XXXXXXXXXL Buddha

September 18, 2004 9:32 AM

The life and death of a supersized man. Walter Hudson was fat. Precisely how fat was impossible to determine, because the one time he agreed to be weighed on an industrial-strength scale, it broke. (Maybe it was something he ate?) But no one denies that Hudson was one of the most obese people of the modern era (note: pictures not safe before lunch). Former comic, erstwhile diet guru, civil rights activist and Michael Jackson proponent Dick Gregory was one of Hudson's many exploiters, but Hudson's agoraphobic existence sounds almost beatific.
posted by digaman (24 comments total)

What is one to say about this? All I will say is that I've always hated Dick Gregory, and now I know why. It's interesting that a person can be among the world's shortest, or tallest, or hairiest, etc., and be assured of never being quite so reviled or exploited as the very fat person. In fact, the only other beings to be quite so dehumanized in the public eye seem to be the very beautiful. Go figure.
posted by taz at 10:24 AM on September 18, 2004

Amazing. I don't think that "diet" or lack of exercise accounts for these cases -- IANAD, but it seems that some sort of genetic twitch is the cause. How sad.
posted by davidmsc at 11:42 AM on September 18, 2004

Indeed it would be interesting to see if there's are some common genes among these people..as much as knowing what their eating habits , quantity , quality and brand were.

But should such researchs show that it's the quality of food we eat, and not only the quantity...that would enrage many interest in the food business.

Mhhh..supersize me..lala..supersize me
posted by elpapacito at 11:51 AM on September 18, 2004

I predict only bad things for this thread.
posted by crunchland at 12:10 PM on September 18, 2004

Average lifespan seems to be around 40 for these folks. So sad.
posted by gwint at 12:25 PM on September 18, 2004

Ah, the old "genetic or not" arguments. This'll be fun. Just to get the ball rolling, some quotes from the above link:

Roselie Bradford: "After contracting septicemia in the early 1980s, she spent most of the next decade in bed, eating - as much as 15,000 calories per day. It wasn't unusual for her to put away three large pizzas in 40 minutes (washing them down with diet soda), then ask for dessert. "

Michael Edelman: "Michael liked to start the day with four bowls of cereal, toast, waffles, cake, and a quart of soda, and end it with a whole pizza with the works for a bedtime snack. Mother and son tried every new diet that came along, &quotbut after a few days, we'd reward ourselves with a chocolate cake. Then we'd call for a pizza and that would be it."

Walter Hudson: "Hudson lived with his family, where his appetite was always indulged, and gave every indication that he was content with both his weight and his situation. 'I just ate and enjoyed it' "

Francis John Lang: "He blamed his masssive weight gain on prescription drug abuse, claiming that his narcotic of choice had the side effect of giving him an uncontrollable appetite."

Johnny Alee: "Alee developed a ravenous appetite at the age of ten, and put on pounds so rapidly that by age 15 he could barely support his own weight."

Jerry Currant: "Currant was a gourmet chef who kept his weight under 600 lbs until 1983, but then began gaining steadily."

Sylvanus "Hambone" Smith: " He worked as a chef until his increasing weight left him confined to bed, then ran a pawnshop out of his home."

David Ron High: "...he reduced from 823 lbs to 427 lbs on a year-long fast supplemented by fruits and vegetables. [...] High had been fat since childhood, and claimed he used to eat just one meal a day - all day. 'The pizza shop loved me,' he recalled. 'I was a great customer - and they even named a pizza after me. It was the only pizza in the world with spaghetti on it!' "

Etc., etc., etc.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 12:34 PM on September 18, 2004

Yes, civil, etc. And is the point that you're making that eating is one behavior that somehow falls outside the influence of genetic expression?
posted by digaman at 12:41 PM on September 18, 2004

Just pointing out that weight gain is a pretty simple equation. You can't gain calories from looking at food. Someone has to put it in their body.

Please don't get me wrong, though. There may very well be genetic reasons why some people feel the need to eat more than others.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 12:56 PM on September 18, 2004

There is a chromosomal disorder called Prader-Willi Syndrome, which gives sufferers an appetite which is completely insatiable, to the point their life can be threatened if they are not physically kept away from food: "The urge to eat is physiological and overwhelming; it is difficult to control and requires constant vigilance."
Impossible to say whether it is the cause of any of these cases, but it does suggest that while weight retention may not be genetic, eating 10 chickens for breakfast when there's no-one there to stop you may be down to more than just self indulgence.
On preview, just as you say, C_D.
posted by penguin pie at 1:02 PM on September 18, 2004

If there is a hell, there's a special place for people like Dick Gregory and Jerry Springer, who manipulate and use people in desperate circumstances.

At least, that's my hope.

Very sad link.
posted by geekhorde at 1:18 PM on September 18, 2004

'The pizza shop loved me,' he recalled. 'I was a great customer - and they even named a pizza after me. It was the only pizza in the world with spaghetti on it!'

I don't think so, buddy!
posted by glenwood at 1:20 PM on September 18, 2004

Just pointing out that weight gain is a pretty simple equation.

"Lucia Xarate [1863-89, Mexico], an emaciated ateleiotic dwarf of 26.8 in [67 cm] who weighed 2.8 lb at birth, weighed only 4.7 lb the age of 17. She fattened up to 13 lb by her 20th birthday." (From here.)

It is perhaps not inconceivable to imagine that just shoving a few more milkshakes at her might not have solved her problem. Why should one assume that an equally extreme problem on the other end of the scale (pun, pun, pun!) can always easily be solved using similarly simplistic logic?
posted by taz at 1:42 PM on September 18, 2004

I don't know if it's proper to say Dick Gregory "exploited" Hudson -- indeed, the evidence I recall has it the other way around. Gregory was attempting to help him (as he had helped several morbidly obese people) and Hudson was jerking him around. In Hudson's mind, he was gonna use Gregory to slim down and then screw him over to make a bazillion dollars marketing the "Hudson Diet" plan.

I think Richard Simmons was briefly tangled up in that as well.
posted by RavinDave at 3:08 PM on September 18, 2004

Fat men, small hotels, and porn stars all together.

Just another day on MeFi.
posted by shepd at 3:50 PM on September 18, 2004

Upon review it occurs to me that I should clarify something. I think Dick Gregory is a whack-job and an opportunist. I don't pretend he was acting from altruism toward Hudson -- so in that sense, I suppose you can say he was exploiting him. However, that doesn't cancel out the actions of Hudson. I distinctly remember an interview with Hudson on some daytime talkshow where he was asked his future plans (this was right when Gregory had tossed up his hands and left) and Hudson declared that he wasn't concerned about Gregory's departure because he had his own Diet plan that he intended to market. It became rapidly clear that Gregory and he had had a business falling-out. Mutual exploitation.

I also recall the same host questioning Richard Simmons about Hudson. Simmons simply sighed and lamented something to the effect of: "That's a sad case." And wouldn't comment further.
posted by RavinDave at 4:21 PM on September 18, 2004

Why should one assume that an equally extreme problem on the other end of the scale (pun, pun, pun!) can always easily be solved using similarly simplistic logic?

Because of the laws of physics, specifically the conservation of energy. It's one thing to use up more energy than you need -- if one has an overactive metabolism, for instance. The "other end of the spectrum" means you're using more energy than you consume. There are theoretical limits to how little the body needs just to function. Go below these, and you die.

This has been addressed in a previous thread (sorry, can't remember which one), but I think you'd be very hard-pressed to find an extremely overweight person who didn't also have an unusually high caloric intake. Even animals in hibernation -- which is the closest you'll ever see to bare subsitance for the body -- ingest enormous amounts of food beforehand that is stored in fat reserves. Very simply, you can't get something for nothing.

However, like I said before, there's no reason to think there isn't some kind of biological reason why certain people feel the overwhelming need to eat more than their body will ever utilize.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 5:04 PM on September 18, 2004

Not utilize. Use. Utilize is an abhorrent word.
posted by five fresh fish at 6:13 PM on September 18, 2004

Hrm. There is a difference, fff. The body can use the extra food, but it won't being utilizing the nutritional energy.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 7:17 PM on September 18, 2004

It just boggles my mind that caregivers for people who this obese would keep bringing them massive amounts of food. It's criminal.
posted by orange swan at 7:20 PM on September 18, 2004

Several of the people from this list suffered from severe edema, or water-retention. A lot of those pounds were liquid, as evidenced by their hospital stays.

It seems putting these "super heavyweights" on diets is what led to their deaths, as they literally starved themselves. So perhaps it isn't as simple as it seems.
posted by somethingotherthan at 8:20 PM on September 18, 2004

something: It's worth noting that the edema is a tertiary effect. Morbid obesity leads to obstruction of breathing and hypoventilation. This in turn, over time, leads to right heart failure which results in water retention by the kidneys in a futile effort to maintain blood pressure to other organs. This extra water becomes the edema.

Can you give these people diuretics and have them lose hundreds of pounds of water weight? You bet. They will also gain it right back because physiologically they need it, or at least their kidneys think they do.
posted by shagoth at 8:42 PM on September 18, 2004

CD: Nice! I'll accept that spin, then, though my inclination is to feel that the body is wasting the food, which means to me that it isn't actually using it ("for anything good"?)

shagoth: if they suddenly shed hundreds of pounds of water weight, they stand a good chance of dying because their blood pressure drops, neh?
posted by five fresh fish at 9:21 PM on September 18, 2004

It just boggles my mind that caregivers for people who this obese would keep bringing them massive amounts of food. It's criminal.

The alternative may be causing severe emotional and possibly physical stress by withholding food. These aren't "normal" people who happen to eat 6 pizzas in a sitting. It's not that simple, and it's not an easy position for the caretakers to be in.
posted by callmejay at 9:23 PM on September 18, 2004

I predict only bad things for this thread.

At least give it a chance first. It's an interesting post.

This has been addressed in a previous thread (sorry, can't remember which one), but I think you'd be very hard-pressed to find an extremely overweight person who didn't also have an unusually high caloric intake.

Just as a possibly theory, maybe the problem is one of absorbing the nutrients from the food or, probable in some cases, that the food is nearly nutrient-free calories. Perhaps they are eating a large amount of food and are still unable to satisfy the natural parts of the brain that are still telling them that they crave something. Someone might be able to subsist on a diet of only pizza, but chocolate cake and soda, probably not. (just as another question, does anyone know of any scientific studies how long people can survive on a diet of processed stuff)
posted by milovoo at 10:23 AM on September 19, 2004