Why I Dislike 'The Biggest Loser'

I have a confession to make. I sat down tonight and watched a full episode of The Biggest Loser. Why? Because I wished to see this “Big Kev” channel tens incessant ads tantalised me with (much to my chagrin he wasn’t even in this episode so I guess it serves me right). But in watching it, my initial dislike for the show was reaffirmed.

I actually think that the concept could be quite a good one. We are living in a time when over half the population is overweight, where one fifth of children are overweight. Raising the public consciousness about the imperative to lose weight is admirable (if he that is so large he has to travel by waddle can muster the willpower to lose weight so too can you sitting and watching it on the couch; yes, put down that bag of deep fried food and change your ways so that you don’t die before your fortieth birthday).

However, the competitive format of the show undermines this message. As an Australian citizen, I am surrounded by food. As the grandchild of Europeans, I am surrounded by people who can cook extraordinarily well, but categorise ‘lite’ or ‘fat free’ as profanities. I am painfully aware of the results of over-eating. But keeping your weight in check is not something that you do for other people or to win a prize. You do it because you want to lose weight, because you don’t want to get diabetes, not because you honestly believe that if you don’t change, you will die, not because someone else tells you to change. A few years ago I read an interview conducted with the then-spokesperson of Jenny Craig. Her comment was that you have to love yourself enough to change, not hate yourself.

Sending people home who are still – let’s face it – obese, and motivating them to continue training with the promise of potential ‘re-entry’ is not sending a message to the rest of Australia that you should lose weight so that you don’t suffer accompanying health issues. It send the message that you should lose weight to be a winner. Similarly, weight loss at such a dramatic pace as occurs on TBL can be a really difficult think to achieve – placing additional stress on participants to lose the largest amount of weight during a given time or they will quite literally lose, is not conducive to a positive, or more importantly, lasting change. 

 

the contestants take time out to pose like a boy band

Then again, maybe that’s not what TBL is about. Maybe it’s just so that voyeuristic viewers can get their kicks watching fat people mournfully go about the business of being utterly humiliated – look no further than the clothes that the contestants must wear during ‘weigh in’. I was struck (and I’ll admit amused) by the insensitivity of placing life-sized images of these people on the side of buses. It really does bring new meaning to the phrase ‘he’s as a big as the side of a bus’. Look at the opening sequence where all of the individuals stare balefully at the camera, and ask yourself if this is a show that exists to actually ignite a positive difference to the collective Australian waistline, or because we enjoy watching the struggle of people fatter than ourselves.

If you're going to criticise, do so with evidence

I recently came across this particular article, and I as always, when someone is incorrect on the internet, I have taken issue with the way in which this individual makes his point. While I obviously, come from a different ideological basis, when someone critiques the Australian system of democracy (which I passionately love), without providing any viable alternative, I feel a deep and abiding desire to delegitimise any such individual.  So here goes:

William Hebblewhite’s blog post has been constructed by an understanding of the Australian political system based on a blatant ignorance of the facts, and a romantic idealism that leaves him wilfully unaware of how the word functions. Then again, I shouldn’t be surprised. Mr Hebblewhite actually admits that his approach is one based off ‘philosophy and theory’ rather than a perspective which is informed by reality.

Now, I make no apologies for my political stance. I am a Liberal supporter, and proud of it. I get angry when Mr Hebbleewhite’s kind attacks me for being a soulless corporate sellout (or whatever this week’s fashionable insult is), because I don’t think that comes from an informed understanding of what the Liberal party’s policies actually are. I know it certainly doesn’t come from an understanding of my personal political beliefs.

But putting my own general seething irritation aside for a moment, why was I so offended by Mr Hebblewhite’s blog? There are two reasons.

The first, is that he attacks the current parliamentary system in Australia as ‘dishonest’, and a system which promotes a ‘continuation of a status quo which has outlived its prime’ without providing any viable alternative.

The second reason is that Mr Hebblewhite makes broad generalisations and claims without actually backing them up.

In his post, Mr Hebblewhite confessed to us that he ‘lays bare’ his ‘dislike for the Capitalo-parliamentary system’. I am the first to say that the Australian Democratic system is flawed. However, I think that mandatory, preferential voting constitute the best elements of democracy. This is because mandatory voting means that every citizen who is a participant in, and affected by the democratic system, don’t have the excuse of ‘I couldn’t be bothered’ or ‘I don’t really follow politics’ to fall back on come election time. Even casting an informal vote is a valid democratic expression, and the only way in which government can know to respond to that expression is if it is made in the ballot box. Otherwise, the motivations behind those who opt not to vote remain a question mark, thus effectively disenfranchising people. Furthermore, I believe that when one must vote, one actually thinks about for whom they will vote. There is more democratic participation within the system, because your average citizen is aware that they will have to make a choice between candidates, rather than a choice whether or not to vote. Secondly, the preferential system means that your vote can never work against you. Even if the candidate who is your first preference does not win in a majority, your vote then goes to your second choice, and so on. It is at this point that I highly recommend everybody watch ‘The Dictator’, and pay particular attention to the speech near the very end of the film. The message behind it is that democracy is far from perfect, but it is the best system that we have in the world.

What could possibly further undermine the credibility of that of the far left such as of whom Mr Hebblewhite claims to be a part? To me, it is the abundance of sweeping generalisations that go unsupported, and the downright incorrect factual information provided within his blog that make me wonder exactly how a system of government under the ideology of those such as Mr Hebblewhite actually would survive. We were told that the ‘fall’ of Prime Minister Howard (a politician who, by the way, I admire beyond words) presented the ‘opportunity for Australia to remove itself from the neo-liberal agenda whose sway it had been under for more than a decade.’ Poor phrasing aside, no reason was actually provided why distancing oneself from a neo-liberal agenda is a desirable thing. Similarly, when claims were made about why Kevin Rudd was a successful Prime Minister, no evidence was provided to support this belief. The irrelevant example of Prime Minister Gillard’s ‘misogyny’ video was also thrown into the mix (and by the by, that speech was a disgusting use of the fifteen minutes allotted to responding to a question in Question Time, in response to a question that was entirely fair, and at best tangentially related to the question). But more than this, I was shocked by the simply incorrect representation of the Peter Slipper scandal. Peter Slipper was appointed Speaker of the House of Representatives by Prime Minister Gillard in order to gain her an extra seat in the House, as she was aware she was going to lose the support of independents who made her minority government viable, as the speaker at the time, Harry Jenkins, was a Labor MP. After accusations of sexual harassment were initially leveled against him, the case was actually dismissed in December of last year, as it was ruled that Federal Court Justice Steven Rares had "reached the firm conclusion that Mr Ashby [the accuser]'s predominant purpose for bringing these proceedings was to pursue a political attack against Mr Slipper and not to vindicate any legal claim he may have for which the right to bring proceedings exists."

I cannot comment about the misuse of cabcharge vouchers, or government funds, as I am not well informed enough on that particular ‘scandal’. But let us consider Craig Thompson (in my opinion, a vile man if ever there was one), who was arrested a few weeks ago following a long documented scandal over his alleged use of union credit cards to pay for strippers, which he denies with the excuse that he was framed multiple times. If one is looking to classify politicians as the lowest form of human life, the surely the finger should first be pointed at the Labor party. Peter Slipper had the grace to resign from his position as Parliamentary Speaker following the investigations centering around him. Craig Thompson was effectively kicked out of the Labor party, and stands as an independent. Talk about washing their hands of him.

I believe in the Australian democratic system. I think that it is flawed, but it is the best system that we have, and to criticisie it without providing an alternative is the lowest form of corwardly self-indulgence. I am proud of my political beliefs, and I believe that nobody who masquerades behind the facade of a ‘theoretical’ approach should be allowed to get away with what is in my opinion, blatant idiocy.

Why I'm a little sad that Hugo Chavez is dead

I must confess to being a little sad to hear of the passing of our good Comrade, Hugo Chavez, democratic dictator of Venezuela. 

Some of you may raise an eyebrow at this. Hugo Chavez, despite being nominally anti corruption oversaw a government which eroded judicial independence, enabled Venezuela to be a drug trafficking route, and basically scared away any strong political opposition.

Despite this, he did oversee large-scale improvements to the country – he implemented policies which led to economic growth (although I am led to believe that this economic boom may be short lived), his government implemented a rather successful effort to wipe out illiteracy (in 2011, the literacy rate was 95.2%), and a noted effort to improve the rights of women and indigenous people should not be ignored (indeed, the constitution actually recognises the indigenous language). 

But I think what I loved most about Hugo Chavez is what I love about a lot of these sorts of authoritarian leaders – the outlandishness which would occasionally characterise his rule.

Chavez’s monopolistic control of the media air time meant that he would often give speeches that would go for hours at a time, and force media outlets to air the whole thing. He used social media in order to boost his popular support (if you need a social media expert, he was the man one should have talked to). What I was particularly amused by was reading that upon his final return to Venezuela from Cuba, the army organised ‘spontaneous’ expressions of joy.

There is an element of the ridiculous in all of these things that endears Mr Chavez to me. In a quick google search, I saw an article that suggests his body will be embalmed for public display.

These things remind me of North Korea’s founding father, Kim-il Sung. The story of his birth that was told to the people was that he was born on a mountaintop, was raised by an eagle, and then made his way down to lead the people to communist bliss, or something along those lines.

While we should never forget that these sorts of leaders are probably not someone whom you would wish to upset, I always take amusement and yes, a little bit of joy, from hearing about these absurdities of despotic rulers.

This is why I shall miss my favourite Latin American ruler, Hugo Chavez.

The curious case of the receding hemline

This is a blog inspired by the fact that I was wearing a top today that I inadvertently bought a couple of sizes too big. You may be reading this and thinking that that’s a pretty poor start. But wait. As I glanced at myself in the mirror, I realised that this top which barely went past my underwear, would just about be considered a legitimate dress for some girls.

Maybe now that I’m twenty years of age, I’ve become old and doddery, but I look at the way that teenage girls dress, and I find myself wondering what on earth possesses them. Putting aside for a moment, that these girls all look practically identical – foundation caked on, short skirts, and most likely a top which reveals most of their cleavage, I don’t see how this is an attractive look. As someone to whom I was talking last night remarked, “it’s an underwear extravaganza”.

I’m not from the school that says this look is problematic because it means this girls are “asking for it” by the way they dress and act, but I do think that it is concerning.

Why is it concerning you may ask?

Well, let me tell you.

1. Photos of these girls posing are plastered on their facebook pages (usually by them). As we all know, if it’s there, it’s there forever. Imagine having these photos of your fourteen year old self thrown back at you ten years later.

2. I often want to go up to these girls and say to them “honey, I don’t know how to tell you this, but you forgot to put on pants”. Forgetting to put on pants is obviously a concerning conundrum in which to find oneself.

3. Just who are these girls trying to impress? Why is the perception that appearing ‘available’ makes an individual cool? It is this last point that is the most worrying for me, as I can’t seem to be able to discern where young women who have barely hit puberty are receiving this message, but it is indicative of a broader societal issue.

I think this is the crux of the matter – that we are teaching young women that their physical appearance is the most important thing (I dread to imagine what these girls eat or rather, what they don’t). Moreover, our society is sending the message that wearing skirts so short that the world can become your gynaecologist, validates you.

I am nostalgic for the days when parents would say “you’re not leaving the house dressed like this” – what do the parents of these girls think, anyway – or when people who conducted themselves in the way that so often accompanies this style of dress, were considered, well, to be members on the fringe of society.

I haven’t even started on the behaviour typical of the individuals who dress like this. Underage drinking, clubbing and sex are all par for the course. And while I can hardly say that I went until my eighteenth birthday without a drop of alcohol touching my lips, I know that I can count the number of times I was seriously intoxicated before I was over age on my fingers (in honesty, I can still count the number of times I have been seriously intoxicated on my fingers). Anecdotal evidence that I hear would suggest that it is not considered abnormal for a girl of sixteen to frequently go clubbing, and get seriously drunk.

Am I the only one who is deeply concerned by this?

If this is the way that children are going, then when the day comes for me to be a parent (and oh god, what a terrifying prospect that is), I think I’m just going to lock them up for their adolescence. It’s much easier than worrying that they will think that this sort of behaviour and conduct is admirable or indeed, desirable to emulate.

Obesity: what kebabs and hotdogs can tell you about a nation

I have just returned home to Australia, following several weeks abroad. Being the food-oriented individual that I am, I take particular interest in all things culinary. I noticed that Australian food portions are very large.

My first port of call was Germany; land of the wurst. I would often have a light breakfast and then snack on a wurst for lunch. But then I would be hungry again by dinnertime. The German wursts that I bought from street vendors were not lost in a sea of bread, but instead enfolded lovlingly between a modest roll. Upon my return, I visited my favourite hot dog stand in the Queen Victoria market and got a bratwurst, which cost significantly more (seven dollars compared to two euro), and was lost amid bread and toppings. It was delicious, but I didn’t need to eat for the rest of the day.

In Turkey, I partook of the donor kebab. Let’s be honest, I partook of many donor kebabs. Again, they were relatively small, but delicious. The eve of my return, on the return drive from the airport I had a craving for a kebab, so I requested that we pull into a roadside donor kebab van. Again, I found that there was a significant price discrepancy (nine dollars against four Turkish lire), as well as a significant size difference. My Australian kebab, while delicious, would constitute a major meal. My Turkish kebabs were a large, but not overly so, snack,

These differences indicate to me, a symptom (and a perpetuating factor) of the obesity epidemic in which Australia is mired. The food portions are an enormous size. If I go to a restaurant, I have often taken to ordering an entrée sized meal, and being surprised when it is what I would consider to be the size of a main meal. A meal consisting of an entree, main meal, and dessert, should not have gargantuan portions for all three courses, yet I see more and more in restaurants that this is exactly the case.
The fact that hot dogs and donor kebabs are in effect a snack, or one meal out of three, is deeply concerning, considering their size. Eating three solid meals a day is all well and good, but eating three enormous meals a day unless one has a significant muscle mass, or leads a highly actively lifestyle, begs for pounds to be accumulated on the regular person.

London was the only city where I went into a restaurant, ordered a meal, and found that finishing it left me feeling over-stuffed. This large portion size makes sense in light of this excellent image that was a part of this economist article (which I highly recommend):

Both Australia and Britain are shown as having 60-70% of their populations as obese. This is a disconcertingly large figure, and one that to me, indicates a problem with the nations’ approach to food.

Perhaps we should start thinking about what Australians consider to be a normal meal size. Reducing the amount of food we as a nation ingest is a good start to stopping what is rapidly approaching, if not already is, an obesity crisis.