Lets talk about: Obesity Acceptance

[Batou667]

Any time one combines misery with wealth obesity results. So it's "natural", and it's going to occur regardless of whether it's accepted.

If you really want less obese people, then either take away the misery or take away the wealth. My personal preference is less misery, so do things like support financial security through taxing corporations and empowering democratic organizations so anxiety doesn't drive people to over-consume food.

Or just do what's been done for decades in America - blame the individual. That works extremely well as history has shown.

I disagree, because we could make the same argument in favour of smoking or alcoholism being "natural". Like overeating, they could be described as the symptom of unrestricted access combined with the desire for instant gratification, but they've both been successfully curbed with a combination of education and tax disincentives. To curb obesity we need to do the same for diet: regulate the industry to make nutritional information and portion sizes more transparent, stop subsidising corn syrup, discourage overconsumption by getting rid of serving sizes that represent over 100% of a daily allowance of fat/sugar, clamp down on advertising junk food to children, improve public education about nutrition, home cooking, portion control, daily calorific needs and exercise. There are dozens of things we could do to reduce obesity. The fact that the USA and other parts of the developed world are going through an obesity crisis is more an indicator of the failure of those specific governments to address education and food standards. There are plenty of highly-developed nations where obesity is a rarity: Japan, the Scandinavian countries, and so on.

I'm not saying we should blame the individual, but the individual does need to be at the root of any change. The individual needs to realise that their lifestyle isn't healthy, there are alternatives, they can make food from scratch that is both better and cheaper than eating out; the individual needs to be aware that additives in their food are making them fatigued and bloated and their kids hyperactive; the individual needs to be pissed off about the situation to the point where they demand better from their government and from the market. Change doesn't come from fat, happy people.

 

[Hoplon]

It's tricky, on the one hand the BMI is horse shit, on the other, i find being fat intensely uncomfortable.

I dunno about "horse shit"; I'd be very wary about rejecting BMI entirely out-of-hand. As a quick and simple first step to flagging up potential health issues it's a useful yardstick, albeit one with limitations. It assumes a standardised set of body proportions and composition - so it breaks down when used with the very young, the very old, the very tall or short, or people with above-average muscle mass. At 6'1" and 107kg I'm on the lower end of "obese" by BMI standards, but that's because I'm an amateur powerlifter - I'm actually fitter than most of the population and my bodyfat percentage is probably slightly under average (somewhere in the 15%-20% range). But for the average Joe or Jolene, the BMI scale is perfectly valid as a rough diagnostic tool.

It's not no. as you so amply demonstrate it can't distinguish between fat and muscle nor skeletal types. so what it says is garbage.

 

[Batou667]

It's not no. as you so amply demonstrate it can't distinguish between fat and muscle nor skeletal types. so what it says is garbage.

True, it doesn't distinguish different types of body composition and assumes that excess weight is fat. That means BMI doesn't apply to athletes and bodybuilders. It's still useful for the vast majority of people who aren't athletes or bodybuilders.

I wasn't aware skeletal types varied enough to cause a weight difference? Link pls?

It's not "garbage", it's "quite useful" as a preliminary indicator, not as a be-all and end-all measure of health. Any physician worth their salt will acknowledge it has limitations, but people need to stop rejecting BMI outright because a) it hurts their feelings to be called overweight or b) they think a very specific handful of disqualifying circumstances that are usually associated with being atypically fit apply to them, too.

[edit]The studies cited here suggest that the human skeleton weighs only a few kilograms, and even accounting for sex and race differences (black people have slightly heavier skeletons than Caucasians, men have heavier skeletons than women) the maximum variance is of the order of about 1.5kg (about 3 lbs). So, I don't think skeletal type is a valid counterargument; being "big boned" is just a euphemism.

 

[TheYellowCellPhone]

I remember seeing a post on /fit/ that posted an analogy of the fat acceptance movement that I think told the story of why the movement is so horrible that everyone should care.

Imagine you brush your teeth and floss everyday and your teeth are pretty shiny. Now imagine someone who doesn't brush their teeth everyday and drinks corrosive, sugary soda everyday and has horrible teeth. Now also imagine the person with horrible teeth thinks their bad teeth is just genetic, some people just have better teeth health than others, and you're the asshole for having better teeth and trying to tell them to just brush their teeth and floss for once. Now they're trying to push that having bad teeth is actually more healthy than brushing your teeth, and that people with worse teeth are more attractive.

It ain't good, it's unhealthy.

 

[Hoplon]

True, it doesn't distinguish different types of body composition and assumes that excess weight is fat. That means BMI doesn't apply to athletes and bodybuilders. It's still useful for the vast majority of people who aren't athletes or bodybuilders.

I wasn't aware skeletal types varied enough to cause a weight difference? Link pls?

It's not "garbage", it's "quite useful" as a preliminary indicator, not as a be-all and end-all measure of health. Any physician worth their salt will acknowledge it has limitations, but people need to stop rejecting BMI outright because a) it hurts their feelings to be called overweight or b) they think a very specific handful of disqualifying circumstances that are usually associated with being atypically fit apply to them, too.

[edit]The studies cited here suggest that the human skeleton weighs only a few kilograms, and even accounting for sex and race differences (black people have slightly heavier skeletons than Caucasians, men have heavier skeletons than women) the maximum variance is of the order of about 1.5kg (about 3 lbs). So, I don't think skeletal type is a valid counterargument; being "big boned" is just a euphemism.

"Because the BMI depends upon weight and the square of height, it ignores basic scaling laws whereby mass increases to the 3rd power of linear dimensions. Hence, larger individuals, even if they had exactly the same body shape and relative composition, always have a larger BMI."

No, being big boned is not a Euphemism, quote from here [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_mass_index]

 

[Henkie36]

My little disclaimer: I am 20 years old, nearly 6'4'' and weigh roughly 150 pounds. So yeah, I'm underweight, but I'm blessed with a body that won't gain weight. I've been a beanpole my entire life and can't help it. If anything, I'd like to gain a little weight.

''Fat is beautiful'' is total bullshit. It's not beautiful, it's unhealthy and people who say it are almost without exception at least 20 pounds too heavy. Saying that is just a lazy excuse not to excersize and eat healthy food. Those two things are the only things that work for people who want to lose weight. And I think it's a good thing there are magical powders that are being sold for prices higher than cocaine. Maybe it will teach the idiots of this world (of which there are a lot) a valuable lesson about weightloss.

''Obesity acceptance'' worries me. Like I said, the masses are dumb, and they can choose to believe what they like and discard the rest. They believe this paticular thing because it's easy, more than anything else. But that doesn't make it any less dangerous. Loudmouthed characters spreading these kinds of messages should be stopped.

 

[Batou667]

"Because the BMI depends upon weight and the square of height, it ignores basic scaling laws whereby mass increases to the 3rd power of linear dimensions. Hence, larger individuals, even if they had exactly the same body shape and relative composition, always have a larger BMI."

No, being big boned is not a Euphemism, quote from here [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_mass_index]

[a study] found that BMI-defined obesity (BMI > 30) was present in 21% of men and 31% of women. Using body fat percentages (BF%), however, BF%-defined obesity was found in 50% of men and 62% of women. While BMI-defined obesity showed high specificity (95% for men and 99% for women), BMI showed poor sensitivity (36% for men and 49% for women).

Translation: BMI underestimates obesity in about 50% of cases; and if the BMI method indicates you're obese then that has a 95%+ likelihood of being correct.

But hey, I've been saying since the beginning that BMI is a yardstick, an estimate, a rule of thumb that shouldn't represent a diagnosis in itself but be the first step to a more in-depth and personalised assessment. Probably a bodyfat% reading is more accurate, or hip-waist ratio.

 

[Hoplon]

Translation: BMI underestimates obesity in about 50% of cases; and if the BMI method indicates you're obese then that has a 95%+ likelihood of being correct.

But hey, I've been saying since the beginning that BMI is a yardstick, an estimate, a rule of thumb that shouldn't represent a diagnosis in itself but be the first step to a more in-depth and personalised assessment. Probably a bodyfat% reading is more accurate, or hip-waist ratio.

So you agree it will wrong, but we should use it anyway? what? no, it's shit, ignore it.

 

[AJ_Lethal]

One thing is being fat (which I can be cool with) and another thing is using your obesity as an excuse to be a complete entitled dick (which are r/fatpeoplestories fodder and they completely deserve to be milked for what is worth)

Heck, I heard stories of fat people feeling attacked just becuase a friend or relative lost weight. It's fucking sad and pathetic they can't even recognize they deep down hate themselves.

 

[Batou667]

So you agree it will wrong, but we should use it anyway? what? no, it's shit, ignore it.

It's inaccurate when you get down to specifics, just like saying "the Earth is a sphere" is technically untrue. I think it can continue to be one way in which we make a preliminary appraisal of whether somebody might have health issues. If people were being given medical advice solely on the evidence of their BMI reading, that would be wrong.

If people want to get rid of BMI and replace it with something more accurate, fine. What I'm against is this idea that weight is completely unrelated to health; it isn't.

 

[Childe]

Funny thing about the fat acceptance movement. It actually does better promoting healthiness than constant shaming. A nice study came out recently pointing this very fact out.

If you tell people that they don't need to constantly loathe and hate their bodies, surprise surprise, they actually become more interested in taking care of themselves. They stop thinking about their bodies as adversaries and start thinking of it as a valued part of themselves, and instead of hating themselves and their physical form, they instead work towards health. Not (just) weight loss. Health. Being able to exercise, being able to do all sorts of activities, being able to feel better in all sorts of ways.

If you think the movement is just a bunch of fat people whining loudly, you aren't listening, y'all. It's about people learning to not hate themselves. And in valuing themselves, they learn how to take care of themselves. That's the entire deal. Society would rather fat people stay inside and be shunned from society at large. And if you do that... well, you get too ashamed to go out to the gym, too. But if you work on loving yourself, realizing your body is a part of you to be valued, not only do you feel better, but you get out of the house to take care of yourself. You become confident enough to make good and healthy choices.

It's important stuff. (Says a fat person who the fat acceptance movement helped in EXACTLY this same way.)

I have to agree with this. Part of the problem is that we as a society are constantly slamming people who are overwieght, making fun of them and ridiculing them which isn't helping the problem AT ALL. If doing something makes you feel good your more likely to do it [see sex]. If your being yelled at and made fun, well its a motivator for some people but most don't like it and will avoid doing it. Now i agree with all the statements about being overweight isn't healthy, but society needs to change before the obesity problem can begin to take care of itself

 

[Lupine]

Sure I'll accept a 'fat movement,' but only if they pay for their own medical bills.

I don't care if some people want to delude themselves that having the bodyweight comparable to cattle is healthy, however when their self-delusion negativly affects society (in this case diverting hospital funds into supersize wards etc) then they can get stuffed.

Let me be that guy...the fat people that you're asking to pay their medical bills...those people are going to have much shorter life spans generally speaking and thus are going to require much less medical care as a result.

So instead of asking that fat people pay their medical bills, how about you ask the health nut that baring all accidental death or genetic predisposition is going to be riding the medical bill wagon for decades to come pay theirs. As for plus-sized wards, I can think of one and it seems more like a medical cash grab than anything to alleviate problems that medical professionals have been going through on a regular basis.

In all honesty, though; isn't the definition of obesity "a condition in which body fat has accumulated to the point where it can induce negative health effects". So, by definition, obesity acceptance is telling people to accept negative health effects and be okay with it. I know I'm being pedantic, but we have semantics for a reason.

The answer to this is no. I had a fitness teacher whom was considered obese because she was a body builder, it had crap all to do with her body composition and everything to do with weight / height. Edit: Also I guess I should mention how it stopped her from adopting a child. And thus how that worked out to lose weight and stop doing something you love or you and your husband can't adopt...

 

[Hoplon]

So you agree it will wrong, but we should use it anyway? what? no, it's shit, ignore it.

It's inaccurate when you get down to specifics, just like saying "the Earth is a sphere" is technically untrue. I think it can continue to be one way in which we make a preliminary appraisal of whether somebody might have health issues. If people were being given medical advice solely on the evidence of their BMI reading, that would be wrong.

If people want to get rid of BMI and replace it with something more accurate, fine. What I'm against is this idea that weight is completely unrelated to health; it isn't.

Then you have been arguing with the wrong person. I am not and have never been trying to say being fat is healthy, only that being told that on the basis of the BMI you have to loose weight is fucking nonsense.

 

[Saltarius]

Honestly, whether someone is a 'healthy' fat or an 'unhealthy' fat isn't anyone's business but their own. You don't go making fun of people for health conditions they have, so why is it so acceptable to do so with being fat? Plenty of diseases can be self-inflicted, yet we have a solemnness when someone mentions they have skin cancer. But being overweight, whether it's genetic factors or just them being overweight, will still generally get made fun of.

 

[L. Declis]

All this arguing about...

Come on, let's be adults. We all know what obesity is. We're not discussing curves. We're discussing rolls.

And yes, the ancient Romans and Greeks and such had fat beauties. But they were not obese. Stop saying they were, they weren't. They were in shape or stylised; there is no Greek God of McDonalds who sits on a scooter and eats five pizzas a day.

You can say "Well, there is this rugby player, and he's obese, and..." but you and I know we are not discussing him. No one is looking at him and thinking "Dude, lose weight".

You can sit there and BMI and measure and weigh but you know when you look in the mirror if you're obese or not.

And the same way people will roll their eyes when you say you don't wear a seatbelt, or you smoke, or you do drugs, or some other aspect of life which is ultimately self-destructive, fat people will get the same.

And much like smokers, when fat people begin to infringe on other people with the smell or the massive personal space requirements, people have a right to ***** and moan when another person's selfish lifestyle has infringed on theirs.

 

[Ed130 The Vanguard]

Sure I'll accept a 'fat movement,' but only if they pay for their own medical bills.

I don't care if some people want to delude themselves that having the bodyweight comparable to cattle is healthy, however when their self-delusion negativly affects society (in this case diverting hospital funds into supersize wards etc) then they can get stuffed.

Let me be that guy...the fat people that you're asking to pay their medical bills...those people are going to have much shorter life spans generally speaking and thus are going to require much less medical care as a result.

So instead of asking that fat people pay their medical bills, how about you ask the health nut that baring all accidental death or genetic predisposition is going to be riding the medical bill wagon for decades to come pay theirs. As for plus-sized wards, I can think of one and it seems more like a medical cash grab than anything to alleviate problems that medical professionals have been going through on a regular basis.

Aparentllly the cost for a leg amputation jn order to treat type 2 diabetes (which obesity markedly increases the chance of someone developing it, along with genetic pre-dispositions) is $38000USD in america. Heart disease treatment and kidney failure would be worse resourse wise.

Even if they do die young, they'll still be costing society keeping them alive before they succumb. A healthy person while staying around for much longer would also be productive for an extended period as well, resulting in a net gain instead of a loss. And as for plus-size wards, I doubt the collapsed hospital dolly was just for show.

 

[Bocaj2000]

Wow... missed the point of the movement.

It's not about eating tubs of lard and crying "I was born this way." That's just as retarded as seeing welfare for the lazy. It's about getting rid of the insecurity attached with feeling imperfect from a cultural shift. I've never been fat (135lbs), but my girlfriend is "disgusted" with her body. She's not even that bad- about 160lbs. She isn't losing weight to be healthy nor to gain muscle; it's because she finds herself disgusting.

This is why the movement is important. Disgust is a word that neither of us use lightly... and she uses it to describe herself. I'm sorry that I feel like I said that three times, but I just want to make sure that you understand this.

 

[Quadocky]

I am biased because I tend to find that people (mostly men) are innately attracted to overweight individuals. Basically men seem to be trained to desire a super-model women outwardly but discreetly get it on with the chubby or fat ones whenever they can.

The systemic hatred or dislike of larger people doesn't come from a place of empathy in so much as a place of 'Holier than thou' attitude. The reality of it is, you have no place to speak ill of others no matter what their weight is because that weight means nothing and is not YOUR problem. Making it your problem is incredibly rude and impersonal. Its like saying you hate someone because they have long hair.

Heck if you watch 'My 600 Pound Life' one would note that you are dealing with normal human beings. As normal as anyone else with the same problems as everyone else. And understanding how hard it is to just CHANGE. Not just change weight mind you, but the ability to change oneself.

 

[Ihateregistering1]

I am biased because I tend to find that people (mostly men) are innately attracted to overweight individuals. Basically men seem to be trained to desire a super-model women outwardly but discreetly get it on with the chubby or fat ones whenever they can.

Gonna play Devil's Advocate here, but saying "guys say they want women who look like Gisele Bundchen, but then they sleep with women who look like Melissa McCarthy, therefore they must actually be attracted to women who look like Melissa McCarthy" is some scattershot logic. The fact is that (in the US at least) there are far more women who look like McCarthy than there are who look like Bundchen, and your average guy is well aware that he's probably not going to end up with a Victoria's Secret model, so he takes what he can get. It's cold, but it's the reality of the matter.

The reality of it is, you have no place to speak ill of others no matter what their weight is because that weight means nothing and is not YOUR problem. Making it your problem is incredibly rude and impersonal. Its like saying you hate someone because they have long hair.

Sorry but no, people with long hair don't cost taxpayers (again, in the US) an additional $200 billion a year, while the obese do. Whatever is paid for by tax dollars is EVERYONE'S problem (well, everyone who pays taxes).
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/04/30/obesity-now-costs-americans-more-in-healthcare-costs-than-smoking/

As much as people might preach it, we don't live in a libertarian society where the only things run by the Government are the courts, police, and the Military, and where your health decisions only affect you. Numerous decisions you make affect the population as a whole.

Now, that doesn't mean that we should "fat shame" people, especially considering that it has been shown not to work and, in fact, often makes it worse. This part of the "fat acceptance" movement I can get behind. Unfortunately, certain elements of the fat acceptance movement have morphed into a group that denies science and medicine and refuses to accept the simple fact that no, you can't be "healthy at any size". A person who weighs 700 lbs and has a 95% BMI is unhealthy: period, end of story. Further, pointing out "well I knew someone who was fat and they ran marathons, therefore fat isn't bad for you" is like saying "My grandfather smoked 2 packs of cigarettes a day and lived to 93, therefore smoking isn't bad for you". Anecdotal evidence doesn't do anyone any good.