HELLO, NEW MAN: The before-and-after Martin Cizmar. - IMAGES: (L) Chris Page, (R) Kirsten Veng-Pedersen
Three years ago, I weighed close to 300 pounds. I would like to tell you being a big, lazy slob was awful, but it wasn’t. I enjoyed massive portions of rich, delicious foods and took great pleasure in passively watching the shiny flat-screen TV in front of my leather couch. It was not such a terrible life.
It was also incredibly selfish.
Things changed for me when I fell in love with a girl who wasn’t fat. She’s a nurse, and she explained the many reasons I needed to lose weight. So I did. It wasn’t that hard, really. I restricted my calories and got some casual exercise. It took eight months to drop 100 pounds. I’ve slowly taken off another 10 pounds or so since. I did not set foot in a gym or eat any weird berries; I adhered to a common-sense diet that fit my lifestyle. If you want to hear more about the diet, I wrote a book about it, Chubster, that came out last week.
Dieting was, for me, a reasonably pleasant experience. I’d describe it as the kind of surprisingly not-so-horrible chore you wonder why you allowed yourself to avoid for so long. Like taxes or dental work, other blandly irksome tasks that people procrastinate about for reasons you can’t understand once you’re on the other side.
Yet two-thirds of American adults are overweight or obese. Why?
Being fat is a choice. Genetics plays a role, sure. So does your upbringing. But you do not get fat unless you’re eating more than you need to nourish your body. That’s basic science. There are no excuses, no matter what someone from the so-called Fat Acceptance Movement wants to claim. Not that you can totally blame people who get discouraged and give up, inevitably leaving their loved ones or the government to care for them when the bill comes due.
There’s a $60 billion industry of Organized Dieting that exists to sell people schemes and gadgets. Most of the things they’re selling are bunk because the truth is too simple to market.
Our bodies are machines; food is their fuel. Since the early 1900s, we’ve known how much fuel various foods contain and how much bodies of various shapes and sizes need. In 1918, the first modern diet book, Dr. Lulu Hunt Peters’ Diet and Health, With Key to the Calories, sold two million copies by explaining that the calorie is a measurement of food energy and that people gain weight because they’re taking in too much fuel. This is too easy, of course. It’s been parsed thousands of different ways since, often with the basic science of the matter obscured in the process.
Worth remembering with foodie gluttony cresting: People aren’t fat because they eat fast-food hamburgers, wheat bread, too much meat, too little meat or gingerbread. They’re fat because they eat too much, period. It’s quite possible to get fat from artisan charcuterie or tofu scrambles.
We can have sincere debates about our food systems—hyper-efficient, factory-style farms or the organic localist approach, and whether it’s OK to eat animals if you kill them yourself—but few arguments seem to address how we can develop a food system that will end the obesity epidemic.
I think we’re at the point where that needs to change. I hope we’re ready to take a clear-eyed look at the problem.
It starts deep in our DNA. Evolution has fine-tuned the human body for the lifestyle of a tribesman engaged in hunting-gathering and subsistence agriculture. Your body’s natural inclination is to get and store whatever fat you can because you never know when a hard, cold and hungry winter is coming.
“For centuries, the human race struggled to overcome food scarcity, disease, and a hostile environment. With the onset of the industrial revolution, the great powers understood that increasing the average body size of the population was an important social and political factor,” writes Dr. Benjamin Caballero, a Johns Hopkins University professor.
So we, as a society, put an emphasis on producing and distributing cheap, high-fuel food. By the year 2000, we reached what Caballero calls “one of the major achievements in human evolution”—having more overweight people than underweight people for the first time in human history.
Fatness is a byproduct of the leisurely life our hardworking ancestors and the greatest minds of the Western world have been working to create for millennia. They wanted for us a life of plenty, without back-breaking work. Our overweight society is, by the standard of the ancients, a utopia.
Yet it’s not working. We’re at a point where life expectancy is actually falling in parts of the country. Do people seem happier? Humans aren’t meant to sit limply on soft chairs, imprisoned by our own fat, we’re meant to be actively engaged in the outside world. The irresponsibly overweight are also counting on someone—their kids, spouses or our overstrained social services—to pick up their mess when the effects catch up to them.
Turns out, burgers and fries are fine when you’re working in factories, but not so much after the post-industrial economy picked people off the assembly line and plunked us down in cubicles. And yet our habits—what we eat, how we get around—haven’t evolved to match our new reality.
That can’t change overnight. It will, eventually, I’m confident. Just like it did with smoking, still the country’s leading cause of preventable death but half as common as it was in the 1960s. Foods will get lighter, perhaps aided by new technology—look at the miracle of Popchips. Urban planners will build cities that get people on their feet. Portland is getting there quickly.
Responsible people can’t sit idly waiting for macro change, though. For the fat, that starts by admitting your weight is a byproduct of your choices. Then it’s a matter of recognizing those choices are unsustainable. I realized if I didn’t change my life, I was going to die—but not before burdening the people I loved and our hospitals, and not before missing out on the life I could have been living.
Too many diet pitches start with the premise that being fat is terrible. It isn’t, really. In contemporary American society, it’s perfectly possible to live a happy life as a big, fat slob. It’s also disgusting—not aesthetically, but morally—and don’t blame anyone for saying so. There is life behind the flatscreen. Get off the couch and start living it.
GO: Martin Cizmar signs copies of Chubster at Powell’s City of Books, 1005 W Burnside St., on Thursday, Jan. 12. 7:30 pm.



I hope this dude isn't a douche! It's bad enough he's a hipster (the folks that ruined Portland) but I hope he's not going to talk smack about fat people! (Oh, I'm a former fattie)
It's one thing to recognize that obesity is a health problem, quite another to think that there is anything at all scientific about this piece of fatphobia.
From an NPR ongoing series about the science behind fat, talking with obesity specialist Dr. Donna Ryan, associate director for clinical research at the Pennington Biomedical Research Center in Baton Rouge:
"..the person who's lost weight can't consume as much food as the person who hasn't lost weight.
For example, if you weigh 230 pounds and lose 30 pounds, you cannot eat as much as an individual who has always weighed 200 pounds. You basically have a "caloric handicap," says Ryan. And depending on how much weight people lose, they may face a 300-, 400- or even 500-calorie a day handicap, meaning you have to consume that many fewer calories a day in order to maintain your weight loss."
The rest of the article is here: http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011/10/31/141794801/losing-weight-a-battle-against-fat-and-biology
So? I lost 40 pounds and I know how much to eat to stay this size. What does it matter what someone else can eat? How am I "handicapped" if I have to eat less than someone else of the same size? Eating more is not some kind of privilege. Food is fuel and we should take in what we need, simple as that.
I have been around the exercise and nutrition field for 15 years. While his overall view is essenially correct, he is dead wrong about the role of genetics for many, as he is with his approach to diet and exercise. Many people will NOT lose 100 ibs in 8 months by eating maintance or submaintance calories and "casually" exercising how very hipster of him). If it were that simple, the study of diet and exercise along with health problems related to obesity would not be a billion dollar endeavor.
So Terence, your argument is that if something is simple, nobody will try to build a billion-dollar industry around making it seem difficult?
Respectfully, I have to disagree with Terence. It IS that simple. It just ISN'T that easy. Yeah, yeah, I know the article says "It wasn't that hard, really," but I think he's being somewhat flippant. They pour billions of dollars into the diet & exercise industry looking for ways to sell you easy solutions, not because it's too complicated to figure out how to be healthy. If you take this pill you can be thin while eating junk food and sitting in a cubicle all day! That's what they're trying to sell us on. And yes, some people were blessed with more fortunate metabolisms, but overall it really still IS simple. If you eat more calories than you burn, you will gain weight. In the end, that's all there is to it.
Ayiyiyi. Just the kind of self-serving crap I feared this guy would write when you hired him.
"It IS that simple. It just ISN'T that easy." -Jessy
I just thought i would point out that Easy and Simple are synonyms.
You know what I mean. "Simple" as in not complicated. "Easy" as in requiring little effort.
I hate to be the grammar cop here, but "simple" and "easy" are not synoyms at all.
Running a marathon is simple. All you have to do is jog until you have completed the entire 26 mile course.
Running 26 miles is, of course, not an easy task even for a distance runner.
Hi Martin,
Interesting piece. I wonder if you can elaborate about the time period in which you got fat. For some people it happens in college when they start drinking, for some it happens when they get a cubicle job and don't move around so much.
Martin’s words are essentially a “backlash to a backlash”, and frankly, it’s about time. In recent years the “fat acceptance movement” has attempted to bully people into accepting the dangerous notion that “It’s perfectly acceptable and OK to be obese”. And bully they must, because understandably, most people aren’t buying it.
Martin is correct. For the vast majority of people, being obese is indeed a choice. And I honestly think most de facto members of the “fat acceptance movement” are well aware of this, even when they go through extraordinary efforts to deny it. Essentially, this movement exists to provide a convenient foil for its members to avoid having honest and sometimes painful conversations with themselves. Because if there’s one thing we’re experts at here in America, it is in denying obvious and painful realities.
Moreover, I don’t know any fat people who truly like being fat. Some will say they like it, or pretend as if they don’t care that they’re obese. But does anyone really believe that? No psychologically healthy person wants to be fat. And in this regard, the “fat acceptance movement” is doing a disservice to its de facto members. Good on you Martin for telling it like it is. Sometimes the most seemingly impolite observations, are those that need to be heard the most. If that offends people, then like being fat itself...that is their choice.
"“fat acceptance movement” has attempted to bully people into accepting the dangerous notion that “It’s perfectly acceptable and OK to be obese”. " - False.
The fat acceptance movement is simply allowing those who do choose to be fat to be able to live. Obese people know the risks, and until they become healthy there will always be obese people. The movement allows that vicious to end. If you ridicule the obese it'll only make it more difficult for those already weak once to grow out of it and search food for comfort. Never could you tell and obese person "You're fat and disgusting, you're morally wrong" and have them go home and tell themselves "you know what? They're right.let me go change" no.
Most don't want to be fat because society has restricted the view of beauty. If it was solely on health issues, we wouldnt have Mcdonalds, or smokers, orTV or the Internet, or car and so on.
Health is the main issue. Ridicule will never solve this problem.