Podcasts about Black body

This is the Weight and Healthcare newsletter. If you like what you are reading, please consider subscribing and/or sharing!Content note: this piece will discuss research around binge eating, including behaviors and frequency. In part 1, we looked at the authors and methodology of a 2024 study called “Evaluating dietary restriction as a maintaining factor in binge-eating disorder” by Bartholomay et al., whose authors claim that the findings “challenge the assumption that dietary restriction maintains BE [binge eating] among all individuals with BED [Binge Eating Disorder]. Rather, results suggest that dietary restriction may be largely unrelated to BE maintenance in this population, and that reducing dietary restriction generally does not have the intended effect on BE frequency.”Too Long Didn't Read Version:When analyzing research, it's important to check to see if the research that the authors cite to support their claims actually does support their claims. In this case, these authors are drawing large, broad-based conclusions that would support a weight-centric/weight-loss paradigm based on small, short-term, and decades old studies that offer only weak conclusions. They are also completely ignoring the success of a weight-neutral intervention that is included in on of the studies they cite. Let's dig in!When I teach research analysis, I recommend checking something I call “The Do-Do's” which encompasses two questions: Do the citations support the claims? Do the study data support the results?In this part of our three-part analysis, we're going to examine the first question. Regular readers may have noticed me pointing out in my analyses how often the studies that are cited don't support the claims. In the case of this study, the question “do the citations support the claims” is particularly important since they are using them to bolster a very limited experimental design, so I've devoted this section to some examples.Bartholomay et al. claim:“randomized controlled trials conducted among individuals with overw*ight and ob*sity demonstrate that assignment to a low-calorie weight loss diet (e.g., 1200 calories per day) produced greater decreases in binge-eating symptoms than assignment to a wait list control group (Goodrick et al., 1998; Klem et al., 1997; Reeves et al., 2001).”What I want to note here is that the study authors have created a false binary between low calorie weight loss diets and wait list control group which would be bad enough. In this case, they've done so by blatantly ignoring the inclusion of a weight-neutral intervention in the very first study they cited.Let's look at the three studies they cited to, in theory, support this claim:The first study they cite is1998 Nondieting versus dieting treatment for overw*ight binge-eating womenG K Goodrick 1, W S Poston 2nd, K T Kimball, R S Reeves, J P ForeytDOI: 10.1037//0022-006x.66.2.363This study evaluated non dieting vs dieting treatment for what they described as “overw*ight binge-eating women.” There were 219 subjects and they were assigned randomly to diet treatment, non-diet treatment, or wait-list control (which is a form of control group in which participants are told that they were on a wait list for the intervention, while being offered no intervention.)The diet intervention was a restricted diet “reinforced with behavioral strategies” and the non-diet treatment was “therapy designed to help participants break out of their dieting cycles.” It involved 18 months of contact - 6 months of treatment followed by 26 bi-weekly maintenance meetings. They checked in on the subjects 6 months later and 18 months later and at both follow-up points the Binge Eating Scale of both the diet and non-diet group was significantly better than the weight list group and at 18 months both experienced weight gain. They concluded that “Results indicate that neither intervention was successful in producing short- or long-term weight loss.”I would suggest that this means that the weight loss intervention is a failure since its goal was weight loss and binge eating reduction but the non-diet intervention was a success since it's goal was to reduce binge eating disorder. I would also suggest that it may have been more effective if the therapy included more specific techniques to reduce binge eating.What it means for sure is that a higher-weight cis woman (the only group included in the sample and thus the only group we can draw conclusions about) who wants to reduce binge eating without risking the experience of another failed diet (and the physical and psychological risks that can come with it) would be best served by a non-diet approach.Second, they cite:1997 A descriptive study of individuals successful at long-term maintenance of substantial weight lossM L Klem 1, R R Wing, M T McGuire, H M Seagle, J O HillDOI: 10.1093/ajcn/66.2.239The study discusses the ridiculous National Weight Control Registry (NWCR) which I often use as a peak example of the embarrassingly poor methodology that gets passed off as research in the weight-centric paradigm. I've written about it in detail previously but the short story is that they collect commonalities among an incredibly small group of dieters (literally 10,000 out of what is estimated to be over a billion attmpts) and then make unsupportable claims about those commonalities. I am unclear why Bartholomay et al cited this since the only reference to binge eating disorders is two studies that happened to include those who binge that tracked the mean lifetime weight loss of participants in order to compare it to the mean lifetime loss claimed in the NWCR. Not only could I find no claim here about whether weight loss attempts impacted binge behaviors, what I did find was that:”20% of the sample indicated a worsening in time spent thinking about weight and 14% reported a worsening in time spent thinking about food.”I would argue that, being as generous as I possibly can, this study has nothing to do with the authors claims and, being a bit less generous, this could be seen as a bit of a refutation of the claims.And this is why we check the references. Finally they cite2001 Nutrient intake of ob*se female binge eatersR S Reeves 1, R S McPherson, M Z Nichaman, R B Harrist, J P Foreyt, G K GoodrickDOI: 10.1016/S0002-8223(01)00055-4In this very small, short study 46 cis women were given a behavioral self-management intervention (6 months of weekly, 1-hour classes taught by registered dietitians) and the other group was a wait list control group. The researchers wanted to measure any change in calories consumed, percentages of calories from fat, protein, and carbohydrates, grams of fiber per 1,000 calories and change in number of self-reported binge days.After 6 months they found no significant difference between nutrients in either group. The behavioral self management group reported a greater reduction in binge days than the control group.Their conclusion was quite weak, finding that “Our results suggest that collecting dietary information from participants identified with binge eating disorder is challenging. Dietitians who conduct behavioral weight management programs may require additional training in identifying and understanding the psychological characteristics of participants with binge-eating disorder.”For this conclusion to have merit, behavioral weight management programs would have to be effective and there is no research supporting that and plenty suggesting that it is not.Overall these studies are small, short term, and quite old. The most recent was conducted about 24 years ago. It makes me wonder if there really isn't more recent data, or if more recent data exists but didn't support their conclusion? Also, remember that Barholomay et al. claimed “randomized controlled trials conducted among individuals with overw*ight and ob*sity demonstrate that assignment to a low-calorie weight loss diet (e.g., 1200 calories per day) produced greater decreases in binge-eating symptoms than assignment to a wait list control group.”I think their claim is seriously overstated. First of all, they should have been clear that this was the case in short-term, small sample studies. They also failed to mention that a non-diet treatment also produced greater decreases in binge-eating symptoms than in weight list control group - I wonder why they left that out of everything?Ok, let's look at another claim from Bartholomay et al.. They claim that adolescent girls with BN (which they explain is “bulimia nervosa, a disorder characterized by both binge eating and extreme compensatory behaviors; American Psychiatric Association, 2013”) who were assigned to participate in a healthy dieting intervention promoting weight control through moderate reductions in caloric intake, exhibited greater reductions in binge eating than girls who were assigned to a wait list control group.The first issue here is the claim that there is any such thing as a “healthy dieting intervention.” This is, in fact, a claim and not a fact, and it requires evidentiary support, which they don't offer. They don't even offer a definition of “healthy” nor proof that this intervention is, in fact, healthy by any definition. Again as we often see in research propping up the weight loss paradigm the authors have substituted “just saying stuff” for anything resembling scientific precision. In this case they are repeating a mistake originally made in the 2006 study they are citing by Burton and Stice called “Evaluation of a healthy-weight treatment program for bulimia nervosa: a preliminary randomized trial.” This study included 85 cisgender female participants with “full- and sub-threshold bulimia nervosa” who were randomly assigned to a 6-session “healthy dieting intervention” or a waitlist control group and assessed after a 3 month follow up. Their conclusion was that “These preliminary results suggest that this intervention shows potential for the treatment of bulimia nervosa and may be worthy of future refinement and evaluation. Results also provide experimental evidence that dieting behaviors do not maintain bulimia nervosa, suggesting the need to reconsider maintenance models for this eating disorder.”In using this study to support their claim, Bartholomay et al seem to be heavily glossing over words like “preliminary” and “may be worthy.” Also, even if we believe the results (without a deep dive into them) the fact that people on diets can suppress binging (or report suppressing binging) over 9 months is a far cry from showing what impact that restriction has over the long term.Back to Bartholomay et al., they make another claim that“Importantly, although longitudinal studies indicate that self reported dietary restraint predicts the future onset of binge-eating symptoms (Field et al., 1999; Killen et al., 1994; Stice, 2001; Stice et al., 2002), these results stand in stark contrast with findings from experimental treatment studies testing the causal effect of dietary restriction and restraint on the maintenance of binge eating.”This is an odd claim that, to me, is made with far too much confidence/bias. Longitudinal studies look at a longer time period, often quite a bit longer, than experimental treatments. Bartholomay et al. do not have a method to determine whether any difference is due to experimental design or simply due to the fact that experimental treatment studies capture a much shorter time frame. If what is true is that people who are on diets can suppress binge behaviors short term, but that the restriction drives additional binge behavior long-term, then the longitudinal studies could be more accurate.Let me offer an example to help illustrate the issue: It takes from 10-40 years for symptoms of asbestos conditions to appear. Let's stay that a study claimed “Importantly, although longitudinal studies indicate that exposure to asbestos causes mesothelioma, these results stand in stark contrast with findings from [6 month - 1.5 year] experimental treatment studies testing the causal effect of asbestos on mesothelioma, which found no relationship.”If the effect takes longer to appear than the time over which the experiments are conducted, there is a significant risk of missing the effect. That effect may be identified by longitudinal studies.Overall, I don't think the studies they are citing come anywhere close to, as they claim:“challenge the assumption that dietary restriction maintains BE [binge eating] among all individuals with BED [Binge Eating Disorder]. Rather, results suggest that dietary restriction may be largely unrelated to BE maintenance in this population, and that reducing dietary restriction generally does not have the intended effect on BE frequency.”In part 3 we'll investigate to see if the rest of the article's data supports their conclusions. Did you find this post helpful? You can subscribe for free to get future posts delivered direct to your inbox, or choose a paid subscription to support the newsletter (and the work that goes into it!) and get special benefits! Click the Subscribe button below for details:Liked the piece? Share the piece!More researchThe Research PostMore resourcesThe Resource Post*Note on language: I use “fat” as a neutral descriptor as used by the fat activist community, I use “ob*se” and “overw*ight” to acknowledge that these are terms that were created to medicalize and pathologize fat bodies, with roots in racism and specifically anti-Blackness. Please read Sabrina Strings' Fearing the Black Body – the Racial Origins of Fat Phobia and Da'Shaun Harrison' Get full access to Weight and Healthcare at weightandhealthcare.substack.com/subscribe

A History of the World in Six Plagues: How Contagion, Class, and Captivity Shaped Us, from Cholera to COVID-19 by Edna Bonhomme Amazon.com Ednabonhomme.com A deeply reported, insightful, and literary account of humankind's battles with epidemic disease, and their outsized role in deepening inequality along racial, ethnic, class, and gender lines—in the vein of Medical Apartheid and Killing the Black Body. Epidemic diseases enter the world by chance, but they become catastrophic by human design. With clear-eyed research and lush prose, A History of the World in Six Plagues shows that throughout history, outbreaks of disease have been exacerbated by and gone on to further expand the racial, economic, and sociopolitical divides we allow to fester in times of good health. Princeton-trained historian Edna Bonhomme's examination of humanity's disastrous treatment of pandemic disease takes us across place and time from Port-au-Prince to Tanzania, and from plantation-era America to our modern COVID-19-scarred world to unravel shocking truths about the patterns of discrimination in the face of disease. Based on in-depth research and cultural analysis, Bonhomme explores Cholera, HIV/AIDS, the Spanish Flu, Sleeping Sickness, Ebola, and COVID-19 amidst the backdrop of unequal public policy. But much more than a remarkable history, A History of the World in Six Plaguesis also a rising call for change.ABOUT Edna Bonhomme is a historian of science, culture writer, and journalist based in Berlin, Germany. She writes cultural criticism, literary essays, book reviews, and opinion pieces. Her writing explores how people navigate the difficult states of health—especially subjects that discuss contagious outbreaks, medical experiments, reproductive assistance, or illness narratives. She is a contributing writer for Frieze Magazine. Her writing has appeared in Al Jazeera, The Atlantic, The Baffler, Berliner Zeitung, Esquire, Frieze, The Guardian, London Review of Books, The Nation, Washington Post, among other publications.

In this episode, meet Mother Untitled founder Neha Ruch, Harvard Business School professor Alison Wood Brooks, and therapist and founder of Black and Embodied Counseling and Consulting Alishia McCullough. Listen to Neha Ruch on opening more choices for women in their careers, Alison Wood Brooks on obsessing about the art of conversation, and Alishia McCullough on the power of representation in building a sense of legacy and in embodying the self. The Power Pause by Neha Ruch: https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/739585/the-power-pause-by-neha-ruch/audio/ Talk by Alison Wood Brooks: https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/708473/talk-by-alison-wood-brooks/audio Reclaiming the Black Body by Alishia McCullough: https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/713617/reclaiming-the-black-body-by-alishia-mccullough-lcmhc/audio

Award-winning journalist Anita Bhagwandas on her journey from ambitious intern to a celebrated writer with bylines in The Guardian, Vogue, and Condé Nast Traveler. Anita shares practical advice on pitching as a freelance journalist, crafting impactful articles, and how she finds the hidden angle for a topic. She opens up about her experiences as a neurodivergent writer, offering insights into managing ADHD, navigating rejection, and staying creative. We delve into the research behind her groundbreaking book, Ugly: Why the World Became Beauty Obsessed and How to Break Free, revealing the hidden histories of beauty standards.*ABOUT ANITA BHAGWANDAS Anita is a renowned journalist and a leading voice in beauty culture. As a former Beauty Director at top publications like Stylist and Marie Claire, she has built a distinguished career spanning print, digital, and broadcast media. Her critically acclaimed book, Ugly explores the origins and impact of unrealistic beauty standards, blending personal narrative with insightful cultural analysis. *RESOURCES & LINKS

In this powerful and timely episode, we sit down with Alishia McCullough, author of 'Reclaiming the Black Body,' for a profound discussion on collective trauma, body autonomy, and the intersection of political climate with personal wellbeing. Alishia shares deep insights into how recent political events have impacted the mental and physical health of marginalized communities, while exploring the crucial role of language in addressing these experiences. From the complexities of eating imbalances to the significance of indigenous healing practices, this conversation delves into how cultural disconnection specifically affects Black women's relationship with their bodies. Guest Spotlight: Alishia McCullough (she/her) is a Licensed Clinical Mental Health Therapist and Founder of Black and Embodied Consulting PLLC, specializing in somatic therapy, trauma healing, and eating disorder treatment. As co-founder of the #AmplifyMelanatedVoices Movement in 2020, she works to elevate BIPOC voices globally. She leads the Reimagining Eating Disorders 101 course and The Integrated Woman Mastermind program. An accomplished author, Alishia wrote the poetry collection "Blossoming" and the forthcoming book "Reclaiming The Black Body" (2024). Her work centers on intersectional narratives and body justice for marginalized communities, particularly QTPOC individuals. Featured in Meta's 2022 Well-Being Collective, her expertise has been highlighted on NPR, STAT, Essence, and Forbes.Episode Takeaways:Collective trauma manifests both emotionally and physically in our bodiesLanguage choices significantly impact how we process and heal from traumaCultural disconnection plays a key role in eating imbalances among Black womenSafe spaces and accessibility are essential for meaningful healingPolitical events directly affect mental health and body relationshipsIndigenous practices offer valuable paths to body reconnectionCommunity healing starts with individual self-care and body autonomyRelevant links:Buy Reclaiming the Black Body here!Connect with Alishia on Instagram and visit her website!Connect with me on socials- join the Be Well,Sis tribe on Instagram, LinkedIn, and YouTube!Want to get in touch? Maybe you have an AITA you need solving or a recommendation for On My Radar? Get in touch at hello@editaud.io with Be Well Sis in the subject line! Be Well Sis is hosted by Dr Cassandre Dunbar. The show is edited, mixed and produced by Megan Hayward and Reem Elmaghraby. Our Production Manager is Kathleen Speckert. Be Well Sis is an editaudio collaboration.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

“We are better when we know better.”  In this episode, Dr. Lisa Folden, a North Carolina Licensed Physical Therapist, NASM Certified Behavior Change Specialist, and Anti-Diet Health and Body Image Coach joins the podcast.. Dr. Folden shares her journey of embracing a weight-neutral, Health at Every Size approach and the importance of accessible healthcare for people of all sizes. From her Charlotte-based practice, Healthy Fit Physical Therapy and Wellness Consultants, she works to dismantle toxic diet culture and support clients through intuitive eating, joyful movement, and body acceptance. Dr. Folden dives into her transformation from promoting traditional weight loss to becoming a dedicated advocate for weight-inclusive care. Her work emphasizes the value and dignity of all bodies.  It's time to change our mindset!  In this episode: Dr. Folden's journey to weight-neutral and trauma-informed care Embracing Health at Every Size Dismantling toxic diet culture and the Anti-Fat Bias The role of anti-fat bias in healthcare and everyday life Importance of accessibility and comfort in healthcare spaces How to address internalized beliefs about body image and diet culture Empowering people of all sizes to live without shame and societal pressure The healing impact of advocating for inclusivity in community spaces Movement as joyful and accessible, rather than rigid exercise routines Resources Mentioned: Books: Health at Every Size by Dr. Linda Bacon Fearing the Black Body by Sabrina Strings Dr. Folden's Website: https://www.healthyphit.com/ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/healthyphit/ Let's connect and keep the conversation going!   Elizabeth Harris, MS, RDN, LDN FB: Health and Healing with Intuitive Eating community https://www.facebook.com/groups/healthandhealingwithintuitiveeating Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ElizabethHarrisNutrition Free download to break up with diet culture: https://elizabethharrisnutrition.com/invisible-diet   Tara De Leon, Master Personal Trainer Email: FitnessTrainer19@hotmail.com Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/tara_de_leon_fitness   Maria Winters, LCPC, NCC Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/coaching_therapist/ FB: https://www.facebook.com/MWcoachingtherapy Website: www.thecoachingtherapist.com Attend an Emotional Fitness Studio Class: https://thecoachingtherapist.com/emotional-fitness-studio/

Mal is joined by intuitive eating coach Liza Katsman this week to discuss societal fatphobia and its impact on the LGBTQ, as well as broader diet culture and body image in today's society. Liza shares her personal struggle with disordered eating including severe bulimia, and her journey to recovery thanks to 'intuitive eating'. JOIN OUR SUBSCRIPTION COMMUNITY FOR NEW SHOWS, ASK MAL ANYTHING & MORE!!! madeitout.supercast.com Follow our guest: Email: coaching@lizakatsman.com Substack: https://substack.com/@lizakcoaching IG: @lizakcoaching TT: @lizakcoaching FB: facebook.com/lizakcoaching Website: www.lizakcoaching.com or www.lizakatsman.com (sign up for free 1:1 Intro Session) Community (Coming Jan 2025, sign up now): www.lizakatsman.com/community Resources on the topic: Books:  "Intuitive Eating" (4th Edition) by Evelyn Tribole and Elyse Resch "Anti-Diet" by Christy Harrison "The Body is Not an Apology" by Sonya Renee Taylor "Fearing the Black Body" by Sabrina Strings "What We Don't Talk About When We Talk About Fat" and "You Just Need to Lose Weight and 19 Other Myths About Fat People" by Aubrey Gordon Podcasts:  Maintenance Phase Fad Camp Food Psych  The Fat Doctor Podcast For all other inquiries, please email madeitout@mgmt-entertainment.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Keisha Lance Bottoms denied service at a restaurant over attire when nonblack patrons were given a pass. Black man found dead hanging from beam after filing lawsuit against cops. White woman who falsely accused Black men sues. Host: Dr. Rashad Richey (@IndisputableTYT) Co-Host: Senator Nina Turner (@ninaturner) *** SUBSCRIBE on YOUTUBE: ☞ http://www.youtube.com/IndisputableTYT FACEBOOK: ☞ http://www.facebook.com/IndisputableTYT TWITTER: ☞ http://www.twitter.com/IndisputableTYT INSTAGRAM: ☞ http://www.instagram.com/IndisputableTYT Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Faith Organizers Kelley Fox and Rev. Terry Williams lay out the good, the bad, and the truly wild about election years in the U.S. With particular attention given to how major elections affect nonprofit organizations and the people we serve, Kelley and Terry give listeners a preview of things to come over the next few months by offering practical wisdom about volunteering, capacity management, setting realistic expectations, and discussing ways to keep perspective on elections as important but not all-inclusive elements of our collective struggle for justice and liberation. Links to discussed content: Context on JD Vance's "childless cat lady" comment: www.npr.org/2024/07/29/nx-s1-5055616/jd-vance-childless-cat-lady-history If/When/How: https://ifwhenhow.org/ Killing the Black Body, by Dorothy Roberts: www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/155575/killing-the-black-body-by-dorothy-roberts/ Buy our exclusive "Childless by Choice"merch: www.bonfire.com/store/faith4repro/ Music by Korbin Jones

This is the Weight and Healthcare newsletter! If you like what you are reading, please consider subscribing and/or sharing!Reader Shauna asked “I just saw an article about the Body Roundness Index, is that as silly as I think it is?”The Body Roundness Index seems to be the weight loss industry's response to finally having to (at least begin to) admit that the Body Mass Index (BMI) is nonsense. The BMI is a ratio of weight and height that has been used to pathologize bodies based on their size alone and has its basis in racism. I talked about that in depth in this piece.Earlier this year the AMA, which takes hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations from the weight loss industry,  tried a little sleight of hand with this, admitting that there are serious issues with the BMI (which has been used as a justification for the much of the weight loss paradigm) but instead of acknowledging that simply pathologizing bodies based on shared size is an idea lacking scientific basis and merit that has done incredible harm, they instead said that we just needed more and different ways to pathologize bodies based on shared size.That brings us to the study Shauna sent me: “Body Roundness Index and All-Cause Mortality Among US Adults” published in JAMA (the Journal of the American Medical Association.)The authors reported no conflicts of interest, even though one of the authors, Qiushi Lin, MD, PhD, literally works for Sanofi Aventis which just had its weight loss drug preliminarily rejected by an FDA panel.Where the BMI is used to pathologize bodies based on weight and height, the The Body Roundness Index (BRI) uses weight and waist circumference.The specific calculation they used is “364.2 − 365.5 × √(1 − [waist circumference in centimeters / 2π]2 / [0.5 × height in meters]2)”The use of mathematical formulas tends to lend these concepts an heir of scientific validity that they do not deserve. They explain that “Due to the lack of a reference range, BRI was categorized into 5 groups according to the 20th, 40th, 60th, and 80th quantiles to explore the association with all-cause mortality.”They find a “U-shaped association between BRI and all-cause mortality. Our findings provide compelling evidence for the application of BRI as a noninvasive and easy to obtain screening tool for estimation of mortality risk and identification of high-risk individuals, a novel concept that could be incorporated into public health practice pending consistent validation in other independent studies.”By this they mean that those at the lower and higher ends of this scale have higher all-cause mortality. As I've talked about before, one of the cornerstones of research methods is that correlation does not imply causation. The U-shaped association they found might be a valid correlation. The mistake happens if the assumption is that the BRI is the REASON for the increased risk and, when it comes to weight and health (particularly those of higher-weight people) that's what typically happens. That's what I think the problem is going to be. In our culture, there is a tendency to jump at any perceived “proof,” no matter how shoddy, that being higher weight causes health issues/is a health issue. What these researchers have found is an unexplained correlation between being at lower and higher weights and higher rates of all-cause mortality. What they absolutely have not found is that being at lower and higher weight CAUSES higher rates of all cause mortality. They don't ever claim that they've found causation but then they conclude “a novel concept that could be incorporated into public health practice pending consistent validation in other independent studies” and not, for example, that causal mechanism(s) should be identified prior to foisting this formula on the public, it gives me the sense that they are jumping the gun here. I'm not going to do a deep dive into the methodology here because the concept is so deeply flawed at its base.I'll start with those at lower BRI range. Their BRI could be due to extreme illness (including everything from cancer, to substance use disorders, to eating disorders and more )that are the actual reason for increased all cause mortality. What they may have found is that those in the lower BRI categories are more likely to be very ill which means their findings would not extrapolate to those at the lower end of the weight spectrum who are not experiencing illness. When it comes to higher-weight people, we know that experiences of weight stigma, weight cycling, and healthcare inequalities are all associated with increased all-cause mortality. People with a higher BRI are more likely to have these experiences. Not only did these study authors fail to control for these, they failed to even mention them. Without controlling for these possible confounding variables, what their findings may indicate is just that they've found even more evidence that experiences of weight stigma, weight cycling, and healthcare inequalities increase all-cause mortality.So, if the lower someone's BRI category is, the more likely it is that they are very ill and the higher someone's BRI category is, the more likely that they've experienced/experience greater weight stigma, weight cycling, and healthcare inequalities, then we would see the exact “U-shaped association between BRI and all-cause mortality” that the study authors found.I'm not saying those are definitely the reasons, I'm saying that's the research we should be doing, not more research to reinforce a questionable correlation until the weight loss industry starts claiming that if there are *that many* studies that show correlation then it *must be* causation. Besides the weight loss industry (mis-)using this concept, I am worried about what this will lead to in terms of healthcare. The weigh-ins that patients are expected/pushed to endure in order to calculate BMI already cause some patients to delay or avoid healthcare appointments. How much worse is that going to become when healthcare providers are running after patients with tape measures to get a waist circumference measurement so they can calculate BRI. If BRI is “incorporated into public health practice” as these authors suggest using simply the correlation they've found, then the mostly likely outcome is that the suggestion is to manipulate BRI to improve all-cause mortality risk. This will be another way for the weight loss industry (including Sanofi Aventis if they can get their new drug into the endzone) to continue making money hand over fist, but for patients it will be the same old thing, which makes its use instead of BMI basically a distinction without a difference. Whether it's due to profit incentive, paradigm entrenchment, or a combination of both, the people doing this research seem to be willing to do absolutely anything other than control for confounding variables or consider the evidence that focusing on supporting health directly (rather than maintaining our obsession with weight loss,) may provide more benefits with fewer risks.Driven by the weight loss industry, weight science has gone a long way down the wrong road and they would rather step on the gas then slow down, let alone turn around. A healthcare system that is committed to viewing the existence of higher-weight people as a problem to be solved will never create polices or interventions that truly support the physical or mental health of higher-weight people. Did you find this post helpful? You can subscribe for free to get future posts delivered direct to your inbox, or choose a paid subscription to support the newsletter (and the work that goes into it!) and get special benefits! Click the Subscribe button below for details:Liked the piece? Share the piece!More research and resources:https://haeshealthsheets.com/resources/*Note on language: I use “fat” as a neutral descriptor as used by the fat activist community, I use “ob*se” and “overw*ight” to acknowledge that these are terms that were created to medicalize and pathologize fat bodies, with roots in racism and specifically anti-Blackness. Please read Sabrina Strings' Fearing the Black Body – the Racial Origins of Fat Phobia and Da'Shaun Harrison's Belly of the Beast: The Politics of Anti-Fatness as Anti-Blackness for more on this. Get full access to Weight and Healthcare at weightandhealthcare.substack.com/subscribe

Today I get to share a fascinating conversation with Territa Chambers. Territa joins us from Charlotte, North Carolina and is a delightful woman who loves to read, learn new things, craft, and be with friends and family. She is married to Terry Jr. and they have 3 young adult sons. Territa has been practicing as a licensed counselor and transformational coach since 2016. She has a Masters Degree in Clinical Christian Mental Health Counseling from Gordon-Conwell and is currently working on a PhD in Health Psychology. Today, Territa dives into some territory that was new and unfamiliar to me - we talk about disorder eating as a subcategory of eating disorders. This opened my eyes and made me look at my relationship with food in a whole new way. We also look at our ethnic heritage as black and white women and how the body image and eating habits of North American culture today find their roots in colonial times.  We pick up today's conversation as Territa shares about coming to know the Lord and experiencing huge life transformation for the first time at age 23.  Show Notes: “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.” - Romans 12:2 “Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling” -Philippians 2:12 Fearing the Black Body by Sabrina Strings --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/whits-end/message

Hey Rebel! I am thrilled to have Elise Resch, co-founder of Intuitive Eating, on the podcast today for an insightful discussion about the future of intuitive eating. As an anti-diet dietitian and a certified intuitive eating counselor, I've personally benefited from Elise's training and am excited to share her invaluable insights with you! In this episode, we delve into The future of intuitive eating through a social justice lens The importance of autonomy in food choices for raising the future generation of intuitive eaters How struggling with food could result from your needs not being met. & how "failing" at dieting could actually mean you are a success at ego development and not letting people tell you what to do (love this!). Whether you're new to intuitive eating or a seasoned practitioner, this episode dives into those nuances of intuitive eating that you won't get off an Instagram post (we talk about some of the challenges of social media in this episode. too!)   Find Elyse Here:  Instagram:   https://www.instagram.com/elyseresch  Facebook:    https://www.facebook.com/elyse.resch   Website:  http://www.elyseresch.com   Episode References: Fearing the Black Body by Sabrina Strings Episode 137: Teaching Littles (including Your Inner Child) How to Eat Intuitively for Life with Megan McNamee of Feeding Littles Episode 122: Raising Kids Who Can Eat Intuitively with Jennifer Anderson of Kids Eat In Color   Quiz: Are You Living In Fear Of Losing Control Around Food? https://dietculturerebel.com/control-around-food-quiz/    Learn more about group coaching here:  https://dietculturerebel.com/group-coaching Connect with Bonnie on Instagram: @diet.culture.rebel

Kate Manne joins Let's Talk Memoir for a conversation about coming of age in fatphobic culture, disentangling the threads of weight, health, and diet culture, the racism at the root of anti-fatness, writing ourselves out and then back into our work, the psycho-social consequences of fatphobia on our bodies, the shame around shame, organizing our time, writing while mothering a young child, gathering and incorporating research in our work, and her new book Unshrinking: How to Face Fatphobia.   Also in this episode: -the rhetoric around dieting -becoming self-compassionate through writing -why we might not trust pleasure    Books mentioned in this episode: Fearing the Black Body by Sabrina Strings Belly of the Beast: The Politics of Anti-Fatness as Anti-Blackness by Da'Shaun L. Harrison Hunger by Roxanne Gay You Just Need to Lose Weight by Aubrey Gordon What We Don't Talk About When We Talk About Fat by Aubrey Gordon Fat Talk by Virginia Sole Smith   Kate Manne is an associate professor of philosophy at Cornell University, where she's been teaching since 2013. Before that, she was a junior fellow at the Harvard Society of Fellows. Manne did her graduate work in philosophy at MIT, and works in moral, social, and feminist philosophy. She is the author of three books, Down Girl: The Logic of Misogyny, Entitled: How Male Privilege Hurts Women, and Unshrinking: How to Face Fatphobia, which came out in January. You can subscribe to her substack newsletter, More to Hate, for musings on misogyny, fatphobia, their intersection, and more.  Connect with Kate: Website: http://www.katemanne.net/ Substack: https://katemanne.substack.com/ X: https://twitter.com/kate_manne, Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/kate_manne Get “Unshrinking” here: https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/722318/unshrinking-by-kate-manne/   — Ronit's writing has appeared in The Atlantic, The Rumpus, The New York Times, The Iowa Review, Hippocampus, The Washington Post, Writer's Digest, American Literary Review, and elsewhere. Her memoir WHEN SHE COMES BACK about the loss of her mother to the guru Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh and their eventual reconciliation was named Finalist in the 2021 Housatonic Awards Awards, the 2021 Indie Excellence Awards, and was a 2021 Book Riot Best True Crime Book. Her short story collection HOME IS A MADE-UP PLACE won Hidden River Arts' 2020 Eludia Award and the 2023 Page Turner Awards for Short Stories. She earned an MFA in Nonfiction Writing at Pacific University, is Creative Nonfiction Editor at The Citron Review, and lives in Seattle with her family where she teaches memoir workshops and is working on her next book. More about Ronit: https://ronitplank.com Sign up for monthly podcast and writing updates: https://bit.ly/33nyTKd   Follow Ronit: https://www.instagram.com/ronitplank/ https://twitter.com/RonitPlank https://www.facebook.com/RonitPlank   Background photo credit: Photo by Patrick Tomasso on Unsplash Headshot photo credit: Sarah Anne Photography Theme music: Isaac Jo

In this must-listen replay from 2021, you'll meet the amazing Lauren Cadillac. A Certified Intuitive Eating Counselor and Registered Dietitian, Lauren (aka the Feel Good Dietitian) specializes in helping her clients heal their relationship with food and break free of the dieting cycle without guilt or shame. She understands our universal need to be listened to, accepted, supported – all while having more energy, fun, sleep, and sense of well-being. Sounds amazing right? Tune in to hear Lauren break down what intuitive eating really is and some tangible steps to start your own journey towards food freedom.  RESOURCES & LINKS MENTIONED IN THIS EPISODE: Follow Lauren on Instagram – @feelgooddietitian Visit Lauren online – laurencadillac.com Christy Harrison – christyharrison.com Fearing the Black Body by Sabrina Strings – here.  Journalling prompts for this episode: 1. What does your history with food look like? 2. Has your relationship with food gotten better or worse over time? 3. How much money, time, energy have you spent on food? 4. What other side effects are you experiencing by holding onto these behaviours? 5. What could you gain by creating a healthier relationship with food and your body? Book your complimentary 20-minute Breakthrough Call with Erin here! https://calendly.com/rawbeautytalks/20min?month=2023-10 Are you loving the show? We'd be so grateful if you could share the show with a friend, and leave a rating and a review on Apple Podcasts!  Say hi to us on social: Facebook: @RawBeautyTalks Twitter: @RawBeautyTalks Instagram: @RawBeautyTalks

The first critical examination of death and remembrance in the digital age—and an invitation to imagine Black digital sovereignty in life and death. In Resurrecting the Black Body: Race and the Digital Afterlife (U California Press, 2023), Tonia Sutherland considers the consequences of digitally raising the dead. Attending to the violent deaths of Black Americans—and the records that document them—from slavery through the social media age, Sutherland explores media evidence, digital acts of remembering, and the right and desire to be forgotten. From the popular image of Gordon (also known as "Whipped Peter") to photographs of the lynching of Jesse Washington to the video of George Floyd's murder, from DNA to holograms to posthumous communication, this book traces the commodification of Black bodies and lives across time. Through the lens of (anti-)Blackness in the United States, Sutherland interrogates the intersections of life, death, personal data, and human autonomy in the era of Google, Twitter, and Facebook, and presents a critique of digital resurrection technologies. If the Black digital afterlife is rooted in bigotry and inspires new forms of racialized aggression, Resurrecting the Black Body asks what other visions of life and remembrance are possible, illuminating the unique ways that Black cultures have fought against erasure and oblivion. Peter C. Kunze is an assistant professor of communication at Tulane University. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/african-american-studies

The first critical examination of death and remembrance in the digital age—and an invitation to imagine Black digital sovereignty in life and death. In Resurrecting the Black Body: Race and the Digital Afterlife (U California Press, 2023), Tonia Sutherland considers the consequences of digitally raising the dead. Attending to the violent deaths of Black Americans—and the records that document them—from slavery through the social media age, Sutherland explores media evidence, digital acts of remembering, and the right and desire to be forgotten. From the popular image of Gordon (also known as "Whipped Peter") to photographs of the lynching of Jesse Washington to the video of George Floyd's murder, from DNA to holograms to posthumous communication, this book traces the commodification of Black bodies and lives across time. Through the lens of (anti-)Blackness in the United States, Sutherland interrogates the intersections of life, death, personal data, and human autonomy in the era of Google, Twitter, and Facebook, and presents a critique of digital resurrection technologies. If the Black digital afterlife is rooted in bigotry and inspires new forms of racialized aggression, Resurrecting the Black Body asks what other visions of life and remembrance are possible, illuminating the unique ways that Black cultures have fought against erasure and oblivion. Peter C. Kunze is an assistant professor of communication at Tulane University. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

The first critical examination of death and remembrance in the digital age—and an invitation to imagine Black digital sovereignty in life and death. In Resurrecting the Black Body: Race and the Digital Afterlife (U California Press, 2023), Tonia Sutherland considers the consequences of digitally raising the dead. Attending to the violent deaths of Black Americans—and the records that document them—from slavery through the social media age, Sutherland explores media evidence, digital acts of remembering, and the right and desire to be forgotten. From the popular image of Gordon (also known as "Whipped Peter") to photographs of the lynching of Jesse Washington to the video of George Floyd's murder, from DNA to holograms to posthumous communication, this book traces the commodification of Black bodies and lives across time. Through the lens of (anti-)Blackness in the United States, Sutherland interrogates the intersections of life, death, personal data, and human autonomy in the era of Google, Twitter, and Facebook, and presents a critique of digital resurrection technologies. If the Black digital afterlife is rooted in bigotry and inspires new forms of racialized aggression, Resurrecting the Black Body asks what other visions of life and remembrance are possible, illuminating the unique ways that Black cultures have fought against erasure and oblivion. Peter C. Kunze is an assistant professor of communication at Tulane University. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

The first critical examination of death and remembrance in the digital age—and an invitation to imagine Black digital sovereignty in life and death. In Resurrecting the Black Body: Race and the Digital Afterlife (U California Press, 2023), Tonia Sutherland considers the consequences of digitally raising the dead. Attending to the violent deaths of Black Americans—and the records that document them—from slavery through the social media age, Sutherland explores media evidence, digital acts of remembering, and the right and desire to be forgotten. From the popular image of Gordon (also known as "Whipped Peter") to photographs of the lynching of Jesse Washington to the video of George Floyd's murder, from DNA to holograms to posthumous communication, this book traces the commodification of Black bodies and lives across time. Through the lens of (anti-)Blackness in the United States, Sutherland interrogates the intersections of life, death, personal data, and human autonomy in the era of Google, Twitter, and Facebook, and presents a critique of digital resurrection technologies. If the Black digital afterlife is rooted in bigotry and inspires new forms of racialized aggression, Resurrecting the Black Body asks what other visions of life and remembrance are possible, illuminating the unique ways that Black cultures have fought against erasure and oblivion. Peter C. Kunze is an assistant professor of communication at Tulane University. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/communications

The first critical examination of death and remembrance in the digital age—and an invitation to imagine Black digital sovereignty in life and death. In Resurrecting the Black Body: Race and the Digital Afterlife (U California Press, 2023), Tonia Sutherland considers the consequences of digitally raising the dead. Attending to the violent deaths of Black Americans—and the records that document them—from slavery through the social media age, Sutherland explores media evidence, digital acts of remembering, and the right and desire to be forgotten. From the popular image of Gordon (also known as "Whipped Peter") to photographs of the lynching of Jesse Washington to the video of George Floyd's murder, from DNA to holograms to posthumous communication, this book traces the commodification of Black bodies and lives across time. Through the lens of (anti-)Blackness in the United States, Sutherland interrogates the intersections of life, death, personal data, and human autonomy in the era of Google, Twitter, and Facebook, and presents a critique of digital resurrection technologies. If the Black digital afterlife is rooted in bigotry and inspires new forms of racialized aggression, Resurrecting the Black Body asks what other visions of life and remembrance are possible, illuminating the unique ways that Black cultures have fought against erasure and oblivion. Peter C. Kunze is an assistant professor of communication at Tulane University. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/science-technology-and-society

The first critical examination of death and remembrance in the digital age—and an invitation to imagine Black digital sovereignty in life and death. In Resurrecting the Black Body: Race and the Digital Afterlife (U California Press, 2023), Tonia Sutherland considers the consequences of digitally raising the dead. Attending to the violent deaths of Black Americans—and the records that document them—from slavery through the social media age, Sutherland explores media evidence, digital acts of remembering, and the right and desire to be forgotten. From the popular image of Gordon (also known as "Whipped Peter") to photographs of the lynching of Jesse Washington to the video of George Floyd's murder, from DNA to holograms to posthumous communication, this book traces the commodification of Black bodies and lives across time. Through the lens of (anti-)Blackness in the United States, Sutherland interrogates the intersections of life, death, personal data, and human autonomy in the era of Google, Twitter, and Facebook, and presents a critique of digital resurrection technologies. If the Black digital afterlife is rooted in bigotry and inspires new forms of racialized aggression, Resurrecting the Black Body asks what other visions of life and remembrance are possible, illuminating the unique ways that Black cultures have fought against erasure and oblivion. Peter C. Kunze is an assistant professor of communication at Tulane University. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/technology

Get your tin foil hats on! We're talking about the history of institutional mistrust in public health and how it impacts today's issues.  References: Killing the Black Body by Dorothy Roberts Engineered by Dreamstate Productions Music by Michael Conrad

Welcome to Season 4 and Episode 63 of the Movement Logic podcast! This is part 2 of a much requested series titled Dismantling Long & Lean. In part 2, Laurel and Sarah discuss the phrase "long and lean" from a science-based, as well as sociological and racial perspective. They cover whether or not you can actually make anyone's body “longer” and/or “leaner” through formats like Pilates and barre. Additionally, they unpack the harm that appealing to this narrowly, aesthetically-idealized body shape has on students and teachers. You will learn: Common code words used to show preference for thinness in exercise. Is there a way to make limbs or muscles longer? How do we change the shape of muscles? Can we make muscles tone without making them bulky? How hypertrophy works and whether or not Pilates or barre are particularly effective for building muscle. What does it mean to be bulky versus lean? The constrained energy model for metabolism and how it explains why exercise is a poor tool for weight loss and why it's more complex than calories in and calories out. How human metabolism is a product of evolution, not engineering and more like a business on a budget rather than a car that runs on fuel. How the science of metabolism explains why exercise is so important for long term health and longevity. Whether building muscle makes you burn more calories at rest. That fast and slow metabolism doesn't mean what people think it does. Whether or not you can burn fat specifically from “problem areas” on your body. How the transatlantic slave trade and the rise of Protestantism influenced the way we think about fatness and thinness. How fatphobia and a preference for thinness has been used to craft and reinforce racial, sexual, and socioeconomic hierarchies over the centuries. Why “long and lean” is to the 1990s and 2000s as “white and nordic” was to the 1800s and 1900s. Why using "long and lean" as a marketing ploy does harm to the teaching profession of Pilates and barre. And more!Sign up here to get on the Wait List for our next Bone Density Course in October 2024!Reference links:Episode 60: Dismantling Long & Lean Pt. 1Burn: New Research Blows the Lid Off How We Really Burn Calories…Episode 43: Nutrition Facts vs. Fiction with Dr. Ben House, PhDFearing the Black Body…

In episode 36 of Dr. Marianne-Land: An Eating Disorder Recovery Podcast, Edie Stark and I unearth the ugly underbelly of the multi-billion-dollar (and that's just in the U.S.!) diet industry, as well as accessibility issues for people in larger bodies, plus overall diet culture madness. ABOUT EDIE STARK, LCSW Edie Stark is the owner and found of Stark Therapy Group an inclusive, fat positive psychotherapy group practice serving California. Edie has been in the field of Eating Disorders since 2009. She is a certified Intuitive Eating Counselor and enjoys baking and trying Trader Joe's snacks in her spare time.   Edie knew from a young age that she wanted to understand the why and how behind eating disorders. She saw many of her peers suffer at such a young age, and she wanted to help. Edie used her curiosity and zest for learning to guide her career to what it is today.   You can contact and follow Edie through the following links: Instagram @ediestarktherapy Website https://starktherapygroup.com/   BOOK RECOMMENDATION Fearing the Black Body, by Dr. Sabrina Strings   INTERESTED IN HANGING OUT MORE IN DR. MARIANNE-LAND? Follow me on Instagram @drmariannemiller Chat with me about my virtual binge eating program, called the Elite Binge Eating Recovery Method. Need a place to start? Check out my self-paced, virtual course called Dr. Marianne-Land's Binge Eating Recovery Membership Live in California or Texas and interested in eating disorder therapy with me? Sign up for a free, 15-minute phone consultation HERE or via my website, and I'll get you to where you need to be! Check out my blog. Want more information? Email me at hello@mariannemiller.com

In episode 35 of Dr. Marianne-Land: An Eating Disorder Recovery Podcast, Kathleen Meehan, RD, also known as @rdnutritionist on Instagram, and I dive into fat activism and the origins of the ideal thin body. ABOUT KATHLEEN MEEHAN, MS, RD Kathleen is an anti-diet, fat-positive dietitian with a virtual private practice located in Los Angeles. She uses a weight-inclusive approach to help clients heal from disordered eating, manage health conditions and rediscover the pleasure and satisfaction of food.   Kathleen chose to work with eating disorders because she started to notice how normalized disordered eating is within weight-centric care.   She is located in Los Angeles, California, and practices virtually in many states. Florida, Texas, Maryland, Ohio, and more.   You can contact and follow Kathleen through the following links: TikTok @kathleenmrdn Instagram @therdnutritionist Website https://www.kathleenmeehanrd.com/ BOOK RECOMMENDATIONS Fearing the Black Body, by Dr. Sabrina Strings Heavy, by Kiese Laymon   INTERESTED IN HANGING OUT MORE IN DR. MARIANNE-LAND? Follow me on Instagram @drmariannemiller Chat with me about my virtual binge eating program, called the Elite Binge Eating Recovery Method. Need a place to start? Check out my self-paced, virtual course called Dr. Marianne-Land's Binge Eating Recovery Membership Live in California or Texas and interested in eating disorder therapy with me? Sign up for a free, 15-minute phone consultation HERE or via my website, and I'll get you to where you need to be! Check out my blog. Want more information? Email me at hello@mariannemiller.com

In this episode, we are joined by Alissa Rumsey, a registered dietitian, nutrition therapist, certified intuitive eating counselor, and the author of Unapologetic Eating: Make Peace With Food and Transform Your Life. Together, we discuss:How Alissa moved from a weight normative to a weight inclusive practiceDevising “unapologetic eating”Food freedom backlash in fat bodiesDiet culture as a force for controlling peopleMotives behind beauty standards for womenThe power of going out without makeupBeing an author with privilegeMentioned in the episode:Intuitive Eating by Evelyn TriboleFearing the Black Body by Sabrina StringsSalt Fat Acid Heat by Samin NosratThe Beauty Myth by Naomi Wolf“Lived Experience with Ozempic” episodeMore from Alissa:Visit Alissa's websiteFollow her on instagramCheck out her book Unapologetic EatingMore from Leah:Get access to The Mindset Matters Free Mini CourseApply to The Embodied Method, my 1:1 coaching programJoin my self-paced course, The ReturnSubscribe to my personal SubstackFollow me on Instagram for more intuitive eating content @leahkern.rdVisit my website to learn more about my coaching offeringsSubscribe to my weekly newsletter to get a nugget of intuitive eating inspiration delivered straight from my heart to your inbox each week.Email me: Leah@leahkernrd.com

Send us a Text Message.Simone Samuels, B.A. (Hons.), J.D., B.C.L. is a consultant in equity, diversity and inclusion and a weight-neutral personal trainer/group fitness instructor.  A lawyer by training and a fitness professional, she has consulted for fitness organizations in Canada, US and the UK and has delivered courses on weight stigma, fatphobia, anti-racism, allyship and anti-oppression.Simone is a tireless advocate for making the fitness and wider world a more inclusive place.I was SO excited to chat with Simone and knew it would be a confronting and very important conversation. She was incredibly generous with her time and I know you will very much enjoy this meaty conversation.We chatted about:How white female Fitpros can actually be inclusive in the fitness space?The racist roots of the BMI and diet culture.  Simone recommends some must-read books for those serious about doing the work.According to the BMI the ROCK (Dwayne Johnson) is morbidly ob*se. It was never meant to be used at a population level.Overcoming fatphobia in fitness spaces.  How we can get informed.Finding real joy in movement in this hustle culture and untangling weight loss and exercise.We chat about Aqua Zumba and ask why aqua is always associated with an older demographic.What a chat!  I was truly buzzing afterwards and cannot wait to get Simone back for part 2.  Recommended Reading for Fitpros or anyone engaged in the fitness industry:Sabrina Strings - Fearing the Black Body. The Racist Origins of FatphobiaDa'Shaun L. Harrison - The Belly of the Beast: The Politics of Anti-Fatness as Anti-BlacknessIbram X Kendi: Stamped From The Beginning: A Graphic History of Racist Ideas in AmericaIf you'd like to know more about  Simone, find her on Instagram or have a look at her website, where she has lots of different options to work Are you feeling stuck in the 'earn and burn' cycle with your exercise routine, or as summer approaches, are you feeling self-conscious about wearing a swimsuit on the beach? Maybe you just want to stop worrying so much about food or how your body looks.You are not alone and your body is NOT the problem Please reach out if you would like some support. We both have limited slots for Intuitive Eating Coaching, so get in touch with Christine or with Ela.AND if you enjoyed this episode, please share and follow the 'Find Your Strong podcast' and if you have time, write us a short review. It would honestly mean the world. Love to you all, Ela & Christine x

Have you ever wondered about the hidden biases in healthcare that affect those of higher weights? Prepare to have your eyes opened by Ragan Chastain, a dynamic keynote speaker who joins us to unpack the prevalence of weight stigma and its deep-seated roots in racism and anti-blackness. Our conversation is a primer for Ragan's much-anticipated keynote at the upcoming Eating Disorder Conference, where she'll dive deeper into cultivating a healthcare environment free from bias and discrimination. We discuss the urgent need for education in the healthcare sector and provide a list of essential readings to arm yourself with knowledge on this critical issue.The weight loss industry's influence on our perceptions of health comes under the microscope as we chat with Ragan. We scrutinize the troubling ethics of profit-driven research and the promotion of drug dependency for weight management, drawing parallels with Big Pharma's notorious past. Our investigation doesn't stop there; we also dissect how the industry's narratives and marketing tactics have shaped public opinion, often placing undue blame on individuals for weight regain, and the physiological responses that complicate weight loss efforts. This episode will leave you questioning the status quo and considering the ethical ramifications of a profit-over-people approach.Wrapping up our enlightening dialogue, we reflect upon the complex relationship between weight, health, and societal attitudes. We share haunting stories like that of Ellen Maud Bennett, illustrating the fatal consequences of medical neglect due to weight stigma. The mental health ramifications of new medical interventions are also in the spotlight, as we emphasize the importance of comprehensive education for healthcare professionals. Join us for this deep dive into weight stigma and our collective journey toward fat liberation and equitable healthcare.Mentioned on the show:Eating Disorder Awareness Week Provider Conference and Community Workshop.   March 1st & 2nd.  More info hereSabrina Strings "Fearing the Black Body"Deshawn  Harrison "The Belly of the Beast"Where to find Ragen ChastainWebsite Dances With FatInstagram Support the showLet's Connect! Want to receive weekly(ish) emails from us? Sign up hereCheck out our website: www.healthhopeharmony.comInstagramFacebook

Professor of Law Kimberly Mutcherson joins Gail and Nate to discuss the history of abortion access in the US, the current landscape of women's healthcare, and the need for reproductive justice in the pro-choice conversation.Professor Mutcherson was the former co-host of the Anthem-Award-winning podcast—The Power of Attorney—which is produced by Rutgers Law School. Follow Professor Mutcherson on Bluesky: @professormutch.Resources mentioned in this episode:Randall Balmer - "The Religious Right and the Abortion Myth," Politico 10 May 2022Reproductive Justice by Loretta Ross and Rickie SolingerKilling the Black Body by Dorothy RobertsCenter for Reproductive Rights---Follow us on Facebook at fb.com/fullmutuality and on Instagram at @fullmutuality. Join the conversation in our Discord server at dauntless.fm/discord-server. Visit fullmutuality.com for more ways to connect with us.Full Mutuality is a Dauntless Media Collective podcast. Visit dauntless.fm for more content. Join as a partner on Patreon for exclusive content! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Today I'm joined by body image coach and educator Bri Campos. Bri is a licensed mental health counselor based in New Jersey and the founder of Body Image with Bri. **Together, we discuss:Bri's food & body image storyInternalized anti-fat biasHonoring intersectionality in body image workWhy affirmations won't cut it when it comes to doing body image workThe biggest myth about body image workThe importance of sitting with body griefCentering the fat experience as a normal experienceMentioned in the episode:Fearing the Black Body by Sabrina StringsThe Body is Not an Apology by Sonya Renee TaylorChristy Harrison's podcast Food PsychThe Real Reasons Why Being Higher Weight Can Lead to Negative Health Outcomes (it's not the weight!)More from Bri:Bri's InstagramThe Body Image with Bri BlogThe Body Grievers Club PodcastMore from Leah:Get access to The Mindset Matters Free Mini CourseApply to The Embodied Method, my 1:1 coaching programJoin my self-paced course, The ReturnSubscribe to my personal SubstackFollow me on Instagram for more intuitive eating content @leahkern.rdVisit my website to learn more about my coaching offeringsSubscribe to my weekly newsletter to get a nugget of intuitive eating inspiration delivered straight from my heart to your inbox each week.Email me: Leah@leahkernrd.com

This is the Weight and Healthcare newsletter! If you like what you are reading, please consider subscribing and/or sharing!This is the final in a three-part series about Tirzepatide (Brand name Mounjaro for Type 2 diabetes and Zepbound for Weight Loss.) In part one we discussed the basics of the drug, in part 2 we discussed the authors of this study and finally, in part three we'll finish discussing the most recent study on Zepbound - SURMOUNT -4.(the text in italics is from the study itself.)SURMOUNT-4 was designed to find out what happens when higher-weight people (without type 2 diabetes) go on the drug for a while and then go off of it. The study was divided into two periods In the first 36 weeks all of the participants took Tirzepatide. Then there was a 52-week period during which subjects were randomly assigned to receive either tirzepatide, or a placebo.The basic findings, per the study:After 36 weeks of open-label maximum tolerated dose of tirzepatide (10 or 15 mg), adults (n = 670) with obesity or overweight (without diabetes) experienced a mean weight reduction of 20.9%. From randomization (at week 36), those switched to placebo experienced a 14% weight regain and those continuing tirzepatide experienced an additional 5.5% weight reduction during the 52-week double-blind period.Here's a graph that shows the average results:Some things to note:First, the graph clearly shows that people who go off the drug rapidly start regaining the weight they lost, and their weight was trending up when follow-up ended, suggesting that the weight regain will continue (as we've seen in about a century of research and in the history of weight loss drugs.) In addition to being exposed to the side effects of these drugs (some of which can be fatal) these people will also be subjected to the risks that come from weight cycling which include everything from increased risk of type 2 diabetes and hypertension to increased cardiovascular disease and overall mortality. This is important since there are any number of reasons why someone would have to go off the drug, from side effects, to expense, to availability.For those who remained on the drug, weight loss slowed considerably and by the end, had started to rise slightly, which means that the claim that weight loss will be permanent as long as people stay on the drug is not supported by the evidence.Let's go beyond average results and get into some specifics - 783 participants were enrolled in the initial 36-week study in which all participants took Tirzepatide, but 113 discontinued the study drug before the 36-week stage even ended, most commonly due to an adverse event or participant withdrawal. So a little over 14% didn't even make it 9 months on the drug, and that's including the fact that the drug was started at a minimal 2.5mg dose and then increased by 2.5 mg every 4 weeks until a maximum tolerated dose of 10 or 15 mg was achieved.300 participants (89.5%) receiving tirzepatide at 88 weeks maintained at least 80% of the weight loss during the lead-in periodDid you catch that? First, 10.5% of the group who were still taking the drug during the one-year follow-up had already gained back more than 20% of the weight they lost in the first 36 weeks- again even though they were Still. Taking. The. Drug. As for the rest, they could well have been regaining the weight because of the way the study defined “maintaining.” For the purposes of this study, “maintaining” weight loss doesn't mean that people lost weight and kept it off (as the word would be used in any reasonable context.) For this study, “maintained” just meant that they were regaining the lost weight slowly enough that by 52 weeks these participants hadn't regained 20% of the weight that they lost in the first 32 weeks…yet. (This is one of those examples of words having different meanings in weight loss research.)Let's take a look at side effects:A total of 81.0% of participants reported at least 1 treatment-emergent adverse event during the tirzepatide lead-in treatment period, with the most frequent events being gastrointestinal (nausea [35.5%], diarrhea, [21.1%], constipation [20.7%], and vomiting [16.3%]… [During the follow up period] Gastrointestinal events were more common in the tirzepatide group than in the placebo group (diarrhea, 10.7% vs 4.8%; nausea, 8.1% vs 2.7%; and vomiting, 5.7% vs 1.2%)Of course, the trial wasn't long enough to determine long-term impacts. They also say :A significantly greater percentage of participants continuing tirzepatide vs placebo met the weight reduction thresholds of at least 5% (97.3% vs 70.3%), at least 10% (92.1% vs 46.2%), at least 15% (84.1% vs 25.9%), and at least 20% (69.5% vs 12.6%) from week 0 to week 88Let's say the above another way: 2.7% of people who took Tirzepatide for 88 weeks, opening themselves up to side effects and unknown long-term consequences failed to lose even 5% of their body weight, 7.9% failed to lose even 10%, 15.9% failed to lose 15% and 30.5% failed to lose 20%. This is important since they are touting the mean weight loss as 25.3% in their results section. That's the kind of thing that healthcare providers should include in an informed consent conversation.The study group is also problematic in terms of extrapolation. Study findings can only be reliably applied to people in the demographics that were studied. In this case, the randomized participants were 70.6% cis women and there was no trans or non-binary representation. The mean age was 48 and the participants were 80.1% white despite having study sites at “70 sites in Argentina, Brazil, Taiwan, and the US.” In fact, the study states “The study was not designed to represent the racial diversity of each of the participating countries.” This, to me, is unconscionable – if you can't get a more representative sample than this, then just don't proceed with the study until you can.The lack of a weight-neutral comparator group is also an issue. Research suggests that weight-neutral, health-supporting behaviors can have more health benefits with far less risk than intentional weight loss, including with diet drugs. By comparing their drug to a “placebo group” that is still attempting intentional weight loss, just without pharmaceutical support, they are stacking the deck, taking advantage of the fact that they KNOW that behavioral weight loss interventions don't work long-term (they literally admit that in their introduction.)  It also allows them to avoid a comparison of the actual health impacts of their drugs against the health impacts of a weight-neutral health intervention – including the difference in risk.So, does the conclusion say that about 10% of people who take the drug can expect to lose weight over the first 36 weeks and then regain more than 20% in the next 52 weeks? Does it say how many others were slowly regaining weight, though they hadn't (yet) regained 20% after a year?No.They conclude:“In participants with ob*sity or over*eight, withdrawing tirzepatide led to substantial regain of lost weight, whereas continued treatment maintained and augmented initial weight reduction.”That, I would suggest, is what happens when Eli Lilly and Company are involved in the study design and conduct; data collection, management, analyses, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication, and almost every listed author is either taking money from them, or is directly employed by them.Let me offer an alternative suggestion as to what may have happened here: Participants joined this study, ostensibly, because they wanted to lose weight. They took a drug for 36 weeks that disrupted their natural sense of hunger and satiety and their natural digestive processes while (if we take their claims at face value) eating 500 calories a day less than their bodies need to properly function while exercising 150 minutes or more per week.At 36 weeks, the drug is withdrawn from some participants whose bodies then return to their normal function and try desperately to return to stasis (which is a process that we see in non-drug induced weight loss from behavioral interventions when, after about a year of weight loss people begin to regain weight, with the vast majority regaining all of the weight they lost.)Remember, too, that they know they are part of a trial and that they may continue getting the trial drug, or they may be getting a placebo. As almost anyone who has attempted behavior-based intentional weight loss (aka dieting) can tell you: trying to exercise while restricting food is very unpleasant, more so for this group now that their natural sense of hunger is not experiencing drug-induced interference. The fact that they no longer feel sick after their injection and/or that they can once again experience natural hunger means that they are likely aware that they are in the placebo group. They regain the weight they lost rapidly because of their body's natural reaction to being under-nourished (changing physiologically to become a weight regaining/weight maintaining machine) and the fact that their digestion is no longer impaired and their hunger is no longer suppressed.Meanwhile, another group is kept on the hunger and digestion-disrupting drug. Their weight loss slows dramatically at 52 weeks and, for many, begins to reverse by the end of 72 weeks. This is perhaps their body finally being able to overcome the drug-induced food deprivation they've been experiencing. There is no reason not to expect continued weight gain if these patients are tracked beyond 72 weeks (which, since the company funding the research is the company that wants people to take the drug, seems unlikely to me.)Again, everything about this study is designed to overstate the drug's effectiveness, and that's not surprising given the drug manufacturer's deep participation in every aspect of the study which is why, with weight loss interventions, it's always buyer beware.Did you find this post helpful? You can subscribe for free to get future posts delivered direct to your inbox, or choose a paid subscription to support the newsletter (and the work that goes into it!) and get special benefits! Click the Subscribe button below for details:Liked the piece? Share the piece!More research and resources:https://haeshealthsheets.com/resources/*Note on language: I use “fat” as a neutral descriptor as used by the fat activist community, I use “ob*se” and “overw*ight” to acknowledge that these are terms that were created to medicalize and pathologize fat bodies, with roots in racism and specifically anti-Blackness. Please read Sabrina Strings' Fearing the Black Body – the Racial Origins of Fat Phobia and Da'Shaun Harrison's Belly of the Beast: The Politics of Anti-Fatness as Anti-Blackness for more on this. Get full access to Weight and Healthcare at weightandhealthcare.substack.com/subscribe

Happy 2024! I am ready for another year of writing about the intersections of weight science, weight stigma, and healthcare and I'm glad you are here reading! This is the Weight and Healthcare newsletter! If you like what you are reading, please consider subscribing and/or sharing!I received the following question from reader Lisa:I notice that when you write about things that can hurt larger people's health you usually mention weight cycling, weight stigma, and healthcare inequalities. I've read your posts for the first two – is there a post that describes the third one?Thanks for asking Lisa, I've been meaning to write this and you've given me the perfect gentle push! For the record the piece for the harm of weight cycling is here and the one on the harm of weight stigma is here.The idea of healthcare inequalities is difficult to quantify because it's such a vast category. In terms of a definition, the one I'm going to use here is any way in which higher-weight people's healthcare experiences differ from those of thin people to the detriment of higher-weight people.It's always important to remember that when we discuss these inequalities we are clear that they don't impact everyone equally, as people's weight becomes higher their experience of inequality typically increases as well and, utilizing Kimberlé Crenshaw's framework of intersectionality, those who have multiple marginalized identities will also face greater inequality in their individual marginalizations and at the intersections of them.Finally, I want to point out that thin people can face healthcare disparities as well based on things like marginalized identities and socioeconomic status. The comparisons I'm drawing here are about the typical experience of thin people and are not meant to indicate that thin people never face issues in accessing healthcare, just that as a group thin people are not systematically marginalized within the healthcare system because of their size.I also want to be clear that this is not an exhaustive list and I welcome you to add other examples in the comment section. I'm going to divide these up into groups to help give this conversation some structure.Practitioner BiasThis includes a lot of different things. Before I get into it, I want to point out that providers aren't necessarily bad actors who just hate fat people (though, sadly, some absolutely are.) Many are simply a product of a healthcare system (including healthcare education) that is deeply rooted in weight stigma. Regardless of how they got to this place, these practitioners are responsible for the harm that they do.Some practitioners are operating out of implicit bias, which is to say that the bias is subconscious. Others are operating from explicit bias, they are fully aware of their negative beliefs and stereotypes about higher-weight people and they are working with higher-weight patients based on those beliefs and feelings. This can lead to a lot of negative impacts. Some examples:There is the classic (and far too prevalent) example of a practitioner who offers ethical, evidence-based treatments to thin patients for health issues, but sends higher-weight patients with the same symptoms/diagnoses/complaints away with a diet.There's the “Occam's razor” mistake. Occam's Razor states “plurality should not be posited without necessity.”  Said another way, when choosing between theories, the simplest one is usually correct. This gets applied to the care of higher-weight patients when providers don't address individual health issues/symptoms/diagnoses/complaints for fat patients because they assume weight loss will solve them all (and/or they want to see what weight loss solves before attempting the ethical, evidence-based treatments that thin people would typically get for the same issues/symptoms/diagnoses/complaints.)Some practitioners assume that fat patients are lying if what they are telling the provider doesn't match up with the provider's stereotypes of people their size. These practitioners base decisions and recommendations on their stereotypes rather than what the patient is telling them.There are practitioners who, consciously or subconsciously, are reluctant to touch fat patients or manipulate their bodies which can impact everything from examinations to post-operative care.There are practitioners who think it's worth risking fat people's lives and quality of life in attempts to make them thin. Some of these practitioners take this further by deciding that they know better than fat people and so try to manipulate/trick/bully fat people into weight loss interventions (including dangerous drugs and surgeries) by almost any means necessary including intentionally failing to give a thorough informed consent conversation – blowing patients off with phrases like “all drugs have side effects” or “it's nothing to worry about” rather than being honest about the risks and/or making threats about the patient's health and life expectancy that are not supported by evidence. These inequalities can lead to many harms. First of all, we know from a century of data that weight loss almost never works and typically results in weight cycling which is independently linked to a number of harms. It can also delay care – when a thin person gets an intervention at their first appointment but a fat person with the same symptoms/diagnosis gets sent away with a recommendation to lose weight the higher-weight patient's actual care is delayed.The “Occam's Razor” mistake creates similar problems. It must be remembered that Occam (actually, it seems, Ockham but that's a whole other thing) was a philosopher, not a physician. Deciding to treat something as complex as the human body by going for the simplest strategy is problematic on its face, even before we add the ways that weight stigma impacts providers' beliefs around and treatment of higher-weight patients.And there is another layer of harm here. As we'll see over and over, the harm from healthcare inequalities is intensified when the results of the harm are blamed on fat bodies. For example, higher-weight patients follow practitioners' advice to attempt weight loss. They lose weight short term and gain it back long term (which is exactly what all the research we have says will happen.) Their doctors tell them to try again, they weight cycle again. This happens repeatedly across their entire lives. Eventually these patient are diagnosed with cardiovascular disease (CVD). The fact that CVD is strongly linked to weight cycling is completely ignored and research (often created by/for the weight loss industry) blames “ob*sity” for the CVD and uses these higher rates of CVD to lobby for greater insurance coverage of weight loss treatments and the cycle of harm continues unabated.Structural InequalitiesThis occurs when the things that higher-weight patients need in order to access healthcare don't accommodate them. This can be because the things don't exist or because the healthcare facility that the patient is visiting doesn't have them.Again, there are too many examples here to name. One very common example is chairs. Having sturdy armless chairs in the waiting room, treatment rooms, and anywhere a patient may need to sit is the absolute least a facility can do and it's deeply disturbing how many facilities don't even get this right.Then there are the absolute basics of care – when the practice doesn't have (or can't find) properly sized/accommodating blood pressure cuffs, proper length vaccine needles, gowns, scales (for medically necessary weigh-ins like those to dose medications or check for edema from a heart condition). These are all things that thin patients can typically expect to be available.Durable medical equipment is another area where structural inequalities can compromise care – crutches, braces, walkers, wheelchairs, prosthetics.  Even when these things are available, they are often exponentially more expensive even when they don't have to be custom made.Then there are more specialized tools like operating tables and surgical instruments. Often the only place these instruments can be reliably found is in centers that focus on weight loss surgeries, meaning that higher-weight patients are excluded from the kind of surgical care that is routine for thinner patients.Next is imaging -   MRI and CT scanners that have high-weight rated tables and large enough bore sizes, ultrasounds that can appropriately view through adipose tissue, x-ray tables and spaces that are accommodating and more. Harm is added here when energy from those in the healthcare system is wasted on complaining that higher-weight people exist or justifying the lack of care, rather than focusing on solutions and working from the basis that healthcare should fit bodies, bodies shouldn't have to be changed to fit healthcare.As an example of this, let's look at the ways that a single MRI appointment can create healthcare inequalities. A patient is referred for an MRI of their knee with contrast. First, the patient goes to the facility to which their doctor referred them but is turned away because the MRI is too small. They call the referring doctor, who isn't aware of any other option and tells them to call around. After hours of research they find an MRI with a 550 pound weight limit and a bore size that will accommodate them, but unlike the first facility this one has a backlog so they'll have to wait three more weeks. When they arrive for their appointment the MRI tech is using a Gadolinium-based contrast agent (GBCA). The dosage table the tech has stops at 300 pounds and the patient says that they weigh more than that. So the tech decides to use a GBCA calculator, using the formula of the recommended dose (mmol/kg) multiplied by weight (kg) and divided by concentration (mmol/mL). Except the scale in the MRI facility has a limit of 400 pounds which is less than this patient weighs. The tech explains the risk of incorrect dosage and tells the patient that they can either cancel the MRI or give the tech their best guess of their weight. The patient offers their best guess. The patient is given a gown to change into, but it's way too small. The patient is told that they don't have gowns that are any bigger. The patient offers to wear their own clothes, explaining that they have worn 100% cotton clothes for exactly this reason. They are told that it's against policy and that the tech will have to ask their boss. The boss is off today so the patient can be rescheduled in 3 weeks and the tech says he will “try to remember” to ask his boss about the patient wearing their own clothes but suggests that the patient keep calling to try to verify and also that the patient find a scale that works for them so that they can give the tech an accurate weight. The patient comes back in three weeks with an accurate weight and having confirmed that they can wear their own clothes. They lay down on the MRI table and the tech tries to put the knee in the dedicated knee coil that allows the MRI to view the knee structure. It is too small for the patient's leg. The patient is told that there is no way to get an MRI of their knee.This is just one scan for one patient, and this is based on a true story. The failure of the healthcare system to accommodate higher-weight patients has the potential for a massive amount of harm, most of which goes uncaptured or, worse, is blamed on “ob*sity.”Research BiasThis also happens in multiple ways. It can include higher-weight people being left out of research. For example, it is well known that clearance rates of some anesthesia drugs can vary based on the amount of adipose-tissue a patient has, but higher-weight patients have traditionally been excluded from the trials for anesthesia medications so there isn't good data on this.Here harm is also increased when naming the inequality is seen as sufficient remedy. I recently spoke at the combined conference for the Washington State Society of Anesthesiologists and British Columbia Anesthesiologists' Society (which was an absolute delight! I gave a keynote and then had the honor of being on a panel with Dr. Lisa Erlanger and Dr. Sandi Pitfield.) In preparation for this, I read hundreds of pages of anesthesia research. What I repeatedly found were decades of studies that started by saying that higher-weight patients' exclusion from drug trials created serious knowledge gaps, but then just moved on. Admitting that there is a problem is the first step, it must be followed by taking steps to solve the problem. The solution is not to cobble together what exists and keep creating guidelines based on shoddy research.Part of this issue is researcher bias, limitations of time and money, and perceptions that it's not worth studying fat people or that it's reasonable for fat people to be excluded from research (often under the guise that it's acceptable to make fat patients become thin before they can access ethical, evidence-based medicine.)Another issue is the massive amount of money that is earmarked only to study the prevention and/or eradication of fatness instead of researching how to actually support the health of fat people.It Seems Like A Lot…This happens when we actually do know what fat patients need, for example, in terms of dosage. But they are still under-medicated because the amount that higher-weight people need “seems like a lot” to those who are dosing the drugs and who are used to the dosage for thinner patients.When someone's education is focused on thin patients (including viewing thin patients as “normal” and higher-weight patients as “different/abnormal/extra” and the treatment protocols for thin patients are the focus, then those practitioners can balk at what higher-weight patients actually need.Risk predicated on sizeThis happens when patients who are higher-weight are given treatments that are more dangerous based on their size alone. In an example I wrote about more in depth here, thin patients with type 2 diabetes are not referred to weight loss surgeries that create a permanent disease state in their digestive systems, carry extensive risk, and have very little long-term term data. Patients with so-called “class 1 ob*sity” have the surgery offered if they can't reach their glycemic management goals. Those with so-called “class 2 ob*sity” have the surgery “recommended” if they can't reach their glycemic management goals. Patients with so-called “class 3 ob*sity” have the surgery “recommended” regardless of their glycemic management. Even if someone believes that these surgeries meet the requirements of ethical, evidence-based medicine, the reality is that they are risky and suggesting that someone with well-controlled type 2 diabetes have a dangerous surgery simply because of their size is another dangerous healthcare inequality.BMI-Based Denials of CareI've written about these, and options to fight them, quite a bit (this is a good place to start). This occurs when a fat patient is denied healthcare (often a surgical procedure) unless or until they change their height-weight ratio. These denials are often “justified” using rationale that comes from blaming fat bodies for the negative outcomes of weight stigma, weight cycling, and other healthcare inequalities (for example, as I wrote about above, higher rates of post-op complications) and they amount to holding healthcare hostage for a weight loss ransom (and a ransom that most people will not be able to pay.) While all of the denied procedures are important, in some cases (like some organ transplants,) the procedures that are denied are truly life or death.Saving Money Through Healthcare InequalitiesA common attempted “justification” for the healthcare inequalities that fat people face is the idea that fat people shouldn't get the resources they need if they happen to need more resources than the average thin person. When added to a general focus on profit (especially in the US healthcare system) this leads to staff-to-patient ratios that make it impossible to correctly care for fat patients (for example, having adequate staff to safely turn patients to prevent bed sores or help them ambulate to improve post-surgery outcomes.) It can also mean not having the supplies that these patients need in order to have the best outcomes. Some examples are InterDry to prevent/treat skin fold infections or Hoyer lifts so that they can use a commode and avoid bedpans and chuck changes (both of which are made more difficult and dangerous for the patient and more likely to create negative outcomes when staff-to-patient ratios don't allow for adequate care, even if the practitioners aren't coming from a place of weight bias.)All of this, in turn, can create practitioner bias when they blame higher-weight patients rather than the healthcare system that is leaving both patients and practitioners without what they need.   When healthcare facilities are allowed to decide that they don't want to spend the money to give higher-weight people the care they need, or they are not adequately funded to do so, then higher-weight patients suffer. Here again the negative impacts of this are often simply blamed on “ob*sity.” For example, research on post-operative complication rates will often suggest that “ob*sity” causes higher complication rates without exploring the ways that these size-based healthcare inequalities may actually be at the root of any elevated rate of complications.This is not an exhaustive list of healthcare inequalities that higher-weight people face (please feel free to add other examples in the comments.) I'll also say that this is made much worse because these harms are not adequately measured or remedied and the harms from them get attributed to “ob*sity” rather than the inequalities that higher-weight people face.Did you find this post helpful? You can subscribe for free to get future posts delivered direct to your inbox, or choose a paid subscription to support the newsletter (and the work that goes into it!) and get special benefits! Click the Subscribe button below for details:Liked the piece? Share the piece!More research and resources:https://haeshealthsheets.com/resources/*Note on language: I use “fat” as a neutral descriptor as used by the fat activist community, I use “ob*se” and “overw*ight” to acknowledge that these are terms that were created to medicalize and pathologize fat bodies, with roots in racism and specifically anti-Blackness. Please read Sabrina Strings' Fearing the Black Body – the Racial Origins of Fat Phobia and Da'Shaun Harrison's Belly of the Beast: The Politics of Anti-Fatness as Anti-Blackness for more on this. Get full access to Weight and Healthcare at weightandhealthcare.substack.com/subscribe

This is the Weight and Healthcare newsletter! If you like what you are reading, please consider subscribing and/or sharing!Part one of this was published on December 13, but this piece was pre-empted when the USPSTF put forth dangerous dieting recommendations for children (remember that the public comment period ends January 16.) In the past I've written pieces specifically about issues and mistakes that are made with terminology that is used…let's call it differently in weight science as well as common statistics mistakes and mishaps. In part 1 I offered some additional terminology troubles today in part two we're discussing statistics shenanigans. Using a percentage that seems high without proper context:In one example of this, early in the COVID-19 pandemic I saw a news report claiming that so-called “ob*sity”* was a risk factor for severe COVID because, in a particular city, 25% of severe negative outcomes were in people who are classified as “ob*se.”  At first, that might seem like a large number, but that doesn't justify calling being higher-weight a risk factor. In order to even begin to be able to draw conclusions from this, we have to at least know the total number of so-called ob*se people who live in the city - otherwise we have no way to know if 25% is higher or lower than the total percentage of this population. I looked it up and that number was 38%. Several things are issues here.First, if I were trying to draw conclusions from this (and I wouldn't, more on that in a moment) I would conclude that being higher-weight is protective, since 38% of the community is higher-weight, but only 25% of the people with severe outcomes were. (Said another way, people who weren't “ob*se” were 62% of the overall population but 75% of the severe outcomes.) That's the main statistical issue here. You can't use a percentage like this without contextualizing it.Moreover, I wouldn't draw conclusions from this at all. First, because “ob*sity” is simply a ratio of weight and height. Making assumptions that since a group of people have some physical characteristic in common (like, in this case, height-weight ratio) then that physical characteristic is the reason for the difference in outcomes is on extremely shaky ground, scientifically speaking. In this example, since there are many other factors that can impact this result (including the fact that higher-weight people are at the mercy of a healthcare system in which practitioner weight bias is rampant and, even if that's not an issue, the tools, best practices, pharmacotherapies and more, that are used are typically developed for thin bodies/excluding fat bodies) we don't know what number of those severe outcomes were due to healthcare inequalities or other factors.Relative vs Absolute RiskNovo Nordisk recently used this one in their manipulative press release about the possible cardiovascular benefits of Wegovy. Relative Risk Reduction is the percentage decrease of risk in the group who received an intervention vs the group that didn't receive the intervention. This number can be helpful to determine differences in outcomes between groups, but it's not that helpful in determining individual risk. For that you need Absolute Risk Reduction.Absolute Risk Reduction is the actual difference in risk between the group that got the intervention and the group that didn't. This helps us understand the likelihood that a given individual will benefit from an intervention.Relative risk reduction can often be a much larger number than absolute risk reduction and those who are trying to manipulate statistics (and those who don't know about this - like reporters quoting a Novo Nordisk press release) can use relative risk reduction to make people believe a treatment has a greater effect than it actually does.Let's use a super simplified example. Let's say that 200 people who have Condition X are enrolled in a study to see if Medication Y reduces death from Condition X. 100 of them are given the medication (the intervention group) and 100 are not (the control group). At the end of the observation period, 1 person in the intervention group dies and 2 people in the control group die. The relative risk reduction (percent risk of death in the intervention group divided by percent risk of death in the control group, in this case .01 divided by .02) is 0.5 or 50%. That seems like a lot – a company with incredibly poor ethics might issue a press release saying that their drug reduced death by 50% without mentioning absolute risk.Absolute risk is calculated by subtracting the percentage of risk reduction in the intervention group from the percentage of risk reduction in the control group, or 2%-1% which is a 1% reduction. A much smaller number that more accurately predicts individual experience.So when a weight loss company gives a percentage of risk reduction, it's important to ask if it is relative or absolute risk reduction they are talking about.For example, in the Novo Nordisk press release they wrote that their drug “reduces the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events by 20%”. That is the relative risk. The absolute risk reduction was less than 2%.These are the basics, if you want to really dig into relative vs absolute risk, there's plenty more to it. There's an interesting piece about it here for starters.LOCF vs BOCFLast Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) and Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF) are two ways of dealing with dropouts in a trial to determine an endpoint value for those who dropped out.Let's look at another example with easy numbers. Let's say there is a weight loss intervention trial where weight is taken at the beginning, at 1 year, and at 2 years. They start with 100 participants and all 100 participate in the initial weigh-in and the 1-year weigh-in, but only 50 participate in the 2-year weigh-in (just fyi, this is not an uncommon dropout rate in weight loss studies.)When the study authors are trying to calculate the success of the intervention, how do they handle the 50% of people who dropped out?If they use LOCF, they take the person's weight from the 1-year weigh-in and use that as if it were the 2-year weigh-in number.If they use BOCF, they take the person's weight from the beginning of the study and use that as if it were the 2-year weigh-in number.Pop quiz – which do you think the weight loss industry typically uses?If you guessed LOCF, you are exactly right. And that's an issue.Absent actual follow-up to find out the reason that the participants didn't turn up for the final weigh-in (and that follow-up almost never happens) we don't know if they didn't show up because they regained weight that they had lost (and, given 100 years of research showing that this is the outcome for the vast majority of those attempting intentional weight loss that's not, like, out of the question). So using the 1-year weigh-in number for the 2-year weigh-in may very well artificially exaggerate the success of the intervention.Just to make the math easy, let's say that all 100 participants lost 10 pounds at the one year weigh-in. Then let's say that the 50 people who returned for their year two weight-in had regained 5 pounds (again, a super common occurrence.) Meaning that they were 5 pounds less than their baseline weight at the two-year weigh-in.Now the authors have three basic choices:They could just ignore the dropouts as if they never existed, and claim that the average weight loss was 5 pounds (ignoring both the dropouts and the fact that the participants' weight was climbing at the time that observation ended). Despite this being the kind of thing that would get you a solid “F” in your Freshman Research Methods class, it's a pretty common occurrence in weight loss research.But, if they use LOCF, they can use the 10-pound loss for the 50 people who didn't turn up at year 2. This will boost their total to an average of 7.5lbs per participant. This, again, is quite common in weight loss research.Now, if they used BOCF (which I would argue is far more appropriate given our base knowledge around weight regain and the fact that they should make every effort not to artificially inflate the success of their intervention) they would have an average of 2.5 pounds lost per participant. This is incredibly uncommon in weight loss research. And again, they should be honest that, in those who were weighed at year two, weight was being regained. In an ideal world, weight science research would be transparent and would not use terminology and statistics to mislead or obfuscate. Unfortunately, we don't live in an ideal world so it's up to us to know what questions to ask, and to ask those questions.Did you find this post helpful? You can subscribe for free to get future posts delivered direct to your inbox, or choose a paid subscription to support the newsletter (and the work that goes into it!) and get special benefits! Click the Subscribe button below for details:Liked the piece? Share the piece!More research and resources:https://haeshealthsheets.com/resources/*Note on language: I use “fat” as a neutral descriptor as used by the fat activist community, I use “ob*se” and “overw*ight” to acknowledge that these are terms that were created to medicalize and pathologize fat bodies, with roots in racism and specifically anti-Blackness. Please read Sabrina Strings' Fearing the Black Body – the Racial Origins of Fat Phobia and Da'Shaun Harrison's Belly of the Beast: The Politics of Anti-Fatness as Anti-Blackness for more on this. Get full access to Weight and Healthcare at weightandhealthcare.substack.com/subscribe

2023 was a year of big decisions for the Supreme Court, including recent news that they'll be reviewing the constitutionality of mifepristone in the coming year. So we're heading into the archives with this episode recorded right after the Dobbs decision was leaked. Professor Jacqueline Antonovich and Jonathan trace the history of abortion care and reproductive rights across the country in this episode originally recorded in July 2022. Jacqueline Antonovich is an Assistant Professor of History at Muhlenberg College in Allentown, PA. She is the author of the article, “White Coats, White Hoods: The Medical Politics of the Ku Klux Klan in 1920s America,” and she is currently working on a book on the history of women physicians and medical imperialism in the American West. Jacqueline is the creator and co-founder of Nursing Clio, a collaborative blog project that examines the historical roots of present-day issues surrounding gender, health, and medicine. Make sure to follow Professor Antonovich on Twitter @jackiantonovich and Nursing Clio on Twitter @NursingClio and at nursingclio.org. Looking for further reading? Here are some books Professor Antonovich recommends: Killing the Black Body by Dr. Dorothy Roberts Medical Bondage by Dr. Deirdre Cooper Owens Medicalizing Blackness by Dr. Rana A. Hogarth Follow us on Instagram @CuriousWithJVN to join the conversation. Jonathan is on Instagram @JVN. Transcripts for each episode are available at JonathanVanNess.com. Find books from Getting Curious guests at bookshop.org/shop/curiouswithjvn. Our senior producers are Chris McClure and Julia Melfi. Our associate producer is Allison Weiss. Our engineer is Nathanael McClure. Production support from Julie Carrillo, Anne Currie, and Chad Hall. Our theme music is “Freak” by QUIÑ; for more, head to TheQuinCat.com. Curious about bringing your brand to life on the show? Email podcastadsales@sonymusic.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Charlotte Duerr James (she/her) is an educator and medicine woman of Afro-Caribbean and Germanic lineage. She works to create a world in which everyone is able to live in fearless pursuit of their radical transformation. She uses her skills as an educator, therapeutic coach, and ceremonial facilitator to build and engage a community focused on pursuing collective liberation. She is also the founder of the Psychedelic Liberation Training. In this episode, Charlotte and I discuss: - Her background and what brought her to her work with decolonization and collective liberation today - What decolonization means to her - We dive deep into the complex relationship so many of us have with our bodies, how we oppress our bodies, and why so many of us have this experience - Charlotte shares practices that have helped her navigate her relationship with her body, including mirror work, affirmations, community, and more - We discuss the Psychedelic Liberation Training (which I was a student in last summer!) and why she and co-creator Sara Reed started it, its mission, etc. The book mentioned in this conversation is “Fearing the Black Body” by Sabrina Strings CONNECT WITH CHARLOTTE Psychedelic Liberation Training website liberation.training and IG @liberation.training  Charlotte's IG @createdby.charlotte CONNECT WITH WAVERLY Website waverlydavis.com IG @heywaverlydavis I hope you love listening to this beautiful and wise conversation as much as Charlotte and I loved having it! If you love this episode, if it nourishes you, please subscribe to the pod, leave a review and rating, and/or share it with a friend, thank you!

In this episode, Keli talks about Project Reclamation's book club and its deep dive into how the fuck we got here in the very specific intersectional blend of patriarchy, white supremacy, Christian supremacy, etc. we find ourselves living in today. She talks about books the club has read so far, such as "When Women Ruled the World" by Kara Cooney and "Women and Other Monsters" by Jess Zimmerman, as well as upcoming books "Cassandra Speaks: When Women Are the Storytellers, the Human Story Changes" by Elizabeth Lesser, "God Is a Black Woman" by Christena Cleveland, and "Fearing the Black Body" by Sabrina Strings. Want to join the conversation? Join Project Reclamation at https://kelilynjewel.com/reclamation

In this episode, Torn Apart  reveals the child welfare system's deep entanglements with the criminal legal system.  It exposes how state child protection caseworkers collaborate with police and use a carceral logic to surveil families. It investigates how the system treats Black children like criminals, resulting in Black children being more vulnerable to arrest, incarceration, and early death. Foster care is traumatic for both children and parents, and often leaves lasting damage on children.  In this episode, Torn Apart  turns to examining what it will take to end family policing, Meet Dorothy RobertsDorothy Roberts is a distinguished professor of Africana Studies, Law, and Sociology atUniversity of Pennsylvania. An elected member of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences,  American Philosophical Society, and National Academy of Medicine, she is author of the best selling book on reproductive justice, Killing the Black Body. Her latest book, Torn Apart, won the 2023 American Sociological Association Distinguished Scholarly Book Award Honorable Mention, was a finalist for an LA Times Book Prize and C. Wright Mills Award, and was shortlisted for the Goddard Riverside Stephan Russo Book Prize for Social Justice.With Guests·         Sixto Cancel is a nationally recognized leader driving systems change in child welfare, working across tech, service delivery, research and data, and state and federal policy to improve outcomes for youth and families. He spent most of his childhood in foster, which informed his activism for child welfare. In 2017 Sixto founded Think Of Us, a nonprofit organization that uses technology and research centering people who have experienced foster care to transform the child welfare system's fundamental architecture. He currently serves as the CEO, where he advises state and government officials to improve child welfare policies. During the Covid-19 pandemic, he led a campaign that disbursed $400M in Federal pandemic relief funds to former foster youth.·         Joyce McMillan is the founder and Executive Director of Just Making A Change For Families, an organization in New York City that works to abolish the child welfare system and to strengthen the systems of supports that keep families and communities together. Joyce's mission is to remove systemic barriers in communities of color by bringing awareness to the racial disparities in systems where people of color are disproportionately affected. Her ultimate goal is to abolish systems of harm–especially the family policing system (or the so-called “child welfare system”)–while creating concrete community resources. Joyce leads a statewide coalition of impacted parents and young people, advocates, attorneys, social workers, and academics collaborating to effect systemic change in the family policing system. Joyce also currently serves on the board of the Women's Prison Association.·         Erin Miles Cloud is a cofounder and codirector of Movement for Family Power in New York City. Cloud worked at the Bronx defenders, representing families and working with advocates, for nearly a decade. ·         Lisa Sangoi is a cofounder and codirector of Movement for Family Power in New York City. Sangoi has previously worked at the NYU Law Family Defense Clinic, National Advocates for Pregnant Women, Women Prison Association Incarcerated Mothers Law Project, and Brooklyn Defender Services Family Defense Practice.

In conversation with Dorothy Roberts One of the country's foremost authorities in civil rights, Black feminist legal theory, race, and the law, Kimberlé Crenshaw is a law professor at UCLA and Columbia Law School, where in 1996 she founded the African American Policy Forum. She is the co-author of Say Her Name: Resisting Police Brutality Against Black Women and Black Girls Matter: Pushed Out, Overpoliced, and Underprotected, and her articles have appeared in Harvard Law Review, the National Black Law Journal, the Stanford Law Review, The New Republic, and The Nation. The coiner of the terms ''critical race theory'' and ''intersectionality,'' Crenshaw served on the legal team of Anita Hill during the confirmation hearing of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and wrote the background paper on race and gender discrimination for the United Nations' World Conference on Racism in 2001. Including a forward by Janelle Monáe, #SayHerName explains how Black women are especially susceptible to police violence and the ways in which various communities can help empower them. Addressing social justice issues of policing, state surveillance of families, and science, Dorothy Roberts's books include Killing the Black Body, Shattered Bonds, and Fatal Invention. She has also authored more than 100 scholarly articles and has co-edited six books on various legal issues. The George A. Weiss University Professor of Law and Sociology and the Raymond Pace and Sadie Tanner Mossell Alexander Professor of Civil Rights at the University of Pennsylvania, Roberts is the director of the Penn Program on Race, Science, and Society. In her latest book Torn Apart she explains that the abolition of the U.S. child welfare system-which is designed to punish Black families-will liberate Black communities. Because you love Author Events, please make a donation to keep our podcasts free for everyone. THANK YOU! (recorded 11/14/2023)

In this episode, Professor Dorothy Roberts opens Torn Apart with a first-hand account from a young Black mother, Vanessa Peoples, who became the subject of a government child welfare investigation when a stranger accused Peoples of neglecting her young son who had wandered away from her briefly in a park.  Professor Roberts brings the listeners through the horrors that the child welfare system inflicts on families by invading homes, targeting low-income families, and threatening to separate parents and children.  With the help of guest experts, Professor Roberts argues that the family policing system is designed to terrorize low-income, majority Black families.Check out this episode's landing page at MsMagazine.com for a full transcript, links to articles referenced in this episode, further reading and ways to take action.Meet Dorothy RobertsDorothy Roberts is a distinguished professor of Africana Studies, Law, and Sociology atUniversity of Pennsylvania. An elected member of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences,  American Philosophical Society, and National Academy of Medicine, she is author of the best selling book on reproductive justice, Killing the Black Body. Her latest book, Torn Apart, won the 2023 American Sociological Association Distinguished Scholarly Book Award Honorable Mention, was a finalist for an LA Times Book Prize and C. Wright Mills Award, and was shortlisted for the Goddard Riverside Stephan Russo Book Prize for Social Justice.With Guests:Vanessa Peoples is a young Black mother from Aurora, Colorado, who was targeted in 2017 by child protective services and forced to plead guilty to endangering her child, despite no evidence that she endangered her child.Kathleen Creamer is the Managing Attorney of the Family Advocacy Unit at Community Legal Services, which uses a holistic family defense model to help parents involved with the child welfare system maintain custody of or reunite with their children in Philadelphia. In addition to individual representation of parents in dependency court, Ms. Creamer has focused much of her advocacy on supporting incarcerated parents and their families.  From 2011-2013, she served as a Stoneleigh Foundation Fellow dedicated to Improving Reunification Outcomes for Children of Incarcerated Parents. Ms. Creamer also led the coalition that developed and lobbied for the successful passage of the 2010 Healthy Birth for Incarcerated Women Act, which curtailed the practice of shackling incarcerated women during childbirth in Pennsylvania's jails and prisons.Kelley Fong is an assistant professor of sociology at UC Irvine whose work focuses on state intervention into motherhood and families. Her first book,  Investigating Families: Motherhood in the Shadow of Child Protective Services, was published with Princeton University Press in 2023.Background Reading- Fostering tragedy: Experts say system designed to protect children can break up families- One in Ten Black Children in America Are Separated From Their Parents by the Child-Welfare System. A New Book Argues That's No Accident- Benevolent Terror: Dorothy E. Roberts on Reimagining the Child Welfare System

This episode we are joined by Marli Mayon, Training Projects Coordinator at PCAR. Marli discusses the history of reproductive justice, how it connects to the sexual violence movement, and ways people can promote and handle pushback about reproductive justice. Marli also provides listeners with resources to learn more.    Show Notes Sister Song -- https://www.sistersong.net/   Killing the Black Body by Dorothy E. Roberts -- https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/155575/killing-the-black-body-by-dorothy-roberts/     We Testify on Instagram -- https://www.instagram.com/wetestify/?hl=en       Planned Parenthood -- https://www.plannedparenthood.org/       Sex Ed is a Reproductive Justice Issue -- https://urge.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Sex-Ed-RJ-Fact-Sheet.pdf 

Natosha Ash is a dedicated and passionate health and wellness advocate with a unique background in genetics and genomics, naturopathic medicine, and nutrigenomics. Her deep knowledge of these subjects has given her a holistic perspective on health and wellness that she shares freely with her community. As someone who understands the importance of using science and nature to promote optimal health, Natosha has made it her life's work to share her knowledge with others. Her mastery in Genetics and Genomics allows her to look at health and wellness from a unique angle, and she leverages this knowledge to promote positive lifestyle changes in others. In addition to her work in the health and wellness field, Natosha is also committed to giving back to her community. She believes that access to information and education is critical to promoting positive lifestyle changes, and she is dedicated to sharing her knowledge to help others achieve optimal health. In this episode she shares her own experiences in the hurt of discrimination and invalidation of pain as a provider and patient.  Episode Highlights + Natosha's Recommendations on Living Wisely Well Website Episode Highlights: Natosha's start to her education Feeling like you don't belong Racial discrimination in medical school 14:00-14:30 17:30-18:00 Choosing to walk away + finding freedom 22:00 "do you need to be HERE to do what you need to do" 22:30 Discrimination at the bedside stories Plagiarism + "content colonization" in social media Invalidation of pain as medical student + as a patient Unwell Women by Elinor Cleghorn Medical Apartheid by Harriet Washington Vitamin D testing + Melanoma in Black individuals Brown Skin Matters IG Killing the Black Body by Dorothy Roberts 54:30-55 Connect with Natosha on Instagram ⁠Natosha's Naturology Skincare⁠ Connecting Women of Color to Culturally Sensitive Providers: Health in Her Hue Website⁠

It is commonly believed that the first child welfare system was created in 1874 in response to the abuse of a girl named Mary Ellen Wilson, but there's actually more to that story.  In the second episode of Season 1, we investigate the early history of the child welfare system from the time of emancipation during the mid-19th century through the early 20th century.  About our Guests:  Dorothy Roberts is a distinguished professor of Africana Studies, Law & Sociology at the University of Pennsylvania and the author of the award-winning books Killing the Black Body, Shattered Bonds, and most recently, Torn Apart: How the Child Welfare System Destroys Black Families—And How Abolition Can Build a Safer World. Geoff Ward is a Professor of African and African-American Studies and the director of the WashU & Slavery Project at Washington University in St. Louis. His scholarship examines the haunting legacies of historical racial violence and implications for redress. His award-winning book, The Black Child Savers: Racial Democracy and Juvenile Justice, examines the rise, fall and lasting remnants of Jim Crow Juvenile Justice.  Episode Notes: Geoff Ward mentions the history of Mary Ann Crouse:  http://www.faqs.org/childhood/Co-Fa/Ex-Parte-Crouse.html   Connect with Dorothy Roberts at the University of Pennsylvania Law School and follow her on Twitter @DorothyERoberts Connect with Geoff Ward at Washington University in St. Louis and through the Memory for the Future lab at the Lewis Collaborative.  Episode Transcript: upendmovement.org/episode1-2  Support the work of upEND: upendmovement.org/donate 

Diet culture is everywhere.What we consider healthy. What we consider unhealthy. The foods that we're taught are good for us and the ones that we're told to stay away from. How we think about food, health, and wellness is shaped by a culture steeped in white supremacy culture.There is so much more nuance available to us around food, health, wellness, and culture–not to mention enjoyment–when we break down the binary of good vs. bad foods, healthy vs. unhealthy people.Dalina Soto, MA, RDN, LDN joins Erica for a conversation about diet and wellness culture, why ancestral and cultural foods too often get left out of the conversation, and the policy and systemic influences on what we think of as “healthy” food.In this discussion: Why we need to expand binary thinking about nutrition and health How nutritional guidelines in the US leave out large swaths of cultural and ancestral foods The impacts of stress and other social determinants of health on the body, and why that's a policy failure not a personal one Taking guilt and shame out of doing what you can with what  you have when it comes to food Connect with Dalina Soto, MA, RD, LDN: Your Latina Nutritionist Instagram: @your.latina.nutritionist TikTok: @yourlatinanutritionist Resources: "Anotha One" Hood Feminism, Mikki Kendall Fearing the Black Body, Sabrina Strings Ready to dive deeper?Connect with values-aligned entrepreneurs and employees across titles and industries inside The Pause on the Play® Community. Join a network of individuals committed to making their values explicit, evolving the way they show up for themselves and each other, and growing their influence together. Get access to community conversations, live Q&As and workshops, and our whole library of evergreen resources.Learn more at pauseontheplay.com/community

Clarkisha Kent (she/her) is a culture critic and bringer of chaos. Her new book, “Fat Off, Fat On: A Big Bitch Manifesto,” was published this year, and Clarkisha is here to talk about it, along with a foray into the connections between purity culture and fatness and how we can use The Kelli & Kat Test to determine whether a piece of media has provided the audience with thoughtful representation of fat [Black] women and/or non-men.Clarkisha Kent is a Nigerian American writer, culture critic, former columnist, and author of “Fat Off, Fat On: A Big Bitch Manifesto.” Committed to telling inclusive stories via unique viewpoints from nigh-infancy, she is fascinated with using storytelling and cultural criticism not as a way to “overcome” or “transcend” her unique identities (as a FAT, bisexual, and disabled Black African woman), but as a way to explore them, celebrate them, affirm them, and most importantly, normalize them and make the world safe enough for people who share them to exist.Please connect with Clarkisha on her website and IG. The Kelli & Kat Test.Also mentioned are the books “Fearing the Black Body” and “Belly of the Beast.”This episode's poem is by Ha Jin and is called “A Center.”Bonus content with Clarkisha through Apple Podcast Subscriptions and on Patreon.Please connect with Fat Joy on our website, Instagram, and YouTube (full video episodes here!). Want to share the love? Please rate this podcast and give it a review.Our thanks to AR Media and Emily MacInnis for keeping this podcast looking and sounding joyful.

Thinness equals health. There are generations of doctors that have been trained to believe this, and we have been indoctrinated by this concept for so long that it's hard to believe anything else. One of the biggest contributing factors to this is the widespread adoption of the Body Mass Index (BMI) as a measure of health by the medical system.So where exactly does the BMI originate from and should we still be using it as a tool to assess someone's health? To help me answer these important questions, I invited primary care Internist Dr. Kara Pepper to explain why the BMI is fraught with misinterpretation, and what we should be looking at instead. We also explore how patients who struggle with eating disorders can be better supported in a clinical setting.If you are someone that is struggling with an eating disorder, please reach out to your medical team for help, or contact the National Eating Disorder Help Line for further advice.Connect with Dr. Pepper:It's Not Just You podcastWebsiteInstagramTwitterResources:Health at Every SizeNational Eating Disorder Help LineFind an eating disorder professionalBooks:Fearing the Black Body - the Racial Origins of Fat PhobiaFat Talk - Parenting in the Age of Diet CultureIt's Always Been Ours - Rewriting the story of Black Women's BodiesAudio Stamps02:36 - Dr. Kara Pepper tells us more about who she is and who she helps.04:12 -  We find out where Body Mass Index (BMI) comes from, how it has evolved over time with the drug industry, and where we're at currently.10:21 - Dr. Rentea asks what Dr. Pepper would advise us to look at when it comes to our health, if BMI is not the main thing to focus on. 12:26 - We learn how both clinicians and patients can do a better job in making sure that they're getting screened appropriately for eating disorders.15:20 - Dr. Rentea reminds us of the importance of rethinking our normal and finding the right people to help us on our journey (see links above for specific resources).Quotes08:30 - “There are two generations of doctors at this point that are trained that thinness equals health.” -Kara Pepper MD08:40 - “That's the take home: BMI is not a great metric for what we're looking at.” -Kara Pepper MD11:01 - “Prioritizing the patient and their unique values is the primary goal of care.” -Kara Pepper All of the information on this podcast is for general informational purposes only. Please talk to your physician and medical team about what is right for you. No medical advice is being on this podcast. If you live in Indiana or Illinois and want to work with doctor Matthea Rentea, you can find out more on www.RenteaClinic.com

How do you participate in a faith practice that has a rough track record with racism? That's what our play-cousin J.C. Howard gets into on this week's episode of Code Switch. He talks to us about Black Christians who, like him for a time, found their spiritual homes in white evangelical churches.

The girlies unpack fatphobia and the history of fatness. They discuss the racist roots of modern-day body standards, how we can think about anti-fat bias through the lens of eating disorder recovery, and lament the failings of the American medical system (again). Digressions include very little because we are serious researchers and get straight to the point this time.Sources:Fearing the Black Body by Sabrina Strings What We Don't Talk About When We Talk About Fat by Aubrey Gordon "You Just Need to Lose Weight" by Aubrey Gordon Belly of the Beast by Da'Shaun L. Harrison Maintenance Phase Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

On this week's episode of The Waves, Slate science and health editor Shannon Palus is joined by author and co-host of Maintenance Phase, Aubrey Gordon. Shannon and Aubrey discuss Aubrey's new book, “You Just Need to Lose Weight” and 19 Other Myths About Fat People, the fraught nature of “body positivity” and the insidious goalpost moving of the Dove “Love Your Body” campaign. In Slate Plus, Aubrey and Shannon discuss the new weight-loss fad, Ozempic.  Further Reading Recommendations From Aubrey: Hunger by Roxane Gay Belly of the Beast by Da'shaun L. Harrison The Body Is Not An Apology by Sonya Renee Taylor Fearing the Black Body by Sabrina Strings  Julie Murphy's fiction novels like Dumplin' Check out Shannon's new Slate Column: Good Fit Podcast production by Cheyna Roth with editorial oversight by Daisy Rosario and Alicia Montgomery. Send your comments and recommendations on what to cover to thewaves@slate.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On this week's episode of The Waves, Slate science and health editor Shannon Palus is joined by author and co-host of Maintenance Phase, Aubrey Gordon. Shannon and Aubrey discuss Aubrey's new book, “You Just Need to Lose Weight” and 19 Other Myths About Fat People, the fraught nature of “body positivity” and the insidious goalpost moving of the Dove “Love Your Body” campaign. In Slate Plus, Aubrey and Shannon discuss the new weight-loss fad, Ozempic.  Further Reading Recommendations From Aubrey: Hunger by Roxane Gay Belly of the Beast by Da'shaun L. Harrison The Body Is Not An Apology by Sonya Renee Taylor Fearing the Black Body by Sabrina Strings  Julie Murphy's fiction novels like Dumplin' Check out Shannon's new Slate Column: Good Fit Podcast production by Cheyna Roth with editorial oversight by Daisy Rosario and Alicia Montgomery. Send your comments and recommendations on what to cover to thewaves@slate.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The ideal human body has been commercialized, stigmatized, fetishized and, yes, even racialized. For women, trying to achieve the “perfect” body is an unattainable and often traumatic pursuit that never seems to end. On this episode, Sabrina Strings, PhD, an associate professor of sociology at the University of California, Irvine, explains why this is and helps us understand its impact on our individual and collective sense of well-being. Drawing from her book, Fearing the Black Body, she dives deep into diet culture, fat phobia, body positivity and the unsettled debate: Is obesity a disease?Learn MoreExplore more of the history and research on the “ideal” female form through Strings' book, Fearing the Black Body.Here's a quick read: The Problem With BMI (body mass index).Step away from the stereotypes and move in whatever way feels good to you with workouts of all levels in the Nike Training Club app and guided runs in the Nike Run Club app.

Each year, more than 250,000 children in America are removed from their families by judicial means—and more than 3.5 million children are investigated by child welfare agencies. Most of these children are Black, Indigenous, queer, disabled, and / or otherwise marginalized. And much of the tens of billions of dollars allotted each year to so-called “child welfare” is spent on separating families. This week's guest Dorothy Roberts joins Jonathan to discuss how this system operates; who it most harms; and what it has to do with mass incarceration, police brutality, and centuries' worth of inequities in this country. Dorothy Roberts is the George A. Weiss University Professor of Law and Sociology at the University of Pennsylvania. She is a contributor to the 1619 Project book and the author of four books, including the best-selling Killing the Black Body. Her path breaking work in law and public policy focuses on urgent social justice issues in policing, family regulation, science, medicine, and bioethics.  She has been featured in countless media outlets including The New York Times, New York Magazine, MSNBC, NPR, PBS, Vice News, CNN, ABC, and many others. She lives in Philadelphia.CW: This episode discusses police violence, bodily harm, and hateful rhetoric.You can follow Dorothy on Twitter @DorothyERoberts. Her newest book, Torn Apart, is available now. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter @CuriousWithJVN to join the conversation. Jonathan is on Instagram and Twitter @JVN and @Jonathan.Vanness on Facebook. Transcripts for each episode are available at JonathanVanNess.com. Love listening to Getting Curious? Now, you can also watch Getting Curious—on Netflix! Head to netflix.com/gettingcurious to dive in. Our executive producer is Erica Getto. Our associate producer is Zahra Crim. Our editor is Andrew Carson. Our theme music is “Freak” by QUIÑ; for more, head to TheQuinCat.com. Getting Curious merch is available on PodSwag.com. Headshot Credit: Chris Crisman