• Hey! You! Yes, you, you fucking fatass! Drop the donut and read this study about the negative conseq
    99 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;41636268]If you don't care about losing muscle along with losing fat, getting skinny is pretty easy. I literally dropped ten pounds in my first year of college without trying and I was already under the recommended body weight.[/QUOTE] I gained 30 it was absolute misery losing that
Insulting people is bad. That required a study? I thought it was common sense.
[QUOTE=Nitro836;41636622]Insulting people is bad. That required a study? I thought it was common sense.[/QUOTE] Unfortunately, many people see it as a positive motivator instead of an insult. :suicide:
[QUOTE=Reimu;41636050]Fat shaming is a very interesting phenomenon for a lot of reasons. Being fat isn't necessarily unhealthy, and it's no indication of health - i.e. someone could be 220 and in great physical health, whereas a woman who's 120 might look healthy but actually suffer from type 2 diabetes and lower back pain.[/QUOTE] Uh, what? Being fat is definitely unhealthy, it's directly linked to all sorts of health risks from cardiac arrest to kidney failure. You then bring up the example of weight as if weight and fat are the same thing. You can be 150lbs and fat if you're four foot six, you can be 300lbs and be a perfectly healthy 6'4" weightlifting giant. Fat is not the same as weight, it's well-known that BMI charts are extremely misleading but it's not because fat just magically doesn't matter. [QUOTE=Reimu;41636050]Plus, there's a lot of reasons why people are fat, and it extends more than "you eat too much and don't exercise enough." Some people are simply chubbier because their metabolism is slower. Some fat people exercise enough to remain physically active, but simply don't plan on exercising to burn fat. The generalization is always that fat people ate until they were big, but this isn't necessarily true. You have to look at issues like calorie intake, metabolism speed, physical activity, and lifestyle choices (some people want to be fat) before you can make a clear judgment.[/QUOTE] Ultimately it is physically impossible to gain weight if you are eating exactly as many calories as you burn. Yeah, some people have an easier time burning the calories as others thanks to genetics. Life's a bitch. But that isn't an excuse to be unhealthy, it means you just have to try a little bit harder than others. [QUOTE=joes33431;41636069]how can you justify being a cunt to someone when you're only being a cunt and not giving them help, encouragement, or constructive advice.[/QUOTE] Insulting someone for the sake of being insulting is unjustified, and that does happen a LOT in American society because of the obsession with physical beauty. But responding to the ridiculously defensive woe-is-me assertions that being morbidly obese is actually healthy or that there's nothing someone can do about it gets labeled 'fat-shaming' by the overly sensitive all the time. [QUOTE=joes33431;41636069]and no, telling someone that they should x more or y less is not constructive advice.[/QUOTE] Yet biology shows again and again that most of the time this is all that is required to stay physically fit. Eat less. Exercise more. Take in fewer calories than you expend. Drink lots of water. If your caloric intake is under your daily expenditure, you will lose weight. It's that simple. The problem is that in modern society people want to get something for nothing. They want to lose weight without needing any changes to their dietary habits, or the time and effort of exercise, and when it becomes apparent that that isn't possible they come up with all sorts of tortured justifications and rationalizations for what is fundamentally an issue of motivation and self-control.
This isn't a donut it's a pork roll
i can see this study being a main point of contest for those who are morbidly obese but don't actually want to do anything about it. "SEE LOOK THIS STUDY SAYS THAT CALLING ME OVERWEIGHT DOESN'T MAKE ME SKINNIER SO STOP IT, THAT WAY I CAN GO ON WITH MY DESTRUCTIVE LIFESTYLE"
[QUOTE=catbarf;41636836]Uh, what? Being fat is definitely unhealthy, it's directly linked to all sorts of health risks from cardiac arrest to kidney failure. You then bring up the example of weight as if weight and fat are the same thing. You can be 150lbs and fat if you're four foot six, you can be 300lbs and be a perfectly healthy 6'4" weightlifting giant. Fat is not the same as weight, it's well-known that BMI charts are extremely misleading but it's not because fat just magically doesn't matter.[/quote] [url]http://healthland.time.com/2012/09/05/can-you-be-fat-and-fit-or-thin-and-unhealthy/[/url] [quote]Turns out, being obese isn’t necessarily a bad thing. In a new study by U.S. and European researchers, published [PDF] in the European Heart Journal, overweight and obese people were found to be at no greater risk of developing or dying from heart disease or cancer, compared with normal weight people, as long as they were metabolically fit despite their excess weight. The researchers categorized obese participants as “metabolically healthy” if, aside from their weight, they didn’t suffer from insulin resistance, diabetes, low levels of good cholesterol, high triglycerides and high blood pressure. Nearly half of the obese participants in the study qualified as metabolically fit. Compared with obese people who had at least two of the above markers of poor health, those who were obese but metabolically healthy had a 38% lower risk of early death from any cause. In fact, those who were fat but fit had no higher death risk than metabolically healthy normal weight participants. So what exactly is going on? Being metabolically fit may be the game changer, says Church, and physical fitness — irrespective of weight — is a strong predictor of whether or not you’re going to be metabolically fit. “Think about insulin resistance. The biggest consumer of sugar in the human body is muscle. Muscle doesn’t just move us from point A to point B; it is also extremely important for many metabolic variables like blood sugar,” says Church. “So it makes sense that someone who is fit is metabolically going to be far better off than someone who is unfit.” That’s why some heavy people can be fit on the inside — healthier even than some of their thinner peers. Many people who diet but don’t exercise to lose weight, for example, may technically reach a “healthy” weight, but their fitness level doesn’t match. They may appear trim on the outside, but still carry too much visceral fat and not enough muscle on the inside. “They’re not physically active. They have horrible and restrictive diets. They might not be overweight, but metabolically they’re a mess,” says Church. [/quote] Most of the original studies on obesity and health are extremely misleading and have been sensationalized throughout the country. Metabolic abnormality is linked with many "War on Obesity" diseases, and metabolic abnormality [i]can[/i] be linked to high weight. But, being fat does not inherently put someone at risk for these diseases, and it does not inherently make someone metabolically abnormal. It's when metabolic abnormality appears that a high-weight person is at risk. The truth is that physical exercise is the most important difference between being healthy and unhealthy. High weight isn't nearly as harmful to an individual if they regularly exercise. [quote]Ultimately it is physically impossible to gain weight if you are eating exactly as many calories as you burn. Yeah, some people have an easier time burning the calories as others thanks to genetics. Life's a bitch. But that isn't an excuse to be unhealthy, it means you just have to try a little bit harder than others.[/quote] As the study above proves, weight =/= unhealthiness. If someone is physically active in their life, then their excess weight means jackshit. Most serious medical illnesses "linked" to weight are actually not going to affect an obese person if they regularly perform physical exercise. Plus, why is it really our concern? We don't have any control over others' body, and who cares if they look a little different from us? As the OP's study proves, "shaming" them or telling them to "try harder and lose weight" is not going to do anything to change them.
i may be built like a portly tank but i am surprisingly agile i did not learn this until i ran through a crowded hallway doing fat guy ninja flips and squeezing through gaps half my size without bumping into anyone i felt really good until i ran into a wall because i was looking back making sure i didn't knock anyone over doing all that for future reference i cannot nor will i ever flip it was more like a michael jackson sideways slide through people
[QUOTE=FFStudios;41636970]i can see this study being a main point of contest for those who are morbidly obese but don't actually want to do anything about it. "SEE LOOK THIS STUDY SAYS THAT CALLING ME OVERWEIGHT DOESN'T MAKE ME SKINNIER SO STOP IT, THAT WAY I CAN GO ON WITH MY DESTRUCTIVE LIFESTYLE"[/QUOTE] It's possible, but on the other side of it there are some people out there who use "fat shaming" as an excuse to insult people under the guise of "But I'm trying to get them to improve themselves!" When it comes to improving oneself, the initial motivation and the drive to keep going with it comes from YOU; the people around you can certainly help, but if you don't motivate [I]yourself[/I] to do it then you're not going to keep it up, which is a large part of the reason that fat shaming might not be the right course of action.
[QUOTE=Reimu;41636972] Most of the original studies on obesity and health are extremely misleading and have been sensationalized throughout the country. Metabolic abnormality is linked with many "War on Obesity" diseases, and metabolic abnormality [i]can[/i] be linked to high weight. But, being fat does not inherently put someone at risk for these diseases, and it does not inherently make someone metabolically abnormal. It's when metabolic abnormality appears that a high-weight person is at risk.[/QUOTE] The human body isn't designed for high weights. Once you hit 300, 400, etc pounds your body begins to collapse under the strain of keeping you alive.
[QUOTE=Reimu;41636972][URL]http://healthland.time.com/2012/09/05/can-you-be-fat-and-fit-or-thin-and-unhealthy/[/URL] Most of the original studies on obesity and health are extremely misleading and have been sensationalized throughout the country. Metabolic abnormality is linked with many "War on Obesity" diseases, and metabolic abnormality [I]can[/I] be linked to high weight. But, being fat does not inherently put someone at risk for these diseases, and it does not inherently make someone metabolically abnormal. It's when metabolic abnormality appears that a high-weight person is at risk. The truth is that physical exercise is the most important difference between being healthy and unhealthy. High weight isn't nearly as harmful to an individual if they regularly exercise. [B]As the study above proves, weight =/= unhealthiness[/B]. If someone is physically active in their life, then their excess weight means jackshit. Most serious medical illnesses "linked" to weight are actually not going to affect an obese person if they regularly perform physical exercise.[/QUOTE] The study does not prove that [I]at all[/I]. Read what you quoted. What it indicates is that fat [I]alone[/I], without any of the factors associated with excess fat, does not correlate to negative health risks. Saying 'being fat is healthy as long as you have normal blood pressure, good cholesterol, regular insulin sensitivity, and are physically active' is like saying 'getting shot isn't dangerous as long as it misses your heart, doesn't cause excessive internal bleeding, and you receive prompt medical attention by a competent surgeon'. Okay, sure, when you strip away all the dangerous secondary complications then the root cause on its own doesn't seem so bad. The health risks that the article discusses are things that tend to be caused by excessive fat and inadequate exercise, they're not purely independent factors. The guy who qualifies as 'obese' according to a BMI chart but is otherwise in excellent health, the kind of person in the article, is the 300lb bodybuilder, not your average obese American. It does not justify a sedentary life of excessive eating and anyone who follows that lifestyle would be absolutely, positively, 100% [B]wrong[/B] to use your article to argue that they're just as healthy as anyone else, [I]especially[/I] when the #1 problem for most overweight people trying to lose weight is insufficient exercise. [QUOTE=Reimu;41636972]Plus, why is it really our concern? We don't have any control over others' body, and who cares if they look a little different from us? As the OP's study proves, "shaming" them or telling them to "try harder and lose weight" is not going to do anything to change them.[/QUOTE] It doesn't affect me what other people do with themselves so I don't really care. When people start getting uppity about getting charged more for plane flights because their presence costs the airline three times more in fuel than the guy next to them, or about being charged for two seats because they can't fit themselves in one, or insist that they need to be catered to because it's not their fault and there's nothing they can do about it, then I have a problem.
I'm so glad catbarf realized all fat people are obese lazy assholes who don't ever exercise Thanks for deconstructing the stereotype
Honestly, if you recognize that you have an issue with weight and do nothing to rectify it, there's an issue. Shaming people for having an issue is fucking retarded. It's like going up to someone with depression and saying "DUDE JUST GET OVER IT." It's dumb. Don't do it. Depending on the type of person they are, you can motivate them to start losing weight. Drag them to the gym. Do something that will get them off their ass. I'm nowhere near the healthiest person ever and I don't claim to be, and I don't exercise nearly enough, but if you have a friend who is excessively overweight, just get them to fucking work. Don't shame them, push them. Get them to see some physical, tangible results and maybe they'll realize that it's not as hard as they thought it would be.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8j-q63MYghU[/media]
[QUOTE=Emperorconor;41637113]The human body isn't designed for high weights. Once you hit 300, 400, etc pounds your body begins to collapse under the strain of keeping you alive.[/QUOTE] Source for this? As long as an individual is regularly physically fit and mobilized, there's usually a pretty solid range where the body can continue functioning. [QUOTE=catbarf;41637213]The study does not prove that [I]at all[/I]. Read what you quoted. What it indicates is that fat [I]alone[/I], without any of the factors associated with excess fat, does not correlate to negative health risks. Saying 'being fat is healthy as long as you have normal blood pressure, good cholesterol, regular insulin sensitivity, and are physically active' is like saying 'getting shot isn't dangerous as long as it misses your heart, doesn't cause excessive internal bleeding, and you receive prompt medical attention by a competent surgeon'. Okay, sure, when you strip away all the dangerous secondary complications then the root cause on its own doesn't seem so bad. The health risks that the article discusses are things that tend to be caused by excessive fat and inadequate exercise, they're not purely independent factors. The guy who qualifies as 'obese' according to a BMI chart but is otherwise in excellent health, the kind of person in the article, is the 300lb bodybuilder, not your average obese American. It does not justify a sedentary life of excessive eating and anyone who follows that lifestyle would be absolutely, positively, 100% [B]wrong[/B] to use your article to argue that they're just as healthy as anyone else, [I]especially[/I] when the #1 problem for most overweight people trying to lose weight is insufficient exercise.[/quote] Here's a list of sources and studies that prove that being fat does not inherently cause most of the symptoms attributed to "War on Obesity epidemics": [url]http://bigliberty.net/truth-behind-fat-links-science/[/url] Let me list a few examples, according to medical studies: Overweight, Post-menopausal fat proves no harm to women: [quote] The women with the lowest risks in this study were overweight. There was a wide range of weights and sizes that enjoyed similar mortality risks, with a “U” shape — more accurately described as a reverse “J” shape — correlation at the two extremes. The slightly increased risks seen among the very largest women, however, were still less than the much higher risks seen among women in the smallest quintile. The women with the highest risks were not extremely small, either, but had BMIs starting under 22.38 (about 130 pounds for a 5-4 woman). Also supporting the body of research to date, the women’s fat — both total fat mass and percentage of body fat — was protective. The more fat a woman had, the lower her risks. Only at the highest fat level did risks begin to rise, but they never approached the even higher risks seen among the least fat women. Like studies on men, the highest levels of lean body mass were also associated with the highest risks. (The popular myth that fat is worse than lean is one for another day.)[/quote] AHA finds fatter cardiac patients more likely to survive a heart attack: [quote]At this week’s meeting of the American Heart Association, yet another study was reported which found that fatter cardiac patients were more likely to survive hospitalization and invasive treatments than thinner ones, even when adjusting for age and other contributing factors. In this analysis of 130,139 heart disease patients, 5.4% of “normal” weight patients died, as compared to 2.4% of “obese” and 3.1% of “overweight.” Yes, those whose were “obese” were more than two times more likely to survive![/quote] Polycystic Ovary Syndrome as an increase in overall population exposure; not obesity-related exposure: [quote]CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that the risk of PCOS is only minimally increased with obesity, although the degree of obesity of PCOS patients has increased, similar to that observed in the general population. These data indicate that obesity in PCOS reflects environmental factors to a great extent.[/quote] "Obesity-based" Cancers actually are decreasing, even if obesity is increasing: [quote]"Of the ten types of cancer commonly associated with obesity, deaths from nine - pancreatic, ovarian, gall bladder, stomach, prostate, kidney, colo-rectal, cervical-uterine, and breast - have decreased since 1992. Only one - pancreatic - has shown an increase in mortality.[/quote] Hypertension/blood pressure related to a faulty gene, not obesity (this one is outside of those sources - [url]http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090901104852.htm[/url] ): [quote]"In a normal individual gaining weight, PTP1B should increase and they would be protected in theory from hypertension," says Dr. David Stepp, vascular biologist at the MCG Vascular Biology Center, co-director of the Diabetes & Obesity Discovery Institute and the study's corresponding author. "But if you don't have a good copy of PTP1B and you become obese, then you are going to have a problem. So in theory this gene can segregate the obese people who will become hypertensive and those who won't." [...] Mice missing PTP1B tend to have lower body fat but high blood pressure, not usually what you see in people, Dr. Stepp notes.[/quote] Fatty liver and insulin resistance: not always linked. ([url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18596860[/url] ) [quote]However, the increased hepatic fat content in apoB-related FHBL subjects was not associated with glucose intolerance, in contrast with what is the case in the metabolic syndrome. Meanwhile, in human subjects with similar apoB truncations, degree of obesity and insulin sensitivity, their liver triglyceride (TG) contents may vary considerably, suggesting that, in addition to defective apoB, other genes may affect the magnitude of hepatic TG accumulation. We hypothesized that genetic background affects the severity of hepatic steatosis and the expression of insulin sensitivity.[/quote] Most of the research drummed up about "blood pressure, cholesterol, insulin sensitivity," etc. tied to obesity are actually a side-effect of high-risk genetic alleles, and BMI numbers being lowered. The reality is that there's regularly more and more research proving that diseases traditionally labeled as "obesity-related" either show a.) no correlation with obesity, b.) are caused by genetics in [b]per-disposed[/b] individuals combined with obesity, or b.) an adverse correlation with obesity. I'm not trying to suggest that any of this research is justification for sedentary lifestyles. I take exercise very seriously myself, especially because I sit right in-between "normal" and "overweight" BMI for my own life. But you can't claim that excess fat automatically causes many of the issues stereotypically related to obesity. Research shows again and again that it's genetic dispositions to these diseases that cause the risk - that's why many obese people do not experience hypertension or type 2 diabetes. And, likewise, why there are many fat/obese people who show no signs of type 2 diabetes, heart issues, clogged arteries, abnormal blood pressure, etc. [quote]It doesn't affect me what other people do with themselves so I don't really care. When people start getting uppity about getting charged more for plane flights because their presence costs the airline three times more in fuel than the guy next to them, or about being charged for two seats because they can't fit themselves in one, or insist that they need to be catered to because it's not their fault and there's nothing they can do about it, then I have a problem.[/QUOTE] If it's true that there's an "obesity epidemic" with "unhealthy rates" across the nation, then theoretically, yes, airlines should be accommodating for a growing problem in America. Besides, why would an airline require more fuel for a fat person? A plane carrying a college football team wouldn't charge higher prices for players that are "obese" on the BMI scale. Most discrimination against fat people are based on their physical appearance and presence, anyway. That's why we have "fat shaming" - it's not so much that they take up space, but that the way they take up space is nauseating to others. Because their weight doesn't fit into our "understood" spectrum. [editline]29th July 2013[/editline] Honestly, if excess fat caused most of these "War on Obesity" problems, then all fat people would have diabetes, cancer, and fatal heart attacks. So much of this research doesn't make sense.
[QUOTE=Reimu;41638027]Source for this? As long as an individual is regularly physically fit and mobilized, there's usually a pretty solid range where the body can continue functioning.[/QUOTE] This should be common knowledge, but I'll provide sources after I go over a few points first. There is a /strong/ correlation between excess abdominal fat and heart disease. This is a fact. My father (whom is a doctor and has type 1 diabetes) has told me about diabetes. Crudely speaking, type 1 diabetes is what thin bastards get (because their body can't produce it), whilst type 2 diabetes is what fat bastards get (because their body is unable to produce enough of it due to health complications arising from obesity). Type 2 diabetes and obesity are actually quite linked. Cases have exploded in the past few decades along with obesity rates as well. It is a serious medical problem. Another point I would like to make, is that the skeleton does not adapt or grow to increased body weight. Instead, it's like a skeleton being trapped inside a growing mass that slowly crushes it. [IMG]http://www.yourefatbecauseyourestupid.com/wordpress/wp-content/themes/yrfat/images/image005.jpg[/IMG] As your fat stores build up, so too does your skin, it rolls over itself along with your veins and various glands. Your heart is forced to work harder and harder to pump blood around the body. You don't grow extra hearts, which is why this is a problem. To quote rationalwiki: [quote]The second group of fat activists, those who attempt to present a view that it is ok to be obese, aren't sensible. While they are correct in their assertions that it is a medical condition, so should be accepted as such, rather than ridiculed or labeled "lazy", these activists sometimes engage in a form of denialism, claiming that being obese is just a lifestyle while arguing against the medical evidence that being overweight has serious health effects. [/quote] You have to concede the following: Obesity is a detrimental medical condition that increases risk of health complications for the individual. They should be encouraged and helped to lose that weight. Then, of course, we have the really fat people. 400lbs+ say. If you deny that people that large don't have health problems, you are either lying or deluded. These people have difficulty standing, let alone walking. Many of them cannot properly walk, and are thus forced to a degrading "waddle". Many cannot clean many parts of their body without help, increasing risk of infection. They have difficulty breathing. They may need help to move around. Some may be in horrible pain constantly, due to wear on their organs and bones which have to support a creature they weren't fucking designed for. [URL]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15364185[/URL] [URL]http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/27/12/2948.full[/URL] Those are specifically for heart disease and type 2 diabetes (which are the most prominent in the public image) The wikipedia page even has it in the first goddamn paragaph. [quote]There is a strong correlation between central obesity and cardiovascular disease.[/quote] [quote]Visceral and central abdominal fat and waist circumference show a strong association with type 2 diabetes.[/quote] [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdominal_obesity[/URL] [quote][URL]http://bigliberty.net/truth-behind-fat-links-science/[/URL][/quote] Lol, that is medical denialism.
[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;41636268]If you don't care about losing muscle along with losing fat, getting skinny is pretty easy. I literally dropped ten pounds in my first year of college without trying and I was already under the recommended body weight.[/QUOTE] if losing weight is that easy, then why the fuck is obesity a problem around the world?
I hate those random fat people who take up two seats on the god damn metro.
[QUOTE=milkandcooki;41639127]if losing weight is that easy, then why the fuck is obesity a problem around the world?[/QUOTE] Motivation
[QUOTE=Trogdon;41637872]I'm so glad catbarf realized all fat people are obese lazy assholes who don't ever exercise Thanks for deconstructing the stereotype[/QUOTE] And then, predictably, out come the straw men and the ad hominems because I made the [i]clearly[/i] unreasonable claim that it is physically impossible to gain weight if you eat less than you burn. The stupidest part of this entire 'debate' is that the instant someone says that the responsibility is on a person to make their own decisions and that using genetics and metabolism as a scapegoat is invalid, suddenly they're fat-shaming. God forbid people take [i]some[/i] level of responsibility for their physical condition. If I said that the responsibility is on an individual to deal with their alcoholism and that a genetic predisposition to addiction isn't an excuse, I sure don't think I'd start getting accused of hate speech. If you are expending more calories than you consume you will not gain fat. That is the long and the short of it. I can sympathize with people who don't have the time for exercise, who have long, sedentary jobs with minimal opportunity for physical activity. I can sympathize with people who don't have access to healthy foods, or can only afford greasy, unhealthy calorie bombs like fast food. These are real, direct, practical obstacles to maintaining a healthy lifestyle and losing weight. But I can't sympathize at all with people who choose not to exercise and do not control their diets because they blame their own genetics, and then expect to be treated specially because of it. Genetic makeup isn't an excuse when you have the means to overcome it.
[QUOTE=milkandcooki;41639127]if losing weight is that easy, then why the fuck is obesity a problem around the world?[/QUOTE] It's very easy, I walk a kilometre to work 5 days a week, once down a hill and once up a hill. I've lost so much weight just from doing that.
[QUOTE=milkandcooki;41639127]if losing weight is that easy, then why the fuck is obesity a problem around the world?[/QUOTE] Because it's 'easy' in the sense that it's straightforward and simple. If you have the willpower to do it, you can do it. If you don't have the willpower and motivation, then you won't. It's a commitment, and people are more interested in pills and shakes and instant miracle cures that involve no real work than something they have to devote time and effort to. If you eat a calorie-restricted diet and exercise regularly you will lose weight. Some people don't have the means to do that, but many people have the means and simply choose not to. They're free to do so, but that's their choice, not a biological obligation. The problem is more mental than physical.
[QUOTE=milkandcooki;41639127]if losing weight is that easy, then why the fuck is obesity a problem around the world?[/QUOTE] We live in an age of cheap and plentiful food. For the past 10,000 years, if you were skinny and had a balanced diet, you would be fucked when a famine arrived. Being overweight in that it allowed you to survive lean times and continue working (agriculture is hard work if you are a medieval farmer) was a massive advantage. The downsides (heart disease, gout, etc) were of course a small price to pay, given that most people died before then and rarely got really huge. Of course, it's no surprise that fat people in the past had the same health problems as fat people today.
[QUOTE=milkandcooki;41639127]if losing weight is that easy, then why the fuck is obesity a problem around the world?[/QUOTE] Because some people have no self motivation. Also, people have different metabolisms, access to different foods, etc. In my opinion, if you have access to a healthy diet and don't have any medical issues that would affect weight loss, you don't really have an excuse.
[quote]My father (whom is a doctor and has type 1 diabetes) has told me about diabetes. Crudely speaking, type 1 diabetes is what thin bastards get (because their body can't produce it), whilst type 2 diabetes is what fat bastards get (because their body is unable to produce enough of it due to health complications arising from obesity). Type 2 diabetes and obesity are actually quite linked. Cases have exploded in the past few decades along with obesity rates as well. It is a serious medical problem.[/quote] There's a few problems with this. 1.) As I posted above, type 2 diabetes seems to be genetically linked and compounded with high weight. Weight does not inherently cause it, although it instigates the situation. This is why [b]only some obese people[/b] experience type 2, and not all. 2.) In the past 20 years, the average weight has only increased approximately 10lbs ( [url]http://www.gallup.com/poll/158921/americans-continue-adjust-ideal-weight-upward.aspx[/url] ). The reason why we have an Obesity "epidemic" is not because people are shifting towards the right side of the BMI - it's because the BMI rated shifted to include more people as overweight and obese. Ex.: [quote] Using the old criteria, the average woman -- with a height of 5 feet, 4 inches (1.6 meters) and weighing 155 pounds (70 kilograms) -- was considered overweight. Under the new definition, that weight drops to 145 pounds (66 kg). A person at the same height who weighs 175 pounds (79 kg) would be considered obese. [/quote] [url]http://www.bigfatblog.com/bmi-change-1998[/url] It's true that there are links between obesity and diabetes when genetically pre-dispositioned, but there is no proof that suggests there are links between obesity and diabetes alone. This is why only some obese individuals are diabetic. [quote]Another point I would like to make, is that the skeleton does not adapt or grow to increased body weight. Instead, it's like a skeleton being trapped inside a growing mass that slowly crushes it. [IMG]http://www.yourefatbecauseyourestupid.com/wordpress/wp-content/themes/yrfat/images/image005.jpg[/IMG] As your fat stores build up, so too does your skin, it rolls over itself along with your veins and various glands. Your heart is forced to work harder and harder to pump blood around the body. You don't grow extra hearts, which is why this is a problem.[/quote] This is morbid obesity. We're not talking about morbidly obese individuals, who are putting themselves at serious health risk. We're talking about obese and overweight individuals - who are often generalized as having the same health risks as the morbidly obese. [quote]Obesity is a detrimental medical condition that increases risk of health complications for the individual. They should be encouraged and helped to lose that weight.[/quote] Research again and again points to the fact that many obese people simply cannot lose weight, or seem to naturally hover at certain levels. Here's a few examples: Methods for voluntary weight loss and control. NIH Technology Assessment Conference Panel. [url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1580453[/url] [quote]One quarter to one third of Americans are overweight; as many as 40% of women and 24% of men are trying to lose weight at any given time; many have tried a variety of methods, such as diets, exercise, behavior modification, and drugs. In controlled settings, participants who remain in weight loss programs usually lose approximately 10% of their weight. However, one third to two thirds of the weight is regained within 1 year, and almost all is regained within 5 years.[/quote] Diets don't end obesity - they simply delay weight gain: [quote] Virtually any type of weight loss program is able to demonstrate moderate success at promoting “at least some short-term weight loss,” they found, but “there is virtually no evidence that clinically significant weight loss can be maintained over the long-term by the vast majority of people. Over and over again the initial encouraging findings are eroded with time.” Yet, these modest short-term results are used to recommend more aggressive interventions, they noted, under the belief that greater losses can be achieved, erroneously presuming that maintenance of weight loss is a realistic expectation and/or that there are no harmful consequences of weight loss or the inevitable regain. The misconceptions of successful weight loss stem, in part, from a subtle problem “that occurs repeatedly: results are presented as positive when, in fact, all indications are that the long-term projections are quite poor.” It is exactly what Prometheus described as the “rationalization of failures as successes.” Clinical trials dating back to 1970 have continued to show that the larger and faster the weight loss, the faster the regain, and the higher the follow-up weight. “It is only the rate of weight regain, not the fact of weight regain, that appears open to debate,” Garner and Wooley concluded. They hoped that this evidence might provide some solace to all of those who’ve “failed” at dieting and believe it was their own fault due to a personal lack of will power. [/quote] "Energy Homeostasis" suggests that obese people have a natural body weight: [quote]Evidence for the regulation of body energy is reviewed from the homeostatic perspective of Claude Bernard and Walter Cannon. The complementary roles of food intake and energy expenditure in the maintenance and defense of energy balance are considered. Particular attention is paid to the roles adjustments in energy expenditure play in this process and to recent investigations identifying their metabolic underpinnings. This is followed by a consideration of the many newly identified signals of body energy status and the pathways and feedback loops they utilize to inform the central regulating system. Finally, various naturally occurring and experimentally induced alterations in the regulated level of body energy are described and discussed. It is concluded that, though early investigators did not expressly consider energy a regulated feature of the milieu interieur, more recent research has provided a sound basis for judging the regulation of body energy to be another homeostatic process.[/quote] (I explain this a little bit more below - but, basically, energy expenditure on a metabolic level affects how many calories the body is willing to burn. So it's more complicated than "use of energy = energy burned." ) Genetic contribution to metabolism and body regulation: [url]http://spectrum.diabetesjournals.org/content/20/3/166.full[/url] [quote]Metabolic studies of monozygotic twins have also provided compelling evidence for the role of genetics in determining body weight. One study examined the effects of overfeeding on weight gain in pairs of monozygotic twins.24 Although all of the individuals in the study consumed the same amount of calories for the same amount of time (approximately 3 months), there was a large variation in the degree of weight gain, from 8.8 to 29.3 lb, among different individuals. However, the amount of weight gain was very similar within each twin pair. The reverse also holds true. When moderately obese monozygotic twins were kept on a low-calorie diet, the amount of weight loss varied greatly among different pairs of twins.25 However, within each pair of twins, the amount of weight loss was quite similar. These results indicate that the body's response to changes in caloric intake is dictated at least in part by genetics. Another line of evidence supporting the role of genetics in body weight regulation came from comparison of metabolic differences in individuals belonging to different ethnicities. In one study, a group of overweight women (average BMI &#8764; 29 kg/m2) were kept on a low-calorie diet for a period of time until their BMI decreased to < 25 kg/m2, the defined upper range of what is considered normal weight.26 When these age-, weight-, and BMI-matched women were separated based on ethnicity (in this case African-American or white), differences in resting energy expenditure were apparent before and after weight loss. Although this study involved only a limited number of subjects, the results nevertheless suggest that individuals belonging to different ethnic groups differ in metabolic efficiency; those with lower energy expenditure while maintaining the same body weight are more efficient and therefore more prone to weight gain. Interestingly, African-American women had larger decreases in resting energy expenditure after weight loss, suggesting that they may be at higher risk to regain the lost weight. In addition, children belonging to different ethnicities also have different resting energy expenditures.27[/quote] One's genetic build significantly influences how weight is stored and burned. One person's weight loss & fat burning exercises are not going to affect others the same way. There's a huge variation with how calories are input, and how they're output. Likewise, eating and weight aren't inherently linked. There's another biological and genetic factor related to weight: Analysis on Minnesota Starvation Study: [quote]The Minnesota Starvation Study also demonstrated that “overeating” and starvation-induced hunger only remained evident as long as weight was below what was natural for each person. It is very rarely seen when people aren’t dieting and they allow themselves to eat naturally and their bodies to be whatever they are genetically meant to be. In fact, healthy fat people actually eat no differently than a naturally thin person; they maintain a stable weight and energy balance just like a naturally thin person, just at a different set point range. When obese people are at the size genetically normal for them, their energy balance and requirements per unit of lean body mass are indistinguishable from you or me or any other ‘normal’ weight individual, said Dr. Rudolph L. Leibel, M.D., now at Columbia University, whose laboratory at Rockefeller University, New York, has conducted some of the most detailed, complex metabolic research on energy balance and the biochemistry of fat. “An obese person is metabolically just like a lean person, except they’re bigger,” he said. Scientists at Rockefeller University replicated the findings of the Minnesota Starvation study and went on to learn that the body has an incredibly complex and sophisticated system to regulate its fat stores. And when those fat levels deviate from the body’s genetic setpoint, compensatory mechanisms kick in to return the body to is normal state without us having a lot of say about the matter. Decades of sound studies have continued to show that healthy obese people eat and behave no differently than anyone else to explain why their bodies are bigger. It’s not “overeating,” or eating “unhealthy” foods or not enough “healthy” foods, or too little activity, that explains why some of us are fat and others lean. [/quote] Overweight/obese people have a certain genetic standing that brings them to a have more body fat across their bodies. This might be linked to the below study: [url]http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-06/uoc--eaw060308.php[/url] [quote]A new study shows that increased eating does not necessarily lead to increased fat. The finding in the much-studied roundworm opens the possibility of identifying new targets for drugs to control weight, the researchers say. The discovery reveals that the neurotransmitter serotonin, already known to control appetite and fat build-up, actually does so through two separate signaling channels. One set of signals regulates feeding, and a separate set of signals regulates fat metabolism. The worm, known scientifically as Caenorhabdtis elegans, shares half of its genes with humans and is often a predictor ofhuman traits. The signaling pathways are composed of a series of molecular events triggered by neurons in the brain that ultimately "instruct" the body to burn or store fat. "It's not that feeding isn't important," Ashrafi says. "But serotonin's control of fat is distinct from feeding. A weight-loss strategy that focuses only on eating can only go so far. It may be one reason why diets fail."[/quote] It's a problem on a neurological level. The molecular transmitters which instruct burning calories are, essentially, firing incorrectly. [quote]Then, of course, we have the really fat people. 400lbs+ say. If you deny that people that large don't have health problems, you are either lying or deluded. These people have difficulty standing, let alone walking. Many of them cannot properly walk, and are thus forced to a degrading "waddle". Many cannot clean many parts of their body without help, increasing risk of infection. They have difficulty breathing. They may need help to move around. Some may be in horrible pain constantly, due to wear on their organs and bones which have to support a creature they weren't fucking designed for.[/QUOTE] Again, those are examples of morbid obesity. That's a completely different situation - and yes, those people need to seriously lose weight. Regardless, fat shaming is not going to help the morbidly obese :v:.
[QUOTE=Reimu;41640091]Again, those are examples of morbid obesity. That's a completely different situation - and yes, those people need to seriously lose weight. Regardless, fat shaming is not going to help the morbidly obese :v:.[/QUOTE] I didn't say anything about fat shaming. [QUOTE=Reimu;41638027]Source for this? As long as an individual is regularly physically fit and mobilized, there's usually a pretty solid range where the body can continue functioning.[/quote] This if your original claim, when I claimed that individuals weighing 300+ lbs were unhealthy. Medical science says that this is bullshit. Debate and argument says that you are backpedaling. Fact is, these people who are "healthy" are hardly representative of the population. Obesity is a medical condition. Every effort should be made to reduce the weight down to a healthy level. Insulting them is counterproductive. Instead, you should head to your GP and speak with them, and then discuss how to reduce your weight.
[QUOTE=Emperorconor;41640149]I didn't say anything about fat shaming.[/quote] I know, but that's what the original article is about. Simply pointing it out. [quote]This if your original claim, when I claimed that individuals weighing 300+ lbs were unhealthy. Medical science says that this is bullshit. Debate and argument says that you are backpedaling.[/quote] Uh yeah, I specifically said that there is a solid range for continuous functioning - you posted pictures that refuted that statement only in regards to the morbidly obese. From "normal weight" to "obese," there's no proof that the body can't function - we both established that it's morbidly obese individuals who are at risk here, and not necessarily the overweight and the obese. Plus, it's not like there's a flat check-off list where everyone is automatically morbidly obese when they hit 250lbs. Individuals 5ft 9in+ and 250lbs are still considered obese, and 6ft 3in and 250lbs is still "overweight." BMI functions on height and weight, and you can't simply look at weight and judge someone automatically. I'm 185lbs and flirt between "normal weight" and "overweight," but I don't look like I need to lose weight at all. I was overweight as a kid, and my parents were shocked to learn that my cholesterol was perfectly fine. It's pretty obvious that there's a much larger range - between "normal" and "obese" - where individuals can still properly function. Even when it comes to high body fat, you have to very specifically look at how each individual is functioning. There's proof that exceedingly morbidly obese people are unhealthy, but most overweight people are treated as if their overweight/obese body possesses the same complications as morbid obesity. [quote]Fact is, these people who are "healthy" are hardly representative of the population. Obesity is a medical condition. Every effort should be made to reduce the weight down to a healthy level. Insulting them is counterproductive. Instead, you should head to your GP and speak with them, and then discuss how to reduce your weight.[/QUOTE] Okay, and the studies I posted show that a healthy and natural level is different for everyone. Diets don't seem to work as well as we think - they're just banging your head against the wall and waiting for your weight to come back - and it seems as if there's a neurological difference between individuals when it comes to calories burnt and weight loss. I'm not going to argue that morbidly obese individuals are healthy. If I did, then I was wrong - they're clearly not. But it's clear that "overweight" and "obese" people can function at a much greater rate than society wants us to believe, and I think there's issues with the medical community when it comes to weight loss. At the very least, if we want to get rid of obesity, we need to stop thinking that fat people are "eating too much" and understand how their bodies function differently from others.
[QUOTE=laserguided;41639138]I hate those random fat people who take up two seats on the god damn metro.[/QUOTE] I know it can be annoying, but think about how much that inconveniences you, then compare that with how uncomfortable they must feel commuting everyday.
[QUOTE=catbarf;41636836]The problem is that in modern society people want to get something for nothing. They want to lose weight without needing any changes to their dietary habits, or the time and effort of exercise, and when it becomes apparent that that isn't possible they come up with all sorts of tortured justifications and rationalizations for what is fundamentally an issue of motivation and self-control.[/QUOTE] that is a very rash generalization to make, one that entirely ignores underlying and external factors; you sound a lot like those kinds of people who say that the poor are only poor because they're lazy.
[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;41636268]If you don't care about losing muscle along with losing fat, getting skinny is pretty easy. I literally dropped ten pounds in my first year of college without trying and I was already under the recommended body weight.[/QUOTE] You can't prove the ease of becoming healthy by citing an example where you did something unhealthy If you easily dropped 10 pounds without realizing and/or wanting to you should be well aware of the fact that someone could just as easily gain 10 pounds without realizing and/or wanting to.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.