Obesity Discrimination

[RafaelNegrus]

I...don't see why it's such a bad thing to encourage people not to be obese.

I'll break it down into chunks

1) Discrimination, stigmatisation and bullying (which is what it is in the end) is not good for people's health. This misconception that you should mock, stigmatise, or belittle an obese person "for their own good" is beyond ridiculous. Studies - REAL studies that is, not ones sponsored by Weight Watchers or Kellog's, have shown that the stress of being constantly stigmatised by people for their weight breeds within people the same illnesses that are perceived as being "obesity diseases", diabetes? Heart problems due to blood-pressure? All capable of being caused by stress. And the idea that pointing out someone's weight is an eye-opener to them... Well, do you really think obese people are walking around UNAWARE that they're obese? When they have TV, Films, Magazines, People On The Street, Friends, Family etc all pointing it out to them every day? You really think your one stupid comment is going to be the one to "save" them?
Bibliography
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/8/128
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2007.114769
fiercefatties.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/nichd-letter.pdf

2) Weight has nothing to do with your health. No, really. Remember how when you were a little kid you got told "people come in all shapes and sizes"? That's still true, it's just that the weight-loss industry is worth $68 billion dollars and it's very good for them to breed a culture of shame, fear, and hatred.
What you eat and how much you exercise is highly unlikely to determine how much you weigh, and in fact it has been shown from as early as 1959 that diet and exercise only cause weightloss in 5% of people, and even then only about 10% of it, so most obese people will still be obese at the end of that.
But here's the thing - eating well and exercising moderately for 30 minutes, 5 times a week completely eliminates all risk of the illnesses associated with obesity. It is possible to be obese and healthy. The idea that you're only healthy when you're thin is incredibly damaging to obese people AND ideal weight people. This line of thinking cause people to go on extreme diets and exercise far too much - and yes, that is a thing - thus putting a strain on their body. You know those contestants of The Biggest Loser Michelle Obama thinks are such a good role-model? They shit, piss and puke blood when you're not looking.
It also causes thin people who don't eat well or exercise to assume that they're fine. In fact, all those "obesity diseases"? Ideal weight people who live poor lifestyles can run afoul of them too.
Bibliography
http://www.jabfm.org/content/25/1/9.abstract?etoc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUaInS6HIGo
http://www.nutritionj.com/content/10/1/9
http://www.rxpgnews.com/obesity/Adolescent_Dieting_May_Predict_Obesity_and_Eating__3907_3907.shtml
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Dieting-Does-Not-Work-UCLA-Researchers-7832.aspx
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez/17469900
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez/10449014
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez/1580453
3) Creating a culture where weight is equated with health is seriously dangerous.
You know that scary "obese people are costing healthcare money!" rhetoric that gets thrown around? A fun fact: No matter what your cause of death or illness an obese person, it will get attributed to obesity. We're not the apocalypse you all think/hope we are.
But that's a symptom of a big, big issue - that all an obese persons' ailments are attributed to their obesity. Heart problems, diabetes, high blood pressure, strep throat (seriously), pretty much anything. So when an obese person goes to the doc with a problem, they will almost invariably be told to lose weight. What happens when a thin person goes to the docs with the same issues? They get actual, medically sound advice is what.
Bibliography:
yaleruddcenter.org/resources/upload/docs/what/bias/WeightBiasStudy.pdf
http://thinkexist.com/quotes/steven_blair/
thinkmuscle.com/health/obesity-health-metabolic-fitness/
http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJM198603063141003
http://danceswithfat.wordpress.com/2012/05/11/the-true-cost-of-fatties/
http://bigliberty.net/2012/05/11/other-reason-why-fat-person-cost-calculations-are-bogus/

In short, we need to focus on HEALTH, not WEIGHT. What is the actual point of saying "hey you, be less obese!" over "hey you, eat a balanced diet and exercise 30 minutes, 5 times a week!"? Well I can tell you the actual point; money, dear boy. But certainly not health.

Okay, so I didn't read all of the things you had linked, but one that seemed pretty comprehensive on all of your points, namely http://www.nutritionj.com/content/10/1/9 that one.

Reading through it (because that's what you have to do when using these for arguments, the abstracts are only basic summaries) what I got is that the weight itself is not necessarily an issue, but it is correlated with many other medical conditions that are issues, which should be addressed. So yes, I can see that there's the possibility of being overweight and still healthy, but that of course obviously varies greatly. I know that one study it cited used people age 50 and over, but weight that might be considered 'healthy' I think varies with age, but I obviously don't know that for sure.

The study also cites "contemporary dieting practices" which I would really like to see defined. What kind of diets are they studying? What if someone switches from an unhealthy diet (aka, something like mine which involves a lot of food that is nutritionally similar to pepperoni pizza) to something that is far more healthy and then reaping benefits from that.

 

[RafaelNegrus]

snip

Alright, since you don't care about the United States, how about Britain? 22 percent of British adults are obese, and that number is estimated to go up to a third of the population by 2020. Do you not care about them either? Here's a ranking of the world's fattest countries and you can finds the ones you do care about http://www.forbes.com/2007/02/07/worlds-fattest-countries-forbeslife-cx_ls_0208worldfat_2.html

(although this combines overweight and obese together, so the numbers are pretty high)

Poland, 98th.

Yeah, I'm shaking in my booties.

The frightening thing is that this number of people is supposed to grow by 40 percent over the next ten years (and that's ten years from when the article was published in 2007).

"Obesity isn't caused by people, it's caused by obese people"? So you're saying people have no control over it at all? That's just plain not true. If it's genetics then why is the number rising? It's not like people's genes are suddenly getting worse.

How about "Medicine is better and being fat no longer makes you die at 50". Health care is getting better and better, so an obese person lives longer. That means they contribute to the "total amount of fat people" for longer while new "fatties" join the fray.

And that's same reason why general life expectancy is rising. It's not that people suddenly have better genes that allow them to live past 60, or that they stop committing suicide after retirement. Life is getting better and easier. Also most people who are obese or overweight don't work physically - they don't have to. Since more and more people work in the 3rd industry (...or however it's called in English - the non-agriculture one), the less work physically.

And I'm all in favor of a tax on unhealthy foods. Obesity has a direct monetary cost on society, and I see little issue with asking people to pay the cost of their lifestyle. IF it helps people make better choices then that's great, but even if it only pays the bills for them then that's fine.

Taxing unhealthy foods - again, why? They aren't poisonous. They aren't a target for smugglers or crack dealers like drugs or tobacco or alcohol. They don't affect people other than the ones eating them. HOW DOES THIS HAVE AN EFFECT ON OTHER PEOPLE?

I'm going to just look past how little you care about the rest of the world, and the obesity rate is rising amongst all age groups, For the U.S. (which we all know you care so much about) the childhood obesity rate has tripled in one generation, up to 17%, so it's not rising life expectancies that have done this. http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/childhood/index.html

As for the tax on unhealthy foods, I'm in favor of them because they mesh with the economic concept known as externalities. The quintessential example of an externality is pollution, a company has a cost which it puts on the rest of society instead of paying for itself. Environmental regulations usually try to make the company shoulder the cost of cleaning up whatever they're doing.

The issue with externalities is that they create situations where behaviors are done more often than is ideal. Many people have brought up that a factor leading to obesity is that unhealthy food is so cheap and healthy food is expensive. This means that people are buying more unhealthy food than they would if they were shouldering all the monetary costs of their decisions (medical costs are the prominent ones, which get paid by healthy individuals either through their taxes or private insurance).

And so with a tax on unhealthy foods then more people would buy healthy food and live better lives, while still having access to unhealthy food if they really want it. I think that's a good outcome overall.

Oh, and by defining them as unhealthy food, then you're admitting that they're bad for you and could be compared to poisonous (people who eat themselves to death)

 

[Heinrich843]

The thing is, there are a lot of misconceptions surrounding obesity. A lot of people associate laziness with obesity for example. Even more people assume losing weight is an extremely easy process when it's not. All of these stereotypes coupled with the diet industry's and indeed society's obsession with "the perfect body" and it's no surprise fat people are being discriminated against.

This.

Now I know not everyone cares if they're underweight, or overweight.. but it's all about being healthy. Some members really doesn't understand how weight loss works, either they haven't been able to lose weight themselves- or they're skinny or whatever and feel heavier people just aren't doing enough.

Matthew brought up an extremely good point- it's easier to cut out bad foods than it is to burn it. This along with regular, determined, moderate exercise can bring a person's overall weight down in a healthy fashion, also raising their physical fitness level.

Smaller people, and lighter people may have no trouble starting a regular cardiovascular routine, but you've got to remember- being overweight is like wearing a weight vest for track. They've got to start smaller. They can't just go out and run a mile and gradually increase their speed and distance. To avoid any sports injuries, they should start out walking, swimming or other less violent activities- while cutting down on eating bad things. Doing this consistently, while eating high density, nutrient rich foods will usually cause this person to lose weight.

Seriously, quit telling heavier/fat people to go out and run. They're gonna have bum knees and stress fractures within a month. They have to gradually ease into a more active life style. Over-exertion is only going to be counter-productive.

Keep in mind, people who are fat do not eat more than the average person does. They simply eat the wrong things.

Captcha: "first water" - Yes, stay hydrated.

EDIT: I should also mention that when you reach a physically fit and good level of activity- there's not magical sign that says- "GOOD JOB". You may still be heavier than other people, but what's important is that you are healthy.

 

[Heinrich843]

It's not about losing weight, it's about leading a healthy lifestyle. Don't automatically assume that being skinny means being healthy. Yes, for some people a change of diet and routine might bring their weight down but for most, it won't and there's nothing wrong with that. As long as you lead a healthy lifestyle you will be healthy.

I kinda said that that- I said "usually" in my post and grouped underweight with overweight- but I added an edit just as you were posting. I agree with you, well- so long as you're speaking generally.

If a person should follow a good diet of high density, nutrient rich foods and regular, persistent exercise and still have an extremely high body fat percentage- I would honestly see a doctor to confirm that the weight isn't a symptom of a thyroid disorder.

 

[Therumancer]

Okay, my opinions on this are mixed. Over a period of time I have become morbidly obese, something brought on by a ton of medication, a sedimentary lifestyle, depression, and tons of other contributing factors. In short having brain damage and being eventually forced into retirement and losing what passed for your career under bad circumstances just generally sucks.

As a result, I can see how for some people discrimination for being fat is uncalled for. The stereotype of someone who just eats a ton and is totally lazy isn't always the case. Trust me, take the right medications for years on end and you'll fit that bill. That does not change the simple fact that the streotype is true in most cases. Speaking for myself, the attitude I get is somewhat mitigated by the dent in my head.

The issue with obesity in this country is that right now huge numbers of people are obese, and while all of them have excuses, simply by the numbers like 99% of the people are lying or fooling themselves with those excuses. This obesity leads to health problems, and problems for those who don't suffer from such disadvantages. It wasn't a big deal decades ago where you might occasionally run into some huge, fat person, but now when you see fatties literally everywhere, it's an issue.

Of course a lot of the problems DO come from things like widespread depression over the economy, and of course the conveinence of a society where most things are automated and most people in the US and other countries with problems (most of the first world) are employed performing sedimentary or semi-sedimentary tasks, which still manage to render them totally exhausted.

In some cases I DO think fat discrimination is fine, and that simply not tolerating it in society will force change over a period of time, as long as there is some care taken with who is discriminated against. I also think that the problem is one that has to be addressed as a society, and not as a health issue, so much as one of changing it's building blocks around enough so less people will become fat just by living more or less normally. I think employers need to be held more responsible for the condition of the people that work for them. That guy stuffed behind a desk, into a cubicle, or made to stand in one place all day, is probably going to put on weight, and the guys setting up the jobs should watch that and keep it in mind in setting the jobs and positions. Some companies have come up with things equivilent to school recess/exercise periods, it's not common yet, but I'm beginning to think it should probably be made a requirement. Ditto for some cases where they add physical fitness requirements to holding jobs, even if they don't otherwise require them, it's happened, but it's not yet common. Require even an IS guy or paper pusher to be able to do X number of push ups, sit ups, toe touches, etc... and re-test every six months, while providing those recess periods, and there you go. Extreme action, but it is a bit of a crisis, I think the goverment could justify it, even if employers wouldn't exactly relish the thought. As I said, I've read of some isolated cases of things like this being tried voluntarily, and it seems to have a positive impact.

 

[monkey_man]

I'm a bit fat, not overly obese, but I have a belly. It's entirely my fault, and no one else's. I Chose to be kinda fat, I can stop being fat any day I like, as long as I try.
I don't.

And that's why this is different from all the other discriminations. Being fat is a choice, a lifestyle. Being black, or short, or ugly is genetics. You can't change that(well you can, but that's called surgery, and I'm not counting that). But being fat is (almost exclusively, I know there are meds and actual disorders) a choice. And people claiming they can't help it lie. They like eating a lot. Like I do.

I also say that it's perfectly okay to yell at fat people for being fat, because they are stupid. By yelling you might convince them they are stupid, so they'll try to change.

To all fat people (including myself): Stop being fat, or stop complaining you are fat, and take the damn health issues with that. You must choose, because if I hear anyone complaining they can't help themselves without a doctor's autograph signed under a viable excuse (meds, disorder etc.) I am going to slap their bellies. SO HARD. It's vibrations will cause an earthquake.

also, some people were talking about depression, I don't think that excuses you. If you get depressed by what you are, change or stop whining and accept your big gut. Seriously, I'll slap you on the belly. Be afraid.......

 

[Terminate421]

One thing that annoys me to no end is pretty much explained by cracked.com

When I go to the grocery store and see someone on that carts, I see 3 different people:
Old people
Disabled people
Fat people

I have virtually no respect for those fat people who use those carts. It's not because I hate fat people or the obese. I hate the people that know they have a problem, want it solved, it CAN be solved, and don't do shit about it. that cart example works because when someone large walks around, their helping themselves lose extra calories when people have it so bad that they need a machine to get around, as in something they could have avoided, I get annoyed very quick.

Now of course I am not openly mean to people and I can understand am not against people who are both obese and old or obese and disabled but if you're just obese and clearly capable of using the legs god gave you? I pity you.

 

[Amarok]

Okay, so I didn't read all of the things you had linked, but one that seemed pretty comprehensive on all of your points, namely http://www.nutritionj.com/content/10/1/9 that one.

Reading through it (because that's what you have to do when using these for arguments, the abstracts are only basic summaries) what I got is that the weight itself is not necessarily an issue, but it is correlated with many other medical conditions that are issues, which should be addressed. So yes, I can see that there's the possibility of being overweight and still healthy, but that of course obviously varies greatly. I know that one study it cited used people age 50 and over, but weight that might be considered 'healthy' I think varies with age, but I obviously don't know that for sure.

The study also cites "contemporary dieting practices" which I would really like to see defined. What kind of diets are they studying? What if someone switches from an unhealthy diet (aka, something like mine which involves a lot of food that is nutritionally similar to pepperoni pizza) to something that is far more healthy and then reaping benefits from that.

By all accounts a healthy lifestyle will lead to a healthy self - barring illness and injury of course. I'm too tired and pre-occupied with other things to go looking for links right now but I will dig some up later and PM them.

The bare basics though, are this. 30 minutes of moderate exercise 5 times a week is sufficient to nullify the increased risk of certain diseases that is correlated with obesity. With that amount of exercise your risk is the same as an ideal weight person - though in truth the ideal weight person would also have to do that amount of exercise to avoid increased risk.
As far as one's diet goes, the amount of fat and/or calories you ingest has a negligable effect on your weight. No, really! Hence why those "eat and eat and never gain a pound" people exist. Health-wise, getting enough fruit and vegetables in is important, and beyond that you're free to do whatever you like. You could drink a deep-fried cola if you want, so long as you also get the good stuff in. Your body will sort out the rest, it's clever like that.

Now, let's assume you eat a very restrictive diet, and exercise way more than is necessary. Any weight-loss incurred during this process is statistically 95% likely to return within 5 years, even if you continue the new lifestyle. It is also not healthy to exercise a disproportinately high amount compared to what you're eating - When atheletes work out all day, they take in a lot more calories to compensate.

Speak of atheletes, it is possible to not only be obese and healthy, but also obese and atheletic.

Just for a some real life "couldn't ignore this unless you are deliberately doing so" examples, we have Regan Chastain, a 284lb professional dancer, in the top 1% of strength and stamina for Americans, capable of dancing as well as any other, exercises 3 hours a day or more, capable of lifting about 400lbs with her legs, and is a strong supporter of HAES, Health At Every Size, which basically promotes living healthily and not sweating the scales.

We also have Cheryl Haworth, an olympic weight-lifter. 25 years old, 300lbs, in better shape than either of us will ever be

On a lesser-known scale we have Kelly Gneiting, a 400lb man who ran a marathon in 2 hours, 6 minutes. That's a damn good time. When he performed this feat he was STILL derided by the media as clearly being an out-of-shape tub of lard, just look at him! The fact that the guy ran a freakin' marathon, and quite well at that, clearly counted for naught, there.

Sorry if that was a bit of a digression there, but your comment "overweight and still healthy" struck me as a bit tentative. It's not just possible to be overweight and "still" healthy. It's possible to be Type 3 Super Obese (which is a thing) and to completely kick ass

To wrap up this rambling response; living a healthy life will lead to a healthy self, and any scientist who's not lying out of his back teeth or being paid by a weight loss company (as you'll notice so many who bring out the more simplistic, fear-mongering studies are) will freely admit they have no idea why some people are fat and some people are thin.

 

[Cry Wolf]

SNIP

Yeah, if you can't see weight-based discrimination happens I want to say somethings that probably wouldn't bode well for my probation. However, I will share my thoughts on said discrimination in general; Any fat person who gets offended because they are called fat, try to justify how being obese "isn't their fault" or even outright tries to deny they are overweight deserve any flak they get.

And you know what? I'm a fat fuck and I got this way because food is fucking awesome and exersize is boring as hell.

Here's the thing; discriminating against someone purely because they are fat is wrong - just as any discrimination due to mostly arbitary reasoning is wrong. However, there are non-arbitary reasons related to most issues - in this case, fat people - that aren't purely arbitary and deserve it. Denial? Deserves it. False justification? Same as denial. Taking offense over trivial matter deserves it (remember, being called fat does not equal discrimination, just like calling a smoker a smoker isn't discrimination).

 

[Mayhaps]

It goes both ways, my mum is fat and when she slanders skinny people (probably because of her insecurity of her own weight) I get mad, I don't do anything but it upsets me.

To be fair, obesity is a problem, it's not something to be proud of, not as long as there are starving people in the world anyway. With that said discrimination is always bad, but criticizing is not discrimination.

She rips on skinny people? Do you mean the underweight, or people who just aren't fat?

I mean skinny people, I don't know if she's consistent about it. Mostly anyone who cares about their weight.

 

[TheTurtleMan]

Of course obesity is discriminated against. Saying it isn't discriminated against would be like saying nobody feels superior to smokers or drinkers. People should not be discriminated against for any of these things, although smoking regularly and weighing 300lbs shouldn't be accepted as social norms either.

There is a definite health problem with being obese, so people should be encouraged to lose weight for their own safety. I hope we don't get to a point in society where being morbidly obese is just as acceptable as being physically fit.

 

[Ashannon Blackthorn]

Everything can be changed now, so why is picking on fat people ok? From what I'm told, it is much easier to afford unhealthy food in the US than healthy. In the north here in Canada, you can get a bag of chips for a couple dollars, but a gallon of milk costs 10. A loaf of bread 6 or 7 dollars. A bag of apples? $20. Not easy to eat well.

Unless you live in the NWT, Nunavut or the Yukon I call bullshit. I live in Newfoundland and prices are nowhere near that level even in the tiny outports. (Now if you do happen to live in those above mentioned places pity on the prices but how about you fuck off with the sweeping statements? Sheesh you make it sound like Canada is some third world junk food country)

 

[Farseer Lolotea]

Are people not capable of acting in their own lives? I think they can do something about their situations, and I think that's a GOOD thing, it would be far worse if you're just born a certain way and then just have to deal with it, which is patently not true. And yes it is a problem! It is a medical condition that has a serious impact on people's lives! Obese people live on average 6-7 years less than non-obese people.

And the fact that most medically-approved weight-loss regimens are bad for your health in their own right (and that fat people are more likely to also be habitual dieters) has nothing to do with it, right?

Let's not pretend the medical industry is entirely unbiased, either: If someone's fat, they're going to get weight loss pushed on them regardless of what's actually gone awry. And because of that, they're also less likely to seek medical attention until something's gone seriously awry.

And it's a narrow range? For someone who is 6 foot tall, a normal weight is found to be 130-170 pounds, if we add in overweight that range extends to 205 pounds. 75 pounds is a narrow range?

Taking things like frame size into account? Yes, it is. (We'll skip how ludicrous it is to presume that every six-footer who weighs over 170# must be at all fat to begin with.)

And I have already said that there are people with a genetic predisposition towards carrying more weight, but as other people have noted there are MANY factors that are part of this, and it varies WIDELY across countries, and there is NO reason to think that all that variation is due to genetics.

I never said it was "all due to genetics." You are the one who keeps pushing the idea that even if it is due to genetics, people should try to stay at a socially-acceptable weight anyway.

Yes, I know: you said "healthy," not "socially acceptable." It ain't healthy if they have to resort to unhealthy means to maintain it.

In short, we need to focus on HEALTH, not WEIGHT. What is the actual point of saying "hey you, be less obese!" over "hey you, eat a balanced diet and exercise 30 minutes, 5 times a week!"? Well I can tell you the actual point; money, dear boy. But certainly not health.

This. There's more profit in making (and keeping) people neurotic about their pants size or the number on their scales than in actually worrying about their health.

 

[RafaelNegrus]

Okay, so I didn't read all of the things you had linked, but one that seemed pretty comprehensive on all of your points, namely http://www.nutritionj.com/content/10/1/9 that one.

Reading through it (because that's what you have to do when using these for arguments, the abstracts are only basic summaries) what I got is that the weight itself is not necessarily an issue, but it is correlated with many other medical conditions that are issues, which should be addressed. So yes, I can see that there's the possibility of being overweight and still healthy, but that of course obviously varies greatly. I know that one study it cited used people age 50 and over, but weight that might be considered 'healthy' I think varies with age, but I obviously don't know that for sure.

The study also cites "contemporary dieting practices" which I would really like to see defined. What kind of diets are they studying? What if someone switches from an unhealthy diet (aka, something like mine which involves a lot of food that is nutritionally similar to pepperoni pizza) to something that is far more healthy and then reaping benefits from that.

By all accounts a healthy lifestyle will lead to a healthy self - barring illness and injury of course. I'm too tired and pre-occupied with other things to go looking for links right now but I will dig some up later and PM them.

The bare basics though, are this. 30 minutes of moderate exercise 5 times a week is sufficient to nullify the increased risk of certain diseases that is correlated with obesity. With that amount of exercise your risk is the same as an ideal weight person - though in truth the ideal weight person would also have to do that amount of exercise to avoid increased risk.
As far as one's diet goes, the amount of fat and/or calories you ingest has a negligable effect on your weight. No, really! Hence why those "eat and eat and never gain a pound" people exist. Health-wise, getting enough fruit and vegetables in is important, and beyond that you're free to do whatever you like. You could drink a deep-fried cola if you want, so long as you also get the good stuff in. Your body will sort out the rest, it's clever like that.

Now, let's assume you eat a very restrictive diet, and exercise way more than is necessary. Any weight-loss incurred during this process is statistically 95% likely to return within 5 years, even if you continue the new lifestyle. It is also not healthy to exercise a disproportinately high amount compared to what you're eating - When atheletes work out all day, they take in a lot more calories to compensate.

Speak of atheletes, it is possible to not only be obese and healthy, but also obese and atheletic.

Just for a some real life "couldn't ignore this unless you are deliberately doing so" examples, we have Regan Chastain, a 284lb professional dancer, in the top 1% of strength and stamina for Americans, capable of dancing as well as any other, exercises 3 hours a day or more, capable of lifting about 400lbs with her legs, and is a strong supporter of HAES, Health At Every Size, which basically promotes living healthily and not sweating the scales.

We also have Cheryl Haworth, an olympic weight-lifter. 25 years old, 300lbs, in better shape than either of us will ever be

On a lesser-known scale we have Kelly Gneiting, a 400lb man who ran a marathon in 2 hours, 6 minutes. That's a damn good time. When he performed this feat he was STILL derided by the media as clearly being an out-of-shape tub of lard, just look at him! The fact that the guy ran a freakin' marathon, and quite well at that, clearly counted for naught, there.

Sorry if that was a bit of a digression there, but your comment "overweight and still healthy" struck me as a bit tentative. It's not just possible to be overweight and "still" healthy. It's possible to be Type 3 Super Obese (which is a thing) and to completely kick ass

To wrap up this rambling response; living a healthy life will lead to a healthy self, and any scientist who's not lying out of his back teeth or being paid by a weight loss company (as you'll notice so many who bring out the more simplistic, fear-mongering studies are) will freely admit they have no idea why some people are fat and some people are thin.

Yesd, other people have mentioned that. BMI is just a measurement of weight to height, not fat content or anything like that. But we aren't talking about people like that as I think we can safely call Olympic athletes outliers.

I do say that tentatively, because that's assuming that they're necessarily doing something about it, as you were saying exercising five days a week, half an hour a day. No one I know exercises that much. That's great is they're living a healthy lifestyle, but I think the obesity rates keep rising specifically because people aren't living one.

 

[Farseer Lolotea]

Yesd, other people have mentioned that. BMI is just a measurement of weight to height, not fat content or anything like that.

And yet, you've continued to reference it.

But we aren't talking about people like that as I think we can safely call Olympic athletes outliers.

First it's "anyone over 170# at six feet tall must be fat." Now, it's "anyone over 170# (or even over 205#) at six feet tall who isn't fat must be an Olympic athlete."

I'll give you this: that's less ludicrous than the previous version. But only marginally so.

I do say that tentatively, because that's assuming that they're necessarily doing something about it, as you were saying exercising five days a week, half an hour a day. No one I know exercises that much. That's great is they're living a healthy lifestyle, but I think the obesity rates keep rising specifically because people aren't living one.

Yes, let's ignore the correlation with poverty [fattypolitic.tumblr.com/post/23186951875/okay-show-of-hands], the fact that the clinical definition of "obesity" only takes body-mass index into account, the correlation with repeated weight-loss attempts, the ubiquity of body-shaming, and so on and so forth.

 

[RafaelNegrus]

Are people not capable of acting in their own lives? I think they can do something about their situations, and I think that's a GOOD thing, it would be far worse if you're just born a certain way and then just have to deal with it, which is patently not true. And yes it is a problem! It is a medical condition that has a serious impact on people's lives! Obese people live on average 6-7 years less than non-obese people.

And the fact that most medically-approved weight-loss regimens are bad for your health in their own right (and that fat people are more likely to also be habitual dieters) has nothing to do with it, right?

Let's not pretend the medical industry is entirely unbiased, either: If someone's fat, they're going to get weight loss pushed on them regardless of what's actually gone awry. And because of that, they're also less likely to seek medical attention until something's gone seriously awry.

And it's a narrow range? For someone who is 6 foot tall, a normal weight is found to be 130-170 pounds, if we add in overweight that range extends to 205 pounds. 75 pounds is a narrow range?

Taking things like frame size into account? Yes, it is. (We'll skip how ludicrous it is to presume that every six-footer who weighs over 170# must be at all fat to begin with.)

And I have already said that there are people with a genetic predisposition towards carrying more weight, but as other people have noted there are MANY factors that are part of this, and it varies WIDELY across countries, and there is NO reason to think that all that variation is due to genetics.

I never said it was "all due to genetics." You are the one who keeps pushing the idea that even if it is due to genetics, people should try to stay at a socially-acceptable weight anyway.

Yes, I know: you said "healthy," not "socially acceptable." It ain't healthy if they have to resort to unhealthy means to maintain it.

In short, we need to focus on HEALTH, not WEIGHT. What is the actual point of saying "hey you, be less obese!" over "hey you, eat a balanced diet and exercise 30 minutes, 5 times a week!"? Well I can tell you the actual point; money, dear boy. But certainly not health.

This. There's more profit in making (and keeping) people neurotic about their pants size or the number on their scales than in actually worrying about their health.

Don't put words in my mouth. I did indeed say a healthy weight, which is not something that is defined as "socially acceptable" and does take into account things like frame size and the other issues that you are attacking me for. If it's healthy it's fine, if it's not healthy it's obviously not fine.

Yesd, other people have mentioned that. BMI is just a measurement of weight to height, not fat content or anything like that.

And yet, you've continued to reference it.

But we aren't talking about people like that as I think we can safely call Olympic athletes outliers.

First it's "anyone over 170# at six feet tall must be fat." Now, it's "anyone over 170# (or even over 205#) at six feet tall who isn't fat must be an Olympic athlete."

I'll give you this: that's less ludicrous than the previous version. But only marginally so.

I do say that tentatively, because that's assuming that they're necessarily doing something about it, as you were saying exercising five days a week, half an hour a day. No one I know exercises that much. That's great is they're living a healthy lifestyle, but I think the obesity rates keep rising specifically because people aren't living one.

Yes, let's ignore the correlation with poverty [fattypolitic.tumblr.com/post/23186951875/okay-show-of-hands], the fact that the clinical definition of "obesity" only takes body-mass index into account, the correlation with repeated weight-loss attempts, the ubiquity of body-shaming, and so on and so forth.

BMI is useful for the same exact reason it isn't useful: it's simple. We're talking about completely hypothetical people, what else do you expect me to refer to? Do you want me to write an entire paragraph detailing the life of our John Doe obese person?

And from what little of medicine I've studied (a course actually on literature and medicine, which was a better combination than one might think) what got emphasized to me was that medicine needs to be applied. Doctors know this. Do any of us honestly think we know more than people that have studied this for their entire lives?

And of course there's a correlation with poverty when unhealthy food is cheaper, I've already talked about that. Of course there's a correlation with multiple tries at weight loss, who else would try multiple times to lose weight except those that need it really badly?

 

[viking97]

i harbor no hate towards fat people myself, but then i tend to not care about physical appearance a whole lot anyway. the way i see it, being fit in this day and age is, by-in-large, a big waste of time. No matter how strong you are, you can't work an eighth as fast as this here machine, so why bother? why not leave the gym, eat some cake and enjoy life?

P.S. The fact that i have a chubby fetish is completely unrelated and i resent you bringing it up good sir.

You are such a manipulative swine I think I love you. You have actually made my evening.

happy to hear it

 

[Farseer Lolotea]

Don't put words in my mouth. I did indeed say a healthy weight, which is not something that is defined as "socially acceptable" and does take into account things like frame size and the other issues that you are attacking me for. If it's healthy it's fine, if it's not healthy it's obviously not fine.

I am neither attacking you nor putting words in your mouth.

I'm the one who's been talking about frame size and so on here. You have focused exclusively on BMI and defended the current policy of pushing weight loss as a health measure in and of itself.

Let's recap what you said:

Some people need to work harder to maintain a healthy weight, which isn't fair and kind of sucks but such is life.

Gee, that sounds a hell of a lot like "if you're fat, you're clearly doing it wrong somehow." No indication of taking anything but BMI into account.

BMI is useful for the same exact reason it isn't useful: it's simple.

Just because it's "simple" doesn't make it useful. Especially considering that its "simplicity" serves only to mislead.

We're talking about completely hypothetical people, what else do you expect me to refer to? Do you want me to write an entire paragraph detailing the life of our John Doe obese person?

No need. I'm sure I've read Greg Critser's version of the same already.

And...you know you could always just quit trying to bring me around to your side of what is, at its heart, at least as much a moral panic as a genuine health crisis.

And from what little of medicine I've studied (a course actually on literature and medicine, which was a better combination than one might think) what got emphasized to me was that medicine needs to be applied. Doctors know this. Do any of us honestly think we know more than people that have studied this for their entire lives?

You're arguing from the position that doctors are not only innately free of bias, but always have the patient's best interests at heart. While this would certainly be true in a perfect world, we don't live in one.

And of course there's a correlation with poverty when unhealthy food is cheaper, I've already talked about that. Of course there's a correlation with multiple tries at weight loss, who else would try multiple times to lose weight except those that need it really badly?

Why, people who don't necessarily need it, but have been shamed into it because mainstream culture finds them unsightly, of course.

 

[RafaelNegrus]

I am neither attacking you nor putting words in your mouth.

No, you are very much putting words in my mouth, when you say things like "socially acceptable" weight, when I very much mean a healthy weight. You are trying to make my position one of intolerance, whereas it quite simply isn't, if people are continuing in unhealthy practices then they need help.

Gee, that sounds a hell of a lot like "if you're fat, you're clearly doing it wrong somehow." No indication of taking anything but BMI into account.

How is what I said not true? How is a person's own genetic predisposition their own fault? Everyone has their own challenges to work through, and it is good for them to work for those issues, be it genetically low metabolism or some other health issue. It's not their fault that they have an issue, but if they just give up on it then that's their own choice.

Just because it's "simple" doesn't make it useful. Especially considering that its "simplicity" serves only to mislead.

Yes, it is simple, depending on the scale we are talking about. How else do you think we might be able to look at entire populations? Everything that is not useful about it, everything that is misleading is when it is overused on an individual basis, all of these issues which you have brought up so that I can be lazy and not mention them much

And...you know you could always just quit trying to bring me around to your side of what is, at its heart, at least as much a moral panic as a genuine health crisis.

I think health issues are very easily morale issues. I think it's a good thing to want the best for people, and want them to be happy and healthy. I think the prospect of a large portion of our population leading significantly shorter lives is an issue that merits attention.

You're arguing from the position that doctors are not only innately free of bias, but always have the patient's best interests at heart. Trusting soul.

And you're completely cynical. Evaluate them on an individual basis, or can you not tell when someone actually cares about you as an individual? Much of the course was talking about building a relationship with patients, and that same relationship can be built from the other side if you put effort into it. Of course they have biases, guess who study medical biases the most? Doctors.

Why, people who don't necessarily need it, but have been shamed into it because mainstream culture finds them unsightly, of course.

And then those people need help of another kind, to gain confidence and acceptance of themselves as an individual. However, an attitude of unhealthy self-confidence can easily be made into one of other people always being wrong about their criticisms. How many people on here have said that negative comments just made them discount what might have otherwise been the right message, apart from the way it was said? The notion of "I'm fat and I'm proud" is inherently flawed in that they do not necessarily have to be overweight. Some can live healthily and still be so, but do we honestly think even the majority are like that? I highly doubt the majority of the entire population lives healthily, let alone any subset of it (except perhaps people who are basically paid to do so). The better attitude is just recognizing that one is a valuable person, and weight doesn't really have to factor into that equation. But living healthy is always a good thing, unless one is really suicidal.

Is there a bad way to go about dieting? Duh, of course there is. Are the measurements perfect? No, they never are. But by those same measurements the child obesity rate has tripled in the past generation (in the US). Are all these kids suddenly getting larger frames? Are they all working out to become Olympic athletes?

The reason seems quite simple to me. Our bodies are not evolved for the diet and lifestyle that is currently ubiquitous here in the modern world. Exercise is something that we have to do on purpose nowadays, whereas for most of human history it just happened. Early in history only the rich could afford to eat foods that would cause a large amount of weight gain, now it's so cheap anyone can do it. (And before you say anything, yes they had their own issues then, but obesity was not really one of them). So as I see it, it's best to try and put some effort into things like exercise and a healthy diet until evolution catches up with our sedentary lifestyle that technology has allowed us to take up.