dollar, and one includes an experience where you get what you pay for.

Having said that, there’s also an interesting – and disturbing – bit that needs to be highlighted, here. All the food history that I know… has consisted of this interesting volleying between the rich and the poor. Not the “upper class” and the “middle class.” The rich. And. The poor. There is no middle ground between those who can, and those who cannot. Once upon a time before food manufacturing wasso big, the rich were “the fat ones,” gorging on every fruit and vegetable they could get their paws on. Devouring every ounce of beef and pork they could. This is why the women were accepted for being curvier – it was a sign of being moneyed.

The poor were skimping – portion controlling, saving, penny pinching. Mixing different ingredients so that they could make a lot out of very little. It made tons of sense. It still does.

When food manufacturing became the thing, and people were rushing out to eat this… food… American waistlines started to grow. Everyone scrambled left to right to figure out what the cure for this problem was – more likely, so that food manufacturers could chemically engineer the “problem” out of the food, allowing you to buy as much of it as you want – but the rich.. they pretty much already knew. They went back to minimalistic dining principles. Clean eating.

Compare the menu of your favorite restaurant (provided it isn’t a fine dining one) to the menu of a fine dining restaurant. Compare the portions. Compare the make-up of the dishes. A $36 salad.. that’s enough to buy two racks of ribs, three handfuls of fries and a shot of tequila at the franchise restaurant I have in mind. You might even be hard-pressed to find something like ribs at a full fledged fine dining restaurant.

My point, really, is this – while we’re so busy trying to “live it up” and “live through food,” the upper class are taking the simple route and making the eating more about the experience. While franchise joints are rushing to offer up huge steak and shrimp dinners, fine dining restaurants are focusing more on the experience of dining – not the need to feed – and raising the price on it.

Sounds like all the more reason to create my own dining experience – taking the simplistic route with my dishes and save by cooking from scratch – how about you?

The $36 Salad: An Exercise In Elitism? is a post from: A Black Girl's Guide To Weight Loss. Thanks for reading!

Related posts:

1. Elitism On A Food Stamp Budget?
2. Q&A Wednesday: Exercise Won’t Make You Thin?
3. Three Great Ways To Exercise At Home

The FULL list of meal plans is currently available. Check it out and get your copy today!

Get BGG2WL delivered wirelessly to your Kindle! Click here for more info!

© Erika for A Black Girl's Guide To Weight Loss, 2011. | Permalink | 17 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: classism, clean eating, elitism, NY Post, restaurants, social eating, society

Tomatoes... mmmm...

It’s ok to throw tomatoes at me. I’ll just make tomato bisque out of ‘em, anyway.

I think it’s appropriate to talk about “cheating” during a week where we’re committed to taking extra steps to eat healthier, cleaner and closer to the source because, honestly, so many of us are struggling with the vast amount of sacrifices we’ve had to make in order to do better.

No, I don’t believe in cheating. Cheating is a concept inherited from the “dieting” mentality… something else that I don’t agree with.

Allow me to explain.

People who take on temporary diets to lose a few pounds, only to revert right back to the habits that caused them to pack on the pounds in the first place… they “cheat” their diets every now and again. They “cheat” and eat the way they used to, because they’ve realized that they took on a diet that was far too restrictive for their natural liking – in a cold turkey kind of way, at that – and regress… without really learning anything from the situation altogether.

I can’t support that for a ton of reasons.

Firstly, it implies – like I mentioned – that you took on something too restrictive and too soon. Why? Are you trying to fit in a dress before the weekend, or are you trying to change things up so that you never have a problem getting in that dress again? Why did you go cold turkey? Don’t we know a gazillion people who’ve tried to cut things (namely smoking) cold turkey, only to regress because it was too much to bear?

Secondly, it implies that we don’t recognize that the habits/food items we used to “cheat” are the ones that got us in this mess in the first place! If I have committed to clean eating, decide to have a “cheat day” when I come home from work and have a TV dinner… y’know, because I’m sooooo tired and need to relax after a long day? C’mon, man! That ain’t gon’ cut it! The TV dinner might not even be that terrible – it’s not the food that’s the problem! It’s the habit. Coming home and not having anything healthy prepped for you to take? Coming home and having the TV dinner in the house in the first place? That’s the kind of stuff that results in you hitting up a fast food joint.

Embrace the fact that you are changing your life. You are not yo-yo dieting. You are not overindulging. You are not leaving yourself open to the risk of unpreparedness. You are definitely not going to gain the weight back.

You certainly aren’t “cheating.”

So… if I’m not cheating, what happens when I slip up?

First of all, it’s not a horrible thing. It’s not a “cheat” – because that implies that “it’s ok because I don’t do it often” – it’s a learning opportunity. Take a long, hard look at what you slipped up on. Take a look at why you felt that you “needed” it so badly. Analyze how you felt directly before and after you ate it. Did it help you feel better? Are you going to be hungry ten minutes from now? Was it empty calories?

Now, think about the future. Is this a good habit to maintain? Do you need to take some extra precautions to prevent this kind of trouble? Did you slip up because cold turkey just isn’t working for you? If you’re mad that you had that TV dinner when you know you’re supposed to be cooking, what extra precautions do you need to take to prevent it from happening again? You need to step your freezer game up, or have lighter dishes on hand. You need to have better snacks nearby to eat while you cook (yes, I do this too.) Embrace a salad instead. You know you’re supposed to do X, instead you do Y… so do what you have to do to make sure that you never forget that X.

I’m not talking about those situations where you just can’t get out of an eating mishap. I was hit with the example of a temperamental boss buying you a little birthday cake – can you really.. really turn down a slice? This isn’t cheating. This is acknowledging that life happens. While you may feel like you need punishment in the form of a supercardio session, this isn’t you indulging for no reason other than “I just wanted it.” Be reasonable in your assessment – if you feel like you’re giving yourself a pass for bad behavior, admit that. It’s a part of learning the lesson that comes with “cheating.”

In short, you don’t “cheat” a lifestyle. There is nothing ok about going against what you know you’re supposed to be doing, and making it “ok” because it’s “only for one day.” That doesn’t cut it. It’s half’ing it.

I hate this cliché (I hate all clichés) but really, this is a lifestyle change. For crying out loud don’t “cheat” it, because you’re only “cheating” yourself. So give yourself the time and patience it takes – the time and patience you deserve – to become accustomed to things you might’ve never tried.. never done.. never imagined. It’s so worth it.

Why I Don’t Believe In “Cheating” On Your Clean Eating is a post from: A Black Girl's Guide To Weight Loss. Thanks for reading!

Related posts:

1. Q&A Wednesday: Is Clean Eating An Eating Disorder?
2. Easing Into Eating Clean
3. Q&A Wednesday: How Do You Co-Habitate With Clean Eating?

The FULL list of meal plans is currently available. Check it out and get your copy today!

Get BGG2WL delivered wirelessly to your Kindle! Click here for more info!

© Erika for A Black Girl's Guide To Weight Loss, 2011. | Permalink | 12 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: cheating, clean eating, dieting, Healthy Eating, mentality

I'd rather see a positive photo of Black women, as opposed to a Black man in a fat suit being used to represent me.

To make a long story short, a blog post appeared asking why Black women are, well, so fat. The post came attached with a photo of – get this – Eddie Murphy in a fat suit as an illustration of what the target of this post, “fat Black women” (as they were called repeatedly in the comments,) really look like. Like men in fat suits.

The post included the following:

To you unhealthy size 16 women who write all these “We aren’t all a size two posts”. Please sit down and just accept that you are overweight and stop glorifying it. If you are heavier than your man (unless you just like your men bony) then you should be ashamed of yourself.

My goal here is to get you to accept that most of you don’t really have a handle on your health and that you were NOT born to look like a hippo. [..]

Stop trying to justify your fatness.

So… let’s talk. Aside from the fact that the post was written by the same person who wrote something titled, “Hood Chicks Are People Too;” aside from the fact that the post was written as if the author got picked on by a group of “fat Black chicks” and then ran home to pen her rant; aside from the fact that the entire thing is so juvenile, I probably shouldn’t even address it here… there are two important things to witness, here.

Firstly, this was written on a site that, from what I’ve seen, aims for a comedic approach to semi-sensitive issues. I get that. I suppose it was “gun for overweight Black women” day. I guess I get that, too. The interesting thing, though, is that while the post tried to say “concern,” the comments left you to find these treasures:

You don’t need to be a medical professional to see that some people too damn big

…and…

Obese people resemble Hippos…*shrugs*…if they like looking that way..then they dont have to read any further..I will not apologize for stating my opinion..no matter how mean it may seem.

…and…

This post isn’t about being skinny..it’s about being healthy..you must be overweight and unhealthy…keep on being that way if that’s what you want…I dont want that for you..but I can’t stop you from enjoying another 3000 calorie dinner tonite

…and…

If an obese woman believes she looks good that size then she won’t do anything about her health..she looks like a hippo and has 20 s rolls on her body. She is not THICK..she is LUMPY…and there is NOTHING RIGHT with that..nothing AT ALL. Sure it’s insulting to say hippo…but maybe ..just MAYBE if I didn’t say say “big is beautiful” less of you would be inclined to keep slowing killing yourselfs [sic] and jacking up your insides…

…last one, I swear…

morbid obese people look worse than hippos

So on a site that tries to bring humor to serious situations decides to let one of its contributors tackle the issue of overweight Black women with a “serious tone,” underestimates the amount of women it would piss off because they are the target of the article (and ceremoniously represented by a picture of a Black man in a fat suit) and THEN goes on to just straight up fling hate? Because saying a group of people who are, by appearance, morbidly obese (a clinical term related specifically to the correlation of height and weight, NOT appearance.. so that’s a fail on its face) look worse than hippos is not even insulting. Those kinds of generalizations are hateful.

To imply that a woman should feel shame because of her body is astounding to me. That a woman who has pride in who she is should not simply because she is overweight? Isn’t this the same notion that American society slams us with every single day? “You don’t look like me, so be ashamed of that.” It appears in various forms and is echoed from various mouths, but society is full of people who use appearance to give off that “I’m better than you, get on my level, and until you do get on my level you are a ‘less than’.” vibe. It’s meant to fill a void – there’s nothing internal to make them feel good about themselves… so they grab for external reasons to feel good. Meh.

I’m pretty much over the author. There is one last piece of business I’d like to tend to, though.

I happened to see this comment:

curious, don’t take this the wrong way, on average, what do you eat everyday? Give me a breakdown, How many meals and what is it and how many snacks. I may be able to help you. But you gotta commit. I have a lot of overweight friends that “claim” they want positive advice but when you give it to them, they never follow through and make excuses as to why they ate something bad, or ate excessively. I’m 32, I weigh 98 pounds and I look like I work out, but I don’t. [...]

I want to put you on to an easy way to drop at least 20 pounds without even really doing much. So if you are open to suggestions, holla back.

…it received this response:

1.Eggs, soy milk, turkey sausage (breakfast)
2. apple (snack)
3. chicken breast w/ salad (lunch)
4. banana or cherries (snack)
5. Turkey w/ broccoli & mushrooms (dinner)
*nothing but water w/ meals*

…the 98lb nutritionist (who later clarified that she is 4’11″) then told her the following:

First mistake, that Breakfast is no good. LOL!! You need to minimize that, that’s the easiest meal to minimize.

Eggs AND sausage is two fatty items. What about Sausage, 2 links, French toast, and a grapefruit. If you do eggs, do them boiled, eat the white part only. Or just a bowl of cereal by itself. No Oatmeal or anything with a lot of grain.

The apple is good, Green ones are the best.

Lunch. How about a Chicken Cesar from Panera or something. Not a whole breast AND a salad, combine the two. Rotate every other day, do a Plain Cesar at least twice out the week. I do Plain Cesars.

Soda, one a day if you must.

Since you are tying to lose weight, the banana is no good. Eat another green apple, or watermelon. Or Fruit Snacks or a smoothie. Don’t know if ya’ll got Smoothie King, but the mango one is the bomb!!!

Dinner can be the same, cut out the mushrooms though, you don’t need those and the Turkey, that two proteins at once. No bread, if so wheat only.

Or, if you eat a big Breakfast, eat a light dinner. [...] Don’t eat after 8:30pm.

I cannot say this any louder, and I cannot stress this enough. Just because someone is proportionate… doesn’t mean they have the market cornered on how to get proportionate or how to stay there. Someone who is 4’11″ and 98lbs is not running into the same problems as someone who is 6′ and 300lbs with weight maintenance. Not only is this piss poor advice (don’t eat eggs for breakfast, but eat French toast? allowing soda? Skip the fruit, but have some fruit? No oatmeal? Oh lawdy, the BGG2WL girls would have a field day with that.) but it is misguided – are we talking health or “getting skinny?” Are we even encouraging a healthy perception of self? Or are we shaming women into feeling horrible about not being skinny and “looking healthy,” then giving them bad advice without helping patch them up after the emotional breakdown we try to cause? Or do these people even give enough of a damn to bother?

I know my questions will go unanswered, and that’s okay. I also know that I’m not even included in the demographic this original article targeted, and that’s okay too. The fact remains that I am always going to be the same person I was at 328lbs, and that person is still sympathetic to the struggle of losing weight and becoming healthy, no matter how far I’ve “made it.”

The fact also remains that the focus on “looking healthy” as opposed to “being healthy” is the same misinformation that compels women to remain unhealthy. Think about it – telling me that I need to be skinny to be healthy, and I never reach my region’s definition of skinny (I doubt Los Angeles and Atlanta have the same definition of skinny)… I’m gonna give up and go back to what I’m doing. “Screw healthy. These pringles are callin’ me.”

All I’m sayin’ is I like my fatophobes the same way I like my anecdotal nutritionists – silent. I know that an article about the perils of “being fat” tends to make the “not fat” crew feel a little better about themselves… but for the love of everything healthy, don’t cloak your insults in faux concern and please don’t make the problem worse by offering your pseudo-advice that works for you to people you don’t really give a damn about. Neither of you are helping.

The Fat-O-Phobes Are Showing Their Behinds Again is a post from: A Black Girl's Guide To Weight Loss. Thanks for reading!

Related posts:

1. Shoutout To The Fat-O-Phobes: Marie Claire vs Fat TV Characters

The FULL list of meal plans is currently available. Check it out and get your copy today!

Get BGG2WL delivered wirelessly to your Kindle! Click here for more info!

© Erika for A Black Girl's Guide To Weight Loss, 2011. | Permalink | 57 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: anti-fat society, bad advice, epic ranting, fatophobia, faux concern, mentality, society, stupid

Think about it – how often are conversations about pleasureful foods followed up with “Oh, I’m gonna spend all night on the treadmill for that one?” or “It’s going to go straight to my thighs?” I mean, this inordinate amount of guilt that we feel because we actually enjoy what we eat is so… bizarre to me, now.

From the nourishing revolution:

Basically, I’ve been thinking about the way people often talk and think about food as ‘good’ or ‘bad’ – as though there’s an implicit moral value judgement.  I think this is left over from the religious roots of Western culture, there’s something absurdly puritanical about the idea that what is good is hard work and not particularly enjoyable (healthy food), whereas anything pleasurable, a sweet, fatty indulgence for example, must somehow be sinful.  Perhaps this partially explains the promotion of bland foods like grains and the public execution of saturated fat.

This is what I wrote a few days ago as part of my thesis:

According to Warde (1997) health was rarely a concern in recipes in 1967-8, only four percent of recipes recommended food because it was healthy.  This was before concerns over nutrition escalated; in the 1991-2 sample sixteen percent of recipes made reference to the healthy nature of foods.  There was a common assumption that healthy food equated to light food which would (hopefully) equate to a lighter physical form.  Health (nutritionism) information was increasingly supplied, alongside recipes, about factors such as fat, fibre and calories following the trend of increasing obsession with health and healthy eating, particularly prevalent in the middle class and often more of a concern for women.  Warde asserts that this reflects government propaganda campaigns encouraging healthy eating.

This kind of compromise is discussed by Warde in his book Consumption, Food and Taste (1997).  “Comfort food” is a common term used to describe the consumption of (usually unhealthy) food for emotional pleasure rather than bio-physical health.  This may be a way that lay discourse patches the divide between good and sinful foods – allowing for some emotional pampering on the part of the unhealthy food, but just occasionally.  Warde calls this: “one of the most important mixed messages regarding contemporary food. We should eat healthily; but not if it makes us sad.  Implicitly hedonistic consumption is justified in terms of what the mind and the body need.  This juxtaposition of indulgence and bodily self-discipline identifies a profound contradiction.  Its only resolution is by eating something different tomorrow.  Bangers and mash is for a special occasion, when feeling blue; and that is a most important condition in the world of self.  You deserve to be happy, and to be comforted when not.  The indulgence may be craved for a transgression of the rules.  Ultimately, this is a tale about good and evil, and what is being encouraged is evil.  But you can be forgiven because you feel miserable; if you aren’t happy, try sin!” (1997, p.79)

Now, I think – personally – that the origin of the “good” vs “bad” conversation is important, so long as it is used to differentiate between the “clean” and the “unclean”; those who are “chemically altered” and those who are not. There’s a point in time where imitation foods were clearly labeled and identified as such. That is no longer the case, and my personal beliefs lead me to believe that THAT kind of distinction needs to be made, simply because the nutritional landscape is so different from what it used to be.

She also makes the following point: “According to Warde (1997) health was rarely a concern in recipes in 1967-8, only four percent of recipes recommended food because it was healthy. This was before concerns over nutrition escalated…”

I’d like to offer up an answer regarding why:

The 1938 Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act imposed strict rules requiring that the word “imitation” appear on any food product that was, well, an imitation … [And] the food industry [argued over the word], strenuously for decades, and in 1973 it finally succeeded in getting the imitation rule tossed out, a little-noticed but momentous step that helped speed America down the path of nutritionism.

… The American Heart Association, eager to get Americans off saturated fats and onto vegetable oils (including hydrogenated vegetable oils), was actively encouraging the food industry to “modify” various foods to get the saturated fats and cholesterol out of them, and in the early seventies the association urged that “any existing and regulatory barriers to the marketing of such foods be removed.”

And so they were when, in 1973, the FDA (not, note, the Congress that wrote the law) simply repealed the 1938 rule concerning imitation foods. … The revised imitation rule held that as long as an imitation product was not “nutritionally inferior” to the natural food it sought to impersonate—as long as it had the same quantities of recongized nutrients—the imitation could be marketed without using the dreaded “i” word. — In Defense of Food: An Eater’s Manifesto

Of course concerns about nutrition escalated right before the FDA’s ruling – someone had a vested interest in making sure that we cared less about where our nourishment came from, so long as it appeared to be nourishing.

I know that’s extremely “conspiracy theorist,” but that’s real. If I only need to focus on the little building blocks, it doesn’t matter where they come from. That philosophy was thrown at us for decades – focusing on the little bits and pieces, not simply how they work together. It caused us to flock to certain foods, cringe at the thought of eating others and feel guilt for doing what we’ve always done.

Food is supposed to bring some semblance of pleasure. Ingesting carbs at a respectable rate is supposed to lift your mood. Ingesting a certain amount of fat is supposed to alleviate stress to some degree. Those are evolutionary responses. They’re also manipulated by industries with the intention of making us feel sooo good that we overindulge, use up their product and buy it again.

That reaction – right there – is the origin of what I call The Puritan Principle. If it feels good, it must be bad. We’re intimately familiar with the consequences of said indulgence. We’re “fat” and unhappy about it. We’re extremely unhealthy.

That’s also where we get the idea of “if it’s good for you, it must taste like crap.” We immediately jump to the extreme opposite. It’s why we have so many people who reject the idea of healthy food being delicious.

You have no idea how many times I have to tell people “Yes, I ‘can have’ cheese… and meat… and oil… and cream… and mayonnaise… and eat cleanly.” Their eyes bug out, they get confused, they “go dumb.” If it weren’t for the fact that I’d already lost over 160lbs with this philosophy, they’d truly think I was full of it. The problem isn’t the food, so much as it is the fact that its manufacturing can cause you to lose your ability to control yourself. I have full control over how often I eat it, and how much I eat is tempered by the naturally occurring fiber in the dish.

It’s strange, but that is commonly challenged thinking. It’s actually considered “revolutionary,” believe it or not.

We’ve spent so much time embracing this ideology that says all edible substances are equal, that we’ve failed to pay attention to the fact that some edible substances make it harder for us to control ourselves… and those edible substances are usually processed beyond belief. It’s caused us to feel guilt for enjoying food, shame for our inability to control ourselves, and confusion about why our bodies and health don’t look the way we’d like.

The reality is.. almost any foods made without excess foreign chemicals can be enjoyed with a healthy balance. They won’t compel us to overindulge. They won’t make us feel guilt, because we can accept the fact that it tastes good thanks to quality ingredients… not an abundance of that sugar/fat/salt triumvirate that we find far too often. Our bodies won’t reflect such a long and hard-fought losing battle against our non-existant will power.

That being said… yes, food that doesn’t contribute to poor health (in other words, “healthy food”) can taste delicious, and can actually come in the form of fat… or cream. Ice cream, even. When you’re working with actual real ingredients, that silly “if it tastes good, it must be bad” philosophy doesn’t apply. At all.

(PS: I know that we could get into specifics about preparation – namely salt – but the reality is that a balanced lifestyle will include fruits and vegetables that will negate the effects of sodium in the diet. The key word is balance. Not moderation… balance.)

Pleasure and The Puritans: Why “If It Tastes Good, It MUST Be Bad” Is Wrong is a post from: A Black Girl's Guide To Weight Loss. Thanks for reading!

Related posts:

1. The Myth of The Food Desert: Where The Root Went Wrong
2. What’s Wrong With White Rice?
3. Exactly How Does Milk Do A Body Good?

The FULL list of meal plans is currently available. Check it out and get your copy today!

Get BGG2WL delivered wirelessly to your Kindle! Click here for more info!

© Erika for A Black Girl's Guide To Weight Loss, 2011. | Permalink | 3 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: fake food, FDA, imitation, indulgence

Let me back track. John McWhorter, described by almost everyone I asked as “a conservative,” wrote the following for The Root:

Specifically, we are taught to think that the black obesity problem is in large part a matter of societal injustice. The story goes that the rise in obesity among the poor is due to a paucity of supermarkets in inner-city areas. This factoid has quite a hold on the general conversation about health issues and the poor, for two reasons. One is that it sits easily in the memory. The other is that it corresponds to our sense that poor people’s problems are not their fault — which quite often they are not — and that reversing the problem will require undoing said injustice.

The trouble is that it is impossible to truly see a causal relationship between inner-city obesity and the distance of the supermarket when you live, for example, in New York.

Fairway has been thriving in West Harlem for 15 years, with gorgeous, accessibly priced produce practically spilling out onto the sidewalk. Plenty of local black people shop in it. It’s a walk away for many, and for others, there is even a shuttle service. It is not inaccessible to poor blacks and Latinos in any way.

Yet obesity is still rife in West Harlem, including among teenagers raised on food bought there, in a way that it is not in Greenwich Village. Throughout the city, there are supermarkets amply stocked with fresh produce priced modestly, in struggling neighborhoods where the average weight of people is distinctly higher than on the Upper East Side.

Another example: It was one thing to read four years ago about the Healthy Bodegas Initiative, which stocked bodegas in Harlem, the Bronx and Brooklyn with fresh produce and low-fat milk. The idea was that people for whom these bodegas are their closest source of food would be healthier if they could buy fresher and less fatty food there. But it was another thing to follow up on the results (pdf). After two years, only one in four stores reported people buying more vegetables, and one in three reported people buying more fruit.

The no-supermarket paradigm discourages us from considering that human beings acquire — through childhood experience, cultural preferences and economics — a palate. Note that the economy is part of the equation: The cheapness of sugary drinks is notorious, thanks to the popularity and influence of the muckraking 2008 documentary Food, Inc. and Eric Schlosser’s best-selling book Fast Food Nation, which was made into a movie in 2006.

Culture, too, creates a palate — and to point that out is not to find “fault.” Example: Slavery and sharecropping didn’t make healthy eating easy for black people back in the day. Salt and grease were what they had, and Southern blacks brought their culinary tastes North (Zora Neale Hurston used to bless her friend Langston Hughes with fried-chicken dinners). Fried food, such as fried chicken, was also easy to transport for blacks traveling in the days of Jim Crow, when bringing your own food on the road was a wise decision.

But that did help create what has lived on as a palate even after the circumstances that created it have changed. That happens with all human beings, as with CDs, designed to be round like LPs. Someone raised on fruity drinks and fried food is as likely to prefer them permanently — even if Fairway is down the street — as someone raised on pita bread and hummus will eat that way forever. I was raised on a cuisine stamped by, if not centered on, the salty realm, and I alternate eternally between resisting and parsimoniously indulging that taste for grease.

All of which is to say that our take on the obesity issue at hand cannot be that sugary and high-fat food is always the only food that is available to poor people within walking distance. It simply isn’t true. If we assume that the next step from the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act will be to make sure all poor people live three blocks or fewer from a supermarket, we will see a problem continue.

Rather, there are habits that people of all walks of life develop for any number of reasons, on which they can be persuaded to pull back. We should focus more attention on getting the word out in struggling communities about ways to make tasty food that doesn’t kill you. With this book, for instance, you don’t miss real flavor — pass it on.

But let’s not fall for the idea that for poor black people and only poor black people, kale and apples being sold four blocks away are out of reach.

First and foremost, New Yorkers… I know y’all forget that there are like 50 other states to pay attention to (because y’all seem to forget that the rest of New York state is, in fact, New York State), but… we exist. And using one location – or even twenty locations – to define the causation of obesity and proclaim the “food desert” as a myth is gross negligence of the facts. (Just kidding, I love you guys. Don’t curse me out… please. My Southern sensibilities cannot take it.)

What is, in fact, a food desert?

The CDC defines a food desert as “areas that lack access to affordable fruits, vegetables, whole grains, low-fat milk, and other foods that make up the full range of a healthy diet.”

I can specifically remember a time when I lived in a food desert, and the only food store nearby was a gas station. My daughter was on formula at the time, and I used to purchase that in bulk and have that shipped. For myself, though, it was whatever I could get at the store. A bag of chips for breakfast, a bag of chips for lunch, a bowl of ice cream for dinner. If I wanted to go to the grocery, I had to either beg one of my girls to take me or call a taxi. I eventually called the taxi and cut back on groceries so that I could afford the ride, but… it was a lonnng time before I came to that realization.

It made perfect sense, though, that the grocery stores would be on the other side of town from me. The area where I lived was wholly college students living on that good ol’ beer and pizza diet… as evidenced by the abundance of pizza joints, sub shops and drive-thru liquor stores. The stores that a young Mom like me needed… were at least two miles away. With no car, that was quite the struggle.

But if you think about it, isn’t that how Capitalism works? When there is a demand, the promise of profit guarantees that there will always be someone willing and able to jump in and fulfill that need, right? In my neighborhood, there was a high demand for pizza joints and liquor stores. That’s what the college kids wanted. I was the random weird outlier with an infant in a college apartment complex.

McWhorter says the following:

Culture, too, creates a palate — and to point that out is not to find “fault.” Example: Slavery and sharecropping didn’t make healthy eating easy for black people back in the day. Salt and grease were what they had, and Southern blacks brought their culinary tastes North (Zora Neale Hurston used to bless her friend Langston Hughes with fried-chicken dinners). Fried food, such as fried chicken, was also easy to transport for blacks traveling in the days of Jim Crow, when bringing your own food on the road was a wise decision.

Never mind the fact that I believe he pulled a vast percentage of that paragraph out of the sky… never mind the fact that I believe he doesn’t sees the irony in what he’s proffering. Let’s talk about the idea that he proposes, here. He’s saying that our culture creates a palate that, in essence, is devoid of fresh vegetables and healthy food. Our collective nutritional desires are just… something else.

So…. if you look at my example above with the college kids and the liquor/pizza stores… swap out “college kids” and put “Blacks,” swap out “liquor and pizza” and add in “soul food,” swap out “pizza joints and liquor stores” and add in “grocery stores”… how is it not the same damn thing? How does McWhorter’s rant not, in fact, justify the existence of food deserts by the virtues of Capitalism 101?

If the product is not desired in the community, who on Earth would bring it to the community anyway, knowing that a very large portion of their daily perishable products would go to waste? Who continues to offer a product that wouldn’t be purchased? What entrepreneur would refuse to sell a product that people want – read: junk food – just off of principle?

Could you imagine asking a store manager “Why don’t you have flaming hot ice cream?” and being told “I’m not selling that garbage in my store!” You might – might – be impressed by the resolve, but what else are you thinking? “Welp, gotta go take my business somewhere that sells what I want.” Every entrepreneur knows that. Sell what is wanted. Don’t waste money on what is not.

The very nature of Capitalism suggests that, by McWhorter’s definition, food deserts would have to exist because if a “hereditary slave palate” (my words, not his) controls the desires of the community, then the community is displaying an outward expression of what they do not want. That would place food deserts directly in the inner-city and any other Black epi-center by his definition. Ever notice how Whole Foods just happens to know where their business is wanted? Think about that for a minute.

McWhorter also says the following:

Another example: It was one thing to read four years ago about the Healthy Bodegas Initiative, which stocked bodegas in Harlem, the Bronx and Brooklyn with fresh produce and low-fat milk. The idea was that people for whom these bodegas are their closest source of food would be healthier if they could buy fresher and less fatty food there. But it was another thing to follow up on the results (pdf). After two years, only one in four stores reported people buying more vegetables, and one in three reported people buying more fruit.

I’m not surprised. Why? Because as myself and a bajillion other people with even an iota’s worth of insight into the real problem know… when healthier eating is not a priority, no change will occur. If you increase access without information… you’re basically still failing to instill a value system into people that encourages them to list “healthy eating” as a priority. You know how often I talk about the “Come to Fitness Moment?” That. That moment when you realize that you have to live this way if you want to live. Period. If a person doesn’t have that moment where their priorities and understanding of healthy living can shift, it doesn’t matter whether or not you increase their access to healthier food. They’re still not going to see any value in it. Teach the people why they should want this for themselves and a combination of curiosity, concern and peer pressure will handle the rest. (Perhaps not immediately, but indefinitely.)

…which brings me to my last point. The following:

The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act appeals to us because its logic seems so clear: To make kids healthier, we change what is available for them to eat. However, we can’t help but wonder: What about what children eat when they’re not at school? Conventional wisdom has it that changing kids’ evening and weekend eating habits will also be a matter of changing their environment.

Providing these children with access to healthier food in conjunction with teaching them about vegetables ensures that the fruits and vegetables are not a foreign substance to them. It ensures that they don’t go their entire lives not knowing what a radish looks like. It ensures that they can, at the bare minimum, develop a palate that doesn’t completely shut out veggies because they’re not sweet, or fruits because they’re “too hard to eat.” (Read: “they’re harder to open than just pulling open a foil bag.)

So really, The Root… I’m just not impressed. If you want to be controversial, can you make sure that your writers don’t, in a roundabout way, validate the very concept they’re trying to proclaim as a myth? People like me – who know food deserts are a very real and serious matter, and are working damned hard to try to convince people that they should want healthy food, thereby increasing the demand for it and decreasing the number of food deserts – would greatly appreciate it.

The Myth of The Food Desert: Where The Root Went Wrong is a post from: A Black Girl's Guide To Weight Loss. Thanks for reading!

Related posts:

1. The Granddaddy Of All Interactive Food Desert Maps
2. Pleasure and The Puritans: Why “If It Tastes Good, It MUST Be Bad” Is Wrong
3. The Myth of Will Power

The FULL list of meal plans is currently available. Check it out and get your copy today!

Get BGG2WL delivered wirelessly to your Kindle! Click here for more info!

© Erika for A Black Girl's Guide To Weight Loss, 2011. | Permalink | 14 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: black community, capitalism, CDC, economics, food deserts, healthy hunger free kids act

I’m just gonna cut to the chase. Sorry, in advance.

I’m tired of seeing these stupid blog topics that ask questions about why Black women are sooooooooooo fat.

You hear me? Stop it. Stop, stop, stop.

I’m tired of reading blog posts trivializing the health of Black women – not Americans, not even Black people… but Black women.

And if it were rooted in concern, truly willing and eager to gin up dialogue about what we’re all doing to make changes and how our efforts are working, I’d approve… but its not. It’s a bunch of people on one end of the spectrum holding up the other end of the spectrum as something to scientifically study. Holding your own up as collective Hottentot Venuses. “Why are you so… different? What the hell is wrong with you? You’re so intriguing… and unfortunate.”

And you know what really burns my whole wheat toast? Reading posts from people – usually Black men – about why and how white women manage to stay in such tip-top shape, but we – ohhhh, us Black girls – are just failing by and large.

If you’re going to discuss the shortcomings of Black women, can you do so without comparing us to another race? Particularly white women? Because while all you may see is a bunch of thin mints, I grew up watching many of these same girls and their disordered eating habits that they developed from their moms who had the same habits… trailing back to their great grandmothers who had no problem maintaining their petite figures… yet, no one knows why its so hard now. You know how I know that? Because well over two-thirds of America is “overweight.”

Would you prefer that Black women be subjugated to feeling like they are literally “less than” because they’re not built like [insert any woman]? And would you be okay with us sticking our fingers down our throats and hoping to “even out” at the end of each day so that we can maintain figures pleasing enough to “get a husband?” (Or… perhaps you believe that eating disorders aren’t a Black girl thing? You’d be wrong.) Would you prefer that we spend days not eating because it’s the quickest way to lose a few pounds before we go back to the gym to weigh in? Would you prefer that we subsist on liquid diets so that we can be thin like [insert a cover model]? ‘Cause trust me… that’s what a lot of these white girls suffer from. Unhealthy body images and horrid nutrition… but damn if they aren’t skinny.

And don’t get me wrong – Black women suffer from unhealthy body images, too – but that’s because we’re so busy trying to conform to the same immature title that you give us when you’re trying to get in our good graces: thick. We’re so busy trying to be “thick” – like those white girls are trying so hard to be “thin” – that both groups ignore their own actual health in the process. Did you ever think of that? Or were you too busy whining about the lack of women available to serve as your personal eye candy?

No one ever takes a serious look at why the weight problem is so prevalent. No one ever asks the hard questions about the food we eat, the drinks we enjoy, the lives we lead. No one ever says that there’s an inordinate amount of stress on these women – the same women who are likely to be heads of their households or, even, the only adult in their household – and that there’s something fundamentally wrong with the fact that we’re raised to put everyone and everything before ourselves and our own mental and physical wellness. No one addresses the fact that we, by and large, tend to feel guilty for taking time away from family to “be vain” and work out. No one is stepping up and saying “I’ll watch the little ones while you go work out for an hour,” they’re just saying “You’re gettin’ kinda thick, huh?”

No one is telling these women “Sugar makes you fat,” nor are they telling these women “If you’re still buying processed foods, that same sugar is in everything.” We’re expected to be superwomen… we’re also expected to be freaking food scientists. No one is telling us “Your food intake should consist of real food,” just feeding us that continual BS line about how calories in need to be less than calories out and everything in moderation.. because that stupid equation has everything to do with mental and physical wellness. Because it doesn’t matter where calories come from. Just lose the weight so that we don’t have to look at it… no matter how clogged your arteries are or how close you are to developing type 2 diabetes. How… uninformed.

And it’s so funny… because we always disregard the very legitimate reasons why Black women are carrying more weight as “excuses.” We can’t bring up the very real issues in hopes that we can dialogue about how to provide solutions? It’s automatically written off as “Stop trying to give these broads excuses for being fat. Get over it and go work out.” Do you know that people work out every day and don’t lose a single pound because they have poor nutrition information? There are people out there who know nothing about wellness… and they have to learn… and obviously, you aren’t the ones to teach them.

If I talk about the stress levels of Black women, it’s automatically shrugged off as “Everyone is stressed out. So what?” So, um, look at the stats – two thirds of America is also overweight, as well. It’s not the issue of stress – it’s an issue of stress management. That needs to be addressed. If I talk about access to food and the value we place on proper food as a culture… that’s not an issue to be shrugged off. Not everything is an excuse meant to remove a topic from discussion. It’s being brought up because it demands an answer… and if you aren’t prepared to give answers, you aren’t prepared to address the topic. Period.

And don’t even get me started on the comments. Ohhhhh, the comments. They just devolve into a fat girl guilt fest… where every Black woman who feels guilty about having a few extra pounds feels the need to come out of the woodwork admitting to everyone that she’s got “a few extra pounds” and feels helpless… and then some moron comes out with completely ludicrous “diet” advice… or said “diet” advice is in the actual post. (It’s also usually something to the effect of “work out more, eat less” – eat less of WHAT?) So not only does the original post do nothing to help Black women, but the comments usually result in piss poor advice and guilting of Black women and the perpetuation of poor body image. Shoutout to being the most counterproductive conversations on the Internet. No, really.

The reality is… every time I read one of these moronic blog posts railing Black women for having weight anywhere other than their booties – and don’t let your booty be toooooooo big, lest you be called Precious – the writer makes it evident to me that even if they DID take the time to educate their readers on what they think proper nutrition is… it’d be clear they suffer from the same lack of knowledge as everyone else. Fat or skinny.

Stop mocking Black women with pictures of men masquerading as women in fat suits – is that what you think of us? – and pictures of half naked poorly dressed women. Stop cracking jokes about our health and minimalizing it into issues of being unattractive or needing to “be like white women.” Beneath that “strong Black woman” meme that you insist on thrusting upon us lies a woman who is sensitive, sometimes confused and maybe even – dare I say it? – insecure about her body… and using these women for traffic to your pathetic little blog does nothing for the cause you claim to be so concerned about. Trust me.

An Open Letter To The Black Blogosphere is a post from: A Black Girl's Guide To Weight Loss. Thanks for reading!

Related posts:

1. An Open Letter To Skinny Women
2. First Lady Obama “Puts Daughters On Diet,” Blogosphere Goes Nuts
3. Dying For Motivation: An Open Thread

The FULL list of meal plans is currently available. Check it out and get your copy today!

Get BGG2WL delivered wirelessly to your Kindle! Click here for more info!

© Erika for A Black Girl's Guide To Weight Loss, 2011. | Permalink | 75 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: black community, black culture, health, society, thick, wellness of black women

No, really. I’m very confused. Let me explain.

A few weeks ago, Marie Claire published this very damning article about health bloggers (many of whom are marathon runners) who inadvertently encourage unhealthy behavior and even – gasp! – eating disorders. The irony of this is that the cover of the particular issue that carried this article featured none other than Victoria Beckham who, while I won’t assume she has an eating disorder herself, most likely serves as “thinspiration” for a lot of eating disorder sufferers who’d literally die to look like her.

So… needless to say, I pretty easily decided that Marie Claire, complete with their “Get Sexy For Your Man!!!!111!1!”/”Lose That Last 5 lbs!!!!!11!1!1!”/”Lose 7lbs In 7 Days!1!!!!!” articles, is pretty darn out of touch with health and wellness. In fact, I never really cared about Marie Claire simply because they’re one of the perpetuants of that “something is wrong with you, buy my product to fix it!” mentality that kills the self-esteem of young girls and women everywhere. It sucks. They suck.

I just… I didn’t expect them to go out of their way to prove me right… and I didn’t expect them to do it not even a month after their last total bomb on those health/wellness bloggers. They just… they stay losing.

In the article titled, “Should Fatties Get A Room? Even On TV?“, the reading audience gets the honor of sitting in on the thought process of a total fat-o-phobe who tries to rationalize her fatophobia:

The other day, my editor asked me, “Think people feel uncomfortable when they see overweight people making out on television?”

Because I can be kind of clueless — I’m not much of a TV person — I had no idea what she was talking about, so she steered me to this CNN article, about the CBS sitcom Mike & Molly. As CNN explains, “the show centers around a couple who meet at an Overeaters Anonymous group [and] has drawn complaints for its abundance of fat jokes [as well as] cries from some viewers who aren’t comfortable watching intimacy between two plus-sized actors.”

My initial response was: Hmm, being overweight is one thing — those people are downright obese! And while I think our country’s obsession with physical perfection is unhealthy, I also think it’s at least equally crazy, albeit in the other direction, to be implicitly promoting obesity! Yes, anorexia is sick, but at least some slim models are simply naturally skinny. No one who is as fat as Mike and Molly can be healthy. And obesity is costing our country far more in terms of all the related health problems we are paying for, by way of our insurance, than any other health problem, even cancer.

So anyway, yes, I think I’d be grossed out if I had to watch two characters with rolls and rolls of fat kissing each other … because I’d be grossed out if I had to watch them doing anything. To be brutally honest, even in real life, I find it aesthetically displeasing to watch a very, very fat person simply walk across a room — just like I’d find it distressing if I saw a very drunk person stumbling across a bar or a heroine addict slumping in a chair.

Now, don’t go getting the wrong impression: I have a few friends who could be called plump. I’m not some size-ist jerk. And I also know how tough it can be for truly heavy people to psych themselves up for the long process of slimming down. (For instance, the overweight maintenance guy at my gym has talked to me a little bit about how it seems worthless for him to even try working out, because he’s been heavy for as long as he can remember.)

But … I think obesity is something that most people have a ton of control over. It’s something they can change, if only they put their minds to it.

(I’m happy to give you some nutrition and fitness suggestions if you need them — but long story short, eat more fresh and unprocessed foods, read labels and avoid foods with any kind of processed sweetener in them whether it’s cane sugar or high fructose corn syrup, increase the amount of fiber you’re getting, get some kind of exercise for 30 minutes at least five times a week, and do everything you can to stand up more — even while using your computer — and walk more. I admit that there’s plenty that makes slimming down tough, but YOU CAN DO IT! Trust me. It will take some time, but you’ll also feel so good, physically and emotionally. A nutritionist or personal trainer will help — and if you can’t afford one, visit your local YMCA for some advice.)

Then again, I guess these characters are in Overeaters Anonymous. So … points for trying?

Then again, I tend to think most television shows are a kind of junk food for the mind and body. The boob tube gives us an excuse to turn off both our brains and our bodies and probably does a helluva lot to contribute to the obesity problem, over all. So … I don’t know.

What do you guys think? Fat people making out on TV — are you cool with it? Do you think I’m being an insensitive jerk?

I have several thoughts as I read this.

1. Mike & Molly, a show that I don’t watch (because, quite frankly, it’s not SVU) about a topic that I’m not interested in (even though I do watch a show about a milkshake, a meatball and a container of fries that all talk.) I don’t watch it because I don’t do sitcoms… and considering the way this society tends to treat fat people, I’m concerned about a TV show with overweight characters making self-degrading fat jokes. I don’t personally like the tone that sets for people who are overweight, and I don’t like that the only way a TV show can have overweight leads is if the topic of the show is that they’re trying to NO LONGER be overweight… as if weight is all that fat people think about. They don’t work, raise families or any of that other cute stuff that thin people do… and even if they do, apparently, people like the author don’t want to see it. For those reasons, the show is not something I’m willing to support.

2. I don’t understand how having overweight TV characters “implicitly promotes obesity.” At all. Letting TV characters reflect the population that’ll actually be watching them is a promotion of obesity? So… is the current lack of overweight TV characters supposed to serve as some element of shaming fat people for, well… being fat? “You aren’t allowed to relate to the TV characters until you lose that weight, fatty!” C’mon, son. TV, and its celebrities… should not mean nor matter this much.

3. “Yes, anorexia is sick, but at least some slim models are simply naturally skinny.” Hold this thought. I’m going to come back to this. “Yes, anorexia is sick, but…” is all you need to remember.

4. “And obesity is costing our country far more in terms of all the related health problems we are paying for, by way of our insurance, than any other health problem, even cancer.” I need people to be clear. Can I get people-who-write-for-big-publications-and-like-to-call-themselves-journalists-but-might-not-be-one-so-much to DEFINE obesity for me? Obesity is defined as “a term used to describe body weight that is much greater than what is considered healthy.” And… what health problems are related to that? The same ones that you can get at ANY weight… the same health problems you WILL get at any weight if you eat like crap. See, thin mints of America, thinking like this is what has y’all thinking you’re ok to “eat ice cream when you feel like it because you won’t gain weight.” It’s not the weight that’s the problem.. its the habits and the consequences of said habits… and one of those consequences happens to be obesity. Attaching the problems to the weight is why America is so health-stupid now, anyway.

5. “So anyway, yes, I think I’d be grossed out if I had to watch two characters with rolls and rolls of fat kissing each other … because I’d be grossed out if I had to watch them doing anything. To be brutally honest, even in real life, I find it aesthetically displeasing to watch a very, very fat person simply walk across a room — just like I’d find it distressing if I saw a very drunk person stumbling across a bar or a heroine addict slumping in a chair.”

…is then followed up by…

“Now, don’t go getting the wrong impression: I have a few friends who could be called plump. I’m not some size-ist jerk.”

Because we’re all familiar with the “I’m not racist – I have Black friends! My Nanny was Black!” mantra. Do her friends know what she truly thinks of them and how “aesthetically displeasing” they are to her while they’re so busy existing?

6. “And I also know how tough it can be for truly heavy people to psych themselves up for the long process of slimming down…But … I think obesity is something that most people have a ton of control over. It’s something they can change, if only they put their minds to it.”

Check this out. “I know how hard it is… but its really easy! Just put your minds to it!” I’m just… I just.. I don’t understand this mentality. She complains about the cost of obesity-related illness in America, but then minimizes that entire issue to fat people just “not putting their minds to it?”

As someone who’s lost over 150lbs, let me tell you something. It’s not “really easy.” It’s not something that can be solved by just “putting your mind to it,” especially when you have no idea what you need to “put your mind to” in the first place. Especially when you don’t have access to the tools necessary to help you in your journey. I’ve done everything from lifting water jugs to jogging with my daughter on my back to help me reclaim my health. I’ve battled, struggled and cried trying to uncover the mental and emotional barriers that have kept me from losing weight. To minimize everything I’ve done, everything I’ve endured and the physical and emotional struggles I’ve had to overcome down to me being able to “put my mind to it” not only insults every fat person in America… but it insults me. It doesn’t give me credit for all the shit I had to conquer in order to be who I wanted to be, and that is a fit person who doesn’t suffer from or struggle with the mental strain of society’s moronic weight stigma… as reflected in this article.

Society perpetuates the very same notion that, later on, winds up being used against itself. “We hate fat people, even though 70% of us are overweight. Yay.” Bizarre. And moronic.

7. Here comes the obligatory weight loss advice. It’s not even terrible advice.. it’s just so… predictible. And while it’s still un-all-emcompassing, it’s “the cure to your fat woes that you’ve been looking for.” I’m glad she’s smarter than 70% of America.

8. We’re not even talking about overweight TV characters at this point. We stopped talking about Mike & Molly after the first paragraph. This entire post was an excuse to rail against those of us who are not the Victoria Beckhams of the world and remind us that our presence is undesirable on the TV screen because we are, well.. who we are. It was her excuse to air out her thoughts of fat people and how they’re just “lazy” because “it’s so easy,” and all they really need to do is just “put their minds to it…” and since they haven’t done that and seen results yet (no signs of whether or not a 300lb person has already lost 150 thus far and is still losing.. all that matters is that person is still fat and should go back into their cave until they’ve lost the other 150), they’re still lazy.

9. I wanted you to remember the “Yes, anorexia is sick, but…” comment because of the following:

PS: As for near-death, I think it’s fair to say I came fairly close to dying from my own eating disorder. (cf. here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/books/chapter-going-hungry.html) And while it took me a very LONG hard time to overcome what I had (anorexia that landed me, at 69 pounds, in the hospital for four months, and eventually turned into bulimia) I worked at overcoming it a long hard time. I think part of the reason I was so strident in my post is because I’ve had an eating problem with psychological and behavioral components that involved a lot of shame and body hatred (and a desire to de-sexualize myself). And–as someone who was a compulsive overeater for a time–I think there are a lot of similarities between overeaters and anorexics, which is perhaps why I was being (admittedly) rather self-righteous. I really do apologize, again, for my insensitivity.

You know who wrote that? The author of this article. She dropped this in the comments. Her earlier “weight loss advice” didn’t even work for her… but it’s the answer to you fat people’s woes.

Someone who overcame an eating disorder dropped this steaming pile of garbage on an editor’s desk as a proposed article? Someone who was anorexic and “eventually” bulimic felt it was appropriate – and indicative of her recovery- to write an entire post railing fat people for being to lazy to “just put their minds to it,” when she admits her own psychological and behavioral components that involved a lot of shame and body hatred?

A desire to de-sexualize herself?

Are you freaking kidding me?

WTF IS THIS? Are the overweight not allowed to struggle with psychological and behavioral issues? Habituation? Issues with sexuality? Are fat people only fat because they’re fat, but those thinmints with eating disorders, ohhhhh they’ve got emotional struggles that have to be respected and considered? Do we even make allowances for, get this – overweight people with eating disorders? Or do they not exist because “obviously the disorder isn’t working?”

She apologizes, but I don’t care. My ability to pity her for her struggles is hindered by her inability to acknowledge her own struggles, herself. My ability to empathize with her on her compulsion is hindered by her inability to empathize with me and people like me – regardless of whether they look like me or not – on our compulsions. We have the same freaking problems, she just had the “luck” (luck, as society would call it, not me) of still managing to be thin in the end. I was fat. Poor me, lucky her. I suppose if it were fat that was prized, I’d have the illustrious honor of talking about how disgusting it is to see skinny people even existing. I’d like to think I’d have enough class to keep my thoughts to myself, though.

Marie Claire, you’re killing me right now. First, you go out of your way to publish an article that alludes to marathon running health bloggers as having eating disorders (and even triggering disordered eating behavior in their readers) for being so health-focused… then you follow that up with a post that, if I were a different woman, might’ve shamed me into feeling like I’d need an eating disorder. Y’know, especially since I would’ve tried the article’s “weight loss advice” and it would’ve failed… since it certainly didn’t address emotional eating, lack of access to healthy food, lack of resources to prepare said food or anything else that isn’t so glaringly obvious and “easy.” Perhaps if your readers spent their money buying carrots instead of your mag, and walking instead of visiting your site… they’d all lose weight?

Aw, if only it were that easy.

Shoutout To The Fat-O-Phobes: Marie Claire vs Fat TV Characters is a post from: A Black Girl's Guide To Weight Loss. Thanks for reading!

Related posts:

1. The Fat-O-Phobes Are Showing Their Behinds Again

The FULL list of meal plans is currently available. Check it out and get your copy today!

Get BGG2WL delivered wirelessly to your Kindle! Click here for more info!

© Erika for A Black Girl's Guide To Weight Loss, 2011. | Permalink | 43 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: anti-fat, anti-fat society, bad advice, epic ranting, fat on TV, marie claire, maura kelly, mike and molly, obesity, society

THE “fact” that junk food is cheaper than real food has become a reflexive part of how we explain why so many Americans are overweight, particularly those with lower incomes. I frequently read confident statements like, “when a bag of chips is cheaper than a head of broccoli …” or “it’s more affordable to feed a family of four at McDonald’s than to cook a healthy meal for them at home.”

This is just plain wrong. In fact it isn’t cheaper to eat highly processed food: a typical order for a family of four — for example, two Big Macs, a cheeseburger, six chicken McNuggets, two medium and two small fries, and two medium and two small sodas — costs, at the McDonald’s a hundred steps from where I write, about $28. (Judicious ordering of “Happy Meals” can reduce that to about $23 — and you get a few apple slices in addition to the fries!)

In general, despite extensive government subsidies, hyperprocessed food remains more expensive than food cooked at home. You can serve a roasted chicken with vegetables along with a simple salad and milk for about $14, and feed four or even six people. If that’s too much money, substitute a meal of rice and canned beans with bacon, green peppers and onions; it’s easily enough for four people and costs about $9. (Omitting the bacon, using dried beans, which are also lower in sodium, or substituting carrots for the peppers reduces the price further, of course.)

Another argument runs that junk food is cheaper when measured by the calorie, and that this makes fast food essential for the poor because they need cheap calories. But given that half of the people in this country (and a higher percentage of poor people) consume too many calories rather than too few, measuring food’s value by the calorie makes as much sense as measuring a drink’s value by its alcohol content. (Why not drink 95 percent neutral grain spirit, the cheapest way to get drunk?)

Besides, that argument, even if we all needed to gain weight, is not always true. A meal of real food cooked at home can easily contain more calories, most of them of the “healthy” variety. (Olive oil accounts for many of the calories in the roast chicken meal, for example.)In comparing prices of real food and junk food, I used supermarket ingredients, not the pricier organic or local food that many people would consider ideal. But food choices are not black and white; the alternative to fast food is not necessarily organic food, any more than the alternative to soda is Bordeaux.

The alternative to soda is water, and the alternative to junk food is not grass-fed beef and greens from a trendy farmers’ market, but anything other than junk food: rice, grains, pasta, beans, fresh vegetables, canned vegetables, frozen vegetables, meat, fish, poultry, dairy products, bread, peanut butter, a thousand other things cooked at home — in almost every case a far superior alternative.

“Anything that you do that’s not fast food is terrific; cooking once a week is far better than not cooking at all,” says Marion Nestle, professor of food studies at New York University and author of “What to Eat.” “It’s the same argument as exercise: more is better than less and some is a lot better than none.”

THE fact is that most people can afford real food. Even the nearly 50 million Americans who are enrolled in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (formerly known as food stamps) receive about $5 per person per day, which is far from ideal but enough to survive. So we have to assume that money alone doesn’t guide decisions about what to eat. There are, of course, the so-called food deserts, places where it’s hard to find food: the Department of Agriculture says that more than two million Americans in low-income rural areas live 10 miles or more from a supermarket, and more than five million households without access to cars live more than a half mile from a supermarket.

Still, 93 percent of those with limited access to supermarkets do have access to vehicles, though it takes them 20 more minutes to travel to the store than the national average. And after a long day of work at one or even two jobs, 20 extra minutes — plus cooking time — must seem like an eternity.

Taking the long route to putting food on the table may not be easy, but for almost all Americans it remains a choice, and if you can drive to McDonald’s you can drive to Safeway. It’s cooking that’s the real challenge. (The real challenge is not “I’m too busy to cook.” In 2010 the average American, regardless of weekly earnings, watched no less than an hour and a half of television per day. The time is there.)

The core problem is that cooking is defined as work, and fast food is both a pleasure and a crutch. “People really are stressed out with all that they have to do, and they don’t want to cook,” says Julie Guthman, associate professor of community studies at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and author of the forthcoming “Weighing In: Obesity, Food Justice and the Limits of Capitalism.” “Their reaction is, ‘Let me enjoy what I want to eat, and stop telling me what to do.’ And it’s one of the few things that less well-off people have: they don’t have to cook.”

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – I, at this point in my life, simply couldn’t afford to eat processed foods. I couldn’t see myself spending $20 on one meal – I could make a pot of seafood gumbo for less than that and still have leftovers for days – let alone one whole day of cooking.

However, I think it’s important to remember the plight of the “working poor.” I get e-mails from people who ask me what they should do, because they don’t have a working stove (or, hell, any stove at all) or they struggle with the idea of cooking at all, because they never learned. Mom or Grandmom got hit by the processed foods bug, and she only passed down how to tear open the box.

Being able to cook is a privilege. It is a privilege of knowledge – having the know-how – and a privilege of access. I’m totally with Bittman on the idea that people do, in fact, have the time and often the money, as well. People who normally talk to me about their experiences with being a part of the working poor will often e-mail me and say “these are my limitations, help me make something of them.” They don’t say “it’s not doable,” as if to really say “leave me the f— alone.” One is, at least, acknowledging the shortcomings while, at the same time, acknowledging that perhaps they’ve been unable to accomplish the task at hand because of something they haven’t considered. The other, completely closed-minded and telling you “it’s not doable?” Yeah, that’s trying to shut down the conversation so they can eat their junk food in peace.

I think it’s also important to note that, as Bittman said, food isn’t always black and white. Just like he says, there is no such thing as an “only alternative.” The only alternative to your big mac isn’t organic, grass-fed beef. (There’s also, mind you, always the option to simply not eat any meat, but I realize that this is, for some odd reason, controversial.) The only alternative to fries isn’t carrots (or apples, for that matter.) Sometimes, when I hear people talking about the cost of food, this is used as a sticking point – “no one’s got all that money for all that organic hoo-ha and vegetarian-fed diet whatever.” That’s when I’m reminded of the convenience that junk food has afforded us.

It’s easy to get used to someone else doing the heavy lifting and the work of cooking for you. (It’s especially easy to make that correlation when one of America’s oldest brands was marketed based off the idea that she WAS a slave intended to harken back to the time when SHE would’ve been making your pancakes for you.) It’s easy to get comfortable with placing an order, never leaving your car, reaching out your window and grabbing your food, driving home (eating it along the way) and then sitting down at your table and opening the little packages like individually wrapped little gifts. It’s pretty easy to get used to that kind of convenience. In a country like ours, things are supposed to become more convenient. That’s how capitalism works – people make money by making life more convenient for you. (Do you buy products that make your life more difficult? I sure don’t.)

I’m also generally annoyed by the poo-pooing of food deserts, mentioned in a passing paragraph. I have no idea how anyone could measure who, of a demographic, could possibly “have access to a car,” but I’m particularly sympathetic to the issue because I used to have to call a taxi to pick me and my daughter up from the grocery store. I had no problem walking there, but I couldn’t possibly bring me, her, and an untold number of grocery bags home safely in the beginning. I feel like someone like Bittman should know better than that, but I am also reminded of the fact that his new book, “Cooking Solves Everything,” just hit shelves (it at least hit the Apple bookstore) a few days ago. The point of this article was to sell the premise behind the book, regardless of whether or not he explicitly stated such. (You know what’s the problem? Not money or access or time. It’s that you don’t know how to cook! But Cooking Solves Everything! Let me tell you how… in my book!) He’s smart, just not entirely transparent.

That being said, I think there was an interesting response in the comments area:

The problem is structural: American food subsidies are in all the wrong places, so high-fructose corn syrup is cheap and staples like dairy or poultry are expensive. There’s also no easy way to get to the grocery store, and there aren’t nearly as many of them: in Berlin, I had a choice of 3 grocery stores in 5-10 minute walking distance and dozens in 15 minutes with public transportation. Transportation, in addition, was reasonably priced and better, also as a result of state subsidies in the right places. Here, I have 2 grocery stores that are walkable, with boring selection at triple the price, and then… nothing. The next grocery store is perhaps 30 minutes one-way, if I time the Metra properly.

Sure, Bittman can assert that a roasted chicken with vegetables can feed a family of four, maybe, for one meal–provided that one has an oven for roasting, pans for cooking vegetables, oil, a family that has time to all eat dinner at the same time, etc., but with a McDonald’s meal, all you have to do is eat once for the day and it keeps you full. That’s what he seems to be missing: there are 2000 calories in a $3 or $4 McDonald’s value meal–you would be lucky if the whole chicken meal had 2000 calories in total (then split it 4 ways).

I’m from the “repurpose the subsidies” camp, but not a single thing about a McDonalds meal is meant to “keep you full.” People eat 2,000 calories meals every day – Cheesecake Factory, TGI Friday’s, Olive Garden – and none of that “lasts all day.” Hyper-processed food, as it is lovingly referred to above, relies heavily on refined starches, fillers and flours (in other words, refined calorie bombs combined with high fat content which turns dishes into calorie bombs. (This is why people report success with “cutting carbs.” It’s usually because the dominant source of carbs in one’s diet is hyper-processed food.) A McDonalds burger bun, upon chewing, gathers quickly with the saliva into one giant wad in the mouth and goes down the throat smoothly, rarely leaving a trace behind it. It was engineered to be that way. Hyper-processed.

Besides, calories don’t work that way. Memory doesn’t work that way. Time doesn’t work that way. The body doesn’t work that way. For the average person, they’ll eat again a few hours later simply because “it’s time to eat.” Therefore, if the “problem” we’re discussing, here, is obesity, then the cause of the problem would, again, be the junk food.

I’m also very wary of conversations about America’s food habits because that initial reluctance that people have is troubling to me. If I start to rail about the trans-fat in oreos, the first person to scream out “Leave oreos alone and stop being my nanny!!!” is usually the one who spends evenings on the couch after work with… you guessed it. Oreos. Food has become a crutch, in so many ways, that people have become addicted to it in one form or another – be it the convenience it affords them in removing some responsibility from their shoulders, be it the feeling of being taken care of, or be it the fact that they may simply have an emotional eating problem – and they don’t like the threat of their crutch being pulled from under them. That’s not to say that I judge, but I definitely wince. Hearing it is like nails on a chalkboard to me.

So, if you ask me if junk food truly is cheaper, I’d have to say no… I’d just also have to acknowledge the experience, knowledge, access and privilege that allows me to say as much, while still committing my time to helping others gain the same. Junk food may be cheap, but time is not, and I don’t think we can shortchange that reality.

My Thoughts On “Is Junk Food Really Cheaper?” is a post from: A Black Girl's Guide To Weight Loss. Thanks for reading!

Related posts:

1. How Junk Food Affects The Body, Part 1
2. How Junk Food Affects The Body, Part 2
3. How Junk Food Affects The Body, Part 3

The FULL list of meal plans is currently available. Check it out and get your copy today!

Get BGG2WL delivered wirelessly to your Kindle! Click here for more info!

© Erika for A Black Girl's Guide To Weight Loss, 2011. | Permalink | 3 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags:

flickr: marcopako

With the help of Jackie Fowler, who has a “supplemental nutrition card” or Oregon Trail Card, Fox 12 visited an in-store Starbucks within a Safeway in the town of Salem. Fowler purchased a tall Frappuccino and a slice of pumpkin bread — and paid for both using her Oregon Trail card.”It’s crazy,” Fowler told Fox 12, showing off the receipt for $5.25.

“They’re overpriced as it is,” said Fowler of the specialty drink. “That’s money that somebody could be eating with — a loaf of bread, a gallon of milk.” Fowler, who made the purchase only for the purpose of Fox 12′s story, says she thinks it’s a huge misuse of the food assistance program.

A spokesman for Safeway told Fox 12 the store recently made the change as an added convenience to customers.

“We think that compliance with state laws is something we can easily do,” Dan Floyd told Fox 12.

According to federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) guidelines, people cannot buy foods that will be eaten in the store or hot foods. However, luxury items that are allowed include soft drinks, candy, cookies, ice cream, even bakery cakes and energy drinks that have a nutrition facts label.

First, let’s be clear, here, on a few things. There are currently around 46 million people on food stamps, at the last numbers I saw from this summer. There are somewhere around 39 million Black people in this country. Even if every single Black person in America – yes, even those lovely 1%ers – were on food stamps, there’d still be 6 million more people for which we’d need to account. I say this for a very specific reason.

With unemployment at 8.6 percent, that means that approximately 13.3 million people who are eligible for employment are, in fact, unemployed. If only 13 million people in this country are unemployed, yet 46 million people are on food stamps, I think it’s safe to say there may be a few income-generating, tax-paying employees of somebody’s company in that 46 mill. The recipients of SNAP benefits are not, in fact, all some form of unemployed leech. There’s a reason why I start off with this, as well.

Let’s talk logistics, briefly. When I lived in Miami Beach, I didn’t see Starbucks in the area where I lived. There was one single Starbucks north of Lincoln Mall (16th; numbers go up the further north you go), and that was on 45th. Beyond that? Nada. (I even checked Google Maps because I genuinely can’t remember any. If you care, you can see for yourself.)  Hell, you look at any area in central Miami-proper – Little Havana, Little Haiti, take your pick – know what you see? You certainly don’t see Starbucks. That’s not coincidence. That’s strategy.

Starbucks, much like Whole Foods, is strategic with where they’re putting their establishments. They’re not going to put a Starbucks in, say, inner inner city Brooklyn, where people can get coffee for $0.75 a pop and couldn’t care less whether or not you get whipped cream or a caramel frappiato (I wouldn’t know what it’s called; I’ve never ordered from one.) Even I could see how that’d be a bad business move. You don’t put businesses who charge luxury prices for every day items in places where people have a difficult time affording the necessities of life. Not because it’s “wrong” morally to charge what you want, but simply because when forced to choose, it’s highly likely that your business is the one that’d lose.

But wait… there’s more.

The people who want to conflate this kind of spending with “buying luxury items like properly raised meats and cheeses,” can stop. Any moment now. I defend the “food stamps at whole foods” crowd because properly raised foods should never be considered a “luxury” in a country proudly billing itself as the richest in the world. Any person who looks at their budget and genuinely finds that they, after having already seen that they qualify for assistance, have a difficult time affording food, should consider applying… and I’m serious. The fact that our fruits and vegetables are grown the way they are – farm labor resembling indentured servitude; meat having to be cleaned with ammonia just to make sure you don’t get too much e.coli in your purchase; pesticides; chemicals, fake flavorings and fillers – is what results in our adulterated food supply. It is not food. It is “food facsimiles” or even “edible foodlike substances,” and a person who wants to eat the way they are supposed to shouldn’t be chastised for such simply because you struggle with justifying spending the money on you and yours. We are in a bad way, as a country, if we can look people in the eye and tell them actual food is a “luxury” and if they don’t like it, they should “have a coke and a smile.” Ridiculous.

Here… is my point, in all its glory. Even though I defend, adamantly, the “food stamps at whole foods” users, this annoys the hell out of me. Not because a mocha choca latta yaya is as “non-essential” or “non-vital” as it gets, but because of the negativity it casts on both food stamp users and Black women. You know what I mean. Because of Reagan, we constantly see food stamp recipients as poor, black, female, unmarried, single parent, whatever. Maybe it’s because I’ve never ordered from a Starbucks, but… this isn’t an inner-inner-city phenom, if you ask me. I’m pretty grossed out by this altogether. However, I feel like this affects college students or “starving artist” types, both of which by and large do not fit the stereotype that President Reagan left us with when he referred to the “welfare queen.” When we think of “food stamps,” we think of “poor people.” When we think of poor people, we think of Black people. And, even though this country (and its wealth) was built on our backs, we’re considered lazy freeloaders by way of our gene pool. Journalistic efforts like this are merely used to further the stereotype. “‘Mack-eye-ah-toes‘ on the taxpayer dime?” Why, how dare you?

I also can’t say that a single person who has read this story, pictured a “starving artist” or a “college student” in line at Starbucks – the ones I suspect would most benefit from this knowledge – holding out their EBT card and asking for pumpkin bread. Instead, they probably saw some Black chick with fresh finger waves and a baby on her hip, holding a EBT card in the hand holding her baby and a brand new iPhone 4s in the other, yelling out “Can I get one of those frah-pah-key-know things?” and telling’ her child, “Shut up, Lil LaNayNay, I’m tryna get my drink on!”

And that, right there, is what annoys me about this the most of all.

Every time I see an “investigative” report about SNAP/food stamps, it’s painted as “look at what these [assumedly Black, always Black] freeloaders [because freeloaders have to be Black, amirite?] are doing? See why we need to change this?” All due respect to those of you who give enough of a damn to do this kind of reporting, but are you bothering to ask why a person can get a coffee for $3, and it’s still cheaper than a full head of fresh broccoli? Are you bothering to ask why our government can subsidize the creation of most of the garbage in this country that’s making us sick, but not subsidize the grocery stores to allow them to sell produce to SNAP recipients at discounted rates? Is that worthy of coverage, or would you rather exploit the weaknesses of the [working] poor, because no one is going to defend them? Would you simply rather highlight “omg, it’s possible to shop at Starbucks with taxpayer money” because it’s not interesting enough to prove that the more egregious fiscal faux-pas are happening far higher up the pay scale? Or maybe because you don’t want to remind the “middle class” just how “lower” they truly are?

Listen. I’m all up for some journalistic muckraking. I’m even up for “picking on” the government. I’m not, however, down with beating up on poor people because there’s a loophole that most of them don’t even have access to in order to take advantage of it. It reeks of “slow news day.” Do your job and cover something more interesting. Start with this. Go.

Who’s Buying Starbucks With Food Stamps? is a post from: A Black Girl's Guide To Weight Loss. Thanks for reading!

Related posts:

1. No Myths Here: Food Stamps, Food Deserts and Food Scarcity
2. Does Your State Allow Fast Food Purchases On Food Stamps?
3. Clean and Healthy Eating on Food Stamps

The FULL list of meal plans is currently available. Check it out and get your copy today!

Get BGG2WL delivered wirelessly to your Kindle! Click here for more info!

© Erika for A Black Girl's Guide To Weight Loss, 2011. | Permalink | 20 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags:

Take my favorite example – at Friday’s, you’ve got the “Three-For-All.” For Applebee’s, it’s the “Sampler.” Olive Garden offers the “Tour of Italy.” All for the eater who “can’t choose what they want, so let ‘em eat ‘em all!”

CSPI also talks about the ridiculous appetizers and add-ons offered at most restaurants that are little more than slightly smaller versions of full-course entrees. Adding half a rack of ribs to your dish for $6.99,

Taken from the press release:

Keep in mind that most people should limit themselves to about 2,000 calories, 20 grams of saturated fat, and 1,500 mg of sodium per day. And the envelopes please…

• Red Lobster Ultimate Fondue: This retro item is also making comebacks at Olive Garden, Uno Chicago Grill, and at a chain that sells nothing but fondues, The Melting Pot. Red Lobster’s Ultimate version, “shrimp and crabmeat in a creamy lobster cheese sauce served in a warm crispy sourdough bowl,” is crammed with 1,490 calories, 40 grams of saturated fat, and 3,580 mg of sodium. That’s two days’ worth of both artery-clogging fat and blood-pressure-spiking sodium.
• Applebee’s Quesadilla Burger: Here Applebee’s inserts a bacon cheeseburger into a quesadilla. Two flour tortillas, two kinds of meat, two kinds of cheese, pico de gallo, lettuce, and a previously unknown condiment called Mexi-ranch sauce, plus fries, gives this monstrous marriage 1,820 calories, 46 grams of saturated fat, and 4,410 mg of sodium. Bonus heart-stopper: Applebee’s actually invites customers to top the fries with chili and still more cheese.
• Chili’s Big Mouth Bites: This is four mini-bacon-cheeseburgers served on a plate with fries, onion strings, and jalapeno ranch dipping sauce. (“Mini” is relative: each one is like a Quarter Pounder.) Like the “sliders” available at other chains, Chili’s Big Mouth Bites can be an appetizer or an entrée (these numbers are for the latter). 2,350 calories, 38 grams of saturated fat, and 3,940 milligrams of sodium.
• The Cheesecake Factory Chicken and Biscuits: Nutrition Action calls it “discomfort food.” If you wouldn’t eat an entire 8-piece bucket of KFC Original Recipe plus 5 biscuits, you shouldn’t order this. But unless you live in a city with menu labeling, you wouldn’t know that this dish has 2,500 calories. The rest of the winning—or rather, losing—appetizers, entrées, and desserts are in the June issue of Nutrition Action.

Because of all this, I was asked if I thought these kinds of offerings should be deemed illegal. And I’ve got to admit, I’m kinda torn about this.

No… actually, I’m not.

There’s no denying the fact that these numbers are bananas, and these dishes are disgusting looking. Having said that, the only question I have left to ask is…

…so what?

I mean, let’s look at CSPI’s findings for what they are. I’m a firm believer in the idea that if these restaurants are going to serve these gut-busting atrocities and pass them off as meals, then they should also be forced to make the nutritional information for those dishes available to the public… just like the processed food manufacturers. Not as an obscure link on a website. As a part of their menu. To me, it just makes sense – if the FDA says that food manufacturers have to put the nutritional info on the side of the box, then restaurants should be forced to have the information equally readily available. Kudos to CSPI for helping bring to the forefront the issue of hidden calorie counts.

However, to say that because CSPI uncovered these heart-stopping (literally) findings means that we should all campaign to have the dishes banned by law? I think that’s quite a reach. I mean, complaining about high-calorie appetizers that are supposed to, by definition, whet the appetite… you’d probably do better to talk to the person who orders the appetizer as their meal and remind them that “this dish is intended to serve 4… not one.”

I look at it like this – the reality of it all is that for the past 50 or so years, we’ve had someone assume the “responsibility” of leading the American diet. Not the various cultures from which we came (regardless of how connected some of us were allowed to be to our cultures), not the traditions of our respective nations… but… the government. The charge has always been led by someone who could develop/has developed ulterior motives or a fundamental incapability to properly rule on these most serious of matters. (Would you trust the entity responsible for protecting the longevity of an industry to tell the public how to safely enjoy said industry? Have you met the USDA?)

Do I have a problem with the dishes? You know I do. I find them disgusting, especially since I could probably duplicate that 2,500 calorie pasta dish in my own kitchen for mayyyybe 600 calories. But to tell people that they shouldn’t be allowed to order them is excessive. I’ve simply had enough of people trying to assume the responsibility of telling us what to eat. They either get it wrong – repeatedly – or they start getting drunk on their own power and abuse their privilege… trading in our health for their own personal favors. Unacceptable.

In reality, I’m a much larger proponent of forcing restaurants to post calorie counts of their food items than I am anything else. That would compel those who care to make better, more knowledgeable choices and force franchises who want that money to create healthier dishes and compete for those dollars fairly. The hypothetical question of banning certain foods is just excessive, I think.

The point of all this, really, is to underscore the fact that the responsibility for my eating habits should solely rely upon me. No one is going to look out for me and my health the way I can… especially when there is money to be made off of me. Don’t rely on others to make these kinds of decisions for you, leaving yourself open to poor health. Take charge! Some things, we can’t rely on a magic button, pill, garment, organization or law to do for us. Some things are important enough for us to take charge of ourselves, and that includes our health.

Your thoughts? Let’s hear ‘em!

Should A 2,500 Calorie Plate of Pasta Be Illegal? is a post from: A Black Girl's Guide To Weight Loss. Thanks for reading!

Related posts:

1. Understanding Calorie Counting: Creating Your Calorie Goal and Being Honest About It
2. Science Catches Up: A Calorie Is Not A Calorie
3. Weekend WTF: The 98,824 Calorie Taco Night & The 71,000 Calorie Lasagna

The FULL list of meal plans is currently available. Check it out and get your copy today!

Get BGG2WL delivered wirelessly to your Kindle! Click here for more info!

© Erika for A Black Girl's Guide To Weight Loss, 2011. | Permalink | 16 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: center for science in the public interest, cspi, government, Healthy Eating, restaurants

Until…

I just so happened to read Naked & Unashamed, and catch this quote at the end:

“People have to be comfortable in their own skin before they can be comfortable with someone else’s.”

Since this is a website about embracing oneself, being aware of one’s shortcomings and loving oneself enough to put in the effort to make ourselves better, I had to take a stab at it.

In all honesty, I’m beyond the video. I do enough analyzing all day… I’m not really moved by a music video, no matter how compelling it may be. I’m way more interested in the reactions to the video than I am the video itself.

Among one of my favorites, we have this:

“Typical…black women stripping nude in a video and debasing themselves. And you wonder why you are the least respected and sought after.”

Obviously, I don’t agree with that, but there’s a larger issue at play, here.

Sports Illustrated can have an entire magazine devoted to white women in swimsuits – suits, mind you, made of much less fabric than what Badu was wearing before the blurring began. SpikeTV can host some of the most misogynistic garbage I’ve ever seen (though, full disclosure, I do my fair share of laughing at it, too… What? They show CSI repeats.) Playboy has women showing their cookies, their cupcakes, their twinkies and their muffins. That’s just what they do. They model... They act – it’s a job… It’s Playboy – what do you expect?

A Black woman appears in a music video – saying nothing about whether or not she’s fully clothed – and she’s “just a video ho.” A Black woman poses in a bikini in a magazine, and it’s “She couldn’t wear more clothing than that?” A Black woman working on her flexibility must be doing it for sexual reasons. Don’t let her admit she takes a pole dancing fitness class.

Hell, Badu even tweeted the link to the video that inspired hers – a white male/female duo running Buck. E. Naked through Times Square, NYC. They’re just lovable, playful scamps running ’round an already sinful city, though. No big deal there. Erykah, however, is showcasing why no one loves Black women… by doing what the hell she wants to do in her music video.

There’s “debasing” going on, alright. It’s not self-imposed, though.

“People have to be comfortable in their own skin before they can be comfortable with someone else’s.”

Either we’re apologists for the sexuality of our non-Black counterparts, or we have set standards so high for Black women that exploring ourselves is no longer acceptable. We’re doomed to be one monolithic mass, regardless of our individuality… because someone we don’t know – someone who, essentially, doesn’t really give a damn about us – insists on trying to save us from ourselves. Since, y’know, we’re turning ourselves into whores. We’re always seeking to make a Black woman somebody’s Jezebel, in dire need of our “help.”

Not familiar with Jezebel?

The portrayal of Black women as lascivious by nature is an enduring stereotype. The descriptive words associated with this stereotype are singular in their focus: seductive, alluring, worldly, beguiling, tempting, and lewd. Historically, White women, as a category, were portrayed as models of self-respect, self-control, and modesty – even sexual purity, but Black women were often portrayed as innately promiscuous, even predatory. This depiction of Black women is signified by the name Jezebel.

There’s also this one, that I love:

Next, there is Jezebel, the bad-black-girl, who is depicted as alluring and seductive as she either indiscriminately mesmerizes men and lures them into her bed, or very deliberately lures into her snares those who have something of value to offer her.

I can’t help but wonder if our need to make a Black woman into a Jezebel comes from our failure to understand ourselves: what parts of us are sexual in nature, what is not; what should be seen as sexual, what should not; what should be considered hazardous, and what is harmless exploration – the kind from which lessons are learned.

Am I an advocate for sexual irresponsibility? No. Am I saying it’s ok to “be a slut?” If we share the same definition of “slut” (see: sexual irresponsibility), then I’ma go on and say “no.” Make no mistake, I don’t give passes for behavior that is not my own. However, I am a hippie at heart, and while I have my own standards for how I behave and interact with others in public, I can’t force those standards on others. I’ve never turned down the opportunity to offer up my opinion when asked for it, but making judgments and imposing those judgments on others as guidelines by which they must abide… are two different things entirely.

And while there are many who might not see – nor care about – what I’m saying here (and that’s okay), it’s worth pointing out – when we, as Black women, insist on reducing even the most innocent of our actions to Jezebelism, we perpetuate the notion that that’s all Black women are. That’s all you can expect of them. Being the Jezebel. Being the sirene.

Having said that, all I have from here are questions. Are so many of us so uncomfortable with the concept of sexuality – our own sexuality – that we can’t even identify when something is sexual or not? Has it stifled our intellectual understanding of sexuality? If we have “passes” to dole out, why are we not doling them out for ourselves? Do we often see inherently sexual messages in inherently non-sexual situations? Collectively, are we so repressed and limited in our self-comfort, that we can’t help but to project this repression onto others? Why care so much?

Must we make everything a Black woman does publicly be about her “whoring?” Or, are we really just projecting our own discomfort on other women who look like us? Like I said: from here, all I’ve got is questions. Well, questions… and this:

“People have to be comfortable in their own skin before they can be comfortable with someone else’s.”

On Badu and Our Bodies: Are We Comfortable In Our Own Skin? is a post from: A Black Girl's Guide To Weight Loss. Thanks for reading!

Related posts:

1. Body Image, Self-Worth & Sexuality: Dark Skin, A New Documentary
2. Black Women, Our Bodies & Perceptions of Beauty: The Booty
3. Black Women, Our Bodies & Perceptions of Beauty: Straight Hair

The FULL list of meal plans is currently available. Check it out and get your copy today!

Get BGG2WL delivered wirelessly to your Kindle! Click here for more info!

© Erika for A Black Girl's Guide To Weight Loss, 2011. | Permalink | 11 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: black women, blackness, celebrities, mentality, sexuality

I think people who really have your best intentions at heart are allowed to express their concerns to you about becoming healthier; however, there is a thing called tact! – Chanel

i’d rather not have anyone call me fat except for me. I decide when I need to hit the gym and i decide when and if i am happy with how I look. – Elledub

Honestly, though I may dislike hearing it, I think my family and friends should be allowed to call me fat. I’ll tell you why. As I’ve stated before (maybe not here, but on my blog or Twitter), I didn’t really notice the weight gain. I knew it was creeping up, but I still looked (in my mind) pretty good. When people started making comments, inclusive of a student that had absolutely NO tact whatsoever, I took stock in what they were saying and decided that I needed to do something about it. – Tracy

Honestly, anyone who loves me had better tell me if I’m picking up weight. – Winnie

I wish to God one of my friends or family members had had the courage to tell me I needed to do something about my weight a few years ago. [...] Now that most of the excess weight is gone, everyone is all “OMG, you look great”, but I can’t help but to wish someone had remarked on my weight before. But that’s easy to say on the other side of the fence… – Sister Toldja

I think that “other side of the fence” is a big part of this. As I wrote about the conversation between my Mother and my sister, it’s hard for me to think about what my response would’ve been to someone telling me I was gaining too much weight. I mean, I was a snappy chick… quick to rain jokes down upon the head of anyone who was willing to step to me about my weight. I could only imagine what kind of torrential terrible twenties tantrum fit I might’ve thrown had someone told me that I was any less sexy, dope, amazingly gorgeous, downright stunning and perfect than I believed I was in my own head.

And that’s not to say that being overweight means that I couldn’t be sexy, dope, amazingly gorgeous, downright stunning and perfect. It means that since I saw “fat” as a flaw (and let’s face it, most of us do), having someone remind me of a flaw I was diligently ignoring felt like the chink in my armor turning into a hole. And that’s, well… unacceptable.

I think of the countless times my girls tried to get me to hit the gym with them. My best friend, an avid runner, actually offered to walk with me one day. (Do you know how hard it is to get a runner to slow down for your slow behind?) My mother made side salads for dinner, while making sure that the more calorie-heavy parts of the meal were “all gone” by the time I’d go to fix my plate. Apparently, everyone had something to say… but no one was saying it. Meanwhile, I was gaining weight at a rate of about 20lbs a year.

Am I making that gain everyone else’s fault? Nope. It’s my body, my responsibility to learn how to care for it, and care for it properly. However, what kind of climate was I creating where the people around me couldn’t even tell me – in love and in kindness – that something was going on with me? Couldn’t express their concern for me?

Frankly, I ain’t the one. I can’t afford to be the one.

Let’s say that you and your girls are getting ready to hit a major event. Before you all walk out the door, you check each other out to make sure you’re all looking good. Isn’t the expectation that one of them will tell you if you’re the one looking a mess? We expect our friends to tell us if we’re looking a fool before we walk out of our houses, but they can’t tell us we’ve put on too much weight?

Is it the fact that we, as women, tend to be so objectified – everything has to do with sexuality and sexual appeal – that we’ve equated “you’re gaining weight” with “you’re unattractive?” Are we so used to everything being about attraction, that being told we’re packin’ on the pounds must also be about being attractive (or, in this case, less than attractive?) It couldn’t simply be a “Hey… check on your health.” type situation? It has to be about “cute?”

Or is it the fact that everyone’s threshold is different? Southerners have a different definition of “putting on weight” than Northerners. Miami’s definition is different from Houston. Mississippi wouldn’t understand California. An extra ten pounds vs an extra hundred or so. For someone to acknowledge that I’ve put on the pounds, when “put on the pounds” means “ten pounds” to them? I won’t even lie. They just might get the finger.

I think about myself now. I get at least one comment/email/tweet/anonymous whatever a week calling me a “fat bitch.” I usually laugh, but every now and again I raise my eyebrow and wonder… “Once upon a time, I couldn’t get people I love to tell me I was too big. Now, I’ve got strangers telling me I’m fat? What part of the game is that?” 330lb Erika might not’ve had that reaction. 180lb Erika, however… is tickled.

It goes back to that “other side of the fence” note I made earlier. Looking at the person I am today, I can acknowledge that this is the person I needed to be to get to where I am. Allowing the people I love to feel comfortable addressing my flaws might’ve helped me become this person much earlier on in my life. If I keep them close to me because I trust their influence to make me “better,” why exclude health? Why exclude weight? If the people who love me want to offer me solutions, why not be open to them? What do I have to lose?

And let me clarify.. I’m talking about people who love you. The ones invested in you as a person. The ones who are there for you at your worst. They deserve to be able to help make you better, and enjoy you at your best. We can talk about “haters,” but I fully believe they’re not worth talking about. Nor are they worth thinking about. People who mean you no positivity aren’t worth time or brainspace.

No, really. I mean that. So those family members who insist on spitefully bringing up your weight – the ones you know mean you no earthly good, and usually never have any support to offer you beyond “Yo booty gettin’ kinda big” – you can give them a polite “I’ll take that under consideration,” and change the subject… while mentally giving them the finger.

My plea is just that we not shut out the people who we trust to see the worst of us. Don’t prevent them from helping to develop the best in you: the healthy you! I’m talkin’ about those people who – like my friends (who, I’ll have you know, are still my tried and true friends fat or skinny) – are willing to walk through the fire with you, support you and offer you solutions to help you get to where you want to go. Where you need to go.

This journey isn’t one that we can go on alone. You will always need a support system that will giggle with you at your failures, cheer you on through your successes, and help you learn from both. You trust them to have your back, so trust them to tell you about something you might be overlooking… like your weight. If you love them and they love you (and you know it), give them a chance. They very well may have the answers, resources and support you need.

Be happy, but most importantly… be healthy.

Who Should I Allow To Call Me Fat? is a post from: A Black Girl's Guide To Weight Loss. Thanks for reading!

Related posts:

1. Who’s Allowed To Call You Fat?

The FULL list of meal plans is currently available. Check it out and get your copy today!

Get BGG2WL delivered wirelessly to your Kindle! Click here for more info!

© Erika for A Black Girl's Guide To Weight Loss, 2011. | Permalink | 7 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: blackness, fat, mentality, social eating, stigmas

When my girl first showed me the link, I shrugged it off. “I mean, they already ban other things that they’ve deemed harmful… if you want more choice, get off government assistance.” I believe that most people who are for this kind of legislation all echo that same sentiment.

Then again, I’ll be honest. That felt like lazy thinking to me.

Let’s do a little quick math:

14% of the population is enrolled in the SNAP program (formerly known as food stamps). Roughly, that’s something like 41.8 million.

12.5% of the population is African-American. Even if the entire whole of the Black population in America was on food stamps… it would still not be only Blacks on food stamps.

Almost 10% of the population is unemployed. Even if the entire unemployed population was on food stamps, it would not only be unemployed Americans on food stamps.

Do you know how many Americans are considered at least overweight? At least 60%. So, subtract out the [maybe] 15% of people who are merely victims of being far too muscular and weigh more than the BMI thinks they should… and you’ve still got 45% of Americans who are overweight. So basically, there’s four times as many people in America who are overweight as there are on food stamps.

But wait… one final point.

Do you know how many Americans live beneath the poverty line? I can assure you… it’s way more than 41 million… and, even still, Blacks do not make up the majority of the impoverished population. Look at those numbers – clearly, everyone who is eligible for assistance… does not receive it.

It took me – maybe – 10 minutes to compute all those numbers. (Told y’all 10 minutes is valuable.)

What does that mean? That those on government assistance are not all Black, not all unemployed (and therefore, assumedly, lazy welfare queens), and even if they were all overweight… guess what? There’s still another almost half of America that is just as overweight. So… let’s get over any assumptions of who and what food stamp recipients really are.

I’ve already written about the government making the decision to tax soda as a means of paying for health care. If the issue is money, I’m almost certain that if the government stopped overpaying for corn (or paying for it period?) they could find the money for health care. If the issue is the actual product, then saddle up, ride out… and ban it. No guts, no glory.

My question, really, is… what makes the food stamp recipients so worthy of this special attention that THEY would be prohibited from using their benefits to buy that which has already been deemed harmful by a government entity? Why do they get the honor of the government telling them what to do, and not the rest of us? Why do they get that “protection” and not all of us? Because the government should be allowed to control what they purchase? At least 60% of Americans are, by standard, overweight… and 14% of Americans are on food stamps. They’re obviously not the only ones who “are in need of the additional guidance.”

Or is it that we think that, because they are soooo poor that they need government assistance, that they obviously need us to tell them how to eat? Let’s face facts: The only difference between food stamp recipients and at least a third of America? It isn’t money. It’s the fact that they’re on government assistance. Period. The recession should’ve taught us that.

Let’s assume that they’re really thinking, “We need to save them. We need to help them. We need to curb obesity, and since they rely on us for X, surely they also need our help to accomplish Y, as well.”

There are four thoughts that immediately come to mind:

For one, if this is about people who need outside help in addressing their weight (not their health, their weight), then – again – there’s at least another 45.9% of Americans outside of food stamp recipients that need to be addressed. Is pop a great place to start to rid ourselves of added sugar? Yes. Is the entire 14% of food stamp recipients guzzling down soft drinks? No. So why are we starting with the poor instead of the “middle class” who, by obvious definition, is also fat? Because the poor have the fewest lobbyists and are the easiest to target? Oh.

Secondly, this isn’t about prevention of purchases. This is about “You can’t buy it with the money we give you.” I’m sorry, but I immediately cringe at the thought of trying to force someone to change their choices instead of educating them on why another option is better. And before you question what “telling people how bad soda is for them” can do… remember what site you’re reading right now.

The fact that the Mayor of NYC would make a statement like “This initiative will give New York families more money to spend on foods and drinks that provide real nourishment.” about an “initiative” that prevents access instead of using education to allow the individual to make the appropriate decision… further lets me know how toothless this is. If you’re assuming they don’t know anything about food and drinks that provide real nourishment… it makes sense to, instead, make the decision for them? No. It would make sense to provide them education on proper nutrition. It may be soda today, but it’ll be some other new-fangled product tomorrow and they’ll need you to swoop in and save them then, too… because instead of helping them learn how to make their own decisions, you merely made the decision for them. No one learns from that.

Thirdly, if we’re going to allow the government to dictate which items are good and bad… can you imagine how much money would come pouring in to “re-election campaigns” to prevent certain foods from being classified negatively? (Keep in mind, the current policy states that in order for a food to be considered ineligible for purchase with food stamps, it needs to be voted on by Congress.) The amount and opportunity for corruption at the expense of the public’s health… I can’t even imagine just how ridiculous and unfruitful it would be.

Lastly, if the Mayor of freaking New York City gave even a remote damn about the health, wellness and well being of those who rely on government assistance… perhaps he should spend a little time conversing with his constituents. Especially since one said the following right here on my own blog:

Also, if were going to make the argument that food stamp users should be spending on healthier choices, how bout we put some of those stores where [food stamp] users are?

If he believes food stamp recipients are so in need of assistance in regard to how to eat, why not actually talk to the individuals to find out what problems they face so that you’re not disillusioned about what problems they really face? Or is that too much conversation to be had with people who won’t be donating to a campaign any time soon? They have answers that are worth listening to… being on government assistance doesn’t equate to “being stupid.”

I don’t believe this is about truly addressing obesity in impoverished communities. I wholeheartedly believe this is about people wanting to feel like they can lord over “people who need it.” And lets face it – when you think of “overweight and poor” or “overweight and on government assistance,” you think Black (thanks to the “welfare queen” analogy) … and America is a country that is notorious for trying to rescue some needy Black [or Black-looking] people. Even in its philanthropic nature, it is ridiculously misanthropic. Deny that if you want… I’m okay with that.

So… if the question is “how do we address obesity among Americans” and I’m shooting down the “prevent the poor from buying soft drinks” answer… do I have an answer of my own?

Absolutely.

How about, for starters, paying some respect to the hierarchy of food needs and helping these people address these concerns first? Then, how about a little education? Teach people how the choices they make in food are in direct correlation to their ability to life healthily. Show people how poor food choices have contributed to poor health in America (or is that too much blame for “Big Food?”) and teach them how to avoid having to make those kinds of decisions. Educate them on how to use their food stamps to the best of their abilities. Be less elitist, insulting and classist – don’t assume that all food stamp users are some poor, lazy, clueless and shiftless individuals who clearly need your almighty interference. If the issue was truly obesity and if every single food stamp user was overweight, that still leaves almost half of the rest of the US population in need of the same kind of government involvement… and singling out the poor simply because they’re at the mercy of the government is little more than a politician’s toothless growl. Lots of bark… very little bite.

Update: And if you’re not completely talked out about this issue, Civil Eats is hosting a relatively interesting conversation about what questions this situation brings up. I don’t agree with it all, but both sides deserve representation on this issue.

Why The Food Stamp Soft Drink Ban Is BS is a post from: A Black Girl's Guide To Weight Loss. Thanks for reading!

Related posts:

1. Elitism On A Food Stamp Budget?
2. No Food Stamps For Soft Drinks? Cracking Down On Soda Pop
3. No Myths Here: Food Stamps, Food Deserts and Food Scarcity

The FULL list of meal plans is currently available. Check it out and get your copy today!

Get BGG2WL delivered wirelessly to your Kindle! Click here for more info!

© Erika for A Black Girl's Guide To Weight Loss, 2011. | Permalink | 67 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: diet soda, FDA, food stamps, government, new york city, politics, pop, poverty, SNAP, soda, soda ban, soft drinks, usda