CAMPOS: Distorted body images
By Paul Campos, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Published August 20, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.
Among other things, the Olympics showcase the amazing diversity of human bodies that lend themselves to athletic excellence. From the 7 foot-5-inch basketball player Yao Ming, to the 4-foot-6-inch gymnast Deng Linlin; from the birdlike frames of the long-distance runners, to the enormous dynamic bulk of the hammer throwers, the Olympics feature athletes who come in a dizzying array of shapes and sizes.
Consider two medal-winning members of the American team: weightlifter Cheryl Haworth, and gymnast Nastia Liukin. Haworth is 5 feet 6 inches tall and weighs 300 pounds. Liukin is 5 feet 2 inches and weighs 99 pounds.
Haworth can lift more than 300 pounds over her head and hold the weight there for several seconds; Liukin can do back flips on a 4-inch-wide wooden beam.
Haworth reports that 30 percent of her body is made up of fat. She is, according to our public health authorities, "morbidly obese." Liukin is, according to the same people, (just barely) "underweight."
Interestingly, from a purely statistical point of view, the body mass of each woman correlates with approximately the same mortality risk. For Liukin's body mass to correlate with the lowest mortality risk for her demographic group she would have to weigh approximately 50 percent more than she does. Similarly, Haworth would need to weigh 40 percent less for her body mass to correlate with the lowest mortality risk for white women of her height.
What follows from these statistical generalizations? The short answer is, not a thing.
A somewhat longer answer includes several observations. First, that 5-foot-2-inch white women who weigh 150 pounds have a lower mortality risk, on average, than white women of the same height who weigh 99 pounds says nothing at all about whether Liukin herself would be healthier if she gained 50 pounds.
This, one would hope, is obvious. For one thing it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for Liukin to gain 50 pounds and then maintain this weight, even if, through a precise reversal of the usual brand of cultural insanity, this would be considered a desirable goal for her to pursue. (Experiments have demonstrated that it's nearly as difficult for thin people to maintain weight gain as it is for fat people to maintain weight loss).
Furthermore there isn't a speck of evidence that it actually benefits a 100-pound person to become a 150-pound person, even though 150-pound people of Liukin's height have a lower mortality risk (Japanese people have longer life expectancies than Americans, but it doesn't follow at all that I'll improve my life expectancy by moving to Tokyo).
These observations, which we can safely assume are considered merely common sense in the case of someone like Liukin, instantly become the most horrible heresies when applied to a 300-pound woman such as Haworth. Yet the situation is precisely the same: it would be extremely difficult and probably impossible for Haworth to lose 40 percent of her weight and maintain that loss, and there is no evidence whatsoever that it would be beneficial for her to do so.
Haworth and Liukin are mirror images in another way: Haworth is in the 98th percentile of body mass for the American population, while Liukin is in the second. In other words, they are, statistically speaking, each at an equal distance from being American women of normal weight (in the proper sense of the term, meaning statistically typical).
Yet our supposedly scientific definitions of what constitute a normal woman's body have become so distorted that Liukin is in fact only two pounds away from being at what is currently classified as a "normal" weight. Meanwhile, Haworth would need to weigh 130 pounds less to achieve the same bogus normalcy.
Could these pseudo-scientific definitions be a product of the cultural fact that the extraordinarily slender Liukin represents what a contemporary American woman is "supposed" to look like?
Paul Campos is a professor of law at the University of Colorado. He can be reached at paul.campos@colorado.edu.
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
Featured
-
Legislature Blog
Read live updates from the opening of the 2009 legislative session.
-
Rocky multimedia
The news comes alive in our videos and slide shows. Catch up on what's happening today.
-
Who's next?
Complete coverage of the Broncos' search for a new coach.
-
Rocky year in photos
View an audio slide show of staff selections from 2008.
-
Winter Escapes
Your insider’s guide to the copious joys of the coolest season.
-
Sam Adams' Open Mic
Open Mic: Two-man advantage with Avs
-
Shanahan's career
See photos from Mike Shanahan's career as Broncos coach.
-
12 days of Drew
Look back at the year that has been with Drew Litton.
-
A dream fulfilled
A Rocky Mountain News and MediaStorm production
August 20, 2008
11:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
So whose point of view is Campos attacking? Can't tell really. Yes, it's common sense that Cheryl Haworth need not lose 120 pounds to be healthy. But who said she had to?
August 20, 2008
11:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
ItsJustme writes:
anderson, PC is attacking anyone's point of view that says fat is unhealthy in any way. That's pure PC. If you see any news article about obesity, count on a column by PC in the very near future. e.g. today's article about how Colorado is still the thinest state, but average weight is increasing.
August 20, 2008
11:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
Well, he doesn't seem very persuasive. I guess that was the point of my comment.
August 20, 2008
1:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
matthew writes:
Anderson,
Prof Campos is commenting on the implied pressures that society places on "over weight" people to loose weight. So essentially ItsJustme is correct in his/her assessment. As I understand it, Prof Campos's ongoing theme is that there is no scientific correlation between fat (i.e. weight) and health / longevity. I'm not sure if this is an accurate statement, but as a person studying for the LSAT (and hoping to take a class or to from the Prof) I do see the following logical fallacy:
There is an assumption that because the average weight is 150 for a 5-foot-2-inch white women, that that is also the optimal. There is no allowance for the fact that the optimal weight can be a skewed toward the lower end of the spectrum of possible weights. For example the lowest end of the spectrum could be 70 as the absolute lowest life sustaining weight, 110 as optimal, and 800 as the maximum life sustainable weight. The difference between the low end and optimal is 40, where as the difference between the high end and optimal is 690.
Mind you, I'm not arguing one way or the other, it's just that the prof did not explicitly state what the optimal weight is, and implied that there is no optimal weight.
August 20, 2008
1:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
Thank you for your explanation, matthew. From what I know, your description of Prof Campos' theme is correct. While I agree with the first part: that cultural (or commercial) pressures regarding the body may be distorted and harmful, I thoroughly disagree with the second part--that there is no link between obesity and health. The medical profession clearly says otherwise (not the least, in the CDC's characterization of obesity as a health crisis--in the article referenced by ItsJustMe)
As for the "optimal" weight criticism, I see a straw man--because he makes no reference to who, what, when, where, why, or how someone is advocating that someone achieve an optimal weight. The criticism is devoid of context.
August 20, 2008
2:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
Queen_Gorgo writes:
Campos is just wrong on this one.
A 300 pounder can get to 180 via bariatric surgery that makes the person physically unable to eat the calories needed to sustain the obese body. Clearly if they were psycholigically capable of limiting their caloric intake, they could make the same changes. Bariatric surgery has been shown to CURE the morbidly obese of diabetes.
Also in Polycystic Ovary Syndrome, women can improve their fertility, cholesterol levels and insulin sensitivity with mild weight loss achieved through diet and exercise, even if they don't return to normative body weight.
While Campos may be right that getting into the normal range of weight may not be possible, the health detrements of obesity are real, and the benefits of caloric restriction and exercise are well documented. Grinding his obesity axe only perpetuates the epidemic rates of obesity in America which have real effects on public health, and allows the obese to think its OK to continue in their ways.
The best way to prevent the ill effects of obesity is not to encourage weight loss to the normal range in the obese, but to prevent obesity in the first place.
August 20, 2008
4:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
peterpi writes:
If the Rocky or the mainsream news media never talked about diet, exercise, healthy foods, unhealthy foods, fat people, thin people, Paul Campos' column inches would drop by half. The man is obsessed with saying "It's OK to be fat". I have no problem with that, the diet and fashion industries need a mighty big counterweight to refute their garbage. But, Campos seems to have a chip on his shoulder about it. Methinks he's at least two standard deviations away from the statistical norm on weight for an American male of his height, and he's extremely thin-skinned about it.
August 21, 2008
8:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
matthew writes:
mstaco, can we assume that you are speaking of the prof's classroom appearance from first hand experience? Did you add anything of value to the law school experience besides ad homonym attacks? I'd rather be perceived as a "pompous prat" then demonstrate an inability to add relevant contributions to the topic at hand. You'll excuse me if I don't take your counsel, and attend CU with out your blessings.
August 21, 2008
10:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
Best wishes on your LSAT, matthew. I'm sure the U of Colo is a fine school.
August 21, 2008
1:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
mrtaco writes:
Matthew writes:
"I'd rather be perceived as a "pompous prat" then demonstrate an inability to add relevant contributions to the topic at hand."
What about demonstrating the ability to use the correct spelling of a word in the correct context? It's "than" buddy, not "then."
Hope you enjoy DU...
August 21, 2008
1:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
What school did you go to, mrtaco? Ahole U?
August 22, 2008
10:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
gary writes:
Let's....how come we have all kinds of stories about "little old men and women" and none about "fat old men and women"?
Go to the retirement homes and look. You will see way more little old people than you will fat ones.
Gee...do the little ones live longer than the fat ones?
Nuff Said!
August 22, 2008
10:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
gary writes:
Weight loss is a real increase to life expectancymuchfitness.com — Obesity is a potential to many risk factors such as diabetes, hypertension, cholesterol, etc.. Conversely, any weight loss can be mitigated. But ultimately, weight loss translates it by a real increase in life expectancy?
Do some research Mr. Campos...or shut up.
Nuff Said!
September 8, 2008
5:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
jennyh72 writes:
My sister recently told me that I was a “pear” shape. I almost cried. I hate being referred to as a fruit. I know that most people use these terms to describe our shape, but there must be a nicer way to call my shape. So I decided to do some research...
I found a website that actually uses much better terms to describe our bodies. They use jewel types……what a great idea and way to describe our bodies! I am no longer “pear shaped…..instead I am “sapphire” shaped. I like that sooo much better. The website is www.holobi.com, kudos to them for thinking of this. My sister is a “diamond”…I hate her.