Fat Shaming.

[BarryMcCociner]

I'm torn on the growth of the "Fat pride" movement.

On the one hand, you have body positivity. Nothing wrong with that whatsoever, just be fine with how you look. If you want to change it, change it but don't feel pressured to. That is completely, totally, above-board in my book.

But then you get to the extremists, as every movement has. These H.A.E.S. (Health at every size) people. The ones who claim that all diets and dieting is based on psuedoscience. That doctors are liars, that "calories in < calories out" won't lead to weight loss despite being demonstrably proven time and time again. Some might even say that weight loss is completely and totally impossible unless you have a one in a million genetic structure.

That side I can't get behind. Not only is it a belief system that doesn't coincide with the scientific predictive model of reality, ensuring that you pretty much have to throw out everything we know about human physiology to accept it, but it actively promotes a self-destructive lifestyle in claiming that there's nothing you can do about your health and your body is out of your control.

Now, it's true that health is not a reasonable measure to determine whether or not a person deserves respect, for Christs sake people don't choose to develop cancerous cells. However if you're going to ignore the scientific fact of the matter, you kind of deserve to get lumped in with The Flat Earth Society, a genuine group of people who GENUINELY believe the earth is flat.

The extremists in this movement are dangerous and anti-science, make no mistake.

 

[Strazdas]

Math literacy is a sliding scale. People who can't do math on a professional level are plentiful. I'm one of them, in fact.

there are very few jobs where math on a professional level is required. most jobs still need you to be able to walk, though.

Right. So there's no problem here.

unless something you do decreases your ability to controbute, regardless of the way you are controbuting, while incurring net loss on yourself and on society. hence, the problem.

How fortunate then that the job market and economy is not entirely reliant on hand-grip endurance related jobs. Also, something else that reduces productivity: sports injuries. Especially if its hand and wrist related injuries. Now, sports activity is most definitely an individual choice. Why should the rest of us pay for people who willingly engage in sports, and rack up health-care costs and costs in loss of productivity when they are injured?

perhaps try reading the link instead? hand-grip and endurance was only part of what that study discovered. i even noted the main things in my post that you carefully chose to omit.

And yes, sport injuries is a problem too, but in those cases most people are insured against specifically that so its the insurance company that pays the costs, and if we are talking professional level here they are paid enough to be able to afford all the treatments.

According to that link, they don't know why obese staff take more sick days. Here's a possible contributing factor: fat shaming. Workplace bullying is a productivity killer by itself. But it can also lead to depression, which is closely linked to insomnia, two even larger productivity killers. Also, fat shaming even works to increase the obesity problem.

i dont know what world you live in that fat shaming would cause someone to take a sick day, but it certainly isnt the one im in. Note that i am not for fat shaming, im just also not for accepting medical illness as something thats "normal". its not. its a disease. treat it like such. Bullying in general is a bad thing and there is really no need to point that out here. Recognizing obese people for what they are however is not bullying.

Even if we take the ridiculous and cold-hearted "obese people cost more" argument at face value, harassment and bullying (up to and including fat shaming) is a much bigger problem than being obese.

No, bullying does not even come close to being as big of a problem as literally destroying your body.

So, then the question becomes, why should the rest of us have to pay for the care of people who are creating this situation?

are you suggesting we shouldnt treat obese people?

An alcoholic is not necessarily a person who's drunk all the time. Also, you can be drunk all the time without being an alcoholic.

An alcoholic is a person who cannot control his drinking, thus expecting him to not drink on a job would be foolish.

I wonder what these people will say to someone with polycystic ovary syndrome, many of whom (but not all) suffer obesity because their body turns sugar immediately into fat without giving them any energy lest they take pills (like metformin I think), maintain an absurdly strict diet, and use what energy they have to workout. Depending on the severity of the disease they could swing anywhere from maintaining a healthy weight to just preventing obesity.

they will say that these people constitute such a small amount of obesity cases that they are statistically irrelevant and are not part of the conversation.

You might want to reread my comment, because you missed my point entirely. I obviously have an understanding of basic human biology; what I said was that the same amount of food does not equal the same percentage of a healthy calorie intake for two people with radically different body types.

Being overweight doesn't just happen when anybody with any lifestyle or genetic background eats X amount of food. What constitutes a healthy weight is a relative term, based on factors such as your height and girth.

The number of people for whom their bodies do this at the level significant enough are already classified as diseased from the things that causes this. and yes, some bodies burn calories faster than others but the difference is not big enough to cause obesity with same diets. and if that miniscule amount of people that actually have these disorders do nothing about it, it still is their fault for not getting one of the available treatments for the disorder.

Well i never told anyone to use a BMI to measure obesity, so not sure why you are even bringing that up to begin with. yes, thats correct, but irrelevant to the conversation.

I was pointing out the hypocrisy of criticizing fat people for wasting food when thin people evidently waste just as much.

not sure where anyone mentioned wasting food to being with. I know i dont waste food, i cannot control others yet, need more radioactive spiders for that ability im afraid.

 

[Nickolai77]

(Generalizing, obviously) I feel like I've noticed online over the years that the UK has serious problems with fat people. It's really weird. I suspect it has to do with a hatred of American culture which is currently associated with being overfed and "gluttonous." I mean, I'm pretty sure the UK diet is even worse than the US for the most part. I just heard about prawn mayo sandwiches. It's just strange that someone or a group of people could become so incensed to leave an angry note about a person's appearance, personal choice or not. Imagine changing this card to finding a certain religious dress "offensive" or telling a bald person to wear a wig. We live in a world full of different people who didn't ask for your permission to exist. Grow up. I guess this is what you get with socialized medicine. Yech.

As a Brit I don't really agree with what you think Britons think about the US. Yes, Americans being fat is a thing, but we don't predominantly associate American culture with gluttony. Britain is probably the most Americanised European nation, so I think if you asked Brit's what we thought of Americans you'd get lots of different answers because we've had so much exposure to American culture. Some of those answers may be to do with Americans being fat, but only some. And in general if most people answered seriously, you'd probably get *generally* positive remarks about American culture. We don't hate America in the UK, quite the opposite in fact.


And as for 'socialised medicine' - To be fair, I think having a publicly owned health service does encourage healthier behaviours because we as taxpayers all pay into it. In issues like smoking, obesity and alcohol abuse people will argue that people shouldn't smoke or binge drink because of how much it costs the NHS. I don't think this is a bad thing though necessarily.

 

[9tailedflame]

(Generalizing, obviously) I feel like I've noticed online over the years that the UK has serious problems with fat people. It's really weird. I suspect it has to do with a hatred of American culture which is currently associated with being overfed and "gluttonous." I mean, I'm pretty sure the UK diet is even worse than the US for the most part. I just heard about prawn mayo sandwiches. It's just strange that someone or a group of people could become so incensed to leave an angry note about a person's appearance, personal choice or not. Imagine changing this card to finding a certain religious dress "offensive" or telling a bald person to wear a wig. We live in a world full of different people who didn't ask for your permission to exist. Grow up. I guess this is what you get with socialized medicine. Yech.

As a Brit I don't really agree with what you think Britons think about the US. Yes, Americans being fat is a thing, but we don't predominantly associate American culture with gluttony. Britain is probably the most Americanised European nation, so I think if you asked Brit's what we thought of Americans you'd get lots of different answers because we've had so much exposure to American culture. Some of those answers may be to do with Americans being fat, but only some. And in general if most people answered seriously, you'd probably get *generally* positive remarks about American culture. We don't hate America in the UK, quite the opposite in fact.


And as for 'socialised medicine' - To be fair, I think having a publicly owned health service does encourage healthier behaviours because we as taxpayers all pay into it. In issues like smoking, obesity and alcohol abuse people will argue that people shouldn't smoke or binge drink because of how much it costs the NHS. I don't think this is a bad thing though necessarily.

I would argue that 'socialized medicine' would actually encourage less healthy behavior. If you're the one footing the bill for a health issue, there's a deincentive (is that what you call it?) to have that health issue. If it's coming out of taxpayer money, people will essentially treat it as free, since the direct consequence on them is ultimately minimal. In other words, people are less likely to be healthy if they know someone else is going to pay to fix it.

 

[chikusho]

Math literacy is a sliding scale. People who can't do math on a professional level are plentiful. I'm one of them, in fact.

there are very few jobs where math on a professional level is required. most jobs still need you to be able to walk, though.

Maybe that was the case a few hundred years ago. It's really not today. Even so, very few obese people are unable to walk. Also, spinal cord injuries causing people to lose their legs are mostly due to Motor vehicle accidents (35%). Also causing spinal cord injuries, sports (10%). Getting on the road is another personal choice, why should everyone else pay for people taking unnecessary risks by going into traffic?

i dont know what world you live in that fat shaming would cause someone to take a sick day, but it certainly isnt the one im in. Note that i am not for fat shaming, im just also not for accepting medical illness as something thats "normal". its not. its a disease. treat it like such. Bullying in general is a bad thing and there is really no need to point that out here. Recognizing obese people for what they are however is not bullying.

Listen, this is not hard to understand, and I think I laid it out quite clearly. Fat shaming is bullying. Bullying leads the bullied person to take out more sickdays to avoid situations of being bullied. Bullying can cause depression, insomnia and increased chance for obesity. There is a need to point that out here because this thread is about fat shaming, and people who do that.
Also, no one is making the argument that obesity is normal. But you're not talking about the disease, you are placing price-labels on people.

No, bullying does not even come close to being as big of a problem as literally destroying your body.

You're right. Considering the enormous impact of bullying on society, it's such a large problem that 'eating a bit too much' is down-right negligble in comparison.

are you suggesting we shouldnt treat obese people?

I'm suggesting we shouldn't treat bullies and fat shamers. They are, after all, a huge contributing factor of a huge amount of societal problems, including health care costs and loss of productivity. Because that's what matters right?

An alcoholic is a person who cannot control his drinking, thus expecting him to not drink on a job would be foolish.

That's not what alcoholism is. What you're describing might be the kind of chronic condition that some people experience, but it's not as simple or clear-cut as you seem to believe. Point is, it's plenty possible to be fully alcoholic without being drunk on the job.

 

[Strazdas]

Maybe that was the case a few hundred years ago. It's really not today. Even so, very few obese people are unable to walk. Also, spinal cord injuries causing people to lose their legs are mostly due to Motor vehicle accidents (35%). Also causing spinal cord injuries, sports (10%). Getting on the road is another personal choice, why should everyone else pay for people taking unnecessary risks by going into traffic?

spinal cord injuries are hardly the only way people are unable to move around as per job requirements. as far as your poor attempt to compare it to traffic accidents, driving is a calculated risk that is considered acceptable due to huge benefit it gives to society. Obesity has no benefit to outweigh the risks. In fact im not aware of a single benefit of obesity. Its just a bad idea overall.

Listen, this is not hard to understand, and I think I laid it out quite clearly. Fat shaming is bullying. Bullying leads the bullied person to take out more sickdays to avoid situations of being bullied. Bullying can cause depression, insomnia and increased chance for obesity. There is a need to point that out here because this thread is about fat shaming, and people who do that.
Also, no one is making the argument that obesity is normal. But you're not talking about the disease, you are placing price-labels on people.

You cant just "take sick days" to avoid being bullied. in order to take a sick day your doctor has to determine that you are in fact sick and write up the excuse from work. you cant just take sick days when you want.

I never said that fat shaming is not bullying, i just said that this is not what i was talking about. Oh and plenty of people are making the argument that obesity is normal.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/finally-a-study-that-confirms-what-i-knew-all-along-fat-acceptance-is-good-for-our-health-10440615.html
http://ineedfatacceptance.tumblr.com/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_acceptance_movement
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/obesity-is-now-so-normal-that-parents-can-t-see-it-in-their-kids/
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/obesity-now-seen-as-normal-by-society-warns-chief-medical-officer-9219466.html
http://www.webmd.com/diet/obesity/is-fat-the-new-normal?page=2

for fucks sake, there is even an association for that: https://sizediversityandhealth.org/Index.asp

You're right. Considering the enormous impact of bullying on society, it's such a large problem that 'eating a bit too much' is down-right negligble in comparison.

on the contrary, obesity is far more damaging than a few bad words.

I'm suggesting we shouldn't treat bullies and fat shamers. They are, after all, a huge contributing factor of a huge amount of societal problems, including health care costs and loss of productivity. Because that's what matters right?

Im assuming here, but id guess that most fat shamers are themselves not fat since otherwise they would be shaming themselves. therefore, we already dont.

That's not what alcoholism is.

Yes, it is. Yes, its possible to be alcoholic without being drunk on a job, but not reliably so. in the work in question - driving - all it takes is one slip.

 

[Dragonbums]

Honestly the amount of people in this thread that think being thin is as simple as not shoving food in your mouth 24/7 shows just how much the problem with obesity has been overly simplified and dumbed down to the point where it's hardly effective.

As people have already said numerous times there are a lot of factors to obesity.

Some people have a natural disposition to weight gain, others have horrid metabolisms, some have mental illnesses that contribute to high eating habits, cost of healthy foods vs junk food etc. etc.

For instance, my metabolism is slow and shitty. I don't eat that much. I never ate that much, but I'm still medically obese. Me eating a single bag of potatoes chips every day can comprimise whether I lose a couple of pounds at the end of the week.

Meanwhile I knew a bunch of kids in my school that literally eat nothing but Liters of shitty soft drinks, grease foods, and Little Debbie tier snacks every day and don't get a single damn pound.

Which leads to another thing, there are a lot of foods that are deceptively fattening despite the small size they are in. Eating a bag of chips is horrible for you, and that shit doesn't even last you for an hour.

All in all, this method never works. Positive reinforcement does. All the remarkable weight loss stories always stem from some horribly fat person going into a forum or community of health nuts expecting to be shat on, yet instead receive words of encouragement. Not surprisngly enough that level of good will drives them to actually lose weight and better themselves.

Calling someone a food guzzling pig has the opposite effect. That fat women you called that to, might of had a normal diet of eggs and a banana and still gain weight, while the whipper snapper across from her literally eats McDonalds every day.

 

[Lightknight]

It should be mentioned that the results are based on current healthcare costs in the Netherlands and that it does not account for things like productivity differences or money paid into the system.

Not sure of the relevance. Older people seldom pay more money into the system anyways. The logic that people who die young save everyone money is fairly sound. Do you have a reason to believe that obese people work less than healthy people when the vast majority of wealth is produced by white collar labor rather than blue collar work? Sounds like you're just leaning on a stereotype that fat people are inherently lazy when most likely they just aren't as physically active or just eat more than they burn off. Not hard to do in today's caloric filled world.

By most metrics, obese people die of relatively cheap problems. Heart disease, stroke, etc. These are frequently singular events with things like diabetes being the exception. Healthy people often face a variety of long-term ailments in old age that can often require a hefty bill be paid. From mental disorders to cancers to other forms of geriatric care that can last a very long time.

I'm just quoting the study linked.

In this case, the model does not take into account varying degrees of obesity, which are likely to affect lifetime health-care costs, nor indirect costs of obesity such as reduced productivity.

Well, what do you think? Are older people more likely to be paying more into the healthcare system considering they are frequently unemployed/retired at the time?

Likewise, do you feel like obese people are actually less productive as the authors tried to indicate? Maybe the authors also want to point out that fat Mexican statistics may not count the loss of productivity due to them taking a siesta midday while the author is going on about statistics from the cusp of his/her ass?

Fat people work in all sectors. They are blue and white collar works and clearly work hard enough to remain employed. It is a bullshit stereotype the author is introducing like it's supposed to be an assumed fact. Maybe if the author got his thumb out of his/her ass they could also wonder about the loss of productivity due to being too old to work for a couple decades in the healthy individuals that live far longer?

Erm, it's the study you linked through the Forbes article. It's part of a disclaimer when giving their information. I'm not all that qualified to talk on productivity since it's not something I keep track of, but it was part of the article. I can say with more conviction that the study is true specifically for the Netherlands and their healthcare costs may not translate across borders.

Right, just because someone conducts a valid study on the numbers does not mean that their opinions or conclusions are necessarily correct. All the author did was give possible explanations for why the numbers showed healthy people costing us much more but the author was in full hypothesis mode rather than basing the hypothesis off of anything real.

By the numbers, obese people die young and die from less complicated illnesses and healthy people die old and with more costly procedures. The why of it isn't necessarily relevant.

Well they thought it was worth mentioning so I thought it was worth mentioning. Maybe they know numbers neither of us do?

If they had other numbers they would have cited them within the context of the paper. The point of that segment was to present possible alternate explanations that could be pursued further, not to make an educated comment based on existing study. It just so happens that their possible explanations happened to be stereotypes which should be perceived as offensive and ignorant.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

It should be mentioned that the results are based on current healthcare costs in the Netherlands and that it does not account for things like productivity differences or money paid into the system.

Not sure of the relevance. Older people seldom pay more money into the system anyways. The logic that people who die young save everyone money is fairly sound. Do you have a reason to believe that obese people work less than healthy people when the vast majority of wealth is produced by white collar labor rather than blue collar work? Sounds like you're just leaning on a stereotype that fat people are inherently lazy when most likely they just aren't as physically active or just eat more than they burn off. Not hard to do in today's caloric filled world.

By most metrics, obese people die of relatively cheap problems. Heart disease, stroke, etc. These are frequently singular events with things like diabetes being the exception. Healthy people often face a variety of long-term ailments in old age that can often require a hefty bill be paid. From mental disorders to cancers to other forms of geriatric care that can last a very long time.

I'm just quoting the study linked.

In this case, the model does not take into account varying degrees of obesity, which are likely to affect lifetime health-care costs, nor indirect costs of obesity such as reduced productivity.

Well, what do you think? Are older people more likely to be paying more into the healthcare system considering they are frequently unemployed/retired at the time?

Likewise, do you feel like obese people are actually less productive as the authors tried to indicate? Maybe the authors also want to point out that fat Mexican statistics may not count the loss of productivity due to them taking a siesta midday while the author is going on about statistics from the cusp of his/her ass?

Fat people work in all sectors. They are blue and white collar works and clearly work hard enough to remain employed. It is a bullshit stereotype the author is introducing like it's supposed to be an assumed fact. Maybe if the author got his thumb out of his/her ass they could also wonder about the loss of productivity due to being too old to work for a couple decades in the healthy individuals that live far longer?

Erm, it's the study you linked through the Forbes article. It's part of a disclaimer when giving their information. I'm not all that qualified to talk on productivity since it's not something I keep track of, but it was part of the article. I can say with more conviction that the study is true specifically for the Netherlands and their healthcare costs may not translate across borders.

Right, just because someone conducts a valid study on the numbers does not mean that their opinions or conclusions are necessarily correct. All the author did was give possible explanations for why the numbers showed healthy people costing us much more but the author was in full hypothesis mode rather than basing the hypothesis off of anything real.

By the numbers, obese people die young and die from less complicated illnesses and healthy people die old and with more costly procedures. The why of it isn't necessarily relevant.

Well they thought it was worth mentioning so I thought it was worth mentioning. Maybe they know numbers neither of us do?

If they had other numbers they would have cited them within the context of the paper. The point of that segment was to present possible alternate explanations that could be pursued further, not to make an educated comment based on existing study. It just so happens that their possible explanations happened to be stereotypes which should be perceived as offensive and ignorant.

Well I found a couple of studies about this.
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=412250
http://journals.lww.com/joem/Abstract/2010/10000/The_Costs_of_Obesity_in_the_Workplace.4.aspx

One of them is behind a wall, but there appears to at least be something to this.

 

[sumanoskae]

The number of people for whom their bodies do this at the level significant enough are already classified as diseased from the things that causes this. and yes, some bodies burn calories faster than others but the difference is not big enough to cause obesity with same diets. and if that miniscule amount of people that actually have these disorders do nothing about it, it still is their fault for not getting one of the available treatments for the disorder.

Well i never told anyone to use a BMI to measure obesity, so not sure why you are even bringing that up to begin with. yes, thats correct, but irrelevant to the conversation.

It's big enough to do the opposite; some people find it much harder to put weight on than others. I have friends who eat like pigs but remain thin. Granted, they don't have awful diets and they do get some exorcise, but that's exactly the point.

Being fat does not automatically mean that you waste food. There are plenty of other factors about a person's life that can determine their weight besides the raw quantity of food they consume. One does not equal the other.

And before you say anything, I'm not arguing that lots of people are just fat by nature; I'm arguing that a multitude of factors work together to determine your weight, so blaming fat people for wasting food makes no sense.

So will quickly go over all the points I already outlined in my original post AGAIN.
If you don't exorcise at all, you will gain weight easier and quicker.
If the food you eat is unnaturally fattening, you will gain weight easier and quicker.
If your lifestyle is physically exhausting, you will need more calories to stay healthy.

Core point: A does not equal B.

not sure where anyone mentioned wasting food to being with. I know i dont waste food, i cannot control others yet, need more radioactive spiders for that ability im afraid.

Read the pamphlet.

As for controlling the minds of others, it's very simple. First you need to spec into the Sith Lord prestige class, and then- *Silenced by Illuminati*

 

[Strazdas]

The number of people for whom their bodies do this at the level significant enough are already classified as diseased from the things that causes this. and yes, some bodies burn calories faster than others but the difference is not big enough to cause obesity with same diets. and if that miniscule amount of people that actually have these disorders do nothing about it, it still is their fault for not getting one of the available treatments for the disorder.

Well i never told anyone to use a BMI to measure obesity, so not sure why you are even bringing that up to begin with. yes, thats correct, but irrelevant to the conversation.

It's big enough to do the opposite; some people find it much harder to put weight on than others. I have friends who eat like pigs but remain thin. Granted, they don't have awful diets and they do get some exorcise, but that's exactly the point.

Being fat does not automatically mean that you waste food. There are plenty of other factors about a person's life that can determine their weight besides the raw quantity of food they consume. One does not equal the other.

And before you say anything, I'm not arguing that lots of people are just fat by nature; I'm arguing that a multitude of factors work together to determine your weight, so blaming fat people for wasting food makes no sense.

So will quickly go over all the points I already outlined in my original post AGAIN.
If you don't exorcise at all, you will gain weight easier and quicker.
If the food you eat is unnaturally fattening, you will gain weight easier and quicker.
If your lifestyle is physically exhausting, you will need more calories to stay healthy.

Core point: A does not equal B.

not sure where anyone mentioned wasting food to being with. I know i dont waste food, i cannot control others yet, need more radioactive spiders for that ability im afraid.

Read the pamphlet.

As for controlling the minds of others, it's very simple. First you need to spec into the Sith Lord prestige class, and then- *Silenced by Illuminati*

people who do not eat a lot of calories and exercise remain thin? stop the presses! No, people who stay fat or thin because of medical factors are an extremely tiny minority and are in no way representative of general population weight problem.

so yes, being fat is directly a result to how much food you consume. exercise only burns so much btw. most people do not exercise nearly enough to have any significant impact on their fat levels. there is a reason any good dietologist will tell you eating right is 90% of the job to loose weight.

I do see the food waste in the pamphlet now, must have fogotten about that part. yeah, people elsewhere are starving for reasons other than people eating too much, that part is BS.

P.S. Ill get working on my Sith Lord skills then!

 

[Nickolai77]

I would argue that 'socialized medicine' would actually encourage less healthy behavior. If you're the one footing the bill for a health issue, there's a deincentive (is that what you call it?) to have that health issue. If it's coming out of taxpayer money, people will essentially treat it as free, since the direct consequence on them is ultimately minimal. In other words, people are less likely to be healthy if they know someone else is going to pay to fix it.

That seems like an odd claim considering that the US is notorious for having the most obese people on the planet. By your reasoning, Americans should be eating more healthily because paying for your own healthcare insurance would be an insensitive to eat healthier. In other measures, we in the UK drink more alcohol (per capita) than the US, but the Americans smoke more cigarettes per person. I think it's probably more nebulous factors like "culture" that have a far greater influence on national health than how health services are paid for.

 

[sumanoskae]

people who do not eat a lot of calories and exercise remain thin? stop the presses! No, people who stay fat or thin because of medical factors are an extremely tiny minority and are in no way representative of general population weight problem.

so yes, being fat is directly a result to how much food you consume. exercise only burns so much btw. most people do not exercise nearly enough to have any significant impact on their fat levels. there is a reason any good dietologist will tell you eating right is 90% of the job to loose weight.

I do see the food waste in the pamphlet now, must have fogotten about that part. yeah, people elsewhere are starving for reasons other than people eating too much, that part is BS.

P.S. Ill get working on my Sith Lord skills then!

Stop bringing up the medical aspect, in no way did I emphasized it's importance! I never said or implied that being fat or thin is out of your control, I said that the sheer quantity of food you eat is not the sole determining factor or even the most important one.

When dietitians and nutritionists talk about how important diet is, they don't tell you to just eat smaller portions of baked goods and junk food, they tell you to cut them from your diet and eat different, healthier food. It's about quality, not quantity.

 

[Strazdas]

people who do not eat a lot of calories and exercise remain thin? stop the presses! No, people who stay fat or thin because of medical factors are an extremely tiny minority and are in no way representative of general population weight problem.

so yes, being fat is directly a result to how much food you consume. exercise only burns so much btw. most people do not exercise nearly enough to have any significant impact on their fat levels. there is a reason any good dietologist will tell you eating right is 90% of the job to loose weight.

I do see the food waste in the pamphlet now, must have fogotten about that part. yeah, people elsewhere are starving for reasons other than people eating too much, that part is BS.

P.S. Ill get working on my Sith Lord skills then!

Stop bringing up the medical aspect, in no way did I emphasized it's importance! I never said or implied that being fat or thin is out of your control, I said that the sheer quantity of food you eat is not the sole determining factor or even the most important one.

When dietitians and nutritionists talk about how important diet is, they don't tell you to just eat smaller portions of baked goods and junk food, they tell you to cut them from your diet and eat different, healthier food. It's about quality, not quantity.

Then stop making statements that apply only to those people.

Yes, sheer quantity of calories you take in is the sole determinant on how fat you will become. Note that fat/thin does not equal healthy/unhealthy. dietitians operate regarding healthy/unhealthy. however you can loose weight eating unhealthy (its just harder because its harder to eat less than to change the products). for example This diet professor lost weight eating ONLY twinkies [http://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/]. How much weight you gain is solely determined by how much calories you consume and how much calories you burn. your health is determined by what and how much you eat.

 

[Vicarious Reality]

Yes, we need to shame saturated fats, there is way too much of them in our food, clogging up the system

Artificial fats though, they are KOS

 

[Korolev]

No one should be ashamed of their weight. No one should shame anyone for their weight.

Being overweight is unhealthy (although how unhealthy it is depends on how overweight the individual in question is). But so is tanning, so is the over-use of joints, so is not eating enough vegetables and getting less than the required amount of sleep. Almost all of us do unhealthy things from time to time. I am not overweight, but I do not eat a balanced diet and I do not perform the minimum amount of exercise. Should I be shamed for under-execising, or subsisting on a diet that consists mostly of white-bread and diet-pepsi? (and believe me, I know how terrible that sounds).

It is true that a person's diet dictates their weight. Fat cannot be spontaneously generated. That would violate the laws of physics, chemistry and biology. Fat cannot just "appear" out of nowhere. Having said that, a person's diet is not always in their control. For many people who are overweight, their diet was set during childhood. Diet is also set by price, advertisements and culture. There are societal and parental influences on a person's diet. We need to acknowledge that. We also need to acknowledge that achieving long-lasting dietary change is incredibly difficult.

Also, being overweight is an issue for that person. It is not your issue. Yes, you could claim that overweight people make the country unhealthy and cause your insurance premiums to increase. But you know what? Eating a lot of red meat contributes to colon cancer. Should we shame people for eating hot-dogs or having a BBQ? Alcohol-related accidents drive insurance premiums up as well - should we hate on all those who have a drink after work? If let your insurance premiums dictate what you hate or tolerate, you need to reconsider your priorities in life.

For the most part, being overweight is an issue for that patient and that patient alone. It is their body, not yours. Medically, yes, being overweight is not ideal, but not even the doctors lead medically ideal lives. I would know. I am one.

Shaming people for being overweight is both unlikely to cause them to lose weight, and cruel. The primary method goal of shaming is not to make the overweight person lose weight, it is to make the shame-er feel good about themselves. Those who engage in this sort of activity need to think about that: "What kind of person uses the anguish of others to feel good about themselves? What person derives personal pride by putting down others?".

 

[sumanoskae]

Then stop making statements that apply only to those people.

Yes, sheer quantity of calories you take in is the sole determinant on how fat you will become. Note that fat/thin does not equal healthy/unhealthy. dietitians operate regarding healthy/unhealthy. however you can loose weight eating unhealthy (its just harder because its harder to eat less than to change the products). for example This diet professor lost weight eating ONLY twinkies [http://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/]. How much weight you gain is solely determined by how much calories you consume and how much calories you burn. your health is determined by what and how much you eat.

Amount of calories food contains =/= Actual portion size of food
Amount of fat you consume =/= Amount of fat you retain factoring in metabolism and lifestyle

By your logic, if you're a professional athlete who burns an immense amount of fat in your daily training routine, but you also eat too much cake, you will be just as fat as an office worker who also eats cake, but goes through absolutely 0 physical strain on a daily basis.

The grievance these people took with fat people was that they waste food. Being fat does not automatically mean you waste food, therefore they are stupid elitist jackasses as opposed to just plain elitist jackasses. That was the sole message of my comment.

 

[Strazdas]

Then stop making statements that apply only to those people.

Yes, sheer quantity of calories you take in is the sole determinant on how fat you will become. Note that fat/thin does not equal healthy/unhealthy. dietitians operate regarding healthy/unhealthy. however you can loose weight eating unhealthy (its just harder because its harder to eat less than to change the products). for example This diet professor lost weight eating ONLY twinkies [http://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/]. How much weight you gain is solely determined by how much calories you consume and how much calories you burn. your health is determined by what and how much you eat.

Amount of calories food contains =/= Actual portion size of food
Amount of fat you consume =/= Amount of fat you retain factoring in metabolism and lifestyle

By your logic, if you're a professional athlete who burns an immense amount of fat in your daily training routine, but you also eat too much cake, you will be just as fat as an office worker who also eats cake, but goes through absolutely 0 physical strain on a daily basis.

The grievance these people took with fat people was that they waste food. Being fat does not automatically mean you waste food, therefore they are stupid elitist jackasses as opposed to just plain elitist jackasses. That was the sole message of my comment.

and i never claimed these two equalities, so not sure why you are pointing it out. No, by my logic you will be fat if your calory intake is higher than the amount of calories you burn. obviously, the athlete burns more calories so they will be less fat.

Like i said in a previuos reply, i do not agree with their food waste arguments.

 

[Chairman Miaow]

snip

If weight gain/loss is down to genetics how do you explain that obesity is such a recent epidemic?

 

[ThatOtherGirl]

snip

If weight gain/loss is down to genetics how do you explain that obesity is such a recent epidemic?

Never before has food been available in such quantities at such low cost to so many who live life styles where obesity isn't instantly crippling. Never before have the circumstances been correct for the trait to express in large portions of the population.

Often hereditary traits require the right environment to express. For example, lactose intolerance only expresses in the presence of lactose. You would never know the difference otherwise. This is one of the most basic principles of genetics.

And it isn't all genetics or whatever, but that does have a far more significant role to play than people tend to think. In most cases the disadvantage can be overcome, but pretending the disadvantage does not exist or that it is minor for most people who struggle to maintain a healthy weight is ignorant.