Fat Acceptance

[Whitey]

What's the general consensus on this on this board. Mainly relating to the 'Healthy At Any Size' movement within it.

For me I think it's harmful and it's become misguided and dangerous. Yes people should feel like they can be happy whatever they look like (That's what the general body acceptance movement is for), but I feel if we normalise obesity (50% of the US is now diabetic or pre-diabetic) it's going to kill people. I have seen posts and comments directly from some of the key figures in the movement for example telling people who have weight related medical conditions not to lose weight because their doctor is just fat shaming. I could go into more detail about why I don't like the movement and why it's harmful but I'll wait for more responses.

However I also feel that the counter movement needs to make sure it's not actually fat shaming people. That Nicole Arbour video that's been floating around the internet for the last week or so, it felt mean, it was unpleasant and I'd say she was fat shaming. That shit isn't helpful. The problem is that some people now feel that saying anything negative about the consequences of being fat is fat shaming. It's not. There was a video by a personal trainer which went around the internet a month or so ago, and while he was not pulling punches, he wasn't shaming or saying anything that wasn't true. I'll find the link later if this gets responses.

[thesalmonofdoubt]

I think its one of the many issues that gets muddied on both sides.. Its a classic case of good intentions executed poorly.

Being enormously overweight is not healthy even if there are exceptions to the rule. And being extremely overweight is becoming more and more common in a variety of different societies for almost the exact same reasons. People are eating worse, exercising less and its becoming increasingly easy to do both.. any excuse to ignore this and blame an increasing array of "These things are out of my control" are employed to protect the status quo and the problem continues.

On the other hand - people fat shame believing that this will motivate people to loose weight thinking that an acceptance of people being overweight is a cause for people being overweight. And they are wrong. All fat shaming does is cause fat people to feel even more disenfranchised and eat more..

So - my thoughts are that its (for want of a better word) an enormous problem and I don't know what the actual solution is. We live in a world where at the exact same point in time we have epidemics of obesity and starvation and that makes no sense at all.
When you live in a culture that thinks its reasonable to eat a burger, chips and a litre of soft drink as a regular thing without even a hint of self examination or a call for self control - you have an issue that doesn't have an easy solution.

[Whitey]

Yeah. If the movement was still purely about fat people feeling comfortable in their own bodies, I'd have zero issues with it and would support it. It's just the rest of it.

People saying it's out of their control are part of the problem. It's not. It's remarkably simple. However there's so many fad diets and weight loss pills, there's so much bad advice that I can see why people get fat. Even medical professionals aren't good at giving out the right information. I know someone who had to take a course on nutrition for a qualification he's got. The information was 20 years out of date, and the answers were bullshit. So I can see why people don't always know what to do. Weight Loss is calories in vs calories out. Any diet that works is because it follows that. But then you get misleading information on packaging, or at least they're trying to avoid admitting how many are in something (I nearly picked up a pasta salad thing for lunch the other day, said 200 calories. then I saw in tiny tiny writing 'serving size 1/5 of tub'. Someone who hasn't had this stuff pointed out for them will look at that, think it's a great little low calorie snack, eat it all and boom, 1000 calories. The thing that bothers me is when this stuff gets pointed out to people and they choose to ignore it or say it doesn't work because they tried it for 3 days once and didn't lose any weight. People often don't realise how much they eat. There's a show called secret eaters where people get asked how much they think they ate, they'll think about 2-2500 calories, and it'll be revealed that it was closer to 6000. There was one guy who made a healthy breakfast or so he thought, with cereal, yoghurt, cream, and it was basically his full daily allowance in one go. People need help. However some people, especially in the fat acceptance movement, reject the help or say it's wrong.

Yeah. I just think that with fat shaming, not everything that is claimed to be shaming, is actually shaming. I've seen people complain that their doctor said their health issues were caused by being overweight or were exacerbated by it, and they'll call that fat shaming. When it's simply not. I've seen people claiming BMI restrictions on certain jobs are fat shaming. They're not.(I remember people on this board/old board saying that a Boy Scouts Jamboree which had a limit of 40 was fat shaming. It wasn't, they just knew they couldn't safely allow kids that obese to do all the very physical events, they'd get hurt. I remember at least 1 person saying 40 wasn't fat either). Actual fat shaming is very bad. Often things that are termed fat shaming, are not. I wouldn't ever personally mock a fat person or shame them. I wouldn't even comment on their weight unless asked. While a minority might react positively to it most won't, so it's not a good idea.

For me there needs to be much better education about what causes obesity, being very clear on how to maintain a healthy weight. But also, no bullshit. No glamorisation of obesity. Make it clearer what the calorie content of your foods are. I don't know about the US but in the UK they have the nutritional info on the front of most food items which tells you. Like I said that needs to be clearer though.

[Unvoiced_Apollo]

The nutritional info in the US is normally in the back.l ot side (if box) Depending on the food/snack, they might provide a summary of the amount of protein, carbs, fat, sugar, and sodium on the front but the complete information. And I guarantee you few people know what % of each they should be getting.

[Whitey]

They have the nutrition on the back here too, but there's the summary on the front, and the first thing on it is the calorie amounts.

[Anakin McFly]

I think the word 'Healthy' is the key - i.e. if you're large but otherwise healthy, it's better than being skinny and unhealthy. Unfortunately the current norm is to associate size with health, which is inaccurate. I'm totally skinny fat, whereas I know lots of people who would be technically overweight but where most of that is muscle; as well as people who are naturally plump but eat well and exercise regularly and are in much better health than I am.

[Whitey]

Even skinnyfat people are healthier than someone who is obese.

While you can't really tell by looking at someone who is slim if they're healthy or not, if you see an obese person they are unhealthy for the most part. Only bodybuilders and people like that can justifiably claim they're healthy with an obese BMI. even then their size is putting more strain on their body.

[aels]

Fat acceptance is, IMO, a good thing. There have been studies that indicate that body positivity and fat acceptance actually correlate with increased weight loss. I am massively leery of the notion that you can tell a person's health by looking at their weight - we know that there are, in general, negative consequences to being excessively overweight (although I've actually seen some interesting medical counterpoints over the last few years) but the assumption that you, fat person, are ruining your health and cannot be healthy is a fallacious one and I'm entirely tired of concern-trolling and people saying 'Look at person X, they are so unhealthy and it is so sad'. No one has any business making those kind of pronouncements unless they are a doctor (specifically, that person's doctor). I'm also not sure that body positivity normalises obesity. We *know* that the overriding cultural message is that fat people are not to be seen and when they are seen, they are either disgusting or a punchline. We know that fat people, in general, know that there is statistically a link between obesity and certain health conditions. They know! Saying 'Hey, fat person, your weight puts you at an increased risk of heart disease' does nothing, because they know. I don't think a rise in Western obesity is linked to body positivity. I think it's linked, massively, to poverty and to the fact that modern life is generally more sedentary. People aren't, generally speaking, fat because they heard that being fat is rad and fun for all the family. And body positivity is not about *encouraging* people to be fat. It is about telling people who are already fat that they are not bad people and that their weight does not and should not affect their self worth.

[aels]

People saying it's out of their control are part of the problem. It's not.

It very often is, though. Aside from medical issues that cause weight problems, obesity is correlated with poverty. There are many, many people who don't have access to affordable healthy food or the time to cook from scratch, so they rely on cheap, quick, sugary foods. I don't think there are many people in the world who don't know that salad = healthy (generally, see unhealthy dressings), chips = generally unhealthy. I don't think it's a matter of education (at least, not solely or chiefly education), I think it's a structural problem.

But also, no bullshit. No glamorisation of obesity.

Plz clarify what constitutes glamorisation of obesity. I'm not baiting you, I'm generally curious since I don't think it's something I've encountered.

[Derived Absurdity]

Fat acceptance is, IMO, a good thing. There have been studies that indicate that body positivity and fat acceptance actually correlate with increased weight loss. I am massively leery of the notion that you can tell a person's health by looking at their weight - we know that there are, in general, negative consequences to being excessively overweight (although I've actually seen some interesting medical counterpoints over the last few years) but the assumption that you, fat person, are ruining your health and cannot be healthy is a fallacious one and I'm entirely tired of concern-trolling and people saying 'Look at person X, they are so unhealthy and it is so sad'. No one has any business making those kind of pronouncements unless they are a doctor (specifically, that person's doctor). I'm also not sure that body positivity normalises obesity. We *know* that the overriding cultural message is that fat people are not to be seen and when they are seen, they are either disgusting or a punchline. We know that fat people, in general, know that there is statistically a link between obesity and certain health conditions. They know! Saying 'Hey, fat person, your weight puts you at an increased risk of heart disease' does nothing, because they know. I don't think a rise in Western obesity is linked to body positivity. I think it's linked, massively, to poverty and to the fact that modern life is generally more sedentary. People aren't, generally speaking, fat because they heard that being fat is rad and fun for all the family. And body positivity is not about *encouraging* people to be fat. It is about telling people who are already fat that they are not bad people and that their weight does not and should not affect their self worth.

^ that

[Derived Absurdity]

Obesity is mostly out of peoples' control, though. It is highly heritable and studies suggest that it is mostly genetic. Even if it was not, what we commonly call "willpower" or "self-control" is mostly heritable, so people generally have little control over their own level of self-control. And the facts are both diet and exercise are completely ineffective in treating obesity, both for groups and individuals, both short-term and long-term. With all this in mind I don't see any problem with fat acceptance.

The rise in obesity over the past few decades, which may or may not be overstated, is purely a structural problem, whether the cause is mostly biological or social. So we need to deal with it on a systemic structural basis.

[aels]

Obesity is mostly out of peoples' control, though. It is highly heritable and studies suggest that it is mostly genetic. Even if it was not, what we commonly call "willpower" or "self-control" is mostly heritable, so people generally have little control over their own level of self-control. And the facts are both diet and exercise are completely ineffective in treating obesity, both for groups and individuals, both short-term and long-term. With all this in mind I don't see any problem with fat acceptance.

The rise in obesity over the past few decades, which may or may not be overstated, is purely a structural problem, whether the cause is mostly biological or social. So we need to deal with it on a systemic structural basis.

Tangent: I did my dissertation on willpower (well, self-regulation) among other things and it is very fascinating. The concept of ego depletion (i.e. you have a set resource of willpower and using willpower in one area depletes your store of willpower to use in other areas) is a fascinating one and I think it's probably relevant in the context of obesity. If obesity *is* related to willpower, then poor people, who by definition live more taxing lives and presumably face greater/more frequent drains on their self-regulation resources, will very likely have less willpower resources to spend on making sure they live healthily. For example:

If Tom, a poor person, spends his day stopping himself from spending money on things he can't afford, working a stressful job that he can't afford to quit and must constantly force himself to maintain, and restraining himself from snapping at his wife (because they have money troubles and they are stressed with each other a lot), then Tom is more likely to decide to eat chips for tea rather than forcing himself to eat a salad, because Tom has used up all of his willpower resources.

[Whitey]

The thing is I see plenty of people talking about body positivity but actively telling people that they shouldn't lose weight. There's definitely a right way to help someone lose weight, which is with positive re-enforcement. And I feel that's what the movement was. But if you went and asked some of the current figureheads of the movement.

I feel quite confident that if I see someone who is very fat, that they will either have health problems, or they'll develop them due to their weight. Studies I've seen have fairly clearly stated that being obese will lead to health problems. Now, I won't go out and tell someone that, that'd be a private opinion, just like any other opinion I form upon meeting someone. And I agree that doctors should be the only ones actually telling an individual 'Your weight is a health concern'. But parts of the fat acceptance movement now seem to regard being told they need to lose weight by their doctor as Fat Shaming.

I don't feel body positivity normalises obesity, but I feel again, significant parts of the fat acceptance movement are actually trying to do just that.

Regarding poverty, I accept that can definitely be a reason if you have no time to shop properly because you're working 2 jobs just to keep a roof over your head and so on. The first study I found on that issue agreed that obesity was highest in low income areas.

I think the issue here is, that we both agree body positivity is a very good thing. My issue is with the actual Fat Acceptance movement itself . I think that's moved beyond body positivity and onto normalising obesity. I feel there's a number of vocal supporters of that movement give out downright harmful information(One of them told a girl who was advised to lose weight by her doctor because of an issue that was affecting her sight, that the doctor was wrong and that she shouldn't try and lose the weight. I see people being attacked on social media for either being fit or for losing weight. I don't happen to think this is because of the body positivity movement, it's because of the HAES movement within Fat Acceptance. It's genuinely awful.

[aels]

We're moving in different circles then because this is something I have not ever seen (I'm not saying it doesn't happen, just that it's not on my radar at all).

I feel quite confident that if I see someone who is very fat, that they will either have health problems, or they'll develop them due to their weight.

Conversely, do you tend to assume that if you see someone who is thin (or at least, not fat) do you generally assume that they are healthy and will remain healthy? Again, I'm not snarking, this is interesting to me as someone who experiences, shall we say, preconceptions about their health.

[Whitey]

Obesity is mostly out of peoples' control, though. It is highly heritable and studies suggest that it is mostly genetic. Even if it was not, what we commonly call "willpower" or "self-control" is mostly heritable, so people generally have little control over their own level of self-control. And the facts are both diet and exercise are completely ineffective in treating obesity, both for groups and individuals, both short-term and long-term. With all this in mind I don't see any problem with fat acceptance.

The rise in obesity over the past few decades, which may or may not be overstated, is purely a structural problem, whether the cause is mostly biological or social. So we need to deal with it on a systemic structural basis.

Just no.

It is not mostly genetic. At least, not to the extent that would explain the huge rise in obesity. Regarding genetics, yes, some people will have lower metabolisms than average, or might have PCOS or Hyperthyroidism. But they do not in themselves make a person fat. As a person can simply eat less, or do some exercise to burn more calories. (I realise that some people don't have the time, but that's not a genetics issue).

Fad diets are bad at controlling obesity because you become dependent on them and if you stray from them you gain weight. Any successful weight loss diet will follow the principle that calories in must be lower than calories out. That's it. Any diet that works is because of that. And it's not ineffective, it works. And if someone continues to keep that in mind, and they follow it accurately, they will lose weight. Exercise isn't the cure all for sure, but it helps. It burns more calories that you wouldn't have otherwise burned. Not a huge amount (playing Squash for an hour for example may earn you the equivalent of a couple of chocolate bars), but some. If someone is eating a large excess and thinks that going to the gym and doing some light work will even it out they're mistaken, but it can play a part.

While there are a lot of other issues that can lead to increased obesity rates, genetics is not one of them. Most of the 'genetic' causes, simply mean you have to eat a little less.

[Derived Absurdity]

Obesity is mostly out of peoples' control, though. It is highly heritable and studies suggest that it is mostly genetic. Even if it was not, what we commonly call "willpower" or "self-control" is mostly heritable, so people generally have little control over their own level of self-control. And the facts are both diet and exercise are completely ineffective in treating obesity, both for groups and individuals, both short-term and long-term. With all this in mind I don't see any problem with fat acceptance.

The rise in obesity over the past few decades, which may or may not be overstated, is purely a structural problem, whether the cause is mostly biological or social. So we need to deal with it on a systemic structural basis.

Tangent: I did my dissertation on willpower (well, self-regulation) among other things and it is very fascinating. The concept of ego depletion (i.e. you have a set resource of willpower and using willpower in one area depletes your store of willpower to use in other areas) is a fascinating one and I think it's probably relevant in the context of obesity. If obesity *is* related to willpower, then poor people, who by definition live more taxing lives and presumably face greater/more frequent drains on their self-regulation resources, will very likely have less willpower resources to spend on making sure they live healthily. For example:

If Tom, a poor person, spends his day stopping himself from spending money on things he can't afford, working a stressful job that he can't afford to quit and must constantly force himself to maintain, and restraining himself from snapping at his wife (because they have money troubles and they are stressed with each other a lot), then Tom is more likely to decide to eat chips for tea rather than forcing himself to eat a salad, because Tom has used up all of his willpower resources.

^ Yep. Most of the time the dramatic rise in obesity, at least in this country, has been shown to have started at roughly the same point wages started stagnating and sometimes plummeting, employment started becoming far less secure, impoverishment becoming far more common, basic infrastructure starting to collapse, and misery and stress intensifying in general for most everyone outside an extremely narrow circle of wealth. That's probably not a coincidence. The obesity epidemic is probably mostly due to the structural deficiencies in capitalism, and yet people like to treat it as individual problem and blame the victims for it.

It sucks.

[Dr_Liszt]

Obesity is mostly out of peoples' control, though. It is highly heritable and studies suggest that it is mostly genetic. Even if it was not, what we commonly call "willpower" or "self-control" is mostly heritable, so people generally have little control over their own level of self-control. And the facts are both diet and exercise are completely ineffective in treating obesity, both for groups and individuals, both short-term and long-term. With all this in mind I don't see any problem with fat acceptance.

The rise in obesity over the past few decades, which may or may not be overstated, is purely a structural problem, whether the cause is mostly biological or social. So we need to deal with it on a systemic structural basis.

Tangent: I did my dissertation on willpower (well, self-regulation) among other things and it is very fascinating. The concept of ego depletion (i.e. you have a set resource of willpower and using willpower in one area depletes your store of willpower to use in other areas) is a fascinating one and I think it's probably relevant in the context of obesity. If obesity *is* related to willpower, then poor people, who by definition live more taxing lives and presumably face greater/more frequent drains on their self-regulation resources, will very likely have less willpower resources to spend on making sure they live healthily. For example:

If Tom, a poor person, spends his day stopping himself from spending money on things he can't afford, working a stressful job that he can't afford to quit and must constantly force himself to maintain, and restraining himself from snapping at his wife (because they have money troubles and they are stressed with each other a lot), then Tom is more likely to decide to eat chips for tea rather than forcing himself to eat a salad, because Tom has used up all of his willpower resources.

^ Yep. Most of the time the dramatic rise in obesity, at least in this country, has been shown to have started at roughly the same point wages started stagnating and sometimes plummeting, employment started becoming far less secure, impoverishment becoming far more common, basic infrastructure starting to collapse, and misery and stress intensifying in general for most everyone outside an extremely narrow circle of wealth. That's probably not a coincidence. The obesity epidemic is probably mostly due to the structural deficiencies in capitalism, and yet people like to treat it as individual problem and blame the victims for it.

It sucks.

You have to consider also the amount of sugar and fat inducing manufactured food you people are being flooded with.
I can't relate to this problem and I feel it's mostly a first world thing because you have access or immedeate access to shit food or food with hidden sugar on it, it's disgusting. John Oliver did a sketch on this too. It's scary.

[aels]

http://laht.com/article.asp?ArticleId=3 ... ryId=12394

[Derived Absurdity]

Fuckin' boom

[Dr_Liszt]

Yeah but the main concern is that 60% of people here suffer some malnourishment. We have the fourth highest index of malnutrition in the world, so to me it's really a privileged person's problem. At least they can afford McDonald's. It's basically the oppossite of what happens in America where the poor are overweight. My poor wish they had that problem.

[Derived Absurdity]

Obesity is probably mostly genetic and diet and exercise simply do not work. Sorry, but that's what the science shows.

I never said genetics explained the recent rise in obesity. That would be dumb.

We don't know why obesity has risen so much. It's probably a mixture of social and biological factors.

[Whitey]

Aels -

I agree there are structural issues. In my second post I alluded to some of them and I accept there are things like poverty that can play a large part. I accept that. I just don't accept that it's the main cause of the rise of obesity.

I feel glamorisation of obesity is as follows. When you see obese body shapes lauded in the same breath as putting down or mocking those who are not obese. I think we've all seen that before (Real men love curves, the whole Real Women thing, etc). I feel things like that Meghan Trainor song, All about that Bass sings about being heavier and puts down skinny women). Anything which essentially puts down people who are either a healthy weight or work out, it's implying they're doing it wrong, and that fat is the better alternative. Again, I don't think this is a body positivity problem(As genuine body positive people wouldn't put down people regardless of body size), but a problem with the movement. There's an obese model called Tess Holiday who has become an icon for the movement and she's said things about being proud to be plus size (she's morbidly obese medically). People will read her words, watch her videos on youtube and they'll see obesity in a positive light. I feel that's glamorising it. I do think it's okay for women who are obese to have someone like them in the fashion world, as lots of people want to dress well and wear nice clothes, and most models are not that big.

If I see someone who to me looks underweight I'll assume they are unhealthy or risk being unhealthy. If I see someone who looks either fit or looks neither obese or underweight, I won't make assumptions about their health based on weight. Obesity is a big red flag as is being underweight. Someone's size is just one indicator of someone's health.

[aels]

Yeah but the main concern is that 60% of people here suffer some malnourishment. We have the fourth highest index of malnutrition in the world, so to me it's really a privileged person's problem. At least they can afford McDonald's. It's basically the oppossite of what happens in America where the poor are overweight. My poor wish they had that problem.

Malnutrition and obesity aren't mutually exclusive though (unless I'm reading what you're saying wrong). To my knowledge, malnutrition is a serious problem in the US, even (and perhaps particularly) in areas with high obesity.

[aels]

I feel glamorisation of obesity is as follows. When you see obese body shapes lauded in the same breath as putting down or mocking those who are not obese. I think we've all seen that before (Real men love curves, the whole Real Women thing, etc). I feel things like that Meghan Trainor song, All about that Bass sings about being heavier and puts down skinny women). Anything which essentially puts down people who are either a healthy weight or work out, it's implying they're doing it wrong, and that fat is the better alternative. Again, I don't think this is a body positivity problem(As genuine body positive people wouldn't put down people regardless of body size), but a problem with the movement. There's an obese model called Tess Holiday who has become an icon for the movement and she's said things about being proud to be plus size (she's morbidly obese medically). People will read her words, watch her videos on youtube and they'll see obesity in a positive light. I feel that's glamorising it. I do think it's okay for women who are obese to have someone like them in the fashion world, as lots of people want to dress well and wear nice clothes, and most models are not that big. .

I hugely dislike the notion that 'real women have curves' for a number of reasons but I would argue that anything (for want of a better term) skinny-shaming is hugely inverse to the sheer amount of fat-shaming (or fat exclusionary) messages and sentiments in society and culture, i.e. I don't believe that the small section of the interwebs saying that being fat is awesome is going to have any significant cultural impact against the sheer weight (no pun intended) of anti-fat sentiment. I'm familiar with Tess Holliday and I've never seen her comments on her weight in a glamourising light (i.e. while I have seen her say that she's happy and proud of her body and confident in her health, I've never seen her espouse the view that fat bodies are better and healthier and more moral than non-fat bodies) and therefore I don't consider it a problem or something that's going to incentivise fatness. I *do* see it as something that is mentally healthy for a lot of fat people. She gets a lot of grateful people messaging her blog.

[Whitey]

Obesity is probably mostly genetic and diet and exercise simply do not work. Sorry, but that's what the science shows.

I never said genetics explained the recent rise in obesity. That would be dumb.

We don't know why obesity has risen so much. It's probably a mixture of social and biological factors.

The science doesn't show that. The science shows that if you eat a calorie excess, you will gain weight. If you eat a calorie deficit you will lose weight. If you eat roughly the same amount of calories that you burn, you will maintain your weight. As I said, some conditions can affect your metabolism, and genetics may lead to you having a slightly boosted metabolism or reduced, but the principle remains. You just need to work out your rough calorie allowance. There's plenty of resources online for that. And again, while exercise isn't a cure all (1 hour of jogging will not make up for regular pepsi or coke all day and a high calorie dinner, doing an hour of yoga won't even out that 12 inch pizza), it's helpful. It will make a difference in how quickly you lose weight.

Anyone who doesn't have a freak medical condition is capable of weight loss. It may be harder for someone but it is always possible.

[Dr_Liszt]

Yeah but the main concern is that 60% of people here suffer some malnourishment. We have the fourth highest index of malnutrition in the world, so to me it's really a privileged person's problem. At least they can afford McDonald's. It's basically the oppossite of what happens in America where the poor are overweight. My poor wish they had that problem.

Malnutrition and obesity aren't mutually exclusive though (unless I'm reading what you're saying wrong). To my knowledge, malnutrition is a serious problem in the US, even (and perhaps particularly) in areas with high obesity.

Malnourishment. We have one of the highest rates of it in the world. I might be saying it wrong. But the thing is, when people from the dry corridor starve to death here, we have a different priorities.

I didn't disagree with what derived said, just that.. well.. I have a hard time caring. It's like he said, it's a problem within the system that allows population get junk food, the privileged population gets good food, and there's us which give you the food while 50% of our children will experience development problems because of lack of food.

[aels]

We might be talking at cross-purposes then - malnourishment/malnutrition refers to health conditions caused by a lack (or sometimes an excess) of necessary vitamins and minerals. So you can be malnourished from starving and not having access to the nutrients your body needs, or you can be malnourished from eating lots of food but food that has poor nutritional content (i.e. junk food) so fat people can easily be malnourished. If you're talking about people starving to death from a lack of calories then we're talking about different things (or rather, kind of the same thing since starvation is the most serious form of malnutrition, but not exactly the same thing).

[Derived Absurdity]

Obesity is probably mostly genetic and diet and exercise simply do not work. Sorry, but that's what the science shows.

I never said genetics explained the recent rise in obesity. That would be dumb.

We don't know why obesity has risen so much. It's probably a mixture of social and biological factors.

The science doesn't show that. The science shows that if you eat a calorie excess, you will gain weight. If you eat a calorie deficit you will lose weight. If you eat roughly the same amount of calories that you burn, you will maintain your weight. As I said, some conditions can affect your metabolism, and genetics may lead to you having a slightly boosted metabolism or reduced, but the principle remains. You just need to work out your rough calorie allowance. There's plenty of resources online for that. And again, while exercise isn't a cure all (1 hour of jogging will not make up for regular pepsi or coke all day and a high calorie dinner, doing an hour of yoga won't even out that 12 inch pizza), it's helpful. It will make a difference in how quickly you lose weight.

Anyone who doesn't have a freak medical condition is capable of weight loss. It may be harder for someone but it is always possible.

What I'm referring to are huge meta-studies which analyzed studies of large numbers of people who attempted both diet and exercise over a long period of time, and they made no difference at all. There are a lot of studies on that subject. Virtually all of them show basically the same thing. Genome-wide complex trait analyses and twin and adoption studies also strongly suggest that obesity is highly heritable.

I'm not denying that caloric restriction causes a loss of weight. But for virtually everyone, keeping it up is impossible. There's a lot of biological reasons for that.

[Dr_Liszt]

We might be talking at cross-purposes then - malnourishment/malnutrition refers to health conditions caused by a lack (or sometimes an excess) of necessary vitamins and minerals. So you can be malnourished from starving and not having access to the nutrients your body needs, or you can be malnourished from eating lots of food but food that has poor nutritional content (i.e. junk food) so fat people can easily be malnourished. If you're talking about people starving to death from a lack of calories then we're talking about different things (or rather, kind of the same thing since starvation is the most serious form of malnutrition, but not exactly the same thing).

I think I should have said chronic malnutrition. I think that's the correct english term. According to google.

[Whitey]

I feel glamorisation of obesity is as follows. When you see obese body shapes lauded in the same breath as putting down or mocking those who are not obese. I think we've all seen that before (Real men love curves, the whole Real Women thing, etc). I feel things like that Meghan Trainor song, All about that Bass sings about being heavier and puts down skinny women). Anything which essentially puts down people who are either a healthy weight or work out, it's implying they're doing it wrong, and that fat is the better alternative. Again, I don't think this is a body positivity problem(As genuine body positive people wouldn't put down people regardless of body size), but a problem with the movement. There's an obese model called Tess Holiday who has become an icon for the movement and she's said things about being proud to be plus size (she's morbidly obese medically). People will read her words, watch her videos on youtube and they'll see obesity in a positive light. I feel that's glamorising it. I do think it's okay for women who are obese to have someone like them in the fashion world, as lots of people want to dress well and wear nice clothes, and most models are not that big. .

I hugely dislike the notion that 'real women have curves' for a number of reasons but I would argue that anything (for want of a better term) skinny-shaming is hugely inverse to the sheer amount of fat-shaming (or fat exclusionary) messages and sentiments in society and culture, i.e. I don't believe that the small section of the interwebs saying that being fat is awesome is going to have any significant cultural impact against the sheer weight (no pun intended) of anti-fat sentiment. I'm familiar with Tess Holliday and I've never seen her comments on her weight in a glamourising light (i.e. while I have seen her say that she's happy and proud of her body and confident in her health, I've never seen her espouse the view that fat bodies are better and healthier and more moral than non-fat bodies) and therefore I don't consider it a problem or something that's going to incentivise fatness. I *do* see it as something that is mentally healthy for a lot of fat people. She gets a lot of grateful people messaging her blog.

It's the pairing of the skinny shaming with the fat acceptance that makes it wrong for me. Saying one is wrong while the other is right (When only one is healthy), is glamourising obesity to me. I'm aware we probably won't agree on that, but for me it is.

Tess is the figurehead of the Fat Acceptance and HAES movements at this point and she's not even trying to promote being healthy. She's a role model who is leading an incredibly unhealthy lifestyle, in the area in which she is a role model for.

[Whitey]

Obesity is probably mostly genetic and diet and exercise simply do not work. Sorry, but that's what the science shows.

I never said genetics explained the recent rise in obesity. That would be dumb.

We don't know why obesity has risen so much. It's probably a mixture of social and biological factors.

The science doesn't show that. The science shows that if you eat a calorie excess, you will gain weight. If you eat a calorie deficit you will lose weight. If you eat roughly the same amount of calories that you burn, you will maintain your weight. As I said, some conditions can affect your metabolism, and genetics may lead to you having a slightly boosted metabolism or reduced, but the principle remains. You just need to work out your rough calorie allowance. There's plenty of resources online for that. And again, while exercise isn't a cure all (1 hour of jogging will not make up for regular pepsi or coke all day and a high calorie dinner, doing an hour of yoga won't even out that 12 inch pizza), it's helpful. It will make a difference in how quickly you lose weight.

Anyone who doesn't have a freak medical condition is capable of weight loss. It may be harder for someone but it is always possible.

What I'm referring to are huge meta-studies which analyzed studies of large numbers of people who attempted both diet and exercise over a long period of time, and they made no difference at all. There are a lot of studies on that subject. Virtually all of them show basically the same thing. Genome-wide complex trait analyses and twin and adoption studies also strongly suggest that obesity is highly heritable.

I'm not denying that caloric restriction causes a loss of weight. But for virtually everyone, keeping it up is impossible. There's a lot of biological reasons for that.

Well if you go too far with weight loss it's going to get harder and eating less isn't sustainable. But if you pick an appropriate weight to go for, hit it, then eat the appropriate amount of calories to maintain weight, and accurately keep track of it, you'll stay that weight.

[Derived Absurdity]

And my point is most people can't do that...

[Whitey]

Yes they can.....calorie information is readily available on almost every single food item. the vast majority of people will have some way of finding out their daily calorie allowance. Once you know those two things, that's all you need. Are you saying most people can't do that?

[Derived Absurdity]

No, science is saying most people can't do that. Diet and exercise do not have any long-term effects. That's just how it is.

You're framing it as an intelligence problem. It's a willpower and self-control problem.

[Whitey]

What I'm saying is that they do work, on a biological level. You will lose weight if you stick to it. Once at your target weight you will maintain it if you eat appropriately and stick to it. Key term being 'Stick to it'. Are you disputing that? Saying that diet and exercise doesn't work because people will stop doing it doesn't prove that diet and exercise doesn't work....

Sure it's hard and a lot of people will struggle with it, but there's all sorts of tricks and tips to help someone with impluse control and the like. Not keeping big bags of sweets or chocolate in the house. Using a calorie tracker to help motivate you to stay on your goal. And so on. Again though, saying that people don't have the willpower to follow through with it doesn't mean it doesn't work.

[Derived Absurdity]

Yes, the science shows diet and exercise are not effective. Even when people kept exercising, even when they stuck to multiple different kinds of diets, the results were always minimal to nonexistent. I've been looking at the research on this for years, and the pattern is completely consistent. Even tightly controlled laboratory experiments show that the body is highly resistant to weight change when diets change. Dunno why. The body probably has some sort of homeostatic mechanism in place.

People don't really notice this because everyone always focuses on the statistical outliers. But in general diet and exercise don't work.

[Anakin McFly]

What aels said.

Though I'm pretty sure it's also something in the water / food. Someone here once linked to an article about how even lab animals in the U.S. with strictly regulated diets were getting a lot fatter than they did in the past. Meanwhile, the both times I lived in the U.S. I put on a lot of weight, which I then mostly lost upon getting home. My diet and lifestyle didn't otherwise change; if anything, I exercised *more* there.

[Derived Absurdity]

Someone here once linked to an article about how even lab animals in the U.S. with strictly regulated diets were getting a lot fatter than they did in the past.

http://aeon.co/magazine/health/david-be ... esity-era/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Whitey]

What aels said.

Though I'm pretty sure it's also something in the water / food. Someone here once linked to an article about how even lab animals in the U.S. with strictly regulated diets were getting a lot fatter than they did in the past. Meanwhile, the both times I lived in the U.S. I put on a lot of weight, which I then mostly lost upon getting home. My diet and lifestyle didn't otherwise change; if anything, I exercised *more* there.

American food is full of crap, even comparable foods will likely be worse for you in the US. When I lived there I found there was way more sugar in most foods than in the UK, and the UK is far from perfect on this. So if I ate the same in the UK as in the US, I'd put on more weight in the US. Calories in Calories out. Your extra exercise wouldn't quite cover the extra calories as exercise might only burn enough to have a slightly more calorific meal, or one chocolate bar for example.

[Whitey]

Yes, the science shows diet and exercise are not effective. Even when people kept exercising, even when they stuck to multiple different kinds of diets, the results were always minimal to nonexistent. I've been looking at the research on this for years, and the pattern is completely consistent. Even tightly controlled laboratory experiments show that the body is highly resistant to weight change when diets change. Dunno why. The body probably has some sort of homeostatic mechanism in place.

People don't really notice this because everyone always focuses on the statistical outliers. But in general diet and exercise don't work.

Homestatic mechanism? So when someone is anorexic, or has a digestive disorder, why isn't their body correcting it? Anorexic people don't start getting bigger until they start eating again. They'll gain weight when they eat more calories than they burn.

The reason people don't keep the weight off is because they go back to their old eating habits. If you think that dieting doesn't affect anything, I challenge you to eat half of what you currently eat per day, for 2 weeks. Track it accurately, and see if your homeostatic mechanism keeps your weight up then? Of course when you lose weight you'd just claim you were an outlier.....

[Derived Absurdity]

Argue with the science, not me.

[Whitey]

I'm arguing with you and your science. Both are wrong.

If you've read all this research about weight loss and gain I want to know why anorexic people don't maintain their weight when they don't eat right. Could it possibly be because they don't get enough calories? And when they start eating right again, they shockingly gain weight again....

[Derived Absurdity]

Lol the science is wrong. Okay.

[Whitey]

Lol the science is wrong. Okay.

I'm more willing to believe that you have in fact read several studies, but you've misunderstood them completely. It's either that or yes, your science is wrong fuckwit.

[Derived Absurdity]

K.

[Whitey]

Go on and explain the anorexic question then. If you're such an expert. Following calories in calories out will work for anyone who does it properly. Yes willpower can be a limiting factor, but even someone with no willpower can lose weight if they take steps to mitigate their lack of willpower, perhaps through friends or family.

[Derived Absurdity]

Go on and explain the anorexic question then.

But I don't want to.

[Whitey]

Go on and explain the anorexic question then.

But I don't want to.

But you basically need to or what you claim is science....is demonstrably bullshit. If you're ok with that, then by all means, don't answer it.

[Derived Absurdity]

No I don't.

[Whitey]

Ok fuckwit, thanks for playing.