Wow. I guess I’m pleased to see there are more than 635 threads on my Wall-E article—I haven’t generated this much excitement since my attack on the wind chill factor. Anyway, thanks to the many, many people who voiced your concerns (or outrage) about the piece, in the form of thoughtful questions and comments. To everyone else: I’ll admit to being awed by your, er, gusto.

Let me try to address the most important points, one by one:

1. Engber, did you even watch the movie? It’s about consumerism, not obesity!

Many have pointed out that the people in Wall-E seemed to get fat only after they boarded the Axiom and departed for space. The portraits of the captains on the flight deck show how the human race became obese as a result of the ecological collapse, and not the other way around.

Sure, the movie doesn’t arrange obesity and the destruction of the Earth in a causal chain. Nor is it an “attack” on fat people. (If anything, the fatties in Wall-E are portrayed as kind and hopeful.) The film is instead an attack on consumerism and wasteful consumption—the great sins of Western life.

But it links up obesity, sloth, stupidity, and environmental damage, as our inevitable penance for those sins. Which is precisely what bothers me: It’s a quasi-religious argument that treats real-world fat people as morality plays. And that leads us to view fat people as representations, on an individual level, of what might happen to all of us…

2. Engber, you doesn’t understand genetics.

Many of you questioned my assertions of a link between obesity and genetics. I wrote: “As much as 80 percent of the variation in human body weight can be explained by differences in our DNA … If you have a propensity to become obese, there’s only so much that can be done about it.”

Some readers felt I had mischaracterized the science by not being more explicit about what “variation” means. Others argued that the population has gotten fatter, on average, in the past few generations—which automatically disproves the obesity-genetics connection.

Let me be clear: Your environment and your behavior can have an effect on your body size. Indeed, the very next line of my piece—ignored by 99 percent of readers—says: “That’s not to say that our circumstances can’t lead us to gain weight.”

The heritability statistic tells us that within a given population, genetics will have a very significant role in determining who’s “fat” and who’s “thin” relative to the average-sized person. But other factors—e.g., a so-called “American lifestyle”—can, over time, make the average body-size in a group of people bigger.

If the mean body-weight can shift, then what’s my point—doesn’t that mean that the Wall-E scenario is plausible? No. All I’m saying is that in any given population, no matter how fat or thin, there will be a normal distribution of body sizes. Some people will be “fatties,” relatively speaking, and others will be “skinny.” And, in any given population, it may not be true that the fatties are eating more or exercising less than the skinny folks.

And that’s what’s wrong with the metaphor that connects a fat body to a damaged planet—and makes us to assume the worst of obese individuals. We’re all part of this lifestyle that’s pushing the mean. The people who happen to be at the fattest end of the distribution got there in large part because of their genes. The skinniest among us are skinny in large part due to their genes. That was true 700 years ago, and it’s likely to be true 700 years in the future.

3. Engber, you’re a big, fat, disgusting blob aren’t you?

4. Hey Engber, I lost weight, and I feel like a million bucks! What do your precious genetics have to say about that?

A lot of you took me to be saying that someone’s body size is set at the moment when his daddy’s sperm fertilizes his mommy’s egg—and nothing can ever change that. Clearly that’s not the case. First of all, if 80 percent of the variation in body weight is determined by genetics, then 20 percent comes from other causes—i.e., how you were brought up, and how you live.

At the same time, dieting and exercise regimes rarely work in the long-term. Many of us can control our weight, for short periods of time, across a narrow range… but keeping off a lot of weight is quite rare—and whether any one person can do it may have nothing to do with personal qualities like determination and willpower.

5. Engber, how can you say with a straight face that overeating doesn’t cause obesity? Obviously we gain weight when we consume more calories than we expend!

My statement in the piece may have been a bit too glib, since this all boils down to a question of semantics. Sure, you can choose to define “overeating” a posteriori, and in relative terms, as exactly that behavior which causes weight gain. (Otherwise, it’s merely “eating.”)

But we generally use the word “overeating” to suggest that obese people are choosing to eat more than their share, while skinny people are opting for restraint. That’s not always the case: In absolute terms, a skinny guy might be consuming many more calories than a fat guy, per pound of lean body mass. Let’s say he guzzles a cupcake-in-a-cup every few hours, but doesn’t gain weight; thus we say he’s not “overeating.” And yet he’s exactly as culpable as the rest of us for the “American lifestyle” that seems to push towards bigger bodies.

We make a moral judgment when we say that fatties are more likely to “overeat” than other people. They may be no different from you or me in terms of how they respond to internal and external hunger cues. They’re merely more susceptible to gaining weight.

6. Seriously, Engber, are you a porker? Was your article translated from whale song? How many cheese-dipped chicken nuggets did you scarf while writing this crap?

7. But Engber, please don’t forget about MICROGRAVITY…

I’ve also been taken to task for neglecting a single line in Wall-E, which supposedly explains how everyone in the future gets fat. It’s not because they’re slothful and greedy, but because of “microgravity”-induced bone loss. Director Andrew Stanton even went on NPR and said that he’d originally planned to make the characters even bigger and fatter, on account of “microgravity.”

Oh, please.

First of all, there’s no sign of zero-gravity or microgravity conditions on board the Wall-E cruise ship. Indeed, if it weren’t for gravity, we wouldn’t have that joyous site gag of a fat human falling off his chair and flopping around like a beached whale. Astronauts lose muscle and bone tissue because of zero-gravity. That’s not a problem on board the Axiom.

Second, right after Fred Willard explains microgravity to the ship’s captain, he says something like, “don’t worry, though, a few jogs around the track and you’ll be fine.”

To which the captain replies: “We have a track?”

What’s the message here? That these people are fat because of “microgravity,” or that they’re too lazy and stupid to know how to exercise?

(I’ve been told that Stanton also claimed that the movie wasn’t supposed to be an environmental parable. Really?)

8. Engber, how dare you defend those porkers?

Above, I’ve tried to address the some of the many reasonable comments and criticisms that have turned up in the Fray. But a quick look through the boards reveals something dark and a little sad: A lot of you really despise fat people (and, by your own weird inference, you despise me, too). I’ll finish with a few representative quotes picked out from the online comments and reader email:

“If a fat person watching Wall-E is shamed into shutting their fat mouths for longer than usual, then the movie is a service to that person, their family, and even mankind.”

“Stop eating donuts and go for a walk. And if you decide to be a fat cow, stop whining if people make fun of you. You deserve it.”

“Shut up fattie. Oink oink oink. Stop destroying the human species, fatbody.”

“Wall-E isn’t caricature or even science fiction. It’s documentary, tamed down as much as possible.”

“Fat people disgust me.”

Et voila.

Thanks for quoting me! I meant what I said.

1) An explanation of the first quote:

Let's make it clear that *I* have the best interests of fat people in my dark little heart. If they lose weight, then they stand a better chance of living longer (see proof, below). Their families will be less likely to stand by helplessly as they kill themselves. Society as a whole will be less burdened with the overwhelming financial costs of insuring against purely avoidable afflications.

BECAUSE I value these people, though they are fat, I do not want to see them end their lives in this sad and pointless way. I wish them long and healthy lives. However, I don't own them, and I don't want to. If they choose this avoidable death, it's their fault, especially because the solution to their problems is so obvious.

Engber, it's you who should be ashamed for lying to them.

Proof that obesity is avoidable: If you lock a fat person in a room and give him nothing but water, he will lose weight and eventually starve to death. Genes matter, but not enough. QED. Please, Engber, prove me wrong on this one.

2) An explanation of the second quote:

Wealth provides convenience and abundance (big plates at TGIF!!! An Escalade to take you there!!!). It makes us sedentary while simultaneously more consumptive. You don't find fat people in places where people have to walk 10 miles for firewood.

SUVs require all that nasty oil. Surf n' Turf requires a lot of feed and fertilizer to raise the cow, and then some to dredge up the seafood. Resources don't pop out of thin air.

I'm certainly not advocating poverty. Instead, I wish fat people luck and the discipline to know when to push the plate away.

***************************

You failed to rebut the serious and substantive objections I and many, many others had over this article. Instead, you tried to shame us for supposed insensitivity. I wish I could say "nice try", but I can't.

You are doing a grave disservice to those who want to lose weight, and to those who want to avoid gaining it. Please look at these quotes, and keep this in mind:

People can do what they want, but speaking as someone who has put on weight (40 lb) and took it off more than 5 years ago - PLEASE PROVIDE ACCURATE AND HONEST INFORMATION FOR THOSE OF US WHO WANT TO MAINTAIN OR LOSE WEIGHT. That's what worked for me, not this ridiculous "bad genes", "bad glands", "bad metabolism" approach that's meant to convince people that what we weigh is not a result of what we put in our mouths and how we use our bodies. The jerks that write those emails to you will never believe it anyway, and it misleads the people who are really looking for good information.

Your quotes, and commentary:

"And, in any given population, it may not be true that the fatties are eating more or exercising less than the skinny folks."

In 99% of the cases, looking at two people of the same age who get the same amount of physical activity, the one who puts on 50 pounds over 5 years is eating more than the one who maintains their weight. Words like 'may' try hide this important fact, but it's the reality. And for people who want to maintain or reduce their weight, it's important to know.

"The people who happen to be at the fattest end of the distribution got there in large part because of their genes. The skinniest among us are skinny in large part due to their genes."

That is just not true. People who eat more weigh more. That's not a moral statement, it's a fact. Want to fatten up a cow? Reduce its activity and feed it more high-calorie food. It always works! There is nothing morally wrong with being fat, or morally righteous about being thin. They are both entirely a result of how much we eat, and how much exercise we get.

"At the same time, dieting and exercise regimes rarely work in the long-term."

Again, not true. Take the person that gained 50 pounds over 5 years, and has now maintained that weight for 5 years. That person may be overweight, but they are absolutely on a successful "diet". There is no magic "set point" - that person has changed their eating behavior successfully so that they're no longer gaining weight. People's lifestyles and the food marketing industry do make some changes difficult, but people succeed every day. That's important for people to know - not for perception, but so that people can make rational, effective decisions.

"In absolute terms, a skinny guy might be consuming many more calories than a fat guy, per pound of lean body mass."

Where's the evidence for this? Two people who weigh the same and get the same amount of activity - the one eating more is gaining more weight, end of story. Do you have a study or any kind of evidence to back your claim up? The reality is, people get fat by eating, and most people get fat eating in their cars and eating in private.

"We make a moral judgment when we say that fatties are more likely to “overeat” than other people."

No we don't. It's a fact, and if you're the kind of person that insults fat people, you're a jerk regardless. People get fat by eating out of proportion to their physical activity - because work is stressful and sedentary, and they got some misleading health advice about how chocolate is good for you, or they have too many demands on their time to work out, etc, etc. Again, what these people need is good information that will help them accomplish their goals.

My biggest issue with this article is that it is another excuse as to why people can't lose weight. We all put up walls as to why we can't do this or that. No time, no money, to tired after work, ect. , and you want to add genetics to the mix!?

Yes we are ALL, every human on the planet, predisposed to put on weight, it's evolutionary to get our ancestors through lean times. If genetics were the main reason for the current state of our waistlines then every human alive would be obese.

The only preventable disease that obesity doesn't have increased health risks for is osteoperosis. Gee I see the benefit there, you won't break those bones but when you end up with type two diabetes and lose that limb you really are better off.

Don't give people more excuses!!!! If you burn more calories (of any kind) and make smart choices about how much and pay attention to exactally what is in what you are putting in your mouth you will lose weight! There are who television series about it as well as documented cases. Perfect example is that gentleman in Mexico that has lost over 500 pounds by changing his diet and do gentle exercise. Enough with the excuses!

Quit while you're ahead Eng. And by ahead, I mean behind.

"Sure, the movie doesn’t arrange obesity and the destruction of the Earth in a causal chain."

You sure made it sound like that when you wrote "Wall-E tells us that if we don't change the way we live, we'll all get really fat and destroy the world. "

Before you write about it.

What you're doing now is irresponsible, and making you look like a fool to boot.

I was fat my whole life, and was from a family who were ALL fat their whole lives... I used complete bullshit excusses like those that you tout... and I was fat.

Then at some point I decided I was TIRED of being fat despite years of (sporatic) dieting and excercise and I actually LEARNED SOMETHING ABOUT METABOLISM.

(This is the step that your irresponsible and small intelect has not bothered to take before bombarding our fat-ass society with enabling blather).

After actually learning something, I changed my priorities and lost 80 pounds in 6 months... Then started body sculpting from that point (I gained 15 pounds, but actually lost more fat during that time... I'm just putting on muscle now.)

I'm not fat now, after 2 years and a reconstructive knee surgery that forced me to be much less active for 6 months...

I'm not fat because the whole "It's in my genes" argument is a blatent lie.

When I met my fiancé online, I fell in love even though she was just beginning her own priorities shift... Working together and ENCOURAGING rather than ENABLING, she lost over 100 pounds in 7 months, and has slowed down since but is still losing.

Grow up. You are fat because you don't understand metabolism and you don't understand how the choices you make have MADE you fat. i.e. - you don't understand your body, and rather than TRY to understand it, you just state that

"I was born to be fat like this.

It's false, and you as a journalist do a serious dis-service to anyone that is struggling with weight by validating the lies they are telling themselves.

My company unveiled a genuine landmark solution for the energy crisis and a HUGE step forward for global warming mitigation... and I wanted to blog about it in my little home on the blogsphere...

And the "green room" was obsessed with someone whining about being called "lazy" just because they are fat.

Sheesh.

(for those that actually care about the energy crisis or global warming, please visit: www.dotyenergy.com)

Try reading every single testimony on the Joyfit website. Every single one of those people lost over 100 lbs and have kept it off. They document what they were eating before, when they decided to change, and what their food intake and exercise regimen during and after they lost the weight. They ALL ate HUGE quantities of crap - cookies, donuts, icecream, pizza, and gobs of fast food and did little to no exercise. As soon as they started eating right and working out - they started losing weight. It's not magic, it's not genetics, it's not positive thinking - it's called self discipline. It's people like you that make fat people think it's okay for them to be that way. It's not okay, it's making me ashamed of my country. People all over the world are starving while Americans are sitting in their nice comfy houses or in their giant SUVs stuffing their faces every day. Maybe they could take some of that money they are spending on food and use it to help someone that actually NEEDS to eat.

Q- Why do we hate fat people??

A- For all of the reasons stated in rebuttal to this 'Engber responds" thread.

Here's one for you Dan (since you seem to be mistified with our hateful little souls), I think an article on 'hating fatties/ the possibility of socialized health care' might be a real show-stopper. You want to see the fur fly in this country? Bring attention to the fact that our tax dollars are going to have to pay for Bob or Lisa's medical treatment when they can't pull their sorry little hineys off the sofa.

I lived in the U.K. for 4 years and am very familiar with the NHS. The above stated is a big problem there. Oh yeah, the Brits are very mean to fat people (I thought). Makes us look like saints.

I still think your article was bunk. But maybe you could turn this idea into something after all.......

1. I didn't think the person falling off their chair was a site gag; I didn't laugh, anyway, and neither did anyone else in my theatre. I thought Pixar was just showing how helpless people had become in their pursuit of convenience.

2. Like the two people floating side by side in chairs while talking through their screens, I thought the remarks "We have a track?" and "We have a pool?" showed how cut off from their surroundings these people are; they're so engrossed in their screens, they don't interact with their environment or other people in any tangible way. Later, when the two people are in the pool, they're not swimming laps -they're enjoying each other's company. Earlier, when the woman's screen is shut off, she notices the stars for the first time -and stands around looking at them in awe, which burns no calories at all.

engber:

Many of you questioned my assertions of a link between obesity and genetics. I wrote: “As much as 80 percent of the variation in human body weight can be explained by differences in our DNA … If you have a propensity to become obese, there’s only so much that can be done about it.” Some readers felt I had mischaracterized the science by not being more explicit about what “variation” means. Others argued that the population has gotten fatter, on average, in the past few generations—which automatically disproves the obesity-genetics connection. Let me be clear: Your environment and your behavior can have an effect on your body size. Indeed, the very next line of my piece—ignored by 99 percent of readers—says: “That’s not to say that our circumstances can’t lead us to gain weight.” The heritability statistic tells us that within a given population, genetics will have a very significant role in determining who’s “fat” and who’s “thin” relative to the average-sized person. But other factors—e.g., a so-called “American lifestyle”—can, over time, make the average body-size in a group of people bigger. If the mean body-weight can shift, then what’s my point—doesn’t that mean that the Wall-E scenario is plausible? No. All I’m saying is that in any given population, no matter how fat or thin, there will be a normal distribution of body sizes. Some people will be “fatties,” relatively speaking, and others will be “skinny.” And, in any given population, it may not be true that the fatties are eating more or exercising less than the skinny folks. And that’s what’s wrong with the metaphor that connects a fat body to a damaged planet—and makes us to assume the worst of obese individuals. We’re all part of this lifestyle that’s pushing the mean. The people who happen to be at the fattest end of the distribution got there in large part because of their genes. The skinniest among us are skinny in large part due to their genes. That was true 700 years ago, and it’s likely to be true 700 years in the future.

Again, wrong on two counts:

1. There were no fat serfs during the Middle Ages, and there are no fat people in Darfur. How do you explain?
2. Being fat didn't lead to the destruction of the Earth -- rampant consumerism led to both the destruction of the Earth's environment *and* people becoming fat. Sheesh. Do you want Pixar to spell it out for you? Hint: Buy-N-Large is Wal-Mart, geddit?
   

"The film is instead an attack on consumerism and wasteful consumption—the great sins of Western life. But it links up obesity, sloth, stupidity, and environmental damage, as our inevitable penance for those sins."

The film is saying something far more damning (and accurate) than an attack on consumerism and wasteful consumption. No, the movie masterfully portrayed a kind of distracted passivity [very American] that led people to become so disconnected from their environment (and thus to neglect it) that they weren't aware of the pool, the track, or even really each other (or in times past, all the litter piling up). By allowing themselves to become distracted, they became slothful, neglectful, obese, etc. by default. The root sin isn't sloth, or neglect; those are secondary. The root sin is to allowing one to become so completely distracted from one's environment (even one's body).

[I could go on some diatribe about how it's all a metaphor about the social construction of reality in modern American society, and the media, but do you really want to read that? Didn't think so.]

What the characters were doing instead was directing their entire focus on computer displays inches from their eyes - a portrayal that perhaps every fraddict should wince at.

Think I'll go to the gym.

You weren't kidding about the responses. Yikes!

You're right, they should have used meth addicts as "examples" instead. Then how would you categorize this movie? Drug addiction can be attributed to genetics, too...