Quantcast

Jump to content


Photo

6 Things I Don’t Understand About The Fat Acceptance Movement


  • Please log in to reply
90 replies to this topic

#26 Jess

Jess
  • 🍴Aioli-American🍴



  • 9,202 posts


Users Awards

Posted 27 December 2014 - 11:13 AM

No, no, no. I'm super against low carb diets. They're terrible on your health. I know that first hand. I'm just saying this is the premise behind them. Honestly, if someone is obese they should be getting a diet plan from a health professional. You need one tailored to your needs, and you need to make sure you put off pounds safely. It's more than just getting up and exercising and eating less.

That's cool and I'm fine with that, but it's not ok to give misinformation about it, what you gave isn't the premise behind them. When you go on a low-carb diet, you're switching the carbs for fats, not proteins. The proteins aren't meant to supplement the loss of carbs, the fat is. To be fair, that's where most people on a ketogenic mess up. Not having a high enough fat intake with too high of a protein intake.  

 

Not every diet is going to work for everyone. We're all unique individuals. Not everyone can thrive on a low-carb diet, just like not everyone can thrive on the food pyramid from the US. I also don't believe that everyone should be getting a diet plan from a health professional. Most doctors here aren't trained in nutrition.



#27 Kaddict

Kaddict
  • 1,654 posts


Users Awards

Posted 27 December 2014 - 11:18 AM

This is something about America that seriously bothers me. Wheat is addictive, due to the gliadin that was altered in the 70s to incease yield. Wheat (merican wheat, anyway) makes you hungrier, it's a side affect of the gliadin alteration. Wheat also has gluteomorphins which make you feel high. It's easy to tell someone to eat less wheat, but how are people supposed to do that when it gets you high and makes you hungry?

This is why genetic engineering 50 years ago was bad. But now that we understand how to do it, I am honestly ok with genetic engineering. In the 50s, they would just zap some freaking wheat with a shiz-ton of radiation until yields went up. But with the genome sequenced, I feel it is safer to mess around with it. This is also why I distrust all dieticians. Most still are relying on the old food pyramid of 10 servings of grain a day. That is not good for most people other than Michael Phelps. 
Also, it has been shown that decreasing carb intake will lower body fat more than lowering fat intake. This happens for a few reasons. gluconeogenesis needs to occur when blood glucose is low, because your body needs glucose obviously. It takes energy to make the glucose, thus your body is burning fat even faster. Some new studies have even shown that cholesterol is more affected by carbs than by fats. Also, cholesterol isn't bad, it is the LDL/VLDL that are bad, leading to  clots, atherosclerosis etc. HDL is really good for you. That is why good doctors aren't using a straight cholesterol count, but rather a fraction of non-HDL/HDL, and they want to keep that low. Also the recent study showing that LDL doesn't matter as long as you are already on a statin as far as mortality... I am not sure if I believe that one just because of the 40+ year studies showing the opposite. 

Thyroid can make a big difference in weight, and though it is more prevalent in the US than most countries (I would assumed just because TSH, T3 and T4 are checked more here, but the numbers may be correcting for that) it isn't nearly as prevalent as obesity as previously mentioned. I did see someone in clinic the other day, shortish, but she dropped from 125 to 75 pounds in 6 months because she stopped taking her meds for her hyperthyroidism. It was pretty crazy. 



#28 MozzarellaSticks

MozzarellaSticks
  • 268 posts


Users Awards

Posted 27 December 2014 - 11:21 AM

That's cool and I'm fine with that, but it's not ok to give misinformation about it, what you gave isn't the premise behind them. When you go on a low-carb diet, you're switching the carbs for fats, not proteins. The proteins aren't meant to supplement the loss of carbs, the fat is. To be fair, that's where most people on a ketogenic mess up. Not having a high enough fat intake with too high of a protein intake.  

 

Not every diet is going to work for everyone. We're all unique individuals. Not everyone can thrive on a low-carb diet, just like not everyone can thrive on the food pyramid from the US. I also don't believe that everyone should be getting a diet plan from a health professional. Most doctors here aren't trained in nutrition.

Most low carb diets I have seem switch it to protein. That's what I was saying. It's part of the issue, honestly. All these fad diets that promise almost instant results. And to be fair the low carb diet worked for me. But it's side effects are shit.

 

That's why I didn't say doctor. Health professional can be a nutritionist. It's a pretty broad term.



#29 Jess

Jess
  • 🍴Aioli-American🍴



  • 9,202 posts


Users Awards

Posted 27 December 2014 - 11:25 AM

This is why genetic engineering 50 years ago was bad. But now that we understand how to do it, I am honestly ok with genetic engineering. In the 50s, they would just zap some freaking wheat with a shiz-ton of radiation until yields went up. But with the genome sequenced, I feel it is safer to mess around with it.

I'd be fine with it... except they aren't fixing it. They left that part alone, so it's still there.

Most low carb diets I have seem switch it to protein. That's what I was saying. It's part of the issue, honestly. All these fad diets that promise almost instant results. And to be fair the low carb diet worked for me. But it's side effects are shit.
 
That's why I didn't say doctor. Health professional can be a nutritionist. It's a pretty broad term.

That's why it's important to research a diet thoroughly before you actually do it, because you are messing with your entire health when you do it. The side effects for me were great: lost weight, decreased headaches, better skin, walk better, think clearer, the list literally goes on and on. It changed my entire life. That's what I was getting at when I said everyone is different. And based on your statements on protein, it's possible you were becoming deficient in micronutrients from not following it properly.

I agree with @Kaddict about nutritionists.

#30 Kaddict

Kaddict
  • 1,654 posts


Users Awards

Posted 27 December 2014 - 11:28 AM

I'd be fine with it... except they aren't fixing it. They left that part alone, so it's still there.

They really should fix it. Genetic engineering these days isn't that tough. They could create grains that had high crop yields without all the terrible side affects they caused 50 years ago, but I think there just isn't any money in it for them. It would cost a lot of money to replace all crops, and who wants to be the one to pony up and take that hit?

 

One problem I have seen with pure low carbs (and I am a proponent of pretty much all americans lowering their carb intake) is that it is tough to maintain. People will tend to hit their goal weight really quickly, and once they stop dieting, go crazy and eat more crap than they did before and almost gain all their weight back. Whereas if they could just go to a maintenance diet of 100-150g carb/day (depending on the person could be higher) they wouldn't gain it all back. 



#31 MozzarellaSticks

MozzarellaSticks
  • 268 posts


Users Awards

Posted 27 December 2014 - 12:05 PM

That's why it's important to research a diet thoroughly before you actually do it, because you are messing with your entire health when you do it. The side effects for me were great: lost weight, decreased headaches, better skin, walk better, think clearer, the list literally goes on and on. It changed my entire life. That's what I was getting at when I said everyone is different. And based on your statements on protein, it's possible you were becoming deficient in micronutrients from not following it properly.

I agree with @Kaddict about nutritionists.

Exactly. Diets have to be done right. But the fad and popular diets out there aren't aimed at providing better health, just quick results.

 

The short term side effects were probably from some deficiency. Long term are from something that happened immediately after.

 

And what do you trust to help people? Like, what health professional have you found is helpful?


Edited by noxiousmermaid, 27 December 2014 - 12:06 PM.


#32 Jess

Jess
  • 🍴Aioli-American🍴



  • 9,202 posts


Users Awards

Posted 27 December 2014 - 12:15 PM

Exactly. Diets have to be done right. But the fad and popular diets out there aren't aimed at providing better health, just quick results.
 
The short term side effects were probably from some deficiency. Long term are from something that happened immediately after.
 
And what do you trust to help people? Like, what health professional have you found is helpful?

The ketogenic diet isn't a fad diet. It's a suggested diet for multiple health issues, including epilepsy and MS.

Just because *I* don't trust health professionals with things like diet doesn't mean it's not for anyone else. That said, despite studies suggesting the USDA food plate guideline is more harmful than helpful, it's still being pushed on basically everyone.

The ones I've talked to haven't kept up with scientific studies regarding food, they ignore my health history and experiences, put everyone in the same box nutrition-wise, and refuse to believe that food has an impact on personal health. Not everyone is as interested or passionate about food and nutrition as I am, and that's fine, everyone has different interests. I might not be a health professional, but honestly, no one knows me better than I do, no one has such a personal vested interest in my health and my life as I do. I am the primary researcher and source of information for my health. However, the doctors are useful for making sure I'm still on track, making sure that my micronutrient levels are on par, checking lipids, sugar, and the liver, and doing other things like that. I do use 'health professionals' and I saw a nutritionist once, but I don't let them make decisions for me, especially dietary ones.

The sugar and wheat addictions found today are just like any other addiction, they can only be fixed if the person with the addiction wants to fix it.

#33 Kaddict

Kaddict
  • 1,654 posts


Users Awards

Posted 27 December 2014 - 12:28 PM

The ketogenic diet isn't a fad diet. It's a suggested diet for multiple health issues, including epilepsy and MS.

Just because *I* don't trust health professionals with things like diet doesn't mean it's not for anyone else. That said, despite studies suggesting the USDA food plate guideline is more harmful than helpful, it's still being pushed on basically everyone.

The ones I've talked to haven't kept up with scientific studies regarding food, they ignore my health history and experiences, put everyone in the same box nutrition-wise, and refuse to believe that food has an impact on personal health. Not everyone is as interested or passionate about food and nutrition as I am, and that's fine, everyone has different interests. I might not be a health professional, but honestly, no one knows me better than I do, no one has such a personal vested interest in my health and my life as I do. I am the primary researcher and source of information for my health. However, the doctors are useful for making sure I'm still on track, making sure that my micronutrient levels are on par, checking lipids, sugar, and the liver, and doing other things like that. I do use 'health professionals' and I saw a nutritionist once, but I don't let them make decisions for me, especially dietary ones.

The sugar and wheat addictions found today are just like any other addiction, they can only be fixed if the person with the addiction wants to fix it.

I am absolutely with Napi on this one. Doctors are great at keeping you on track, but don't believe every single thing you hear from them. They are fallible too, and don't know everything about you.



#34 Bee

Bee

  • 1,155 posts


Users Awards

Posted 27 December 2014 - 01:49 PM

Some kids are chunky, that doesn't really bother me. What pisses me off is when both parents are fat, and all of their kids are super fat. When I was working I had a kid who was 8 years old, extremely overweight, and on the brink of diabetes. His parents said "Well, he just drinks a lot of soda" I nearly exploded. Oh, so your 8 year old just drives down to walmart and buys sodas all the time? Where the hell does he get them? And I am sure you guys are drinking them, and telling him it is ok to be morbidly obese. You never tell him that if he doesn't change his diet he will have diabetes by the time he enters 4th grade, and that he can lose limbs, vision and his life due to it... ugh.

 

Obese kids that aren't overweight because of a medical reason generally bother me, regardless of the fact that their parents are overweight or not. We had a 9 year old girl in today who was clearly overweight. While doing her meds, she started screaming and next thing, her mum has shoved a whole bar of chocolate in her mouth to keep her quiet because 'chocolate always helps.'

 

I mean what the hell? It's fucking lazy parenting, akin (in my opinion) to abusing your child. You're damaging their bodies, subjecting them to unhealthy addictions because you're too lazy to discipline them properly. The fact that that mum's first resort to calming her child is chocolate is a damning testimony to her parenting skills. Child obesity is something I am passionate about, and I'm hoping more parents see what effect their nutritional choices have on their kids sooner, rather than when it's too late.



#35 blue

blue
  • Team Codex, We're SOTACKED!

  • 2,041 posts


Users Awards

Posted 27 December 2014 - 01:52 PM

Take a multi and lift heavy.

#36 Padme

Padme
  • 1,577 posts


Users Awards

Posted 27 December 2014 - 03:45 PM

Fat doesn't make people fat. People saying it does is one of my biggest pet peeves.

 

*_* I'm not reading the rest of this thread to catch up only to clarify that I meant fat as one example, people should be educated on various macros and the like. I'm not saying fat makes people fat, at all. I'm saying people need information beyond just a calorie count. They shouldn't just eat things because they're a certain caloric number attached. They should eat them because they're good and nutritious, if that makes sense. Eating 1000 calories of broccoli is different for your body than eating 1000 calories of fast food french fries for example. Obviously 1000 calories is an exaggeration but I hope you get what I mean. 



#37 Jess

Jess
  • 🍴Aioli-American🍴



  • 9,202 posts


Users Awards

Posted 27 December 2014 - 04:02 PM

*_* I'm not reading the rest of this thread to catch up only to clarify that I meant fat as one example, people should be educated on various macros and the like. I'm not saying fat makes people fat, at all. I'm saying people need information beyond just a calorie count. They shouldn't just eat things because they're a certain caloric number attached. They should eat them because they're good and nutritious, if that makes sense. Eating 1000 calories of broccoli is different for your body than eating 1000 calories of fast food french fries for example. Obviously 1000 calories is an exaggeration but I hope you get what I mean.

I understand what you're saying better now. Your example just threw me off. Thanks!

#38 vay

vay
  • 105 posts


Users Awards

Posted 29 December 2014 - 05:11 PM

What is being said here is interesting. I hold the same ideas when it comes to this topic, as obesity is more than just the discrimination people get from it or the way society reacts to obesity negatively or positively, it is a risk to people's health, more than anything. It's not just body image or self-esteem that's being mentioned here. I think the point trying to be made [with the wrong ideas] is that others should not be rude or discriminatory towards obesity.



#39 Frizzle

Frizzle
  • M'lord

  • 16,889 posts


Users Awards

Posted 29 December 2014 - 05:58 PM

Well it shouldn't be accepted, encouraged or tolerated should it?

Things like the HAES movement make people feel better about being grossly unhealthy and put a strain on national health care services and are detrimental to society.

#40 anthrogeek

anthrogeek
  • 4 posts

Posted 03 January 2015 - 09:28 PM

There are several points that I'd like to make, but perhaps what weighs most heavily on my mind is the fact that this discussion lacks a sociological analysis of fatness with regard to classism. A large percentage of heavier individuals are economically disenfranchised (particularly black and [email protected] communities): the fact of the matter is that it's much easier, cheaper, and convenient to opt for fast food than it is to opt for healthier, homemade alternatives (fresh fruits and vegetables, nevermind the organic options, are not readily available options for everyone). So to make the claim that all heavy individuals are "lazy" is, I think, irresponsible.  

 

Furthermore, we have to consider why so many individuals view fatness with such visceral contempt: we have been conditioned to perceive fatness as wrong and polluting (to borrow a term coined by Mary Douglas), to the point that we alienate and Other fat people without any regard for their own personal histories and stories. I find this sort of blind discrimination horrifying. Nevermind the fact that a wealth of sociological analyses of fatness have made the claim that there is no inherent link between fatness and unhealthiness. Take, for instance, thin individuals that are still plagued with heart issues, high blood pressure, and any other illness that we typically associate with fatness.

 

And, from an anthropological perspective, we have to understand that the ideals about fatness being espoused in this discussion are ultimately Western concepts of fatness. The semi-nomadic Moors of the Sahara desert (Rebecca Poponoe wrote a wonderful ethnography about these peoples' ideals of fatness), for instance, cherish fatness as beautiful and desirable (so much so, in fact, that feeding young girls to a state of obesity is a conscious, ritualized process). 

 

Just my two cents. 



#41 Mishelle

Mishelle
  • Bitch Of The Boards

  • 2,238 posts


Users Awards

Posted 03 January 2015 - 09:51 PM

Just like any movement usually the most radical people get the most attention. I've seen people who are body positive and they don't advocate that obesity is sexy. What they do say is that you have to learn to love yourself as you are and to not shame others for their body. Yes being obese isn't healthy but calling someone a fucking lard ass while they're walking down the street and you're driving in your car doesn't help. Shaming fat people does nothing. It either makes them eat more from depression or makes them go into dangerous eating disorders that can ruin their metabolism. Maybe it's different because I live in California but I have never seen anyone be accepting of fat bodies.

#42 jcrboy

jcrboy
  • Oh shit there's a thing here

  • 6,953 posts


Users Awards

Posted 03 January 2015 - 09:53 PM

And, from an anthropological perspective, we have to understand that the ideals about fatness being espoused in this discussion are ultimately Western concepts of fatness. The semi-nomadic Moors of the Sahara desert (Rebecca Poponoe wrote a wonderful ethnography about these peoples' ideals of fatness), for instance, cherish fatness as beautiful and desirable (so much so, in fact, that feeding young girls to a state of obesity is a conscious, ritualized process). 

 

Food was scarce for a large part of mankind's history, so chubbiness has often been seen as a sign of wealth (oh shit they can afford to eat!).

 

We have throughout history seen the wealthy as the attractive ones, so when the menial jobs were outside and the wealthy could afford to stay inside, being tan was a sign of poverty and being pale was the epitome of beauty. During the Industrial Revolution when most of the menial labor moved indoors, paleness became a sign of working class poverty, and the people that had the free time to go outside and see the sun became the new vision of attractiveness.

 

It would make sense for a desert culture to value the weight (and in case of famine, longevity of life) of their womenfolk...

 

 

EDITED PS: Now that cheap food makes us fat, it is a sign of wealth to be able to

1. Be able to afford healthy foods

2. Have the free time to work out


Edited by jcrboy, 03 January 2015 - 09:55 PM.


#43 anthrogeek

anthrogeek
  • 4 posts

Posted 03 January 2015 - 10:09 PM

Food was scarce for a large part of mankind's history, so chubbiness has often been seen as a sign of wealth (oh shit they can afford to eat!).

 

We have throughout history seen the wealthy as the attractive ones, so when the menial jobs were outside and the wealthy could afford to stay inside, being tan was a sign of poverty and being pale was the epitome of beauty. During the Industrial Revolution when most of the menial labor moved indoors, paleness became a sign of working class poverty, and the people that had the free time to go outside and see the sun became the new vision of attractiveness.

 

It would make sense for a desert culture to value the weight (and in case of famine, longevity of life) of their womenfolk...

 

 

EDITED PS: Now that cheap food makes us fat, it is a sign of wealth to be able to

1. Be able to afford healthy foods

2. Have the free time to work out

 

Not necessarily. If that were the case, then wouldn't all desert peoples, and in fact any culture where great amounts of food was only accessible to the wealthy, prescribe to these fat beauty ideals? That may have been the case in the United States, but fatness in Western cultures has a history unique to its own upbringing and reality. Poponoe's ethnography, in fact, makes the argument that fatness in the Saharan peoples' cultures is largely embedded within notions of masculinity and femininity, gender politics, larger institutions like marriage and religion, and so forth. In other words, fatness means different things to different cultures. Your explanation may make sense for our society, but, unfortunately, not so much for other cultures.

 

With that being said, I would encourage even more analysis on all of our parts to better understand why we view fatness the way we do: why do we associate fatness with unhealthiness and laziness? And why are so we prone to treat fat individuals with such open contempt? You said it yourself: fat people in the United States were viewed as "attractive" in the past. Is this socio-economic paradigm shift reason enough to justify this sort of stigmatization against fat people?

 

Cheers.


Edited by anthrogeek, 03 January 2015 - 10:10 PM.


#44 jinq

jinq
  • 1,548 posts


Users Awards

Posted 04 January 2015 - 08:17 PM

walking to work everyday (around 3 km) took off around 15 pounds in 2 months for me. Wasn't fun, but it was the best way to lose some weight.



#45 jcrboy

jcrboy
  • Oh shit there's a thing here

  • 6,953 posts


Users Awards

Posted 07 January 2015 - 04:24 PM

Relevant media for your listening pleasure:

 

Listen on Soundcloud.com

 

For those that don't know, I'm a legal drug dealer... peddling top-quality cut-rate wheat, sugar, and salt with a smile. Now with online ordering so you don't have to interact with a human to get your fix.



#46 redlion

redlion
  • I don't exist!

  • 12,070 posts


Users Awards

Posted 07 January 2015 - 05:43 PM

In addition, a majority of people have enough protein in their diets, because virtually all food has protein.

That's a pretty hefty generalization to make. You ever try being vegetarian?

A significant percentage of the world population is vegetarian (America notwithstanding) and protein is usually the law of the minimum for healthy vegetarians. That element which is in least supply is the limiting factor for growth. Basically, for Buddhists in the Far East and SE Asia, and for Buddhists, Jains, and certain Hindus in India, protein is indeed a significant limiting factor in health.

This is because by far the most commonly available sources of protein are meat and dairy products. It took a couple thousand years for Chinese Buddhists to come up with tofu that didn't taste like utter shit. And now they're discovering that eating consistent large amounts of tofu can have unwanted side effects in the form of increased estrogen and estrogen precursor formation in the body.

#47 KyloRen

KyloRen
  • Snoke says I'm special.



  • 5,103 posts


Users Awards

Posted 07 January 2015 - 05:53 PM

I'm vegetarian and it is hard for me to get protein sometimes. I don't eat meat because I don't like the taste, so I can't get protein from it. I don't like nuts, except for peanut butter, so I don't get much protein there. I rarely eat any kind of beans, so that's another place I'm not getting a ton of protein from. 
Really, one of the largest sources of my protein is tofu. I love it. And soy, if that has protein. 

I had to take vitamins as a child because of the fact that I didn't get much protein or iron in my diet. Plus, they were good for me anyways. I don't take them now, but I probably should. 



#48 ortin

ortin
  • I'm so l33k

  • 5,908 posts


Users Awards

Posted 07 January 2015 - 06:29 PM

That's a pretty hefty generalization to make. You ever try being vegetarian?

A significant percentage of the world population is vegetarian (America notwithstanding) and protein is usually the law of the minimum for healthy vegetarians. That element which is in least supply is the limiting factor for growth. Basically, for Buddhists in the Far East and SE Asia, and for Buddhists, Jains, and certain Hindus in India, protein is indeed a significant limiting factor in health.

This is because by far the most commonly available sources of protein are meat and dairy products. It took a couple thousand years for Chinese Buddhists to come up with tofu that didn't taste like utter shit. And now they're discovering that eating consistent large amounts of tofu can have unwanted side effects in the form of increased estrogen and estrogen precursor formation in the body.

The statement I made is a biological truth. All living things have protein in order to function. Almost all food is made of formerly living things (can you name one food item that isn't water that wasn't once living?). Thus, all food has protein.

You are however correct in saying that vegetarians have to worry about protein. Many meat foods have the essential amino acids that humans can't make, while many vegetables do not have all of the essential amino acids. There are only a few "complete protein" plants that have all of the essential amino acids, so vegetarians must pay careful attention to their diet.

#49 cara

cara
  • 56/m/mexico

  • 3,173 posts


Users Awards

Posted 08 January 2015 - 12:19 AM

First of all, I'm a heavy smoker. I'm sure there are a lot of obese people that are in better health than myself. But, there is no movement telling me that my self inflicted wrinkles and throaty smokers cough are beautiful. Why? Because people don't (typically) make fun of smokers. Being obese and being a smoker are both unhealthy lifestyle choices, but only one has a self esteem promoting movement. And that's because you fucking people feel like it's your place to tell overweight people how you feel about them being overweight. How is it any of you business? Wait, it's not.

Be attracted to whoever you want to. I'm unsure exactly what this campaign is saying but if it's saying that then it's wrong. And you're not wrong for being attracted to only one body type. Because it's nobody's business.

The absolute only reason as to why it would be your business is because they are a burden on society in completely a healthcare aspect. Which I hadn't seen anyone even mention. Or if it is a loved one. I can't imagine why else people would care so deeply about this. So what if they have a movement? Does it effect you? No.

 

For the record, I completely agree with most of the original post's points in this thread. But I don't feel the need to let people know. I honestly feel like if people gave less fucks about the lifestyle choices of other people this world would be a better place.



#50 Kaddict

Kaddict
  • 1,654 posts


Users Awards

Posted 10 January 2015 - 02:10 PM

I am going to have to disagree with you for a few reasons (i agree with other points of your post though). Obesity and smoking are both unhealthy (depending on the level of obesity, both are about as bad as far as life/healthcare costs etc). But frequently, weight is a genetic problem. One person can eat 2500 calories a day, not exercise and be thin, another person eating the same thing, doing the same physical things will be fat. The reason there is a fat acceptance movement is for the reason michelle mentioned earlier. There are people in the world who discriminate based solely on weight, which is as wrong as discriminating based on race. Most of the world feels it is ok to hate fat people because it is their choice, and often it is their  choice, but not always. We shouldn't discriminate because of it. Smoking on the other hand is purely a choice. Someone has to decide to start smoking in the first place, continue smoking to the point of addiction, and then choose not to quit. Smoking and obesity, in my opinion, are therefore not in the same class. Again, I am not really pro-this movement. Also, smoking personally pisses me off more than obesity, because obesity doesn't directly harm me (healthcare costs aside) like someone smoking next to me does.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users