Fat Acceptance

General philosophy message board for Discussion and debate on other philosophical issues not directly related to veganism. Metaphysics, religion, theist vs. atheist debates, politics, general science discussion, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
Red
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 3983
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:59 pm
Diet: Vegan
Location: To the Depths, in Degradation

Re: Fat Acceptance

Post by Red »

brimstoneSalad wrote: What miniboes said is right about how diminishing returns work, but exercise also requires you to consume more calories to keep it up, and just due to the process of digesting and metabolizing food energy, damage is done to the body.
So does that mean digesting food is bad? What if I were to eat less, and exercise more?
brimstoneSalad wrote: Basically, all food is "poisonous" to varying degrees. Vegan food is just much better than animal based food. But nothing is perfect.
But vegan food is just perfect-er. I've read somewhere that too much of even the healthiest foods is toxic, is that true?
brimstoneSalad wrote:Also, eating less. You should eat enough that you can maintain a BMI of about 22 (or at least between 18.5 and 25) in addition to getting about an hour (or two at most) of moderate physical activity every day.
Mine is about 19.7, so I think I'm okay. I get about 3 hours of exercise a day, is that too much? I eat about 3 meals a day, balance all the protein and greens and shit, and for snacks I primarily eat apples and almonds.
People who got some exercise, but not enough to meet the physical activity recommendations were still 20 percent less likely to die over a 14-year period than those who did not do any physical activity. (The recommendations say to do 150 minutes of moderate activity per week or 75 minutes of vigorous activity per week.)
So even a little bit of exercise is good?
brimstoneSalad wrote: People who engaged in the recommended level of physical activity saw even more benefit: They were 31 percent less likely to die during the study period, compared with those who did not engage in any physical activity. [7 Common Exercise Errors and How to Fix Them]

But doing a lot more activity than that did not provide much added benefit. The maximum benefit was seen among people who engaged in three to five times the recommended levels of physical activity; they were 39 percent less likely to die over the study period than people who did no exercise. Engaging in more exercise than this was not linked with any additional benefit.
So too much exercise is superfluous? Would there be any negatives to it?

150 minutes = 2.5 hours.
2.5 hours * 3 = 7.5 hours (or about an hour a day [slightly over])
2.5 hours * 5 = 12.5 hours (almost two hours a day)
brimstoneSalad wrote: If your activity is vigorous, you can cut the time in half. But... you also increase your chance of injury. Swimming is a good choice, though, with a very low risk of injury or harm to joints.
I primarily ride my bike and lift my weights, should I cut down?
Learning never exhausts the mind.
-Leonardo da Vinci
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10370
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Fat Acceptance

Post by brimstoneSalad »

RedAppleGP wrote:So what you're saying is, the more you exercise in one session, the less effective it becomes after a certain period of time?
No... that's not really right.

The more average hours per week, the less useful those additional hours are. They still add something, but just not much.

Think of it this way:

You're studying for a test. An hour gets you a C-, two hours gets you a C+, four hours gets you a B-, eight hours gets you a B+, 16 hours of studying gets you an A-, and 32 hours gets you an A+

Is it worth 16 more hours of studying to go from an A- to an A+? Probably not. But it probably WAS worth the three more hours of studying to go from the C- to the B-.

Pretty much everything in life is based on diminishing returns.

Negative returns are something else, which is where more studying actually gives you a worse grade (such as because you didn't get enough sleep). Most things first have diminishing returns, then after that begin to curve down and have negative returns.
RedAppleGP wrote:So does that mean digesting food is bad? What if I were to eat less, and exercise more?
Then unless you're overweight (which would make you lose weight), you would waste away and die.
Your body can't violate thermodynamics. Exercise requires energy. If it's not coming from adipose tissue (burning off stored fat) it has to come from more food.
RedAppleGP wrote:I've read somewhere that too much of even the healthiest foods is toxic, is that true?
Toxic is different. Theoretically a synthetic food could totally lack toxicants, but most plant foods have these in such small amounts it's not very important. I'm talking about the metabolic byproducts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metabolic_waste

RedAppleGP wrote:Mine is about 19.7, so I think I'm okay. I get about 3 hours of exercise a day, is that too much? I eat about 3 meals a day, balance all the protein and greens and shit, and for snacks I primarily eat apples and almonds.
If you like exercising, that's fine, particularly if it's moderate intensity.
Since you exercise that much, you should be heavier than you are, though. You may want to eat more, or do less cardio. Focus more on strength training.
RedAppleGP wrote:So even a little bit of exercise is good?
Less than an hour a day of moderate activity is not so good. But a little is slightly better than none.

Although if you're a leg bouncer/foot tapper (while you're seated), or there are a substantial number of stairs in your daily life, you may not need as much.
RedAppleGP wrote:So too much exercise is superfluous? Would there be any negatives to it?
More than two hours a day seems unnecessary and not useful. The main negative is waste of time.
RedAppleGP wrote:I primarily ride my bike and lift my weights, should I cut down?
I'd cut down on the bike and stick to the weight lifting.
User avatar
Red
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 3983
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:59 pm
Diet: Vegan
Location: To the Depths, in Degradation

Re: Fat Acceptance

Post by Red »

brimstoneSalad wrote:The more average hours per week, the less useful those additional hours are. They still add something, but just not much.

Think of it this way:

You're studying for a test. An hour gets you a C-, two hours gets you a C+, four hours gets you a B-, eight hours gets you a B+, 16 hours of studying gets you an A-, and 32 hours gets you an A+

Is it worth 16 more hours of studying to go from an A- to an A+? Probably not. But it probably WAS worth the three more hours of studying to go from the C- to the B-.
So what you're saying is, the more you go on the less useful it is? And you should exercise to reach the higher ranking bracket of sorts like in your test analogy here?
brimstoneSalad wrote: If you like exercising, that's fine, particularly if it's moderate intensity.
Since you exercise that much, you should be heavier than you are, though. You may want to eat more, or do less cardio. Focus more on strength training.
I actually rechecked my BMI. I got my height wrong by 3 inches; It's actually 21.6.
brimstoneSalad wrote: Although if you're a leg bouncer/foot tapper (while you're seated),
I don't usually sit with both legs on the ground, I sit with my legs crossed on my chair, should I stop doing that?
brimstoneSalad wrote: More than two hours a day seems unnecessary and not useful. The main negative is waste of time.
Okay, then I'll only go for bike rides in the afternoons. But I usually do it for fun though.. what say you?
brimstoneSalad wrote: I'd cut down on the bike and stick to the weight lifting.
Okay. Should I split it, like do 15 minutes bike ride and 45 minutes weight lifting or some shit like that?
Learning never exhausts the mind.
-Leonardo da Vinci
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10370
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Fat Acceptance

Post by brimstoneSalad »

RedAppleGP wrote: So what you're saying is, the more you go on the less useful it is?
Yes, it becomes a waste of time after a couple hours a day.
RedAppleGP wrote: And you should exercise to reach the higher ranking bracket of sorts like in your test analogy here?
Do the couple hours, because that's really useful, but then drop any exercise after that unless you really enjoy it.
RedAppleGP wrote: I actually rechecked my BMI. I got my height wrong by 3 inches; It's actually 21.6.
Oh, that's not so bad then.
RedAppleGP wrote: I don't usually sit with both legs on the ground, I sit with my legs crossed on my chair, should I stop doing that?
I didn't mean to make a commentary on sitting. I just meant that people who fidget are getting more activity. You shouldn't sit still for extended periods though.
RedAppleGP wrote: Okay, then I'll only go for bike rides in the afternoons. But I usually do it for fun though.. what say you?
If you enjoy it, then it's not any more waste of time than playing video games. Just make sure to wear a hat, sunglasses, UV protective clothing, and sunscreen, and reapply the sunscreen regularly.

I do not recommend more than 15 minutes or so of sun exposure a day without protection (it's fine to walk to and from your car doing errands, or go out to check the mail, etc. Sunscreen for that is not practical).
If you're out for hours, you definitely need good protection.

Make sure you bike on trails or in bike lanes. Biking around cars is dangerous. And always wear a helmet (over your hat).
RedAppleGP wrote: Okay. Should I split it, like do 15 minutes bike ride and 45 minutes weight lifting or some shit like that?
Sure, whatever you enjoy. You just may be doing too much cardio if your BMI is low.
User avatar
EquALLity
I am God
Posts: 3022
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 11:31 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: United States of Canada

Re: Fat Acceptance

Post by EquALLity »

brimstoneSalad wrote:Delusional is a possibility too.
Well, that isn't actually what you said, and some of your arguments were based on it.

But it's not just delusion anyway.
brimstoneSalad wrote:A few rare counterexamples of rich and powerful people doesn't really disprove the point from a perspective of overwhelming statistical probability.
Again, what statistics, though?
brimstoneSalad wrote: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.
I don't think so. I think that being a politician requires a strong will, along with the type of work Cenk does.
brimstoneSalad wrote:1) George Tenet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Te ... ontroversy
Sound strong willed, skeptical, and industrious to you?
He was the director of the CIA, he kind of has to be. Those problems were a result of that the CIA was under enormous pressure by the White House to support the Iraq War. It doesn't demonstrate the Tenet is lazy or stupid.
brimstoneSalad wrote: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.
The Young Turks goes into actual policies and does legitimate analyses that you'd never see anything like on Fox News or on the rest of the mainstream media channels. TYT was covering ISIS way before the mainstream media. And tabloids? Really?
brimstoneSalad wrote:3) Chris Christie
Really?
:lol: I don't like him, but he is successful.
brimstoneSalad wrote: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.
So what?

The 'fat acceptance' movement isn't just about obese individuals. If you are using the word 'fat' to refer to only to obese people, you aren't using the term correctly.
brimstoneSalad wrote: 4) Newt Gingrich
He's unethical more so than industrious. Also pretty old and an equal or greater measure saggy.
Oh yeah, he's definitely a terrible person. Dick Cheney is basically evil. :P But I think they're intelligent.
brimstoneSalad wrote: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.
I don't think so, because he lost weight a few years ago and looks thinner than he did as Vice President when he was younger.
brimstoneSalad wrote: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.
The CIA wasn't being lazy, they were kind of forced into the war by the Bush Administration and the Pentagon. The CIA actually had studies greatly undermining the WMD program, but they were buried by the CIA leadership (likely because they didn't fit with the government's narrative). The intelligence community was definitely greatly at fault, but IMO it was more political than lazy.

However, Tenet probably did convince himself Iraq had WMDs, so I suppose he was delusional about that. But that's very different from being delusional about weight. Pretty much everyone knows it isn't healthy to be overweight.
brimstoneSalad wrote: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.
Correlation doesn't equal causation. This isn't evidence that people are overweight because they are unintelligent, or that overweight people are unintelligent in general.

You also don't actually have evidence of a correlation between obesity/being overweight and laziness; you're just speculating.
brimstoneSalad wrote: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.
Fair enough, but just because a group may have more stupid people doesn't mean everyone in that group should be discriminated against in applying for jobs because of that. Intelligence in the workplace should be determined on a case-by-case basis. It also doesn't mean people who are overweight are unintelligent in general, or that people are overweight because they are unintelligent.

We don't have enough information to make these assumptions. Maybe it's because people with low IQs are more likely to be in poverty, and impoverished places have less access to healthy food.
brimstoneSalad wrote: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 know it's very unhealthy, but the fact that you feel the need to point it out seems to suggest that you aren't distinguishing between HAES stuff and not attacking overweight/obese people.

Also, this isn't just about obesity.
brimstoneSalad wrote: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.
You don't have evidence of that.
brimstoneSalad wrote: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.
Not all people who are ambitious have a lot of money, and it's a stereotype that poor people are lazy.

Sometimes it's more convenient for people who are on the go to eat fast food. Or, some people live in food deserts and don't have access to healthy stores. There are a lot of reasons people can be overweight.
brimstoneSalad wrote:As more people get fat (because they accept it), it becomes normal. By comparison, they see themselves as average, and not overweight.
Nobody is encouraging people to become overweight. It's not healthy to be overweight and/or obese, but it doesn't mean you are a bad person or you are 'ugly'.

Do you have any evidence for this theory?
brimstoneSalad wrote: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.
Which is worse than obesity.
brimstoneSalad wrote: Denial means it must be invisible, which it only becomes so when they are not reminded of it by others seeing it clearly.
Ok, fair enough.
brimstoneSalad wrote:A lack of shaming allows them to deny it because everybody around them isn't insisting on it.
BMI and your doctor don't lie.
brimstoneSalad wrote: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.
How is that progress? :P I never said it couldn't be productive, just that it's primarily bad.

It has different effects for different people depending on the situation, but I think it's mostly harmful in this case. Convincing people to lose weight for health reasons is effective, because people care about living as long as they can and being healthy. I don't see why we need to add negativity to it and make people feel 'ugly'- that's the kind of thing that leads to eating disorders, which are a lot more dangerous than being overweight/obese.

What do you think is a more encouraging message?:
1) You should lose weight, that way you can live longer and have more time doing stuff you love and being with your loved ones!
2) You're a stupid and lazy POS for being FAT!!11 Moooooo
"I am not a Marxist." -Karl Marx
User avatar
Red
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 3983
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:59 pm
Diet: Vegan
Location: To the Depths, in Degradation

Re: Fat Acceptance

Post by Red »

I haven't been following this discussion, so I'll get to the parts that I have problems with.
EquALLity wrote:I don't think so. I think that being a politician requires a strong will, along with the type of work Cenk does.
What would you describe as strong will? Plus, I think brimstone means that they aren't strong willed in terms of health, exercise and diet, and are probably doing/saying most of the things that they refer to for the notoriety and the money. Just because someone is in politics doesn't mean they are strong-willed.
EquALLity wrote: So what?
Brimstone I think is trying to say the people you listed aren't really all that fat, but are a bit on the heavy side, or maybe just old.
EquALLity wrote: The 'fat acceptance' movement isn't just about obese individuals. If you are using the word 'fat' to refer to only to obese people, you aren't using the term correctly.
Being just overweight isn't healthy either. But obese is kinda the elephant in the room (no pun intended), since it's one of the worse states you can be in in terms of weight.
EquALLity wrote: I don't think so, because he lost weight a few years ago and looks thinner than he did as Vice President when he was younger.
Not sure if this is really all that important to the discussion.
EquALLity wrote: Correlation doesn't equal causation. This isn't evidence that people are overweight because they are unintelligent, or that overweight people are unintelligent in general.

You also don't actually have evidence of a correlation between obesity/being overweight and laziness; you're just speculating.
I think what brimstone is trying to get across is that if you're fat, you're unaware of the dangers of it, and/or you're too stupid to get out of your chair and get on a treadmill.
EquALLity wrote:You don't have evidence of that.
I'm pretty sure brimstone is implying that people's delusions (which I wouldn't be surprised if it's common in fat people) make people unaware of the fact they are fat, and if they are, they will attempt to rationalize it.
EquALLity wrote: Not all people who are ambitious have a lot of money, and it's a stereotype that poor people are lazy.
I didn't see brimstone say that poor people were lazy, and ambitious people are definitely more motivated than your typical person.
EquALLity wrote:Sometimes it's more convenient for people who are on the go to eat fast food. Or, some people live in food deserts and don't have access to healthy stores. There are a lot of reasons people can be overweight.
They should bring something from home if they're on the go, especially a lot. If they bring something healthy, they probably won't get fat.
EquALLity wrote:Nobody is encouraging people to become overweight. It's not healthy to be overweight and/or obese, but it doesn't mean you are a bad person or you are 'ugly'.
I don't remember brimstone saying that being fat is being encouraged (unless you mean "if you want to be fat, no one will judge you" in that sense), and while you may not be trying to harm the earth, being fat can be environmentally unfriendly. Plus, being fat isn't sexually attractive, so if you're fat, people won't (at least any kind person) put value on you if you're fat, but on the dating market, and probably a few other ones.
EquALLity wrote:Do you have any evidence for this theory?
Are you denying it could potentially happen? The vast majority of Americans are overweight, so that may eventually become the norm.
EquALLity wrote:Which is worse than obesity.
Uh... why?
EquALLity wrote:BMI and your doctor don't lie.
As brimstone said, being fat can make you delusional. You may be arrogant, and think "My doctor doesn't know me! I know what;s best for me, it's my body!", and about the BMI, people may just think that it's just a number and doesn't mean anything, or they may buy into the "BMI is bullcrap" thing.
Learning never exhausts the mind.
-Leonardo da Vinci
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10370
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Fat Acceptance

Post by brimstoneSalad »

EquALLity wrote: But it's not just delusion anyway.
The full spectrum of variables is delusion, ignorance, stupidity, laziness, sexual fetish, and apathy.

In very very rare cases, in full knowledge, somebody may not care that he or she feels constantly uncomfortable and will die sooner -- that would be true apathy. Anecdotes of people who have lost weight and say they wish they had known this earlier suggest to me that knowledge is usually the missing link, not informed apathy.
Apathy is not a realistic explanation for the vast majority of people, so it's reasonable to discount it in statistical terms unless you have evidence that this is a prevalent idea.

Sexually fetishizing obesity is another rare problem; most people do not want to be fat in order to feel sexy (although some do; I see this as more common than true apathy). This may well be equated to delusion or mental illness. I don't consider this a realistic explanation for the vast majority of people, and it's reasonable to discount as a likely cause in a random person you meet.

Delusion and ignorance is frequently rolled in with stupidity; it is 'stupid' but it may be distinct. It is distinct from low IQ. Somebody with a low IQ could be ignorant and/or delusional -- the benefit of the latter problems is that they can be fixed. You can't fix stupid.

The problem is, given our standardized education and access to information, complete ignorance is very rare. The person probably received the information at some point but rejected it due to delusion or stupidity. And delusion has some serious teeth; it bites down and doesn't let go.

However, none of these qualities -- delusion, ignorance, or stupidity -- are favorable ones, and even if you differentiate them it doesn't speak well to somebody's character if you're looking to hire that person.

Ignorance in particular also indicates a level of laziness, because the person failed to acquire information that was so easily accessible.

There are reasons of deductive logic and psychological theory to believe this about overweight people.
EquALLity wrote:
brimstoneSalad wrote:A few rare counterexamples of rich and powerful people doesn't really disprove the point from a perspective of overwhelming statistical probability.
Again, what statistics, though?
This whole discussion is about probability. I'm not talking about specific surveys (although I have mentioned a few).
Appropriate discrimination is always statistical.

If somebody comes up to you with a Nazi swastika tattooed on his or her forehead, you can fairly make a judgement about that person's character and beliefs. It may be that it's an old tattoo that just hasn't been removed yet; but why didn't he or she cover it with makeup, or even a bandanna? Is this person stupid or lazy? Or just apathetic, and doesn't care that people think he or she is a neonazi? The latter seems unlikely, unless he or she isn't really off being a neonazi and doesn't mind being confused for one. A person who has rejected such a past will cover the tattoo for sensible (and sane) fear of being judged by it and associated with the repugnant belief.

Now, there's a very very small chance that he or she did cover the tattoo, and it just rained or he or she got hit in the face with a sprinkler and wiped it off without realizing. VERY small chance. It's fair to assume this didn't happen. Neonazi is a reasonable assumption, otherwise Stupid or lazy.

We make reasonable snap judgements about people all of the time.
EquALLity wrote: I don't think so. I think that being a politician requires a strong will, along with the type of work Cenk does.
There's no reason to believe that. Can you prove it?
Many of these people are profoundly lazy. They've gotten by through being unethical instead of hard working, or just from being good people-persons. It's not always what you know, but who you know.
EquALLity wrote: He was the director of the CIA, he kind of has to be.
No he doesn't, that's as terrible an assumption as people thinking Trump must be hard working and intelligent because he's rich. A lot of rich and successful people are lazy and unethical, or just lucky.

See this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1k7jeQQdqPA

Trump is probably a pretty competent businessman, and he may be intelligent, but he might also just be lucky. When you cherry pick examples rather than using statistics, the argument is useless because you may just be picking the lucky ones.

In medieval times, the same bad logic was used to justify things like infallibility and divine right of the King. He's he king, so he must be ordained by god, right? He must be infallible, otherwise he wouldn't be the king.

There's no reason to believe any of the people you mentioned were intelligent and hard working rather than rare exceptions in terms of dumb luck.

If you want to argue against a statistical argument, you have to present statistics to counter it.
EquALLity wrote: Those problems were a result of that the CIA was under enormous pressure by the White House to support the Iraq War. It doesn't demonstrate the Tenet is lazy or stupid.
I think it does demonstrate that, and I disagree with your counter examples, but as I said it's meaningless to cherry pick counter examples to disagree with a statistical argument.
It's like cherry picking a female body builder to argue against the claim that in general (and with overwhelming statistical odds) men are stronger than women.
EquALLity wrote: However, Tenet probably did convince himself Iraq had WMDs, so I suppose he was delusional about that. But that's very different from being delusional about weight.
It's not so different, really. Sounds like he's good at convincing himself of whatever he wants to believe.
EquALLity wrote: Pretty much everyone knows it isn't healthy to be overweight.
Sure, unless they've deluded themselves into thinking they're an exception, that they're not really fat, that BMI is just a number, actually "I'm big boned", or healthy at any size "or at least at my size".
EquALLity wrote:
brimstoneSalad wrote:Lazy and stupid correlate to degree of obesity; it's not an off-on switch.
Correlation doesn't equal causation. This isn't evidence that people are overweight because they are unintelligent, or that overweight people are unintelligent in general.
It doesn't have to be causative. If it's correlative, then you know a fat person is more likely to be stupid. That's enough to prefer a thin person.
EquALLity wrote: You also don't actually have evidence of a correlation between obesity/being overweight and laziness; you're just speculating.
How do you test for laziness, exactly?

We do have studies on physical activity:
http://www.hindawi.com/journals/jobe/2013/437017/
It's not hard to find many on the subject. Obese people are certainly physically lazier.

It's hard to find controls and objective standards on much beyond that. Low IQ is a confounding variable if you look at school performance.

There are actually studies on this in animals. Here's the first link I found:

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/does-a-junk-food-diet-make-you-lazy-ucla-psychology-study-offers-answer
(the guy who did the study is a bit of a paleo nut though)

That deals with lever pushing behavior.
This suggests that the causation is the other way around: that being fat (or at least the diet and the reward systems it stimulates) makes you lazy. And being lazy, of course, as I mentioned will likely prevent weight loss.
It's really unfortunate when children are raised fat, so they never really have much of a chance to not be lazy in adulthood.

Whether the cause of laziness is genetic or environmental, the correlation still holds, and the correlation is what judgement is made on.

If you meet a fat person, it is a reasonable belief -- based on evidence -- that person is going to be stupid and lazy (or at least one of the two). It's also reasonable to understand that laziness prevents weight loss, so beyond the statistics, there's logic to the claim (regardless of where the laziness originated).

Maybe the stupid caused the poverty which caused the obesity and led to the addition of laziness. OK, fine. That's a decent theory. It doesn't change the fact, though. At the end of the day, the fat person is more probably stupid and lazy.

The point is, if the person is both stupid and lazy now, why would somebody want to hire that person?
EquALLity wrote: Fair enough, but just because a group may have more stupid people doesn't mean everyone in that group should be discriminated against in applying for jobs because of that. Intelligence in the workplace should be determined on a case-by-case basis.
In an ideal world, maybe, but why would you waste time and money testing more people, when you can narrow down the list to the most probably intelligent individuals by just culling out the visibly obese ones?
Saves you money and time in hiring.

IQ tests may also not always be legal in hiring. Also, you can't practically test for laziness like you can for stupidity. In that case, it's much safer to hire the thinner applicant. We at least know the thinner applicant will be less physically lazy, and generally less tired. Healthy body weight provides nothing but benefits to the worker and employer.
EquALLity wrote: It also doesn't mean people who are overweight are unintelligent in general, or that people are overweight because they are unintelligent.
Maybe there are rare exceptions. Maybe the guy with the Nazi swastika on his forehead is a perfectly nice fellow without a racist bone in his body. It's reasonable to believe otherwise, though, until it's proved.

A fat person carries an appropriate and pretty accurate stigma, and in order to be regarded intelligent and industrious adopts that burden of proof. The fat person needs to prove his or herself intelligent and hard working. It's not fair to expect everybody to assume that about you when you're visibly advertising otherwise -- as if the person with the nazi tattoo got offended every time somebody assumed he was a neonazi. It's pretty understandable, and I couldn't blame somebody for assuming something like that of me if I had such a tattoo, or if I were overweight.
EquALLity wrote: You don't have evidence of that.
It's human nature.

http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2007/11/most-college-students-wish-they-were-thinner-study-shows
This suggests that stigmatization is the motivating factor for weight loss in many people, and indicates the normalcy of obesity as an issue for idealized body shape and the mismatch with health science:
More than 60 percent of U.S. adults are considered overweight or obese. And "because they don't meet the societal ideals propagated by the media and advertising for body weight, they are often targets of discrimination within educational, workplace and health-care settings and are stigmatized as lazy, lacking self-discipline and unmotivated," says Lori Neighbors, Ph.D. '07, who conducted the research with Jeffery Sobal, Cornell professor of nutritional sociology in Cornell's College of Human Ecology.

These factors have led many people to be dissatisfied with their bodies, says Neighbors, now an assistant professor of nutrition at the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

When the Cornell researchers assessed body weight versus the weight and shape individuals wish they had, they found that:

The findings suggest "that the idealized body weight and shape, especially among underweight females and overweight individuals of both genders, are not in accordance with population-based standards defining healthy body weight."
EquALLity wrote: Sometimes it's more convenient for people who are on the go to eat fast food. Or, some people live in food deserts and don't have access to healthy stores. There are a lot of reasons people can be overweight.
Food deserts are kind of a myth. The only places that really are close to that, are rich suburbs where everybody has a car, and even so -- grocery stores aren't out of reach. There's also affordable food delivery today.
Maybe it's more convenient to eat fast food, but it isn't cheaper, and it's a false economy. Bring a sandwich, like Red said. Brown bag it. That's very convenient. It just takes will power and an ounce of planning. If they don't do that, it's because they're lazy or stupid. Probably what got them into the mess to begin with.

There are even healthier options at fast food places. People choose not to order them.
EquALLity wrote:
brimstoneSalad wrote:As more people get fat (because they accept it), it becomes normal. By comparison, they see themselves as average, and not overweight.
Do you have any evidence for this theory?
It's mentioned in the article I linked above, and discussed in the Gallup poll I linked earlier I believe.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/the-shape-we-are-in-blog/2014/sep/10/obesity-body-image

There are a number of articles on the topic, it's a pressing public health issue. Overweight people are increasingly believing that they're normal, and losing the impetus to lose weight because they look the same as their peers.

EquALLity wrote:
brimstoneSalad wrote: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.
Which is worse than obesity.
It isn't. It depends on the extent, and how many people succumb to it to what extent.

What if 99% of people exposed to a message are motivated to lose weight, changing their lives massively and making them much better, and 1% kill themselves (either directly, or by anorexia), ending and otherwise uncomfortable, unhealthy, and miserable life?

What about 99.99% vs 0.01%?

Where's the tipping point where the harm done by shame is less than the benefit? Do you know? More importantly, do you have evidence of it?
EquALLity wrote:
brimstoneSalad wrote:A lack of shaming allows them to deny it because everybody around them isn't insisting on it.
BMI and your doctor don't lie.
As Red said, people can ignore them. If you look around (not even hard) on discussion forums about health you can find people complaining about their doctors calling them overweight, when they personally disagree and don't think of themselves as fat.

Hopefully what I've linked already is enough to demonstrate that this isn't doing much to help.
EquALLity wrote:
brimstoneSalad wrote:Well, I guess that's progress. :) If you understand that shame might be productive, then it comes to an empirical question.
How is that progress? :P I never said it couldn't be productive, just that it's primarily bad.
I'm talking about being net productive. More good than bad. If you are asserting that it's more bad than good, you need to back that up with evidence.

I don't know if it's more bad than good, or more good than bad. I'm not willing to make those kinds of assumptions or claims. The burden of proof is on you if you want to criticize people for fat shaming. The whole "fat acceptance" is deviating from the norm, and it's something that requires evidence as a force upon social standards.
EquALLity wrote: It has different effects for different people depending on the situation, but I think it's mostly harmful in this case.
Evidence?
EquALLity wrote: Convincing people to lose weight for health reasons is effective, because people care about living as long as they can and being healthy.
Evidence? It doesn't seem to be. People seem much more superficially oriented.
EquALLity wrote: I don't see why we need to add negativity to it and make people feel 'ugly'- that's the kind of thing that leads to eating disorders, which are a lot more dangerous than being overweight/obese.
Evidence? Is anorexia or obesity killing more people per year?

Google says:
Only 724 were found, which equals an average of 145 annual deaths, and a rate of 6.73 per 100,000 deaths. The age and sex distribution suggests two fatal forms of anorexia nervosa, an early-onset form comprising 89% women and a later form comprising 24% men.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11513012

Doesn't sound like quite an epidemic.
OBESITY AND MORTALITY. According to the National Institutes of Health, obesity and overweight together are the second leading cause of preventable death in the United States, close behind tobacco use (3). An estimated 300,000 deaths per year are due to the obesity epidemic (57).
https://www.wvdhhr.org/bph/oehp/obesity/mortality.htm

We'd have to look into changing trends, but that's about 2,000 to 1.

I think we can stand to have more people die from anorexia to save more people from death from obesity. What would the numbers look like?
EquALLity wrote: What do you think is a more encouraging message?:
1) You should lose weight, that way you can live longer and have more time doing stuff you love and being with your loved ones!
2) You're a stupid and lazy POS for being FAT!!11 Moooooo
I don't know, and you don't either. Unless you have a study on it. I know that the second is a cheaper message.
It's great to send out a positive message when it's easy to do; it doesn't have the same risks, but it also may lack efficacy. When we're spending resources on these messages, you need to provide evidence to back up that expenditure.
User avatar
Red
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 3983
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:59 pm
Diet: Vegan
Location: To the Depths, in Degradation

Re: Fat Acceptance

Post by Red »

brimstoneSalad wrote:The full spectrum of variables is delusion, ignorance, stupidity, laziness, sexual fetish, and apathy.
So wait, some people would become fat because it's sexually appealing to them or others? And for some others they just don't care?
brimstoneSalad wrote:Delusion and ignorance is frequently rolled in with stupidity; it is 'stupid' but it may be distinct. It is distinct from low IQ. Somebody with a low IQ could be ignorant and/or delusional -- the benefit of the latter problems is that they can be fixed. You can't fix stupid.... Ignorance in particular also indicates a level of laziness, because the person failed to acquire information that was so easily accessible.
It's kinda funny. Benjamin Franklin was a fat guy, but he's the one who said

"We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid."
brimstoneSalad wrote: As Red said, people can ignore them. If you look around (not even hard) on discussion forums about health you can find people complaining about their doctors calling them overweight, when they personally disagree and don't think of themselves as fat.
Do you think this is like some form of the Dunning Kruger effect? Or are people too desperate to admit they are fat?
Learning never exhausts the mind.
-Leonardo da Vinci
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10370
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Fat Acceptance

Post by brimstoneSalad »

RedAppleGP wrote: "We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid."
Stupidity can be defined as willful ignorance, rather than low IQ. Although low intelligence is the simplest definition, there doesn't see to be strong consensus on the matter, and there are some other very clever and compelling definitions as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stupidity
This is an interesting one:
In Understanding Stupidity, James F. Welles defines stupidity this way: "The term may be used to designate a mentality which is considered to be informed, deliberate and maladaptive." Welles distinguishes stupidity from ignorance; one must know they are acting in their own worst interest. Secondly, it must be a choice, not a forced act or accident. Lastly, it requires the activity to be maladaptive, in that it is in the worst interest of the actor, and specifically done to prevent adaption to new data or existing circumstances."[7]
That's more in line with what Franklin said, although it's a bit complicated.
RedAppleGP wrote: Do you think this is like some form of the Dunning Kruger effect? Or are people too desperate to admit they are fat?
Maybe a combination, it could vary from person to person.
User avatar
Red
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 3983
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:59 pm
Diet: Vegan
Location: To the Depths, in Degradation

Re: Fat Acceptance

Post by Red »

brimstoneSalad wrote:
RedAppleGP wrote: "We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid."
Stupidity can be defined as willful ignorance, rather than low IQ. Although low intelligence is the simplest definition, there doesn't see to be strong consensus on the matter, and there are some other very clever and compelling definitions as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stupidity
This is an interesting one:
In Understanding Stupidity, James F. Welles defines stupidity this way: "The term may be used to designate a mentality which is considered to be informed, deliberate and maladaptive." Welles distinguishes stupidity from ignorance; one must know they are acting in their own worst interest. Secondly, it must be a choice, not a forced act or accident. Lastly, it requires the activity to be maladaptive, in that it is in the worst interest of the actor, and specifically done to prevent adaption to new data or existing circumstances."[7]
That's more in line with what Franklin said, although it's a bit complicated.
I know what Franklin was trying to say, I just thought it was weird that a fat guy can admit to their ignorance.
Learning never exhausts the mind.
-Leonardo da Vinci
Post Reply