Obesity Discrimination

[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.

 

[Luna]

Its better to not be fat. Fat people who act proud are in denial and need to realize this.


Regardless of me seeing fat people in a slightly negative light compared to not fat people, I certainly wouldn't be disrespectful for no reason. If an obese person started going off about how their thyroids prevented them from exercising and that they were forced to be fat I would probably roll my eyes.

 

[Farseer Lolotea]

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.

So I'm "putting words in your mouth" because you don't want to acknowledge what's coming out of it to begin with. Gotcha.

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.

How about acknowledging that it's not always about "unhealthy practices," then? Or at very least, acknowledging that trying to lose weight for its own sake is an unhealthy practice in its own right?

I think health issues are very easily morale issues.

I said "moral panic [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_panic]," not "morale."

And now, to skip back a bit:

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.

You keep swearing up and down that no, you're not suggesting that anyone who's still fat must be doing it wrong. And yet, all of your talk of "giving up" and how no one has to stay fat? There's no other way that can be interpreted. Zip, zero, nada.

On top of that, you keep insisting that even if trying to lose weight for its own sake is unhealthy in its own right (and counter-intuitive, to boot), fat people should keep doing it for the sake of their health. Can't you see how that doesn't follow at all? (And then, there was the part of your post that sounded suspiciously like an implication that fat people deserve to be body-shamed. Not even gonna go there.)

I'll give you this: you seem very determined to recruit us to your cause. Unfortunately, the only thing you're convincing me of is that you've entirely bought the fat-panic party line.

By the way, here's another fun fact for you: Until recently, weight studies focused almost exclusively on middle-class WASPs. Chew on the implications of that for a while.

Its better to not be fat.

"Better" by what standard? Because from a health standpoint, that's a lot more dubious than the mainstream media would have you think.

Fat people who act proud are in denial and need to realize this.

In denial of what? I'm sure anyone who's fat is keenly aware that society holds them in contempt, whether or not they have any (doubtless hard-won) body confidence.

Regardless of me seeing fat people in a slightly negative light compared to not fat people, I certainly wouldn't be disrespectful for no reason.

Your previous paragraph was pretty "disrespectful for no reason." Just sayin'.

If an obese person started going off about how their thyroids prevented them from exercising and that they were forced to be fat I would probably roll my eyes.

If I encountered a walking strawman, I'd be too busy sneezing to roll my eyes.

 

[RafaelNegrus]

snip

Okay, ignoring your inane red herring with an attack on the spelling of one word, let's take a look at this:

What would be the causes of obesity? Well, I can think of three general causes; genetic, behavioral, and environmental. Obesity has a basis in genetics, but then why would the obesity rate be rising using the same measurements and in such a small span of time? Genes don't change that fast, so there must be something else at work here.

Maybe an unhealthy environment is what is causing this, maybe psychological attacks on obese people are causing a rise in the rates. But why is the rate rising so fast even among the extremely young? Media biases are very hard to impose on children too young to even be partaking in that sort of media. So that must not be the entire cause.

Are there other environmental issues? I can think of different things that have changed very much in the past 30 years, namely the rise of computers, the internet, and fast food. I just know from family history that jobs have changed very much over the years, becoming more sedentary.

So maybe what needs to happen is to take the best health practices from these earlier times (even though they never thought of it as such then) and incorporate them into our modern lives. So that would mean eating more like they did and partaking in physical activity like they did.

And you say that fat doesn't necessarily cause health problems. Well that is rather true, as the studies linked by Amarok say. But they also say that obesity is correlated with significant health problems, and as such maybe obesity is just a symptom of something else that causes these medical problems. In which case, solving the health problems would probably also result in weight loss, as the root cause has been addressed.

 

[Farseer Lolotea]

You are in no position to accuse me of resorting to "red herrings" when I point out that you've clearly read something wrong. (Spelling, hell: Unless you actually were under the impression that I was talking about morale, your tangent makes no sense.) Especially after accusing me (and more than once, even) of "putting words in your mouth."

And after calling said reply "inane," you're also in no position to complain of being "attacked."

And you say that fat doesn't necessarily cause health problems. Well that is rather true, as the studies linked by Amarok say. But they also say that obesity is correlated with significant health problems, and as such maybe obesity is just a symptom of something else that causes these medical problems. In which case, solving the health problems would probably also result in weight loss, as the root cause has been addressed.

It can be a symptom of an underlying health issue. I was the one who pointed that out in the first place, as a reason why weight loss for its own sake is pointless at best.

You replied that they should try to lose weight anyway [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.375528-Obesity-Discrimination?page=3#14589163].

And those much-vaunted studies? They rarely, if ever, take dieting into account. Guess what else is correlated with the health problems in question?

And that's presuming that the study isn't funded by some company with a vested interest in profiting off people's poor self-esteem.

 

[RafaelNegrus]

snip

If you're not even going to read the articles I'm referencing (namely http://www.nutritionj.com/content/10/1/9 ) and see that most of what it states actually supports your argument, but not to the extent that you've taken it then there's no use even discussing it with you. You're just looking for a fight, and it's not worth my time to just deal with your anger. If you really want to look up pertinent information, then go to this article [http://www.carlmerritt.com/jokes/fatjokes.htm] and read up on that.

 

[Farseer Lolotea]

If you're not even going to read the articles I'm referencing (namely http://www.nutritionj.com/content/10/1/9 ) and see that most of what it states actually supports your argument, but not to the extent that you've taken it then there's no use even discussing it with you.

Yes, because I was just taking it to such extremes. People come in different shapes and sizes, and that's not necessarily a health crisis in its own right? Unheard-of!

And actually, I've read that article. Wanna know whose argument it doesn't support at all?

You're just looking for a fight, and it's not worth my time to just deal with your anger.

So...you resorted to insults when cornered, but I'm the one who's supposedly angry here. Whatever makes you feel better about flouncing, I guess.

If you really want to look up pertinent information, then go to this article [http://www.carlmerritt.com/jokes/fatjokes.htm] and read up on that.

Har de har de har har har. How cute.

Not half as funny as the fact that you linked a health-at-every-size article after arguing so vehemently in favor of weight loss for its own sake, though.

 

[R0cklobster]

Event though I'm overweight myself, I think that I probably do just a little, if only subconsciously depending on the circumstances.

 

[RafaelNegrus]

snip

Ooh! Congratulations! You followed a link! Do you want a cookie? Shame you didn't read all of the scholarly article I posted on there, it has some really good stuff, especially with the weight as a correlation with other diseases, like diabetes, and the healthy behaviors underlying a reduction in those unhealthy conditions also have a good chance to reduce weight. Also did you notice all the health problems were compared to people in a normal weight that had those same issues, not whether those issues occurred more in obese people.

And the bulk of my argument this whole time has been about health. When have I ever argued in favor of weight loss for its own sake? Nothing is valuable for its own sake.

Anyways, you use sarcasm and words like flouncing and attack me for attacking you for attacking me? Whatever makes you feel better about being irrational, I guess. However, I feel this discussion has gotten all out of proportion, some people here seem to almost be swelling with anger. We need to just poke a needle in it and deflate the situation.

And of course you putting words in my mouth is a bad thing! I have a very specific number of words that can go in there, and anymore is probably unhealthy for me, though I wouldn't know, cause I'm no doctor and therefore have no actual education about this issue.

Pound for pound though, I find your argument to be a little flabby, and could use a little slimming down. Maybe cut out all the personal investment that you have in it? I did notice that you revised about four times. Were you trying to do this? Because you missed a wide target.

 

[Amarok]

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.

"I think the obesity rates keep rising specifically because people aren't living one".

"I think" is never a great opening line against someone who initially came into the fray with a wide sample pool of clinical studies, and who has more on hand.
There are thin, sedentary people who eat poor diets as well. In fact all comprehensive studies on the matter that weren't conducted by the good people at SlimFast have noted that "thin and healthy" "thin and unhealthy" "fat and healthy" "fat and unhealthy" tend to be evenly spread among the populace.

You'd be surprised at how many fat people work out, especially given how much abuse they face at the gym, or just outdoors in general.

If no one you know moves 30 minutes a day 5 times a week I'd be surprised. I'm not talking 30 minutes of intense cardio. This is 30 minutes MODERATE movement, including walking. If anyone you know owns a dog and isn't a terrible owner they've already got that out of the ball park.

Even if your belief that obesity is the cause of many people living unhealthily, and the millions upon millions of thin, unhealthy people are just annoying anomalies getting in the way of your findings and should be ignored (hey, scientists do it, why not you?), what would you suggest, honestly?

Eating well and getting enough exercise (30 mins moderate, 5 times a week) has shown to universally improve health. Whereas all conventional methods for losing weight (ie. eating less, exercising more), have shown to not only not work 95% of the time, but also be rather unhealthy depending on the severity of the diet and the degree to which you're now exercising.
Take it from someone who has run themselves ragged in the past. Eating only 1000 calories a day and burning off 4000 a day makes you feel pretty shit, pretty fast.

That's not even factoring in weight-loss surgeries and diet pills, which in our obesity-hysteric society some doctors are actually recommending. The surgery is just un-necessarily dangerous, has all sorts of complications down the line, and tends to not work.
The most benign diet pills will give you an elevated heart rate and anal leakage for the rest of your life. The worse of the bunch will straight-up kill you.

Whether thin or fat, the only thing you need to be worrying about from a health perspective is, am I eating well, am I moving enough? No single able body needs any more than that.

If you're uncomfortable taking my word for it, consider investing in the works of Dr. Linda Bacon, PhD. That woman knows her stuff.

Edit: Looking above, where you've started posting links to fat jokes, I can see you're probably not worth the effort at this time.

 

[RafaelNegrus]

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.

"I think the obesity rates keep rising specifically because people aren't living one".

"I think" is never a great opening line against someone who initially came into the fray with a wide sample pool of clinical studies, and who has more on hand.
There are thin, sedentary people who eat poor diets as well. In fact all comprehensive studies on the matter that weren't conducted by the good people at SlimFast have noted that "thin and healthy" "thin and unhealthy" "fat and healthy" "fat and unhealthy" tend to be evenly spread among the populace.

You'd be surprised at how many fat people work out, especially given how much abuse they face at the gym, or just outdoors in general.

If no one you know moves 30 minutes a day 5 times a week I'd be surprised. I'm not talking 30 minutes of intense cardio. This is 30 minutes MODERATE movement, including walking. If anyone you know owns a dog and isn't a terrible owner they've already got that out of the ball park.

Even if your belief that obesity is the cause of many people living unhealthily, and the millions upon millions of thin, unhealthy people are just annoying anomalies getting in the way of your findings and should be ignored (hey, scientists do it, why not you?), what would you suggest, honestly?

Eating well and getting enough exercise (30 mins moderate, 5 times a week) has shown to universally improve health. Whereas all conventional methods for losing weight (ie. eating less, exercising more), have shown to not only not work 95% of the time, but also be rather unhealthy depending on the severity of the diet and the degree to which you're now exercising.
Take it from someone who has run themselves ragged in the past. Eating only 1000 calories a day and burning off 4000 a day makes you feel pretty shit, pretty fast.

That's not even factoring in weight-loss surgeries and diet pills, which in our obesity-hysteric society some doctors are actually recommending. The surgery is just un-necessarily dangerous, has all sorts of complications down the line, and tends to not work.
The most benign diet pills will give you an elevated heart rate and anal leakage for the rest of your life. The worse of the bunch will straight-up kill you.

Whether thin or fat, the only thing you need to be worrying about from a health perspective is, am I eating well, am I moving enough? No single able body needs any more than that.

If you're uncomfortable taking my word for it, consider investing in the works of Dr. Linda Bacon, PhD. That woman knows her stuff.

See, I read what you say and the studies that you link, and those make sense, but then the question arises in my mind of why the obesity rate is rising, and so incredibly rapidly.

I think one thing that we need to look at are the terms we are using, because I think we're using them in different ways. When I say diet, I mean eating heathily, not necessarily starving yourself to death like you seem to. Which is the popular perception of these things, but "diet" technically just has a meaning of the food that one eats. I'm not advocating people starving themselves for long periods of time, but most of us could easily stand to eat better, myself included.

I know also from personal experience that I was at my healthiest when I was running cross country, and eating possibly nearly triple what I currently eat. MY body took in quite a bit of energy and used it all up, and whenever I ate something that was too unhealthy it made me want to die the next time that I ran.

I am a little unsure at the notion of exercise being something as simple as moving around. From my experience I said above and all of my interactions with doctors I definitely got the impression that something a little heavier was needed. Not much heavier, but something like dancing or judo counts, and those are not overly strenuous (except when judo becomes wrestling).

But I can very much see that you're a serious guy with a serious point and I think we generally agree, but that we have differing estimates on the healthy habits that the general population takes. So, take for example the HAES standard of eating naturally. I know personally that there have been many times when I've eaten and not been hungry, and very many times when I've overeaten at meals, and that is ignoring my body's signs that it's full. I would bet that there are many other people who do the same (probably while procrastinating on work like me).

But with obesity rates skyrocketing, this isn't just the natural turn of events. There is something behind this (that sounds way more conspiratorial than I want it to sound)and that should be addressed for those that it's not a healthy state for.

 

[Amarok]

Snip

At the very least can it be agreed that making sure everyone has access to the foods they want, and access to safe movement options is a better way forward than nurturing a culture of fear, stigma and shame?


As for your other ponderings, I'd suggest looking at Tom Naughton, and his film Fathead. It comes from a far more cool, clinical perspective, but also debunks the totally erroneous "obese=automatically unhealthy" idea. He's got some ideas on what causes fat, but make sure to bear in mind that fat isn't automatically ill health, and that stigmatising and shaming -- and linking to comprehensive lists of fat jokes as an academic counter-argument -- is just an all-round stupid idea.

 

[RafaelNegrus]

Snip

At the very least can it be agreed that making sure everyone has access to the foods they want, and access to safe movement options is a better way forward than nurturing a culture of fear, stigma and shame?


As for your other ponderings, I'd suggest looking at Tom Naughton, and his film Fathead. It comes from a far more cool, clinical perspective, but also debunks the totally erroneous "obese=automatically unhealthy" idea. He's got some ideas on what causes fat, but make sure to bear in mind that fat isn't automatically ill health, and that stigmatising and shaming -- and linking to comprehensive lists of fat jokes as an academic counter-argument -- is just an all-round stupid idea.

As I've stated before, I'm not opposed to a tax on unhealthy food (which could possibly be used to fund a subsidy on healthy food, although food subsidies are a sticky issue in this country) as I really do think that would help everyone, and yeah judo classes for everybody would be great.

I did have a couple of interesting thoughts as I was reading some things on this. Many people on here have been claiming that a significant part of weight problems comes from the psychological problems of social shaming, but I was looking at this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_acceptance_movement and saw that it dated to the late 60s early 70s and then this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obesity_in_the_United_States#Anti-obesity_efforts which shows that the obesity rate in adults has tripled since then. I tend to think that weakens the argument that it's social stigma, as if stigma has been the same then why would obesity levels go up? And if it varies, why wouldn't the obesity rate vary a little more rather than just rising?

However, everything that I've looked at to date, even the paper written by Dr. Bacon http://www.nutritionj.com/content/10/1/9 has stated that obesity is correlated with multiple health issues, and they just mainly argue causation. Even if it's a symptom of something that is more of an issue, a large spread of a symptom is still something to be worried about.

 

[Amarok]

Snip

Look at the stuff by Tom Naughton to see why taxing food is seven different shades of stupid (to whit: fast food doesn't cause obesity (!!!!!) and middle class, higher-income families eat more fast food than the poor, so you wouldn't be discouraging much either way)

If you use wikipedia and claim it to be a reliable source you will get slapped out of college faster than you could imagine. I'd argue that stigma has gotten a LOT worse since the 60's. Just look what's on TV and in magazines, and note that eating disorders in children under 12 have increased by 112% in the last 10 years.

Linda Bacon has consistently argued against focusing on weight and weight-loss, so it's a shame to see you've decided to go against her conclusions.