the HAES® files: Stress Mess: How “Fighting Fat” Makes People Sick

by Health At Every Size® Blog

by Linda Bacon, PhD, and Lucy Aphramor, PhD, RD

The Health At Every Size® Blog is honored to feature this post, which is also being posted as part of the “Featured Bloggers” online conference taking place for Weight Stigma Awareness Week 2013.

The World Health Organization uses the term ‘globesity’ to describe a supposed epidemic threatening millions across the world with the specter of serious metabolic health disorders.

We cry foul: Those menaced “overweight” millions, it turns out, come disproportionately from disadvantaged populations, and no matter how fat or thin they are, it’s their marginalized status itself that harms health. “Fighting obesity” as a health target not only adds insult to the injury of poverty and stigmatization, it worsens the situation. Fat, while an expediently visible marker, is not the actual enemy. The move to banish it flouts scientific evidence while honoring half-hidden aesthetic and moralistic biases.

The incessant drumming about obesity mutes the fact that the root cause of the diabetes, heart disease, and other chronic afflictions disproportionately burdening the poor and socially disregarded may be the status quo. “Obesity-related” disease actually tracks your social status more than what size clothing you wear. In developed nations, data show, members of stigmatized groups, including those who are economically disadvantaged and people of color, are the most common victims of illnesses typically grouped under the “metabolic” umbrella. They are not only more commonly ill, but when they do get sick, can expect poorer prognoses than more socioeconomically advantaged people with similar conditions. And for all that, current medical interventions prove more effective for more advantaged patients, further widening the gap between healthy and sick, rich and poor, powerful and marginalized.

It is also true that members of marginalized groups are more likely to be fat, but it’s a false leap of logic to assume, based on that association, that fat causes metabolic disease. Too many other factors are lost when we simply conflate weight and health and close our minds to the other, more pernicious (less visually obvious) effects at work.

Before we can acknowledge the damage it does, it helps to understand that our collective concern about fat is strongly influenced by aesthetic and moral judgments. Try the Implicit Attitudes Test to see just how deeply this bias runs. These attitudes affect medical care, the reporting of science, and the type of research that gets funded, reinforcing a pseudo-scientific rationale centered on weight control as if were evidence based. As if we needed any more social stigmas, weight discrimination has been outpacing even race and gender discrimination. Deploring fatness, rather than leading to improved health for fat people, worsens health for all of us and increases inequalities.

All forms of discrimination rely on stereotypes that lead to unfair prejudice, and weight discrimination is no exception. Scapegoating fatness and fatter people leads to disadvantage throughout the life-course, from education through to the workplace, travel, adoption, healthcare, insurance – and research increasingly shows, this bias in itself promotes metabolic disease. Is it coincidence or just irony that these diseases happen to be the ones we usually blame on weight? Metabolic syndrome tracks inversely with social status: The lower you fall on the social scale, the more likely you are to develop symptoms. The phenomenon has often been blamed on poverty-induced “bad habits,” where poor nutrition and a lack of exercise are assumed to lead to weight gain. But even when we control for health behaviors and BMI, studies show the health discrepancies persist. (In a sampling of studies, health-related behaviors accounted for only 5 to 18 percent of neuroendocrine differences that lead to metabolic syndrome.) So what can be making disadvantaged and stigmatized people sicker, or more accurately, fatter and sicker, than the rest of us?

Poverty and lack of opportunity matter more to public health outcomes than weight, diet or exercise behaviors. For most disadvantaged people, if it’s Weight Watchers versus welfare, welfare wins, and no amount of extra gym time can outweigh time in the unemployment line. The day in day out strain of living in poverty and the experience of oppression and stigma lead to chronic physiological stress. We’re not talking long-line-at-Starbucks stress but the hyper-hormonal “fight or flight” chased-by-a-tiger rush that tenses your entire system for survival – at the expense of ordinary, necessary biological functions. Extensive research documents that chronic stress of this type can raise cholesterol, blood pressure, triglyceride levels, stimulate inflammation, and impair insulin sensitivity, all of which can lead to the metabolic conditions associated with obesity, including hypertension, diabetes, and coronary heart disease.

Do eating, exercise, and drinking patterns also affect these conditions? Sure, but contrary to mainstream spin, their impact is somewhere below 25 percent of measured causation, far below the impact of social status and daily psychological stress. With social status comes control over one’s circumstances – success at work, fostering loved ones’ well-being, being able to plan for the future, or even next week. The absence of those, no matter how punctilious our lifestyle habits, stresses our systems in disease-promoting ways. In contrast, being able to exert an influence over what matters to us is health-promoting.

Hectoring the population to “eat better, exercise and lose weight” misleads and has proven harmful, so it’s time for new approaches that cultivate equality and don’t harp on body size. Health – and social – policy must focus instead on equalizing life chances, reducing stigma and mitigating the physiological impact of stress. (Telling a patient she’s too fat, by the way? Not stress-reducing.)

Policies promoting weight loss as a solution – or even as possible in sustainable ways –perpetuate damaging stereotypes and a “healthist,” moralizing attitude. What’s needed are better, socially-integrated approaches to health. The most ethical, effective public health alternative to emerge to date is Health at Every Size, or HAES, which challenges fat bias and fosters self-care behaviors rooted in respect and nurture, not shame and denial. HAES practices have been shown in controlled trials to improve health habits, self-esteem and mental wellbeing as well as metabolic health. All without weight loss. And all without introducing weight bias. HAES practice abandons weight as an outcome in favor of markers of wellbeing. Treating oneself fairly and dispensing with fat shame, HAES studies show, lead to better self-care and – this should surprise no one who’s been told to lose weight – reduced stress. It helps people of all shapes and sizes learn to make peace with food and their bodies and, by supporting acceptance and preferring respect over bias, leads us closer to the fair societies that form the cornerstone of healthy communities.

Written in honor of Weight Stigma Awareness Week, September 23 – 27, 2013, co-sponsored by the Binge Eating Disorder Association, imagining a world where people are supported in living happy, healthy lives, free of judgment about the size of their bodies.

15 Responses to “the HAES® files: Stress Mess: How “Fighting Fat” Makes People Sick”

  1. yesterday, i caught the end of a news story on our local tv station.. the story was about this woman who had a baby and apparently the lady didn’t know it. What struck me was the one quote the reporter said “the husband said a couple of months ago, she felt some abdomen pains, and the doctor told her that nothing was wrong and to lose some weight”. .. this just points to your point.again

  2. Thank you for writing this. This is exactly the point which I have tried to make in my own writing, but with little success I think.

  3. Reblogged this on illfitted and commented:
    Excellent article. Society needs to shift it’s focus. If people actually care about the health of those who are fat, the first question should be “what is life doing to this person” not “how can I get this person to lose weight”. No one needs to be told what to do. No one wants it. It is judgmental, which symptomatic of bigotry, and must end.

  4. I have a student who is doing a very interesting study. He found an epidemiological study published, showing that there is a strong correlation between diabetes type 2 and airborne pollution with all other parameters controlled. The focus of my student’s research is to establish a causation by showing that pollution exposure will lead to epigenetic changes, which are increasing chances to develop diabetes type 2. There are a number of studies done already on this fact. If such a causation is shown, this would also imply that populations living in urban areas, exposed to higher level of pollution, have a much higher chance to develop diabetes type 2 and a number of other metabolic diseases (which are also being tested) than populations living in more wealthy low pollutions suburban or county side areas. Since populations in urban areas are traditionally more poor than populations in more wealthy suburban areas, this is a extremely strong compounding and direct factor to what you describe simply as the stress of being poor. It seems amazing to me that exposure to higher levels of pollution (normalized for urban areas such as Detroit or NYC), can have such a drastic effect on the development of diabetes type 2 (all other factors being controlled).

  5. This is a really interesting and well argued piece. Where would I find a citation or study to support the following statement?

    Do eating, exercise, and drinking patterns also affect these conditions? Sure, but contrary to mainstream spin, their impact is somewhere below 25 percent of measured causation, far below the impact of social status and daily psychological stress.

    The spin is pervasive; it would be helpful to have some tools to combat it…


    • This is an excerpt from our forthcoming book, Body Respect:

      Metabolic syndrome proliferates in an inverse relationship to social status; in other words, the lower you are on the social scale, the more likely you are to develop the condition. This might lead us to assume that the social gradient stems from poverty-induced factors like poor diet and sedentary behavior. But even when health behaviors – and BMI – are controlled for, the health discrepancies persist (Brunner, 2002 #1914). Estimates vary, with one group of researchers suggesting that health-related behaviors accounted for 5% to 18% of neuroendocrine differences that lead to metabolic syndrome(Brunner, 2002 #1914). What then, makes up the remaining 82% – 95% of pathways by which socioeconomic status influences metabolic health?

      Brunner, E. J., et al. (2002). “Adrenocortical, autonomic, and inflammatory causes of the metabolic syndrome: nested case-control study.” Circulation 106(21): 2659-2665.

      You can find details about Body Respect here:

      • Just noticed that I left you with quite a teaser with that last question. Sorry about that, but you’ll have to wait for the book…

  6. I work in healthcare and would love some citations as well, especially the evidence for socioeconomic status being more of a factor even after controlling for BMI and behaviors.

    • I just posted a citation within the previous comment. We’ve written much more extensively about this, complete with references, in our forthcoming book, so do stay on our radar. You can follow me on social media (visit to get an announcement when the book is published.

  7. I LOVE the perspective of the opinion it is real & truthful. So much popular rhetoric conspires to blame the individual around size. Something I constantly notice is that no amount is stereotypic beauty creates loving relationships. I notice that being tall, slim, beautiful & rich brings happiness in matters of the heart.

  8. This is an excellent essay. I found it interesting that a conventional vet suggested that our dog’s diabetes may have been precipitated by the stress she experienced during a heat wave (she does not like the heat, and she spent seven miserable years in a hot climate before being rescued). The stress link to diabetes makes incredible sense: stress raises the cortisol levels, cortisol raises the blood sugar, what happens when this goes on all the time? But I have yet to see any references in popular culture (tv, magazines, etc) to the very things you are writing about or any suggestion that stress causes diabetes in humans.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: