Manolo for the Big Girl Fashion, Lifestyle, and Humor for the Plus Sized Woman.

Our internet friend Rachel sends us a link to an article teaching us that according to new studies, there is a direct correlation between how much sleep new mothers get, and how much baby weight they are able to lose:

 “We’ve known for some time that sleep deprivation is associated with weight gain and obesity in the general population, but this study shows that getting enough sleep — even just two hours more — may be as important as a healthy diet and exercise for new mothers to return to their pre-pregnancy weight,” said Erica Gunderson of Kaiser Permanente, which runs hospitals and clinics in California.

Francesca understands that scientists do studies about all sorts of things, and her interest in losing post-pregnancy weight does not make Ms. Gunderson a jerk, just a scientist who has researched something that is of interest to people, and she is simply reporting the findings. The facts are what they are (at least, until some other study shows the opposite.)

Still, Francesca wishes to shake her by the lapels of her lab coat and say “how in hell’s name is a new mother supposed to get more sleep?”

Because, you know, being tired wasn’t enough of a reason for new mothers to try to get more sleep. Now that we see that staying up with a crying child prevents weight loss, the new mothers of the world will come up with some new way of getting Junior to shut up and let her get some zzz’s, right?

Ah, but the article addresses this question:

“With the results of this study, new mothers must be wondering, ‘How can I get more sleep for both me and my baby?’ Our team is working on new studies to answer this important question,” said Dr. Matthew Gillman of Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care.

Ah, thank you Dr. Gillman. Thank you for understanding that new mothers weren’t wondering before this new study how they can get more sleep. Francesca is so happy to see that you understand that it is only now that we have the results of this study about weight that they care to get a full night’s rest.

Bah. Humbug.

A couple of months ago, we discussed the hack job which Glamour’s cover designers had done on the beautiful figure of America Ferrera.

Not to belabor the point, but this month’s cover clearly indicates that not enough heads have rolled over there. It’s one thing to make a curvalicious actress look like a Barbie doll; it’s another thing to do so in such an obvious way that we all notice it. Listen Glamour, if you’re going to try to trick us into believing that Ferrera has stick-thin arms and a rib missing from the bottom of her ribcage, at least don’t do it so that we all know what you are doing. If you are going to trick us, then trick us. That’s why we pay your newsstand price, for the fantasy, right?

So what exactly have you done this month to Mariah Carey’s normally-perfectly-normal face?

Francesca took one look at this cover and thought “Aha! Clearly there is a new beauty trend emerging!”

Plastic is the new black.

Interesting article in the “Weekend Review” of the New York Times, to the effect that, although the “overweight” BMI category is actually the healthiest in many ways, as long as being overweight is associated with poor socioeconomic status, our beauty standards probably won’t change:

Two years ago, federal researchers found that  . . . .  there were 100,000 fewer deaths among the overweight than would have been expected if those people had been of normal weight. This is what might politely be called the chubby category, with body mass indexes (a measure of weight for height) of 25 to 30. A woman, for instance, who is 5 feet 4 inches tall and weighs between 146 and 175 pounds.

. . . Dr. Brown is among those social scientists who say that being thin really isn’t about health, anyway, but about social class and control.

When food was scarce and expensive, they say, only the rich could afford to be fat. Thus, in the 19th century, well-do-do men with paunches joined Fat Men’s Clubs, which gave rise to the term “fat cat.” Heavy women of that era were stage stars. Lillian Russell, “airy fairy Lillian, the American beauty,” weighed 200 pounds.

Those notions of fashion gradually gave way to a more streamlined physique.

. . . . How did we get to this point?

George Armelagos, an anthropologist at Emory University, calls it the King Henry VIII –Oprah Winfrey effect.

Henry VIII, king of England in the 16th century, “was huge,” he said, which was a symbol of his wealth. To get that way, Dr. Armelagos said, “it took 100 people collecting food for him and cooking it.” Compare that to the billionaire Oprah Winfrey. “She has to have a dietitian and cook and a trainer so she doesn’t get to be like that,” he said.

Today, poorer people are most likely to be fat and so, said Abigail Saguy, a sociologist at the University of California at Los Angeles, “fatness is associated with downward mobility.” Weight has thus become a moral issue couched in health concerns, she said. After a while, it almost becomes inconceivable that anyone would see a fat person differently.

So what does this all mean for the chubby among us, who may be the healthiest, or at least, the most likely to live the longest? Will chubby become fashionable? That may have to await the day when chubby becomes inextricably linked to health, or privilege.

What it boils down to is that in our society, where food is plentiful and often not very nutritious, and where people of all classes might be working at desks, it takes a lot of money and/or leisure time to get or stay thin.

And since we equate wealth with moral value, well . . .  you do the math.

Our internet friend Amy sent us a link to a short article which just goes to show, we are with fat people now where we were with women about 80 years ago:

Companies are cracking down on the health of their employees. IBM recently said that starting next year it will pay employees $150 if they sign up their kids for a program to fight childhood obesity.

Clarian Health recently revised controversial plans to penalize workers for smoking, having high blood pressure, or body mass index over a certain limit.

The moves are part of a trend among a growing number of employers to monitor their workers’ health. After all, it costs more to insure smokers and overweight people.

Where do we begin?

So, companies want their workers to take better care of their bodies, since healthy workers are cheaper to insure. All fine and understandable and business-like.

But the logical extension of this is that workers who are more expensive to insure will have a harder time getting a job.

It’s not OK to discriminate in hiring on the basis of gender, sexuality, religion, or race, because what is important is whether the person can do the job.

It should not be important how much it costs to insure them.

And do not even get Francesca started on the idea of penalizing workers for being fat . . . because, you know, the social pressures, the difficulties dating, and the parents and aunts and uncles who put us down for years worked real well to keep our BMI’s in the “normal” range, right? Negative reinforcement sure works wonders, right?

Right?

Francesca says: This is not a political blog, but I am compelled to point out something important. I spend much time in countries with socialized medicine, and have seen the benefits of it. It is absolutely ridiculous what happens in the United States, wherein businesses consider it their issue whether a worker smokes or is obese — not out of genuine concern for whether they are well, or even for how many sick days they might take, but rather because the employer has a connection to the health insurance. And it is ridiculous that one can only easily get affordable health insurance if one is employed by someone else — someone else who will now be keeping an eye on how often one’s children go to the gym.

Francesca says: She would rather pay for national health care and have fewer amenities in the doctors’ offices, than have to put up with this sort of crap.

Francesca hath spoken.