|
FSMC posted:Fishmesh doesn't believe what he is saying though. Yes I do though, what crazy thing is going on with you that you think otherwise?
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 23:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 13:38 |
|
|
Fat acceptance is a reaction to bullying - stuff like /r/fatpeoplehate. If you're bullied long enough there's a compulsion to say "Ok, gently caress you, I am what I am and I'm sticking to it just to spite you." If you're seeing all these people who hate you and are generally mean and horrible to you and people like you, there's little compulsion to change because then they'd win because it proves they were right to hate you. I'm not saying that that's the only thrust behind fat acceptance but I believe that's part of it. It reminds me of friends I'd have when I was younger who would complain that they couldn't get a girl or boy to like them or couldn't make the kinds of friends they wanted and I'd say that sometimes we have to try to become the kind of person that attracts the kind of people we want to attract - being yourself and people liking you for you is kind of a myth, depending on who "you" is at a given time. They would counter this by asking why they'd want to change for people who don't like them. It's a feedback loop. Huzanko fucked around with this message at 02:49 on Jan 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 02:36
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:One of the issues with the conversation is that you can't seem to say "being fat literally kills you" without pissing certain people off. While I'd agree that we shouldn't be shaming, shunning, and casting fat people out because some of them genuinely can't help it this active hostility toward actual, legitimate medical research is insane. Being 500 pounds is absolutely not healthy but you're getting piles of people acting like we shouldn't even mention weight ever or do research on it. It seems to me that its that the HAES crowd is not so much about the 500 pound people, but the less extreme weight categories that a massive fraction of the population is in at this point. There's lots of questionable studies and quirks that they can point to, look at the obesity paradox stuff that was brought up earlier and it manages to keep the water muddy enough that some otherwise intelligent, well-meaning people go along with it. Like there's lots of people who look like they know what their talking about who peddle the kind of stuff that HAES laps up, and the general perception of nutrition among the general population tends to be one of utter confusion, so if you read an article in a relatively reputable place like Time or Slate that aligns with what the fat acceptance or HAES crowd says about the evils of dieting or whatever you might end up going along with the whole thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 03:18
|
|
|
Just the name HAES is bullshit, so they deserve even less respect than PETA who at least have a theoretically sane mission statement. HAES is a harmful sentiment that will make some people die
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 05:06
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:It seems to me that its that the HAES crowd is not so much about the 500 pound people, but the less extreme weight categories that a massive fraction of the population is in at this point. There's lots of questionable studies and quirks that they can point to, look at the obesity paradox stuff that was brought up earlier and it manages to keep the water muddy enough that some otherwise intelligent, well-meaning people go along with it. Like there's lots of people who look like they know what their talking about who peddle the kind of stuff that HAES laps up, and the general perception of nutrition among the general population tends to be one of utter confusion, so if you read an article in a relatively reputable place like Time or Slate that aligns with what the fat acceptance or HAES crowd says about the evils of dieting or whatever you might end up going along with the whole thing. The problem with HAES is that they're deliberately twisting information to justify eating themselves to death. Studies have shown, for example, that being underweight is unhealthy and that being a bit overweight doesn't hurt you. There's actually a pretty big window of "healthy weight" all told and being somewhat husky is in that category. The problem with HAES is that they're saying "being underweight is unhealthy so you should be as huge as possible" or "this study said that being 50 pounds over doesn't hurt you so being 500 pounds over must also not." They're deliberately spreading misinformation that is literally killing people. A super obese person has a dramatically reduced quality of life as well as life span. There are people saying "so fat you can't even walk" is a perfectly healthy state to be in. It isn't.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 10:15
|
|
|
A problem with the 500lb individuals is that they create an unrealistic interpretation of what fat or an acceptable weight is. It is too easy for someone who is 'only' 50-100lbs overweight to go 'hey, look at that guy, I'm half his size, so I'm really not that overweight', even though they are firmly in the unhealthy obese category. This can be a strong disincentive to get back into shape. The risk with fat acceptance is that it also pushes what is considered to be a socially acceptable weight into the danger zone. It's really the same as the lazy route of just buying a larger pair of trousers and going "hey, my clothes fit. Everything's fine'.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 10:44
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:It seems to me that its that the HAES crowd is not so much about the 500 pound people, but the less extreme weight categories that a massive fraction of the population is in at this point. And I'm not using that term lightly. (Pun not intended.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 10:45
|
|
|
Those plus-sized models are a different category: they're usually the shape of the average person I see or even thinner. And Adele, when she made that statement about making good music being more important to her than looking good, also was at worst "overweight", not morbidly obese. And I don't even know if at that size you're actually seeing a significant decrease in life expectancy, but it's most likely not of the dimension that anybody should care. But a speaker at TEDx on the topic of health at any size is going to be very clearly dangerously obese, and they're not going to talk about it being a bad thing that the average model's BMI is 16 rather than 20, but about how it's discrimination not entirely unlike Jim Crow that people who are literally so fat they need two seats in an airplane need to pay for both seats. This is, after all, a typical talking point of theirs: needing two seats in an airplane. And you don't need two seats if you're 50lbs overweight. You need them if you're a whale. But if there truly is a fraction in the movement that's about 1. taking away the social stigma while 2. not advocating that you can be healthy at literally any size, including very explicitly the 250, 300lbs women, the 300, 500 pound men, then show them to me and they'll have my meaningless internet support. Edit: of course, for the Fishmechs in the audience: it is in principle possible to be 300 lbs and healthy in the sense of living a long and high-quality life, in the same sense that it's possible to smoke and not get lung cancer or eat lots of traditionally prepared food with a focus on lean protein and vegetables and still get fat. It's just very rare, and should be understood as the expectable statistical fluctuations, not an index of anything noteworthy. Cingulate fucked around with this message at 10:57 on Jan 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 10:54
|
|
|
That's actually another issue with the conversation; being huge doesn't guarantee you'll get those problems. It vastly increases your risk but I have, in fact, met 500 pound people that were perfectly healthy at like 60, same as I met a guy that smoked three packs a day starting at 13 and had perfectly pristine lungs at 70. Some people are just flat out immune to certain things for whatever reason. The issue is that those people do not mean it's safe for the rest of us to have those habits. Most people who smoke that heavily won't see 70 and most people who weigh 500 pounds for multiple decades will die of it. I, for one, decided to maintain a lower weight and have healthy eating habits because my gene pool has a ton of diabetes in it. I don't want to increase my risk after watching relatives suffer from renal failure in their 50's. Working in the restaurant world I'd watch regular customers literally eat themselves to death and decided I didn't want to go through that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 12:11
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:That's actually another issue with the conversation; being huge doesn't guarantee you'll get those problems. It vastly increases your risk but I have, in fact, met 500 pound people that were perfectly healthy at like 60, same as I met a guy that smoked three packs a day starting at 13 and had perfectly pristine lungs at 70. Some people are just flat out immune to certain things for whatever reason. Practically everything in the real world shows some distribution; there is a relationship, and it manifests against some noise. And in this case, the true relationship between obesity and health issues is strictly negative, regardless of the existence of noise.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 13:35
|
|
|
To be completely fair, most HAES bloggers or "fat activists" are the mobile obese. They aren't anywhere near 500lbs. They're fine with moderate walking and swimming (and the new craze is pole dancing...) The people who are scooting around in motorized wheelchairs aren't as delusional as the people who are living normal lives but obese. And that is the sinister part - these people have decent bloodwork and post videos of them being not entirely sedentary and extrapolate that to perfect health. Most of these people are not having health problems now aside from limited physical endurance (which, as they'll note, is true for anyone who doesn't exercise), but they are at massive risk for health problems as they age. I wonder if there are any "body positivity" people out there who openly poo poo on HAES. I've seen some who will never say a word about it (e.g. plus size fashion bloggers) but I get the impression that their audience wouldn't tolerate the suggestion that losing weight is a good idea even if you're happy in your body. That seems so weird to me, but I've never been in their shoes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:To be completely fair, most HAES bloggers or "fat activists" are the mobile obese. They aren't anywhere near 500lbs. They're fine with moderate walking and swimming (and the new craze is pole dancing...) The people who are scooting around in motorized wheelchairs aren't as delusional as the people who are living normal lives but obese. And that is the sinister part - these people have decent bloodwork and post videos of them being not entirely sedentary and extrapolate that to perfect health. Most of these people are not having health problems now aside from limited physical endurance (which, as they'll note, is true for anyone who doesn't exercise), but they are at massive risk for health problems as they age. That's the crazy part, really; I see the same thing from smokers. "Well I'm not dying now so I'll just smoke for a while and quit before I develop serious issues." Like OK yeah you're 22, of course smoking isn't causing you problems yet but "I'll change my ways tomorrow" tends to lead to a gently caress load of tomorrows. Next thing you know you've been smoking for 40 years and can't walk without gasping for breath. Or you're dying of lung cancer at 57.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:To be completely fair, most HAES bloggers or "fat activists" are the mobile obese. They aren't anywhere near 500lbs. They're fine with moderate walking and swimming (and the new craze is pole dancing...) The people who are scooting around in motorized wheelchairs aren't as delusional as the people who are living normal lives but obese. And that is the sinister part - these people have decent bloodwork and post videos of them being not entirely sedentary and extrapolate that to perfect health. Most of these people are not having health problems now aside from limited physical endurance (which, as they'll note, is true for anyone who doesn't exercise), but they are at massive risk for health problems as they age. Back in the day (like 10 years ago) I was reading fat positive blogs when HAES was (I think?) just getting going. As I remember, and I could totally be wrong here, the idea was: 1) It would be better if you could lose weight and exercise than do nothing 2) It would be better if you could lose weight, even if you did not exercise, rather than do nothing 3) It would be better if you could exercise, even if you did not lose weight, rather than do nothing Basically I remember it starting as a "harm reduction" kind of thing, trying to decouple the idea of exercising from this constant horrible mental struggle people were feeling about Losing Weight, so that at least they could do some exercise, rather than none, because even if you maintain your weight you'll probably be healthier and happier if you walk 30 mins a day rather than none. I guess in the decade since it changed, or maybe my initial impressions were just wrong?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 17:37
|
|
|
Being overweight or obese and having good bloodwork is genetic privilege. Shaming those who have to diet and exercise to maintain healthy bloodwork is pro-eugenic ableism.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 17:38
|
|
|
bartlebyshop posted:Back in the day (like 10 years ago) I was reading fat positive blogs when HAES was (I think?) just getting going. As I remember, and I could totally be wrong here, the idea was: Yeah this is entirely true. Think of it as originally being "try to be as healthy as possible at any size" and then slowly morphing into "I am already as healthy as possible at my size, so I don't have to do anything".
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 17:43
|
|
|
Pretty sure a substantial part of the origins of the movement was fighting against (perceived) discrimination, and that the actual worry about health was mostly added as a defense. Also pretty sure it's always been inherently tied to feminism and fighting against bodyshaming.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
I guess it could be possible that HAES/fat acceptance is a net benefit (even though its arguments are fallacious), if it were to be shown that it prevents more suffering via a positive effect on the (incredibly deadly) ED wave and possibly stress relief compared to the suffering it creates by keeping some obese people from losing weight and/or exercising. I don't believe it is empirically true, but it could be true and so far nobody could honestly claim to know otherwise. It is at least possible that it does little harm because fat people fail to diet anyway and them becoming fat is little influenced by societal acceptance in the first place (this may be an unpopular opinion, but I would hazard to guess people becoming fat is not altogether much less genetically determined as people being gay, not by more than an order of magnitude), while it could be tremendously beneficial for ED and stress relief. I do not believe this is true because to me it seems fat acceptance people are if at all increasing the amount of stress they're experiencing and do probably shitall to prevent ED. But it's possible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
bartlebyshop posted:Back in the day (like 10 years ago) I was reading fat positive blogs when HAES was (I think?) just getting going. As I remember, and I could totally be wrong here, the idea was: Everyday Feminism is a popular site among social justice minded people that seems to go in for fat acceptance particularly hard and their articles can end up getting really weird as a result. Here's one such article that talks about exercise and body image, the main trust seems to be that you shouldn't exercise if your main goal is weight loss because that's being beholden to the body image standards that society has set. This article is pretty good at displaying the most obnoxious things about the movement actually, particularly its appropriation of terms that other social justice movements have used in the past ('passing' as a I think this part gets to the heart at how the movement looks at exercise: quote:Just yesterday, a man told me that over the past few weeks he has been watching me run on the treadmill, and that if I’m wondering why I haven’t lost any weight, it’s because pure cardio doesn’t burn enough fat. Like its fair enough that if you exercise purely to lose weight you probably won't enjoy it, which makes it more likely you'll stop exercising fairly quickly and probably end up feeling depressed, and the guy who came up to her was way overstepping his boundaries. But at the same time there's this intransigent attitude that weight loss for its own sake must be a negative thing. At the same time though they at least accept that exercise is good for you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 18:44
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:I guess it could be possible that HAES/fat acceptance is a net benefit (even though its arguments are fallacious), if it were to be shown that it prevents more suffering via a positive effect on the (incredibly deadly) ED wave and possibly stress relief compared to the suffering it creates by keeping some obese people from losing weight and/or exercising. I don't believe it is empirically true, but it could be true and so far nobody could honestly claim to know otherwise. Can you clarify which ED(s) you mean here? Binge eating disorder? OSFED? All of them?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 18:45
|
|
|
bartlebyshop posted:Can you clarify which ED(s) you mean here? Binge eating disorder? OSFED? All of them?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 18:49
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:Like its fair enough that if you exercise purely to lose weight you probably won't enjoy it, which makes it more likely you'll stop exercising fairly quickly and probably end up feeling depressed, and the guy who came up to her was way overstepping his boundaries. But at the same time there's this intransigent attitude that weight loss for its own sake must be a negative thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 18:50
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Also they're really on point that that guy was an obnoxious creep who should go back to watching Arnold Schwarzenegger video clips and obsessing over heavy metal in protein shakes. I think the problem though is that guy is not a once-in-a-lifetime occurrence. You will see that guy and hear that guy everywhere you go, especially when you are overweight. Maybe not every time, but often enough that it becomes somewhat routine for strangers to make comments. It's easy to see how it's wrapped up in feminism, when men, and in my experience it's almost exclusively men, feel that they can critique your body. As for the ignoring health advice from a medical professional, a lot of overweight people often have other symptoms ignored by doctors because of their weight. I've gone to a doctor for an ear infection and been told I need to lose weight. It took 6 months of painful visits to doctors and several trips to the ER to get diagnosed with gallstones before anyone bothered to run any tests instead of just saying I should lose weight. I had my gynecologist tell me that I should lose weight as fast as possible, no matter what the method (this was in response to saying that I was losing 2.5lbs a week as I had been told was safe). So when this woman says that she went in for a flu shot and was told she'd be a good candidate for a weight loss program, I'm sure her doctor was trying to broach the subject of her being overweight in a helpful way, but what she hears is another doctor believing every problem she could ever have must be due to her weight. I'm not saying she's right to ignore a doctor's advice, but trying to explain how someone can rationally come to that conclusion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 19:27
|
|
|
Asiina posted:I think the problem though is that guy is not a once-in-a-lifetime occurrence. You will see that guy and hear that guy everywhere you go, especially when you are overweight. Maybe not every time, but often enough that it becomes somewhat routine for strangers to make comments. It's easy to see how it's wrapped up in feminism, when men, and in my experience it's almost exclusively men, feel that they can critique your body.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
Ever since I was a boy I dreamed of soaring over the oilfields dropping hot sticky loads on disgusting foreigners. People say to me that a person being a helicopter is Impossible and I'm loving retarded but I don't care, I'm beautiful. I'm having a plastic surgeon install rotary blades, 30 mm cannons and AMG-114 Hellfire missiles on my body. From now on I want you guys to call me "Apache" and respect my right to kill from above and kill needlessly. If you can't accept me you're a heliphobe and need to check your vehicle privilege. Thank you for being so understanding. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 20:30
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:It seems to me that its that the HAES crowd is not so much about the 500 pound people, but the less extreme weight categories that a massive fraction of the population is in at this point. There's lots of questionable studies and quirks that they can point to, look at the obesity paradox stuff that was brought up earlier and it manages to keep the water muddy enough that some otherwise intelligent, well-meaning people go along with it. Like there's lots of people who look like they know what their talking about who peddle the kind of stuff that HAES laps up, and the general perception of nutrition among the general population tends to be one of utter confusion, so if you read an article in a relatively reputable place like Time or Slate that aligns with what the fat acceptance or HAES crowd says about the evils of dieting or whatever you might end up going along with the whole thing. yeah but for most people even being 300 lbs is deep into morbidly obese territory
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 22:48
|
|
|
I think "thin privilege" and HAES type poo poo is very dumb and potentially dangerous like most people, although I also think way too often people use the fact that it's dumb as an excuse to be unbelievably huge assholes to fat people. Being fat is much more of a "choice" than something like race or biological sex, sure, but it's not equally easy for all people to lose weight\avoid gaining weight, depending on a variety of factors.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 23:43
|
|
|
You can lose weight if you eat 1500 calories a day. Does anything else have to be said? Can anybody disprove or argue against this?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 23:53
|
|
|
Humans under 4 and a half feet tall. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 00:09
|
|
|
Mandator posted:You can lose weight if you eat 1500 calories a day.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 00:16
|
|
|
Mandator posted:You can lose weight if you eat 1500 calories a day. Yes, something more does need to be said. I've been seeing this point come up a lot and I want to address it. I have been overweight before and when I tried simply to restrict calories I could not focus when I was at my job, and I just couldn't afford to lose that productivity at work. I probably would have been fired or would not have advanced in my job. When I started to address where my calories came from I was able to reduce my caloric intake without the same problems. I'm not saying all overweight people have the same problem but it was a real issue for me and I wouldn't be surprised if it was for others.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 00:35
|
|
|
Nocts posted:Yes, something more does need to be said. I've been seeing this point come up a lot and I want to address it. I have been overweight before and when I tried simply to restrict calories I could not focus when I was at my job, and I just couldn't afford to lose that productivity at work. I probably would have been fired or would not have advanced in my job. When I started to address where my calories came from I was able to reduce my caloric intake without the same problems. I'm not saying all overweight people have the same problem but it was a real issue for me and I wouldn't be surprised if it was for others. Fair enough. What if you increased the calorie count until you felt you could focus, then slowly reduced it week by week?
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 00:43
|
|
|
twodot posted:I know the post above is a joke, but if "you" is intended to include every human who has, will, or could exist this is plainly false (at a minimum consider people who have consumed 1500 calories a day for their whole life). If you're making some sort of statistical argument, you should do that. It's not a joke. I think that calorie restricted diets are an effective and proven way to lose weight.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 00:44
|
|
|
Mandator posted:It's not a joke. I think that calorie restricted diets are an effective and proven way to lose weight. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Weight is actually a pretty complex thing but in the case of America for most Americans that's half of the equation. Americans, as a whole, are sedentary and consume too many calories. You could, for example, eat 5,000 calories a day and still lose weight if you burn them all. There was a period of my life where my job involved a lot of heavy lifting and I liked to ride my bike a whole loving lot. My calorie needs were very, very high so I looked like a glutton when really I was just active. Now I make a point of eating not as much as before because, well, now I'm a slightly crippled software developer and my calorie needs are much, much lower.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 00:49
|
|
|
I guess I don't know what I'm talking about! I'm not surprised.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 00:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 13:38 |
|
|
Mandator posted:Fair enough. What if you increased the calorie count until you felt you could focus, then slowly reduced it week by week? I'll admit that quite possibly would have worked. I did find it difficult for various reasons (e.g. odd working hours, meals cooked by others(I lived in a co-op), varying levels of physical activity week-to-week) to get reasonably accurate numbers both for expenditure and intake when I did try it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 00:56
|
|