Saturday, 22 April 2017

Cancer Research UK's
Fat Shaming Campaign

I guess that, once again, body shaming only applies to the non-fat people that the commercialisation of fat positivity was watered down to represent. Body positivity, once again, doesn't apply to the demographic that created it.

BU_L__IT. There's no factual standing to this campaign and here's why: 

1) Obesity does not cause cancer. If it did, every obese person would have cancer. To cause something is to make it happen. CRUK have, infactually, chosen to use this word as a scaremongering tactic. It's similar to saying eating expired food causes illness, it doesn't; it may result in illness but it does not directly, and always, cause illness.

2) BMI has already been proven to be inaccurate and misleading. This has been the case since as far back as 2013, yet doctors still use it and CRUK also uses it to define obesity and then goes on to state that all overweight or obese people are at 'greater risk' compared with people of 'normal' weight (which, again, is not always the case).

3) Obesity is associated with the potential increased risk of some types of cancer. CRUK literally say this in their factsheet; it's just not a great line for shock tactics because, well, it isn't shocking. I think we're pretty well aware of the potential increased risks of ill health relating to obesity (as well as the catagorically proven increased risk of poor physical and mental health from fatphobia/shaming/bias). We're not living under a rock or in complete denial. It's just aother stick approach to the perceived 'obesity crisis' in which obesity is the source of all of the worlds issues.

4) Fat doesn't kill. As Melissa A. Fabello highlighted in her article for Everyday Feminism, entitled 11 Reasons Your Phony ‘Concern’ for Fat People’s Health Has Got to Stop, The 2004 study that implied this was later proven to have bolstered the figures by 94%. "It’s much easier to fear-monger by telling people they’re likely to die".

5)  This is a deliberate, calculated and unethical misuse of research.


  1. So well said! Well CRUK, what about all the fat people who do Race For Life and raise money for cancer research? Do they want our money or not? Arseholes.

    1. Thank you & exactly! They'll happily take with one hand and smack us down with the other, such a familiar story.

  2. Replies
    1. *High five* I wanted to put a GIF in but it won't let me :(

  3. I used to volunteer for them. Not too fat to sweep out and restock their charity shop every week for nothing. Good grief.

    1. I'm glad you don't still! Mind you, this is probably down to the minds of a select few individuals; or at least I'm hoping that the entire organisation isn't fatphobic...

  4. I notice my comment has been deleted. Sorry if I caused offence; none intended. I just think that a cancer charity drawing attention to something that increases the risk of cancer isn't unreasonable. Keep up the good work.

    1. I deleted your comment because it was fatphobic and concern trolling, despite being well worded and clearly thought out. It wasn't worth the effort it would have taken to formulate a response as it won't change your mind, and my readers and I do not need to be reminded of the potential health implications of obesity; as I've already said, we're not living under a rock or in complete denial.

    2. Fair enough. Although you might have judged too quickly if you think you can't change my mind. I'm obviously missing something. Any chance you could point me in the direction of some good reading about this? Would be much appreciated.

    3. Just to let you know, while I disagree with some of your arguments, the more I thought about the campaign, the more I saw it as fat phobic. I've written a blog post myself criticising it. It took a while, I know, but better late than never! You can find it at http://wp.me/p5KjjW-kG if you fancy a read.

    4. I'm glad that you've reconsidered your position.

  5. I see various flaws in your argument there. I will list some of them. Please if you think I am wrong then correct me instead of simply deleting my comment.
    1. That logic would apply to smoking too. Just because you smoke doesn't mean you will definitely get cancer but it does increase your risk. The advert said it's the second biggest cause. It means it's the second most contributing factor to cancer that can be prevented.
    2. The BMI argument makes no sense because BMI isn't even a measure of obesity nor is it being talked about here. A very muscular person with almost no fat will have a much higher BMI than many people who are fat. The campaign isn't against high BMI, it's against obesity. There was no need to drag in BMI.
    3. You are highly mistaken if you think there is any perception of the world where obesity is thought to be the cause of all the world problems. If you are actually even slightly aware of what's going on in the world, you would know we have much bigger issues right now. That in no way however means that we should ignore health concerns. Promoting people to be healthier isn't fat shaming. No one is asking for everyone to be a size zero but everyone should realise the health concerns and risks associated with higher levels of body fat.
    4. That article is senseless and actually offensive. Phony concern? I have actually lost my grandfather to illnesses that all started with a stroke. What caused the stroke? Higher levels of fat in his arteries. Articles like these and your war on so called fat shaming is actually a slap in the face of people who have lost loved ones due to unhealthy levels of body fat. STOP ENCOURAGING PEOPLE TO PUT THEMSELVES AT THAT RISK! And please try and be more sensitive to those who have actually had losses linked to obesity.
    5. There is no misuse of research. Again the stroke example, if someone has higher body fat, they have more fat in their arteries. That leads to less space in them. The tighter they are, they more likely they are to get blocked. You don't need a medical degree to understand that. Anyone with common sense would see how that could happen.

  6. I wish anti science will stop trying to manifest itself as social justice.

    1. The correlation between obesity and cancer is well established with several potential mechanicisms.


    The above are laymen articles, but essentially altered levels of hormones and inflammation are correlated well with hornone sensitive cancers like endometrial cancers. Fatty liver has been a decades long correlation with liver cancer,by the very same mechanicism that alcoholic fatty liver causes liver cancer, namely inflamnation, damage, cell replication and replacement with different tissue.

    These are established facts.

    2. Against this, what you have is essentially misrepresenting the JAMA study on causes of death. Geez: Poor diet and eating habits caused over 300 thousand deaths, when refined further, obesity as a subset of poor dietary and exercise habits has 20k deaths.
    Do you even science?