Being a fat f***er myself, I have to question the need to turn everything into a "phobia." Yeah, people might discriminate according to body size, but that's just human nature. Who doesn't prefer a healthy, slender person over a large, unhealthy person?
On a slightly different point, I have a hard time with the concept of promoting "Fat is Beautiful" when the person speaking is fat and is spending more effort rationalizing being fat than doing something about it. I don't think we should be "fat shaming" anyone and anyone who is fat should do what ever is necessary to feel good about themselves. I just question the logic when groups of overweight people get together to promote fat is beautiful and quote studies showing that regardless of which diet was tried everyone gains all the weight back within 5 years. Therefore, the logic goes, don't even try to lose weight and just feel good about yourself and start wearing sexier cloths, and try to change society's perception of fat. It's not like I totally disagree with their thinking but I do disagree that nothing can be done about it. Most people are fat because most food in the U.S. is junk food and therefore high in calories and low in nutrients. The better approach would be to feel good about yourself (as should everyone) while trying to get healthier and without a lot of blame. There should be no blame for being overweight. Yet, we all should work on a better diet if for no other reason than for general health.
I believe there are those with a genetic disposition towards weight gain. Though I wouldn't use that as an excuse in my personal situation, I do think the idea had merit. I've seen whole families that were hugely overweight. Anyway, I don't see it being used as a basis for discrimination other than health care premiums--fat people are being charged more for their health insurance.
When I was a kid, I was lazy, extremely fat (was 255lbs as a 17-year old, and I'm only 5'10 now as an adult) and completely out of shape. I hit the gym now 6 times a week, eat intelligently (i.e. based on science, rather than retarded superstitious health nuts and 'roided meatheads), run 3 or 4 times a week over long distances and lift lots of heavy weights. Now I look better than any of the pricks who once picked on me ever did in their whole lives, I'm lean, vascular and muscular, looking more awesome by the week, and at this point lots of people think I'm on 'roids myself because they falsely assumed I had inferior DNA, or that their personal training and diet methods weren't only suitable for idiots who think they know what they're doing without proper research, application and analysis. The point wasn't to brag, my body speaks for itself these days (started serious training 4 years ago, results really kicking in now at low bodyfat). The point was that in 99% of obesity cases, genetics is nothing but a scientifically invalidated excuse. Families get fat together because they all eat the same stupid diet and encourage each other to bum around on the couch.
Yes, even if genetics plays a role in some overweight people that's still generally no more than an excuse. Playing a role isn't the same as being determinative. Being shorter means it's harder to play basketball. It doesn't mean that you can't be a better basketball player than you currently are. Just about everyone will be fit if they don't eat junk food. Virtually no one overeats meat and vegetables. It's when you add in sugar and carbs that overeating kicks in. If the only foods available to us were meat and vegetables almost no one would be overweight.
I was in total agreement with you over the first two points, but with the last point I take the completely opposite view. You can easily get fat on a diet of meat and vegetables, or a fruit-based diet, or any diet where you're taking in more calories than your body burns. If you think lean protein and vegetable-based diets decrease overall appetite, existing studies show you to be wrong (satiety levels are reportedly higher with more protein, but it doesn't lead to less calories being consumed at the very next meal). Vice-versa, I have previously lost copious amounts of weight eating mostly just empty calories like potato chips, fried foods and tubs of ice cream, with a massive net calorie deficit resulting in rapid weight loss (albeit an unhealthy combination of both fat and muscle), although I couldn't mentally handle it over extended periods (i.e. more than a year) because of the willpower involved and the lack of nutrients. Also, the definitions for "healthy" food have been changing lately under rigorous testing, and are starting to make things like brown rice and whole wheat look no better or arguably even worse than their largely shunned, far tastier refined counterparts (except in cases where you feed them in isolation to starving rats, of course). As I said, for the last 4 years and especially in the last 2, I have eaten a smart, science-based diet, not some nonsense or "broscience" advocated by superstitious health nuts and/or steroid-pumping meatheads. I eat tons of both "junk" food and "healthy" food, both are capable of providing me with useful nutrients and/or calories under the right circumstances, and I burn off thousands of extra calories per week through exercise which must be largely replenished with ample carbs in order to avoid muscle loss through starvation-induced ketosis from low liver glycogen levels. I don't subscribe to the "bulking and cutting" philosophies widely advocated in the bodybuilding and general fitness communities, nor to the myth that extended bouts of cardio burn off precious muscle gains even when you're properly refueling. I've been eating generous portions from a huge variety of delicious foods on a daily basis, all in sufficient moderation so as to maintain a net calorie deficit while providing ample carbohydrate energy, high protein levels for muscle growth, all the vitamins and nutrients my body seems to need, fibre for my gut and dietary fat for my hormones. For my own fat ass the result has been steady, consistent fat loss and muscle gain over the past 4 years without those widely feared loose skin issues, to the point where I'm on the verge of having 8-pack abs, you can practically see each individual muscle group at work when it's moving, and I'm frequently asked if I'm taking any magical "supplements" or "vitamins" (the irony is that I believe in 99% of cases that all supplements are worthless, unnecessary wastes of money with extremely marginal benefits at best, and that the negative side-effects of steroids and growth hormone injections make them completely worthless except to idiots in general, and to materialistic athletes whose $50 million contracts depend on them).
Of course as long as you are running a caloric deficit you will lose weight, even if you are eating junk although I wouldn't call eating junk a "smart, science based diet". If someone can continuously exercise (body builder) then you can eat anything and you will burn it off. For most people this isn't sustainable. That's why most people, after 5 years, are back where they started. Most people won't gain weight (even though it's possible) from eating only meat and vegetables because nature kicks in and we just don't crave excessive quantities of that kind of food. Just as there is no end to our craving for chips and cookies. As far as general health is concerned, eating a calorie deficient with chips and donuts isn't healthy long-term and isn't giving the body all it needs. Giving it all the calories it needs isn't the same as giving it all the nutrients that it needs.
Anything requiring massive levels of unsustainable willpower, such as abstaining from tasty comfort food (almost impossible for most people), cannot be considered sustainable and is therefore not smart. Furthermore, many of the "health" foods that health nuts have been advocating (really more as an egotistical means of telling themselves that they've been doing the right thing for years and have a massive head start on everyone else, IMO) are turning out not to be so healthy at all, or at best hardly healthier than the alternatives we've been told to almost entirely shun. For instance, it turns out the "health benefits" from eating products such as olive oil are actually due to reduced butter consumption, and that consuming olive oil is in itself still harmful/counterproductive in all but tiny quantities. You can't eat "anything you want" whether you spend 3+ hours a day at the gym or you sit in the office or at home all day. I still have to be pretty disciplined at times, and make sure to balance the unhealthy high-calorie meals with healthier low-calorie ones. Those bodybuilders doing the 5,000+ calorie-per-day "bulks" are either succeeding on it with drugs making them build absurd amounts of muscle in short periods of time, or they're getting fat and lying to themselves about it. Maybe competitive distance runners can burn off enough calories to handle that kind of eating, although running in itself increases appetite; very few bodybuilders however advocate for more than pathetically miniscule levels of cardio (and most even make ridiculous excuses for not doing it), and it turns out that weightlifting only burns a small fraction of the calories burnt by other forms of cardio on an hourly basis. That's what the BBC still likes to tell everyone, but that's no longer what cutting edge scientists are saying. If you refer to my previous post and a recent edit I wrote as you were replying, you will see that I note how protein-based meals demonstrate increased satiation when you ask people to report/score their levels of satisfaction and sense of fullness, but it doesn't lead to them eating any less at the next meal than if they'd had the same amount of calories as carbs and fat. Unless you're looking at obsessive people who can't walk away from an unfinished meal for 10 minutes after consuming a set number of calories, the studies don't show any extra weight loss benefits from protein-dominated diets. I agree and believe this is a huge mistake commonly made by people who only focus on their daily macros (total protein, carbs and fat). You could use it as a temporary tool and then substitute in a more sustainable lifestyle once the weight loss phase is completed, but you could also do that with any number of stupid muscle/organ-wasting diets making the rounds these days. Protein-based low carb diets also need to go into the stupid category both for the lack of comfort food and the lack of glycogen replenishment, even for those who don't exercise.
I'm not advocating any particular "diet". My own personal way of eating (diet in that sense) is to eat foods with high nutrients and low calories (in general). If you eat some fat and some bulk you get satiety. Excessive sugar and carbs generally just makes it harder to quit when you are full. It's hard (for most people) to eat just a few chips or a few cookies, or a little pizza. It's not hard for most people to eat a little protein (meat) and a variety of vegetables. Soft drinks and having sugar in everything is just a habit, cultural, easily available but doing without isn't limiting you and unsustainable. What is harder is to have a little pizza, cake, soft drink. It's easier to just give it up and soon you don't crave it. Back before all of the available "fast foods" everyone ate this way and far fewer people were overweight. Exercise is mainly for good health and really isn't needed to maintain a proper weight. Just don't eat junk food and most people won't get fat. You don't crave what you've never had. I've never had coffee and I don't crave it at all. Some friends of mine can't function without it. Besides lacking in many nutrients junk food just has too many calories. I saw a package of 4 blueberry muffins in the grocery store. Each muffin was 450 calories. This is enough calories for a meal but there aren't enough nutrients in one blueberry muffin for a meal.
I stay the heck away from muffins. In my opinion, you can find far more taste, satisfaction and virtually identical nutritional and calorie content in a good 'ole fashioned donut (which I will happily consume if it's made without honey or any other insectoid byproducts). I actually do try to keep my fat intake down somewhat in general, preferring to go more for the carbs and protein. I find that slathering things in too much butter and oil ruins the texture and taste for me more than it helps, and I don't need giant chunks of fat intertwined in my cuts of meat when I feel there are equally tasty, tender and leaner cuts available. For instance, I stopped getting pork sausages and bacon at pancake houses, sticking to ham, back bacon and specifically lean sausages (usually beef or turkey); the stuff served at restaurants tends to be crammed with absurd amounts of fat and scandalously low levels of protein for something allegedly made from "meat", and the leaner versions I cook at home taste way better anyhow. I like to dry-fry my sausages and bacon rather than adding oil or butter to the pan- once it gets going, I still end up with so much grease in the pan that I have to pour it out half-way through.
The thing is, if someone is truly ''fat'' ... he/she isn't healthy. Many diseases come from being over weight, and when I see these ''campaigns'' that try to shame people into ''fat'' acceptance, I have to wonder why, since they're basically telling over weight/obese people that they have absolutely no control over their fate, and they are destined to remain unhealthy forever. Having said that, I don't believe in shaming and discriminating against fat people, either. Over weight people often struggle with their weight enough, and most do wish to lose the weight. Being shamed only makes matters worse for them. But, giving them a false sense of accepting that they will always be fat and they should celebrate it, is also wrong. I watched a documentary on how appearance is key in our culture, and it took two people and sent them on interviews. One was very attractive and fit, the other was very overweight. The overweight person graduated from a prestigious college, and had five years of relevant work experience while the attractive candidate had no college degree and less experience. Who got the job? The attractive person. Probably discriminated against the over weight person, and it makes you wonder how often this might actually be happening in real life interviews.
I'm heading into a vegan lifestyle, but I've always eaten low carb/lean protein diets. Paleo is a particularly good diet for eating clean, but it can get a bit boring. I also love running, I think the key with staying fit, or maintaining a healthy BMI ...is to eat a balanced whole food diet that is low in sugar and find a work out routine that you enjoy doing, because then you will keep it.
Without intention of rancor: who are you (or anyone) to decide that the person should be "doing something about it"? Or assigning priorites for them: First: get thin, by my standards. Only then should you worry about having convictions and speaking out about bullying behavior. The point of life is not be shamed into contorting onesself into the narrow, distorted conformation of what strangers think about us, the point of life is to be comfortable with who one is.
I agree 100%. Having lived at both ends of the spectrum, I felt extremely discriminated against and outright hated every single day as a fat kid, and despite all I've accomplished since to turn the tables, the fact that I was capable of doing something about it doesn't mean that I deserved to be treated the way I was or to have my more appreciable qualities be commonly overlooked. I feel like those who discriminated against others in early age - consequently receiving social popularity benefits translating into a strong support network of friends, subsequently becoming happy healthy adults with families and careers - deserve the exact same lower class treatment and ridicule they dished out to others as soon as their own health and appeance slips to the same level, even if they only let it happen when they turn 90. I've known women who used to be skinny as kids and who picked on me mercilessly, only to end up as monstrously obese adults in even worse shape than I'd ever been while I went the exact opposite direction; when it becomes obvious they want a chance to date me now, I make it equally obvious that they're now as ugly to me outwardly as they'd always been on the inside. I don't think I'd ever personally date a person I considered to be unattractive (at that given time), and for me overweight people generally fall solidly in that category, but at least I still give people the time of day and do what I can to be nice and help them out regardless of their external appearance. In fact, I especially love talking to overweight and obese people seeking advice on what to do about their physiques, because I'm one of the rare living examples of exactly the kind of transformation they're generally idealizing. I know both the science and the hard work on the ground required to get there, and I know how to fill them with inspiration and hope that they can accomplish this transformation in a purely natural, healthy and sustainable way while completing avoiding or else minimizing cosmetic side-issues such as loose skin. Well at least the plus side from the childhood social bullying is that I get to show a bunch of assholes how stupid they were as younger people, and how apeishly stupid they are and always have been for all the stereotypes they hold. Some of them are nice people now and genuinely happy for me to accomplish what I've done, the rest get more and more jealous every time they see me and wonder why they're too retarded to make good progress at the gym every time they've tried and failed to do it themselves, or falsely suspect me of taking shortcuts. Love me or hate me, what I want them all to understand is that there's no reason for them to think their DNA ever was or ever will be superior to mine in any significant and measurable way, that they are now by and far both physically as well as intellectually inferior, and that I'm no longer the kind of person they want to be messing with or pissing off in person, as I've started to show on several occasions already. I hope they all understand at this point how much better it could have been for all of us if they'd simply accepted me as one of the pack, and encouraged me to achieve my best instead of staying home binging on junk food and avoiding the world at large. They ain't seen nothing yet though; lately I've been doing some serious neck training, grip training, fingertip and knuckle training, rounding myself out into more of a fighter's physique. Once I've completed the bulk of my lean mass-building phase, I plan on taking all kinds of MMA and other forms of instruction so I can learn to use the body I've built to its maximum capability, and go totally beast mode from there.
I don't disagree in large measure with what you are saying as I said something similar. However, if someone is unhealthy it's good to try to get healthy rather than to being content with being unhealthy.
And there's the other shoe dropping. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! You substituted unhealthy for overweight. Overweight and unhealthy are not synonyms. There are healthy average-weight people and unhealthy average-weight people. There are healthy over-weight people and unhealthy over-weight people. Average weight is simply a finding, turned into an index that frames the average person, but is applied unilaterally. Weight is not, by itself, symptomatic of poor health.
Overweight is unhealthy. I'm not talking about over the weight of some normalized index. If you weight too much for your frame it's unhealthy for you. It's not a normal thing to be overweight.
False. Generalization. Then how do you determine what the threshold is for 'overweight'? And how does one determine how much is "too much"? False. The human body has a very wide range of normal. What you are describing is mean. The gold standard for whether one is healthy is ... if one is healthy.
I'm not a doctor. I'm not determining anything. You seem to be in denial however. I'm not talking about cultural norms regarding weight or what is "ideal". That could be thin or that could be thicker. At a certain point it's unhealthy. You can determine what that point is but it's not hard to determine when that point has been greatly exceeded. You are arguing, in effect, that it's healthy to smoke right up until it isn't and cancer has developed. Ask any doctor, excess weight isn't healthy.
