Object of the Month: A Fat Lot of Good

I Can't Help the Way I Feel', John Isaacs (2003)

'I Can't Help the Way I Feel', John Isaacs (2003)

One of the overarching themes of our permanent gallery Medicine Now is the lived experience of illness. Juxtaposed with objects from clinical medicine, such as pills, anatomical models and teaching aids, are a broad selection of contemporary artworks that invite visitors to consider illness and disease from the viewpoint of patients…

Phantom limbs, colour blindness, dyslexia and multiple sclerosis: these are just some of the many conditions explored by artworks in Medicine Now. But of all the fascinating and thought-provoking pieces on display, by far the most imposing is ‘I Can’t Help the Way I Feel’, by the British artist John Isaacs. A huge, amorphous blob of realistic-looking human fat, complete with hideously swollen legs and blotchy, irritable sores, the sculpture is John Isaacs’ take on the ‘obesity epidemic’ sweeping the developed world, and the reductive, depersonalising dimensions of the worst of clinical medicine.

To say the artwork is huge is an understatement. When it was first installed, all the way back in 2007 when Wellcome Collection first opened its doors to the public (is it only four years ago?!), it was so big it couldn’t fit through the gallery doors, and our curatorial team had to winch it, angel-like, up through the space by the spiral staircase – a bizarre sight, if there ever was one. The artwork tells the story of obesity from the viewpoint of the patient. It represents a living person whose defining features, gender, personal story – in short, everything that makes them unique as an individual – has been systematically removed by an explosion of fat, engulfing the head, the arms, and everything in between. Cleverly sculpted from polystyrene and painted wax, it is so terrifyingly realistic that many visitors mistakenly believe it is a representation of a real-life person, or a very serious genetic disorder. Anything but – it represents plain and simple obesity, albeit obesity that has been taken to the extreme by John Isaacs.

The artwork has a serious point to make. Isaacs is interested in the lived experience of disease – the ‘emotional landscape’ of the individual – and its tense relationship with society. The sculpture doesn’t represent obesity in a real, physical sense, the kind of obesity that presents itself to clinicians or members of the public. It is a literal embodiment of obesity in a highly idealised, abstract form. It represents the feelings of those who live with and confront obesity, and how these feelings are defined in response to social ideals and expectations. It graphically represents what would happen if, somehow, these emotions were to manifest themselves physically, on the surface.

John Isaacs has thus privileged the subjective over the objective dimensions of obesity, and has helped redeem it from the reductive potential of clinical medicine, which, at its extreme, can reduce obesity to merely a set of symptoms, or another set of depressing statistics in the news. The thoughts, feelings and fears of those who live with obesity are often absent from such a presentation of obesity. At its worst, they are discounted altogether. It is easy to see why people can become defined, stigmatised, or even trapped by their condition, if the ways in which they can express their experiences and feelings are so heavily conditioned by the society in which they live – what Isaacs refers to as the ‘emotional landscape’. They really can’t help the way they feel. The most literal example I can think of is the stock footage of obesity you see on the news, when they are ‘objectively’ reporting on the latest comments made by a health expert. You almost never see faces, personal stories, or anything else that identify these people as individuals who are anything other than ‘obese’. All you see is beheaded waistlines and random flashes of disembodied mouths eating hamburgers. Sure, the news has a duty to respect the privacy of the people they are reporting on, which is why these faces are absent in the first place. But a consequence of this is that people become objectified, anonymised, and their personal circumstances and stories are pushed under the surface.

In recent years, campaigners such as Vicki Swinden, founder of the ‘Fat is the New Black’ campaign, have tried to reduce the level of stigma surrounding obesity by re-appropriating the label of ‘fat’ – transforming it, as it were, into a fashion label. The logic behind the campaign is that by giving people the freedom and confidence to express themselves, they are more likely to participate as active members of society, and be physically active as a result. In an age where two thirds of British adults are overweight and where almost a quarter are clinically obese, could it be the case that focussing on the subjective, emotive and psychological elements of obesity has genuine, positive public health benefits?

Hijacking natural systems

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

The human body is an amazing thing, and there are some amazing things to be done with cells from the human body.

The images above show how live cells being used in world-leading research and taken from microscope images and live cell signalling can be manipulated into a variety of shapes, drawings and animations.

The process has been a long and exhaustive one and has involved the artist, Jo Berry, moving into unchartered territories as an undergraduate research student for six months, working with cutting edge technology on research that scientists hope will help sufferers of conditions such as diabetes and obesity.

The process included interpreting microscope images and live cell signalling to find out more about how drugs work within individual cells.

The research, being carried out at the Nottingham University School of Biomedical Sciences, involves assessing how the hunger hormone ghrelin stimulates human cells, potentially paving the way for new drug treatments for obesity and diabetes by “turning on and off hunger”.

Those images were taken by Berry back to her studio in Carsington, Derbyshire, and she manipulated them to create a series of short films, vinyl drawing and multi-layered lightboxes.

The crossover between art and science and the process involved in evidence-gathering was the main draw for Berry, with the work being assisted by grants from the Wellcome Trust and Arts Council England.

“It’s about the process of working in a facility where they are doing such important research, and taking that research, its software and imagery to create something cutting edge and entirely different has been incredible,” she said.

“I was able to play about with colour, cutting and pasting, speeding up and slowing down films, making stereo images and looking at cells from different three-dimensional views – taking the science and software and approaching it from a different angle.

“The project is celebrating the human body, the use of new technology, the collaboration between science and art, and also gives the public the opportunity to see art in a non-traditional setting.

“The hormone we studied is in us all, helping us decide when to eat, so the inspiration behind the work is part of everyone. I really want people who do not usually go to art galleries to come along and enjoy what they see, and see how exciting putting science and art together can be.”

The project, called Hijacking Natural Systems, goes on show in Derby from July 2011, before moving to Nottingham.

Hijacking Natural Systems was funded in part by a Wellcome Trust Arts Award. More details of Jo and her work can be found at www.joberry.co.uk and www.joberry-artist.blogspot.com.

Solutions for a sick city

Solutions for a sick city?

Solutions for a sick city?

London played a very important role in the history of hot air ballooning, but when we gather at Wellcome Collection for a balloon debate, it’s not to extol or denigrate the virtues of this early form of human flight. Rather, we take an important problem, invite four speakers to each put the case for one solution or priority, and then allow the audience to vote them out, one by one, of an imaginary balloon which is losing height, leaving one victor at last.

Last week, the issue was public health priorities for London. During the week, on this very blog, each speaker had been given a chance to make their point, On Thursday night, the four came together, chaired by the BBC’s Home Editor, Mark Easton, to put their case to a live audience. Each speaker was given just ten minutes to get the facts and their argument across.

Round one

In the first round, Paul Farmer, chief executive of Mind, supported the case for putting mental health first, an invisible but widespread problem that underlies other health issues. Over 30 per cent of London residents have experienced mental disorders, 19 per cent have had suicidal thoughts and 11 per cent have attempted suicide. More time is lost at work through mental health issues than through musculoskeletal disorders. Worse, 90 per cent of people with mental health problems have encountered stigma and discrimination at work and in society at large. Mental health needs to be at the centre of a virtuous circle of changing attitudes, Paul argued.

Bobbie Jacobson argued for taking on child poverty. We all were children once, and 56 per cent of London’s children today are prevented from living a full participative life due to poverty. Even the richest London borough is without pockets of abject poverty. Any map of health problems is a map structured by an underlying map of poverty. Merely raising awareness of the problem without suggesting a solution is pointless, argued Bobbie. Her solution is the London Living Wage, a London-specific minimum wage of £7.85/hour, which takes into account the higher cost of living in London. There are half a million businesses in London, and all of them need to pay the London living wage.

Ajit Lalvani made the case for tackling tuberculosis, a medieval scourge that many might be surprised to find on the agenda. TB was the only threat presented to the audience that is an infectious disease. We might think of ourselves as beyond the age of cholera, but SARS, also a respiratory disease, caused 2 million deaths among 9m cases worldwide in its recent outbreak. London is the only western European capital with rising rates of TB, which is acquiring drug resistance and can kill in as little as 16 days. Latent TB, which can show no symptoms, is a silent killer – the full scale of which is unknown.

Finally, Alan Maryon-Davis proposed childhood obesity as London’s biggest health challenge. At current rates, by 2025, half the male population of London will be clinically obese. Overweight children are not only subject to teasing and low achievement at school, but massively increase their risk of ill-health from heart disease, diabetes and cancer, reducing their life expectancy by the same amount as smoking. In order to avoid a generation of children dying younger than their parents, we need to promote both healthy physical activity and better awareness of healthy cooking. Southwark, for example takes local kids to Borough market to learn about fresh food.

Such groundbreaking activity cut no ice with the audience. They raised their green cards and voted Alan out of the balloon. The remaining three speakers were then given four minutes each to develop and expand their position.

Round two

Ajit then outlined a course of action to fight TB: an outreach programme of mobile chest x-ray units to target the poor and homeless, who are most at risk. Improved tests on sputum can detect latent TB at much improved rates. These new diagnostic tools are already at risk from cuts and have to be saved.

Bobbie argued that Paul’s proposal offered no strategy for dealing with mental health, and that previous efforts to fight TB had been successful primarily because they housed and fed the homeless. She admitted that the London Living Wage couldn’t solve the problem of workless poverty, but rather would kick-start a bigger fight.

Paul argued that there were indeed concrete solutions for mental health. Mind’s Time to change campaign tackled stigma, working with teachers who are at the sharp end of fighting discrimination, and achieved improvements in public attitudes with very little public money. He questioned whether poverty was really a public health issue at all.

The final round

Mercilessly, the audience raised their cards, and voted Ajit and TB out of the balloon, leaving mental health and child poverty in the final face off. Bobbie read from an Evening Standard article by David Cohen, which describes burying the children of London’s poor in unmarked communal graves. Paul offered his respect for the fight against child poverty, but argued that ultimately it wasn’t a public health issue; the opportunity to make London a happier, and therefore, healthier place was unmisssable.

Before the audience got their chance to put questions directly to the remaining panellists, Alan and Ajit were asked who they would vote for: both plumped for mental health.

From the floor, Paul and Bobbie were asked what measurable improvements they could offer against their challenge. Bobbie answered with a reduction of a third in child poverty; Paul suggested a 10% shift in attitudes towards mental health. Another questioner wondered to what extent solution for London could be a blueprint for other cities. Paul answered that in fact much of Mind’s campaigning has been inspired by a similar effort in New Zealand; Bobbie suggested that we could, in fact, look to other countries like Cuba, where equality and healthcare are taken much more seriously. The question of whether small businesses could afford the London Living Wage was also raised; Bobbie answered that, as with elsewhere in the world, it was possible.

The audience was asked to choose one final time, between the state of poverty and the state of mind. Your humble blogger, who can now reveal that he was voting for Bobbie and child poverty down the line, had suspected throughout that it would come down to these two, and felt sure child poverty had an unanswerable case.

It did not, and the audience ultimately decided that mental health was London’s number one public health priority.

If you’re inspired by the audience’s decision, why not get involved with Mind, and start changing attitudes? If you disagree, the comments thread below is open for your thoughts. On this blog  we’ve enjoyed playing host to an interesting and vital debate, but now it’s over to you.

Sick City: Childhood obesity

Childhood obesity

Childhood obesity

On Thursday 7 October, Wellcome Collection presents Sick City, a balloon debate in which the audience decides public health priorities for London. Four speakers will each propose a problem which they think demands our resources and attention. This week on the Wellcome Collection blog, we present a brief introduction to each speaker’s priority. Join the debate using the comments below, or come to the event on Thursday (tickets are still available) to help make the decision.

Dr Alan Maryon-Davis will make the case for obesity as London’s most urgent health challenge.

The stark fact is that one in five young Londoners is obese, and one in three is overweight. The obesity levels among 10-11 year-olds in Southwark, Tower Hamlets and Lambeth are higher than anywhere else in the country. Child obesity in London has rocketed over the past decade, and, overall, London has the dubious honour of being the obesity capital of northern Europe.

Most obese kids become obese adults and have to carry the burden of ill-health that so often goes along with that. They face a much higher risk of high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, depression, musculoskeletal problems, gall-bladder disease, heart disease and cancer of the bowel and breast. Middle-age diseases are happening earlier and earlier to the capital’s young people. We are producing a generation that risks dying younger than their parents.

The problem is especially acute among the less well off. Obesity among the most deprived children is nearly double the rate in the least deprived. It’s one of the most important causes of health inequalities in London. But we can do something about it. By improving our children’s eating habits and encouraging them to be more active, we can turn the tide of child obesity. If we’re really serious about reducing the health divide between the haves and have-nots in London, let’s be practical and change our children’s lifestyles – for life.

Alan Maryon-Davis has worked in the fields of health promotion, preventive medicine and public health at a national and local level for over 30 years, much of that time as director of public health for Southwark. He is immediate-past President of the UK Faculty of Public Health, immediate-past Chair of the Royal Society for Public Health, vice-chair of the National Heart Forum and an honorary professor of public health at Kings College London. He has also written ten health books for the general public on subjects ranging from healthy eating to first aid, and has presented several series on national TV and radio. He is co-author of the recent report, Healthy Nudges [pdf], published by the UK Faculty of Public Health.

An extra yummy Packed Lunch

Donut design. flickr.com/jek-a-go-go

Donut design. flickr.com/jek-a-go-go


Subscribe via iTunesDownload mp3Podcast feed URL

When I heard that the latest Packed Lunch would be on food psychology, I immediately became very hungry. As the hours counted down the thought of ‘packed lunch’ and ‘food’ led me to an extra large helping of fish and chips…and a cheesecake.

Why do I lack such willpower when it comes to food? Is it something inherent in me, or is it the fault of those nasty devils in the kitchen, wafting their delicious smells of steaks and pies across our building? According to Professor Jane Wardle, health psychologist and Director of the Cancer Research UK Health Behaviour Centre at UCL, it’s a bit of both.

Wardle’s research focuses on the psychological factors influencing obesity.

Weight is highly heritable (we tend to resemble our biological parents), so for years people assumed that weight changes were almost entirely the result of your genes, and there have been several findings to support this. For example, researchers from the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute and colleagues found that people with a specific variant of a gene called FTO were heavier. But though there have been several headlines about the ‘obesity gene’ over the years, many appear to make only a small amount of difference in weight. It’s likely that a plethora of genes are involved in a web of interactions.  And their influence is likely to be affected by external factors too.

Moreover, the ballooning of obesity cases over the last 25 years belies a purely genetic influence. Such a rapid rise can’t all be due to genetic changes. So what is?

Lifestyle changes have made a difference, as is the rise in convenience foods and 24/7 advertising. And we react strongly to cues like the smell of food (as anyone who’s walked past a bakery will know) – something food outlets actively take advantage of.

Wardle thinks that some people are naturally more “food responsive”, getting more of a kick out of eating than others. These people may therefore be more vulnerable to the presence of a tasty treat or the devilish advertising around them. Be it a sweet or a savoury tooth, some people are more easily affected by external influences and less able to resist temptation.

In one experiment, Wardle gave a group of 8-12 year old children their favourite food for lunch. They were told they could to eat as much as they liked. The kids were then taken to a room to do puzzles – next to a large plate of sweets and biscuits. Again, the kids were told they could eat as many of these as they liked.

The researchers weighed the plate of sweets and biscuits before and after the experiment. Given that the children should have all been full, surely most of the treats would go untouched? The results were surprising. Some kids indeed ate little or none of the food, but others ate a lot. Their relative fullness appeared to have no effect on how much they ate.

Interestingly, the experiment showed that a child’s body weight was a good predictor of how much they would eat: those with larger weights were more likely to eat more, despite being ‘full’.

Wardle theorises that people vary in the strength or recognition of ‘full’ signals in their body: those who have weaker ‘stop’ signals will easily eat more than they need to. And this doesn’t mean they binge on donuts and KFC – the amount that they overstep might just be a small amount each meal, so they don’t notice. But over time this leads to a gain in weight.

Can we find ways to help people notice their internal stop signals, or consciously change their eating behaviours? The only intervention that has worked so far is the rather extreme vertical banded gastroplasty (VBG), also known as stomach stapling. Wardle also warned that, when it comes to dieting, anything that involves mentally resisting temptation is only a short-term fix and does not tend to change long-term behaviour.

One thing Wardle is experimenting with is ‘unconscious training’ using a cognitive task that trains subjects to unconsciously look away from a ‘bad word’. By replacing the words with pictures of food, she is looking at whether a few minutes of brain training could set you up to ignore food temptations for the rest of the day.

In the meantime, what can I do to cut down the calories and resist that mid-afternoon cake break? Wardle ended her talk with a few practical tips:

1)   go for regular meals at the same time and place to reduce impulse eating

2)   make each meal gradually healthier

3)   make them gradually a little smaller

4)   weigh yourself every day and plot this on a graph so you can track your progress.

I’m putting away that Mars bar right now…

The big issue

Daniel Lambert. Wellcome Images

Daniel Lambert. Wellcome Images

We might have just missed Mardi Gras, but a new topic is up on Explore this week: obesity. Being overweight is widely recognised as a danger to health, but the social and cultural meaning of extra bodily baggage has changed over time. What hasn’t lessened, it seems, is our fascination with examining and portraying it.

Historically, fatness has been a symbol of wealth and power, as an Egyptian wall relief from Karnak reveals; or a step on the ladder to fame and fortune as in the case of Daniel Lambert. Gluttony was recognised as pathological in Pierre Boaistuau’s 16th century encyclopaedia of freaks, ‘Histoires prodigieuses’; nevertheless obesity continues to fascinate both observers and artists as shown from Eadweard Muybridge’s motion capture photographs of ‘a gargantuan woman walking’ to Wellcome Collection’s work by John Isaacs, ‘I Can Not Help the Way I Feel’.

Health educators have sought to persuade people of the benefits of keeping your weight under control through many different media, including film. In the 1976 Scottish Health Education Unit film ‘A Way of Life’, Jack Harrison’s overeating and aversion to exercise put his life in danger, a warning to others. For some, Winifred Holmes’ 1967 film ‘A Cruel Kindness’ offers a nostalgic look at the home comforts of the 1960s; others, like the authors of this Boing Boing post on the film, find it remarkable how much obesity has grown as a problem in the 40+ years since the film was made. If you’ve ever wondered who made this sort of educational film and suspected either health fanatics or aspiring Hollywood hacks, Steve Holland’s post on the varied life and career of Winifred Holmes will enlighten you.

If you’re feeling playful, try your hand at The Obs, an interactive learning game about nature, nurture and obesity. If you’re in a more contemplative mood, consider the case of the  bioengineered obese mouse, the outcome of Victorian mouse-fancying and genetic research: obesity isn’t a problem only for humans.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 12,508 other followers