Fat Acceptance

[Red]

This dude says that losing weight too fast can be bad because it gives you loose skin where all the fat was. (Note: The video is mildly gross)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrRjUyFY3yw

[brimstoneSalad]

This dude says that losing weight too fast can be bad because it gives you loose skin where all the fat was. (Note: The video is mildly gross)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrRjUyFY3yw

I'm fairly certain that's a myth. Skin takes time to shrink, and it takes more time the older you are and the longer you were fat for (also influenced by genetics). That guy wouldn't have had tight skin if he took a year to lose the weight either, he would just have been unhealthy longer.

http://www.webmd.com/diet/obesity/you-lost-weight-what-about-extra-skin

The elasticity of your skin depends on how long you were obese. It doesn’t matter if you dropped pounds quickly or slowly. The longer it was stretched out, the less likely it is to bounce back.

Arbitrarily, let's say there's a case where it will take five years for a particular young man's skin to shrink, we'll call him Bob.

If Bob loses weight in one year, he'll have saggy skin for four years, slowly tightening.
If he loses weight gradually over five years, he'll never have apparently saggy skin (he'll just still be fat, to a gradually reducing degree) -- it wasn't because he lost weight slowly and the skin tightened faster, it was because the skin was tightening at the same rate he was losing: it was always full while tightening. They both reach the endpoint at about the same time.
There's no reason to lose weight more slowly unless you care more about the aesthetics of temporarily saggy skin (which only might tighten up if you're very YOUNG) than the health risk of being obese. If your skin is going to tighten, it will tighten. If it won't, it won't -- no matter how slowly you go.

If you're older, it doesn't matter much how slowly you lose it, your skin will tighten too slowly and you'll always be saggy. It could take this guy's skin 50 years to tighten, and he may not live that long. This guy was fat far too long. He needs surgery, that's all there is to it.
All the more reason to lose weight quickly and get fit as young as you can.

Here's an even more remarkable case: https://www.youtube.com/user/ObesetoBeast

[Red]

Well the dude is almost 25 I believe, considering he turned 21 in 2012. Plus, this video was made in that year, and he never made any updates about the situation from my understanding.But he did see is doctor so maybe things did get fixed up. But he was also diagnosed with Crohn's disease in 2013, and from my understanding fat and diet don't cause it, but can make it worse. I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about at this point I'll just ask my mom, she has some medical experience.

Anyway, I was at the shops the other day, and honestly, seeing people in those motor scooters makes me depressed. What makes it even more jarring is that their basket is filled with shit like sodas and junk food, and I just mumble to my myself "See, this is the problem." Do you guys think I should think that?

[brimstoneSalad]

Anyway, I was at the shops the other day, and honestly, seeing people in those motor scooters makes me depressed. What makes it even more jarring is that their basket is filled with shit like sodas and junk food, and I just mumble to my myself "See, this is the problem." Do you guys think I should think that?

There's a negative feedback loop against exercise. The fatter people get, the harder it is for them to walk, so at some point they just give up and sit down in a motorized scooter; that's the point of no return for most. Once you stop walking in the grocery store, it's probably all over for you.

Filling up their baskets with junk food is pretty much par for the course.

[EquALLity]

And if she's not delusional or incredibly stupid, she knows her weight is unhealthy too. She probably thinks she knows better than the doctors, and believes the HAES propaganda. She has every reason to lose the weight, and only her own laziness and lack of drive to blame for keeping it. She could easily prove herself driven by just losing the weight if she had will power and some sense.

I don't understand. If you think she believes the HAES propaganda, that means she thinks she is healthy. She can't believe that propaganda and also know her weight is unhealthy (and therefore be lazy by not trying to lose it). That's not consistent.

It's reasonable for Katie Hopkins to not want to hire her when there's a thin applicant.
The thin person may just be thin by dumb luck rather than effort, but a woman like this is fat for reasons that demonstrate weak character. It's not a disability, it's not a race: it's a choice and it reflects character. It's worse than having a nazi swastika tattooed on your face (at least that might be out of date, from a youthful mistake).

No, I don't think it's reasonable, because I don't think you have to be either unintelligent or lazy to be overweight (as I demonstrated by pointing out there are successful overweight people).

1) George Tenet
2) Cenk Uygur
3) Chris Christie
4) Newt Gingrich
5) Dick Cheney

Of course, I don't like most of these people (just Cenk), but you can't deny that they are intelligent and successful. Some of them are evil masterminds, but they're not dumb or lazy.

BTW, the 'fat acceptance' movement isn't just about obesity. It's also about people who are slightly or moderately overweight.

It was a good interview. If you look to agree with everything somebody says in order to reference something they've done, you'll find yourself pretty short on sources.

I don't know that much about Freelee's content. If she actually made a good video where there weren't a lot of alternatives (like from somebody nicer like Bite Size Vegan) it would be sensible to reference it.

If you have a better source which demonstrates what that interview does, I'd be glad to link that instead.

I don't agree that it was a good interview. Katie Hopkins didn't really do much except say that overweight people lack worth ethic, which is pretty shitty. She didn't present statistics or anything.

Do you have statistics that support this claim you were making? You just said it was statistically probable and linked that video.

She's eating almost 20 times more than she should be eating. Her carbon footprint is probably the size of ten people's. It's deeply unethical, and she's killing herself, but she has peddled this lie of being healthy and it being her personal choice and brainwashed her family with the HAES garbage.

I'm not sure what your point is, I never said it was good to be obese.

I was talking about the reasoning people use.

I don't understand. You meant that the reasoning is stupid or lazy? Not that the people necessarily are?

While 51% of adults want to lose weight, barely half as many (25%) say they are seriously working toward that goal.

Maybe they are focusing on other, more important, things in their lives.
Obviously some people are overweight because they are lazy, sure. But you said they are all either stupid or lazy.

And those who are working toward it, you will typically find, are doing a poor job of it. Remember, this is self reporting.
More recent statistics are more dire: while Americans have gotten fatter, fewer are reporting that they think they are overweight.

You can also see the consequences of fat acceptance in those statistics, where people are starting to care less or cave to delusions that they are not overweight. People want to be told they're OK no matter what, and that they're healthy, and that eating bacon is good and they should do whatever they want.

http://www.livescience.com/46246-most-a ... eight.html
This fat acceptance shit is sowing the seeds of mass delusion, and it's not helping people lose weight or be healthier.

That doesn't make sense. How would supporting 'fat acceptance' convince people they aren't actually overweight? If anything, they'd be more aware of their body size because they feel like it's something they can be open about. Why would it go the opposite way?

Shaming them excessively is probably what leads to the denial.

Not surprisingly, women seem to be less delusional about their weight than men are when it comes to being overweight. Why? Probably because men are subject to less shame and criticism for being overweight.

Perhaps.

Shame is important, take it away and all of the effort falls away with it and delusion can take over.

I don't know about that. First, it's not necessary to have shame to want to be healthier. And shame can be harmful and demoralizing.

The vast majority of Americans are incredibly stupid. Have you not seen the surveys on basic scientific and nutrition knowledge?

http://www.pcrm.org/health/reports/surv ... ition-info
https://consumerist.com/2010/07/07/only ... -each-day/

There's more depressing stuff like that on basic scientific knowledge.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/3742/new-pol ... evels.aspx

Well... I like to think they're largely just brainwashed and ignorant, not necessarily stupid.

I think some of this stuff isn't so bad:

Cholesterol Only 7 percent were aware that an egg has more cholesterol than a Big Mac.
Calories Only 7 percent of individuals in households with children ages 13 to 17 knew that skim milk and Coca-Cola have about the same number of calories.
Fat Only 18 percent knew that 70 percent of the calories in cheese come from fat.

Who would think a single egg has more cholesterol than a Big Mac? A Big Mac is notorious as the most disgustingly unhealthy product of the worst fast food chain in America.
Who knows the amount of calories in skim milk and Coca-Cola off the top of their heads? I have no idea the amount of calories in either of those. 200?
Apparently it's 140 for coke and 90 for skim milk. Those aren't really that close.
Why would you know what percent of the calories in cheese comes from fat? Is that supposed to be common knowledge?

These aren't really that important bits of information to know, they're more like random nutrition trivia questions.

The scientific knowledge stuff is pretty sad, though.
And only 66% of 18-29 year olds know America gained independence from Great Britain? Jesus Christ. How does anybody not know that?

[Red]

Filling up their baskets with junk food is pretty much par for the course.

What does that mean?

[PsYcHo]

Filling up their baskets with junk food is pretty much par for the course.

What does that mean?

Hmm, my assumption is you are not from America, but you are often sarcastic as well, (not that I'd know anything about sarcasm ), so I will respond using the assumption you are not familiar with golf terms. (Golf originated in Scotland, and Europeans usually have knowledge about their neighbors, unlike Americans who usually don't have knowledge about their own government, so I'm guessing Australia, maybe?)

"Par" is the number of times you are supposed to have to hit a golf ball before you get it in the hole. (That's what she said....) The course is (of course) referring to the area on which the game is played. The phrase "par for the course" simply means that which is the most common, suggesting Brimstone means obese persons are most likely to eat junk food.

[Red]

Hmm, my assumption is you are not from America, but you are often sarcastic as well, (not that I'd know anything about sarcasm ), so I will respond using the assumption you are not familiar with golf terms. (Golf originated in Scotland, and Europeans usually have knowledge about their neighbors, unlike Americans who usually don't have knowledge about their own government, so I'm guessing Australia, maybe?)

"Par" is the number of times you are supposed to have to hit a golf ball before you get it in the hole. (That's what she said....) The course is (of course) referring to the area on which the game is played. The phrase "par for the course" simply means that which is the most common, suggesting Brimstone means obese persons are most likely to eat junk food.

Golf?

[PsYcHo]

Golf?

Cricket where the bowler uses a little metal bat to hit the ball into small holes in the ground. Strewth! Played solo, but often golfers lie about their score to impress other players also lying about their score. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEig1D4sJdI

[brimstoneSalad]

I don't understand. If you think she believes the HAES propaganda, that means she thinks she is healthy.

Then she's delusional, as I said.

She can't believe that propaganda and also know her weight is unhealthy (and therefore be lazy by not trying to lose it). That's not consistent.

That was an OR proposition.

No, I don't think it's reasonable, because I don't think you have to be either unintelligent or lazy to be overweight (as I demonstrated by pointing out there are successful overweight people).

Delusional is a possibility too.

A few rare counterexamples of rich and powerful people doesn't really disprove the point from a perspective of overwhelming statistical probability. We'd have to look at these people more carefully. Particularly for rich or famous men, sometimes their egos are propped up by their wealth and success, and as long as they're ignorant of the health differences due to whatever delusions they hold, they may not have aesthetic concerns since they can get ladies (or boys) anyway as long as they look good in a tailored suit.
Being successful also doesn't mean a person is strong willed, very often they're just born into it or lucky. Lazy idiots can gain power, or sometimes they become lazy after gaining power (having been idiots all along).
The people you listed are mostly idiots, some lazy too; not all of them came into power fat and lazy.

1) George Tenet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Tenet#Iraq_WMD_controversy
Sound strong willed, skeptical, and industrious to you?

2) Cenk Uygur
I think his encounters with Sam Harris say it all. He's both physically and intellectually lazy; his reporting is nothing like industrious, and he probably has others do most of the leg work, which barely extends beyond the rigor of fox news or cheap tabloids.
Watch the Rubin Report instead.

3) Chris Christie
Really?
Also, somebody who famously used to be thin and then ballooned up. This is one of the only people on the list who is profoundly obese; most of the others are just chubby.

4) Newt Gingrich
He's unethical more so than industrious. Also pretty old and an equal or greater measure saggy.

5) Dick Cheney
He's incredibly old, and more saggy than fat. Look at some pictures of him when he was younger. He has been in power for a long time.

Of course, I don't like most of these people (just Cenk), but you can't deny that they are intelligent and successful. Some of them are evil masterminds, but they're not dumb or lazy.

A couple of them are intelligent, but that doesn't mean they're strong willed. Many of them just got ahead by being lazy and unethical, propping themselves up by taking the credit for the work of others and cutting corners. We may never have even had the Iraq war if we didn't populate our intelligence force with lazy and delusional people.

BTW, the 'fat acceptance' movement isn't just about obesity. It's also about people who are slightly or moderately overweight.

Lazy and stupid correlate to degree of obesity; it's not an off-on switch. Hard working intelligent people can be slightly overweight, because it's easier not to see a problem with that (particularly if they're otherwise rich, powerful, and successful).
There are even some (dubious) studies that suggest being ever so slightly heavier (not into obese) can be healthy. Somebody who didn't look into the studies carefully enough with a skeptical eye could be forgiven for taking them as they were reported.

Do you have statistics that support this claim you were making? You just said it was statistically probable and linked that video.

I discussed this with inator in the last few posts a bit.

There are statistics on IQ and weight. Stupid people are fatter, and fatter people are stupider. This is verifiable.
Will power is harder to test, but I explained the strong theoretical basis to inator.

I'm not sure what your point is, I never said it was good to be obese.

It's important to understand that it's a very bad thing, particularly at that level or near it. A sane person who experiences that kind of obesity knows that, and makes losing weight a priority.

I was talking about the reasoning people use.

I don't understand. You meant that the reasoning is stupid or lazy? Not that the people necessarily are?

The people are too; that is not to say that people can't change their mindsets to stop being lazy and increase willpower.
Sometimes people use delusional excuses or are being stupid about something in particular, usually they're just stupid in general.

Intelligent fat people understand why they are fat, and they figure out how they could not be fat, and the only reason they don't lose weight is because they're too lazy to do it. Or, they're in the process of losing weight.

It's very rare to know and not care at all.

Maybe they are focusing on other, more important, things in their lives.

All they have to do is make different dietary choices. Physical activity can be a little time limiting, but diet isn't.
Busy and ambitious people tend to have enough money -- and even secretaries -- to get healthier food. They don't have to rely on McDonald's for convenience.

There are cases of people getting a little chubby when they're very busy, particularly if they had maintained their weight through exercise before. When exercise drops off, they can gain a bit of weight and start getting flabby.
Schwarzenegger is a good example. He was a little chubby for a minute there. He didn't totally let himself go, though. And now that he's not busy again he's focused on his health. I doubt he ever got clinically obese, and he was probably never technically overweight.

Obviously some people are overweight because they are lazy, sure. But you said they are all either stupid or lazy.

Some are delusional, in the way of the HAES cult. There's a temptation to roll that in with stupid as in low IQ -- and it is a stupid thing to believe -- but it probably aligns better with crazy. Intelligent people can believe nonsense like religion and conspiracy theories.

This doesn't make up the majority, though; most people know it's unhealthy to be fat. And people who have ever not been fat know it doesn't feel good, and even those who are delusional enough to think it's healthy tend to know it's not attractive (although they may tell themselves otherwise).
I don't even think most people who believe the HAES propaganda want to be fat. There are just a few insane people who like it.

I don't think hiring a delusional and crazy person is any more of a good idea than hiring a lazy or unintelligent person.
And this isn't delusional like religion (which is much more common). This is closer to flat-Earth level delusion.

How would supporting 'fat acceptance' convince people they aren't actually overweight?

As more people get fat (because they accept it), it becomes normal. By comparison, they see themselves as average, and not overweight.

Shaming them excessively is probably what leads to the denial.

That's not a mechanism I have seen. It usually reminds them. It can lead to self loathing, but I don't think there's a very credible link to denial from shame. Fat is something openly apparent; it's not like homosexuality where somebody can be closeted and deny feelings because of homophobia.

Denial means it must be invisible, which it only becomes so when they are not reminded of it by others seeing it clearly. A lack of shaming allows them to deny it because everybody around them isn't insisting on it.

Shame is important, take it away and all of the effort falls away with it and delusion can take over.

I don't know about that. First, it's not necessary to have shame to want to be healthier. And shame can be harmful and demoralizing.

Well, I guess that's progress. If you understand that shame might be productive, then it comes to an empirical question.

You're right that it may be possible to want to be healthier without being shamed (although it's hard to educate somebody with risking shaming them); the question is whether it's easier or more productive that way.

Can we replace shame with something better and more cost effective?

I want to know the answer to that, but only experiment can answer that question.

Shame can be harmful and demoralizing, but based on its historical efficacy, it also works. Does it do more harm than good or more good than harm? Is it a necessary evil? I think it does slightly more good, and that yes, it is: until we have a replacement for shame that's better and cost effective.