The Men Who Made Us Fat - review
Rachel Cooke despairs at experts who tell the obese it’s not their fault
By Rachel Cooke Published 13 June 2012
Last weekend, I flew from Spain to Luton Airport where, as I disembarked the plane, I was struck rather forcefully by how many people had trouble not only with the stairs down to the runway but in covering the 100 metres of tarmac to the terminal building. Their problem was – I’m going to come right out and say it – that they were fat and this made walking difficult. When your thighs are colossal, the only way it’s possible to move at all is by rolling your hips to an unnatural degree: up, down, up, down. The slowness, for those of us who like to do things at a sprint, was painful to behold. Standing in line, I couldn’t help but wonder which hurt most: their flamingo-shaded sunburn, or their boulder-sized knees.
Does this sound snobbish? If it does, I can’t say I care overmuch. Two-thirds of British people are overweight and a quarter of us are obese. We are, on average, some three stone heavier than we were 50 years ago. The time for respecting sensitivities is long past. Only an idiot – or a lobbyist for the sugar producers – would deny that we need to do something, and fast. The question is: what?
Personally, I’m not sure that laying all the blame at the feet of the food and drink industries is going to get us anywhere very quickly, which is why the first part of Jacques Peretti’s series The Men Who Made Us Fat (BBC2, 14 June, 9pm) made me so mad. Is it, for instance, true that our weight gain is entirely unconnected to laziness? This is bunkum, surely. We all know how sedentary modern life can be.
The film’s trajectory – the US government’s decision to subsidise cheap food; the rise of corn syrup (fructose) as a sweetener; the battle between those scientists who wished to demonise fat and those who had it in for sugar (sugar is now enemy number one) – will have been broadly familiar to anyone who has read Eric Schlosser’s Fast Food Nation or Greg Critser’s Fatland, though it was interesting to hear that the latest research suggests fructose may influence weight more than other sugars by neutralising leptin, the hormone that tells us we’re full. On the other hand, it’s nothing short of terrifying to discover that, encouraged by precisely this kind of discovery, scientists are increasingly keen to remove the idea of personal responsibility from the debate. The word “moderation” has become, in their mouths, an un-word, excised from the lexicon of public health forever.
Perhaps you will not be surprised to hear that Philip James, of the International Association for the Study of Obesity, was most hardline on this score, bringing good news (of sorts) to fat people everywhere by announcing, in his most comforting voice, that they should roundly ignore anyone who tells them their weight gainn is their own fault. The environment works against the individual, he told Peretti, leaving him or her more or less helpless.
Are such statements wise? I think they’re madness. As Greg Critser, who was once obese himself, has noted, the vast majority of people are fat because they are slothful and gluttonous (and not for nothing was gluttony once thought of as a sin; Hieronymus Bosch depicts it, brilliantly, as a dereliction of our secular duties, for while one man stuffs his face, another man starves – something that is as true today as it was in 1500). But no one wants to hear this. Too shaming. Too final. They would rather stick their fingers in their ears and pop open
another bag of Doritos.
Why didn’t Peretti challenge this orthodoxy? Was he intimidated by the beards and white coats? I don’t know. Certainly, there were times when he seemed to have been struck dumb by his interviewees. At one point, he spoke to a nutritionist about how difficult it is to make low-fat foods taste good (for this reason, fat is very often replaced by sugar). The example she used to illustrate the point was mayonnaise, which is made from olive oil and egg yolks. In Peretti’s shoes, I would have pointed out that it is undoubtedly healthier to eat gloopy, delicious, real mayonnaise once a month than some bland but sugary substitute every day. And more satisfying, too. But perhaps I’m just too old-fashioned for this game. Or insufficiently politically correct. Or both.
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Online writers:
- Steven Baxter
- Rowenna Davis
- David Allen Green
- Mehdi Hasan
- Nelson Jones
- Gavin Kelly
- Helen Lewis
- Laurie Penny
- The V Spot
- Alex Hern
- Martha Gill
- Alan White
- Samira Shackle
- Alex Andreou
- Nicky Woolf in America
- Bim Adewunmi
- Glosswitch
- Kate Mossman on pop
- Ryan Gilbey on Film
- Martin Robbins
- Rafael Behr
- Eleanor Margolis
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Advertising
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists


41 comments
All you've done here is restate the problem. The question remains WHY do they 'eat and drink too much and take too little excercise'? Plenty of obese I see on TV are pretty miserable about the whole affair, so why is it so hard for them to SUSTAIN weight loss (- we all admit that it is easy to initiate weightloss).
You are basically recommending that the obese should 'EAT LESS food and DO MORE exercise' to lose fat.
Now tell me, if we were to go out for a celebratory meal at an expensive restaurant and I told you to 'bring your appetite', what would you do to COMPEL yourself to EAT MORE than usual?
I am guessing that you'd suggest skipping a meal prior to the restaurant visit, or eating smaller portions in the meal(s) prior to the restaurant visit ('EAT LESS'). Or that you'd suggest going to the gym or for a walk or do some other exercise (to 'work up' an appetite). This approach is essentially 'DO MORE'.
You should see the paradox here; that the VERY thing you are suggesting the obese do to LOSE WEIGHT ('eat less, do more'), is the VERY thing you'd do to COMPEL yourself to eat more ('eat less, do more')!
Well .... yes I am recommending that the obese should eat less and do more exercise. Which is also what their GP would recommend. Why they don't do that is of course down to a number of potential issues - depression, addiction, lack of opportunity to excercise, ignorance of what is healthy eating - or just plain greed or laziness. You can ascribe any number of causes but here is my suggestion - have the NHS do a deal with some of the major Gym chains and prescribe membership on the NHS for the obese- in the long term this could work out much cheaper than treating obesity related illness.
If you invited me to an expensive restaurant I would do what I normally do. Eat. I wouldn't have to think about missing a meal or going to the gym because I have a moderate appetite. I enjoy my food but I don't stuff myself with high sugar snacks or crisps between meals.
Your being disingenuous here. I said "if we were to go out for a celebratory meal at an expensive restaurant and I told you to 'bring your appetite', what would you do to COMPEL yourself to EAT MORE than usual?"
There are several times a year when I 'bring my appetite' - Christmas lunch and any Sunday lunch at a restaurant being good examples. So again, if you were asked to 'bring your appetite', what would you do to achieve this?
Your advice to 'eat less and do more' has been a recommendation for the past 30 years - and it simply has not worked. I guess because this is like telling a drug addict to 'do less drugs' or telling an alcoholic to 'drink less alcohol'. The advice, though logical, is too simplistic when dealing with an adaptive, biological entity. A good exmple of how complex obesity is can be seen with the Plymouth Early Bird study which showed that in children at least, obesity preceded inactivity.
More interestingly, we should ask why is it that some people remain thin without any consideration of their calorific input/output. You see lots of youngsters in this situation and they are obviously not consciously balancing this energy input/expenditure. Yet when these same folk hit their 30s, there seems to be a general increase in fat levels. Are we to believe that gluttony and sloth are a funciton of age?
More appropriate advice to the obese might be to eat food that they have to prepare themselves from raw ingredients - perhaps with a seasonal emphasis. This includes fresh cuts of meat (and nutrient dense cuts like liver and tongue).
Think about all the chemical compounds in raw ingredients which may have competitive or synergistic effects which we aren't even close to identifying but which are crucial to health. Eating food prepared from raw ingredients addresses this. Eating this way leads to satiety (vitamins and minerals requirement), and satiation. Other benefits may well be derived from reduced inflammation, improved gut flora and so forth, and those other feedback mechanisms that respond to an appropriate hormonal milieu.
Further useful advice to the obese might be in the form of recommending both 'short and intense', and a lot of 'easy and languid' outdoor exercise (not so much to burn calories but more for the metabolic effects of exercise, Vit D and mental wellbeing). Focusing on quality sleep and reducing stress is also adviseable.
Simply telling 'fat feckers to get off their lazy-arse and stop shovelling food in their cake-hole' is not precise enough. Eating heavily processed foods that change their nutritional profile to reflect the dietary wisdom of the day is unlikely to succeed any more than it has done thus far in the 21st century.
Cheers to the author. Every pound you weigh came from something you put in your mouth. "But scientists have made all that junk food so very tempting!" Please. Your life is sooooo hard.
Between an opinion on obesity from someone who studies obseity every day, like Philip James, and an opinion on obesity from someone who appears to have a chip on their shoulder - no pun intended - like Rachel Cooke, I know who I'd rather trust.
this is bullsh1t.
it's the latest in a recent spate of bitchy non-articles that seem to be in main paper instead of on the personal blogs.
who the flip is in charge over there ?
Got a job for the Daily Mail lined up, have we?
It might also be noted that people who work in certain occupations, and particularly those who work nights, are more likely to be fat. This is not because such people lack willpower, but because of (as someone pointed out above) hormonal responses to the environment.
It should also be noted that (as evidenced by the recent fuss over the school dinner diary of a Scottish schoolgirl), school meals in the UK are dreadful. Sugary and fatty products are deliberately targeted at children. Of course, parents bear some responsibility, but how can people's habits help being shaped by this environment?
Of course,if you are well educated and affluent,with control over your working routines and the m0ney to undertake leisure activities such as joining a gym, participating in a sport (which,due to the lack of public space that is free to use in many urban areas, is not easy for those with little spare cash) or even going for a pleasant country walk (which for the majority of the UK population who live in urban areas, will incur some kind of transportation costs), it is much easier to regulate your weight. This does not mean that those unfortunate enough not to be in this position deserve to be stigmatised.
The fact is that massive social changes are required to tackle the obesity problem, and blaming individuals will not help the situation. One may as well blame the poor for poverty (and, in the context, this can be taken quite literally.)
"But perhaps I’m just too old-fashioned for this game. Or insufficiently politically correct. Or both."
Er, or just plain uninformed. You could try reading 'The Diet Delusion' by Gary Taubes, or actually do some investigating into current research on effects of sugar and carbs on human biology, and how not all bodies are the same or react in the same way to the food that is eaten. Or you could just go the lowbrow route and tell the overweight to stitch their mouths shut and go for a run. Y`know, something compassionate like that.
Teenagers are renowned for being lazy/idle and gluttonous. Is this intentional behaviour on their part or is their body trying to make them 'do less and eat more' to fuel their growth? And what makes teenagers grow? Is it hormones by any chance?
Now think of pregnant women. On becoming pregnant they eat more and put on lots of weight. Have they become slothful and gluttonous - or have hormonal changes linked to preganancy compelled them to eat for two?
These are but two reasons why individuals subject to growth do not choose to be 'slothful and gluttonous ' . Their behaviours are compelled by hormonal change. So is it really so fanciful that modern foods and lifestyles impart hormonal signalling that drives growth (towards obesity)?
I am not saying that the obese don't eat more. The question is WHY do they eat more? Having seen the strong will to limit calories and work hard in the gym on various TV programs, I am not sure the obese lack will power. Given the pain they go through to become leaner, it is hard to see why they give it up so easily and (usually) revert back to their former self - its almost as if the body is seeking to defend some kind of set point.
Still, if it makes you feel easy to simply label them slothful and gluttonous - go for it.