# Why I don't fat shame - Most slim people are unhealthy as well.



## B3LIAL

These days, I find it difficult to judge fat people. Why?

Not just because I don't like fat shaming, but because we have this ridiculous idea that being slim automatically means you're healthy. Despite being slim reducing your risk of weight related illnesses, It does not mean you're healthy in general.

In fact, there are plenty of attractive celebrities, models and bodybuilders who have eating disorders, take steroids, over-use supplements in place of a good diet, or starve themselves to stay the way they are or achieve a stupid physique goal.

Yes, that's right. The beautiful model that you desire to look like probably couldn't run a 5k! 

When it comes to my own personal observations, I've seen many young, slim 20-30 year olds refuse to do the slightest physical exertion like walk up a flight of stairs at work, and instead take the elevator/lift. 

Most people, not just fat people, are so unfit its unreal. I can't believe young 25 year olds require energy drinks and coffee to get through their day!

Does anyone else agree?

Most slim people who fat shame are probably unfit themselves, and think they're superior simply for being slim. 

Unless you work out regularly and eat a good diet, and that doesn't just mean restricting calories so you don't put on weight, then you can shut the fuck up judging fat people, and if you do workout and pay attention to good nutrition, you will probably come to the realization that simply judging fat people is illogical.

Slim/skinny people can be just as unfit and be lacking in good nutrition. They might not be at risk of heart disease, but is simply not being at the same risk of heart attack good enough to consider yourself healthy? Really? My ass.


----------



## sink

I don't make fun of people I don't know simply because it's none of my business. They can decide whether they want to kill their body or nurture it. What I don't like however, is when people try to justify their extremely unhealthy habits to me. Or make up ridiculous excuses ("oh it's just _genes_..."). People love to lie to themselves. Whatever helps them sleep at night, I suppose.


----------



## B3LIAL

sink said:


> I don't make fun of people I don't know simply because it's none of my business. They can decide whether they want to kill their body or nurture it. What I don't like however, is when people try to justify their extremely unhealthy habits to me. Or make up ridiculous excuses ("oh it's just _genes_..."). People love to lie to themselves. Whatever helps them sleep at night, I suppose.


Agreed, but the point is that fat people often take the majority of these criticisms, but it's not just fat people that do it.

Plenty of thin people have unhealthy habits as well.


----------



## MisterPerfect

Saying that Fat people are more healthy since you think skinny ones are not is not a valid Premise.


----------



## Red Panda

I agree, for sure. Being thin does not say much about someone's health. Lack of physical activity can be a much worse disease factor than being overweight, especially in younger ages. Being obese is of course something very risky, but shaming is wrong in any case. 
Many fit people do it as well, many times because they lack understanding and think it's so easy in general because they are able to do it.


----------



## B3LIAL

LittleDicky said:


> Saying that Fat people are more healthy since you think skinny ones are not is not a valid Premise.


----------



## Dolorous Haze

Sure some slim people are unfit/unhealthy...

But you are much, much, much more likely to be unhealthy if you are overweight. If you take an "unhealthy" person of a normal weight and an "unhealthy" person who has a bmi of over 25, chances are the latter is more unhealthy. If you are 5'6 and 200lbs, you are not healthy...end of.

Overweight people need to stop being coddled. We wouldn't try to "empower" heroin addicts, stop trying to "empower" the morbidly obese. Once I stopped blaming society for treating me poorly for being fat, I got slim and though I'm still f*cking miserable, at least I'm physically more healthy. 

Obesity is a drain on health care and on society and obese people need to start taking responsibility for their gluttony.


----------



## BlackDog

I've known a lot of people who brag that they can eat whatever they want and not exercise and still stay slim. Okay that's nice, I'm still gonna cringe when I see you stuffing your face with Cheetos and ice cream. I don't really care what your waist size is, you're still killing yourself with that shit. It just goes to show that most people aren't interested in how healthy or unhealthy overweight people are, they're interested in the aesthetic aspect first and foremost.


----------



## thealchemist

Agreed. I'm slim but I eat like shit. I have a decent metabolism so I guess I've got that going for me. Though, I would rather be 125 pounds and unhealthy then 200 pounds and be unhealthy any day.


----------



## Dolorous Haze

A "good metabolism" is bullsh!t.

At most, metabolism maybe accounts for ~100 kcal difference, unless you have hypothyroidism or something. Even hypothyroidism can only account for around ten lbs of additional weight.

Bottom line is, if you eat more than your TDEE, you gain weight. Eat less, you lose weight. Eat at your TDEE and you maintain your weight.

If you're "forever eating" and are slim, you are overestimating how much you eat. If you "eat 500 kcal a day" and are obese, you are vastly underestimating how many calories you consume.


----------



## Necrox

I'm quite slim myself, but I agree about people not being able to do a basic workout or even walk up the stairs. What really irks me is the energy drinks and coffee; if you're that tired, turn on the cold water whaen you get in the shower and you'll get a nice boost completely free of side-effects.


----------



## peter pettishrooms

Whether you like it or not, genes do play a big part. Just like how there are people out there who have a hard time losing weight due to inherited illnesses, there are people like me who have a hard time gaining weight. And I DON'T exercise regularly, at least consistently. I also am physically one of the most healthy kids in my family despite being the only child who never played a sport growing up. Both my sisters are much more active, yet they both have high blood pressure. Meanwhile I'm sitting on my ass eating chips using my phone as a remote because I can't reach the one that's five feet away and somehow can maintain a healthy blood pressure. From the looks of it, they've inherited dad's bad genes while me and my brother have gotten mother's healthy genes.


----------



## Dolorous Haze

acidicwithpanic said:


> Whether you like it or not, genes do play a big part. Just like how there are people out there who have a hard time losing weight due to inherited illnesses, there are people like me who have a hard time gaining weight. And I DON'T exercise regularly, at least consistently. I also am physically one of the most healthy kids in my family despite being the only child who never played a sport growing up. Both my sisters are much more active, yet they both have high blood pressure. Meanwhile I'm sitting on my ass eating chips using my phone as a remote because I can't reach the one that's five feet away and somehow can maintain a healthy blood pressure. From the looks of it, they've inherited dad's bad genes while me and my brother have gotten mother's healthy genes.


99% of the time genetics is just an excuse. Yeah you're more likely to be fat if your dad is fat, but that's because you pick up his bad habits.

Edit: grammerz.


----------



## katemess

MarlaSinger said:


> 99% of the time genetics is just an excuse. Yeah you're more likely to be fat if you're dad is fat, but that's because you pick up his bad habits.


Are you suggesting that thinness has nothing to do with genetics as well, then? That slim people must just be mimicking the habits of their parents?


----------



## sink

MarlaSinger said:


> A "good metabolism" is bullsh!t.
> 
> At most, metabolism maybe accounts for ~100 kcal difference, unless you have hypothyroidism or something. Even hypothyroidism can only account for around ten lbs of additional weight.
> 
> Bottom line is, if you eat more than your TDEE, you gain weight. Eat less, you lose weight. Eat at your TDEE and you maintain your weight.
> 
> If you're "forever eating" and are slim, you are overestimating how much you eat. If you "eat 500 kcal a day" and are obese, you are vastly underestimating how many calories you consume.


This is exactly what a lot of people don't understand. Well said. I'm tired of hearing the "higher genetic metabolism" argument. There are not many illnesses that affect metabolism and yet everyone likes to draw that card.

Eat healthy (healthier) with reasonable caloric intake = better metabolism.
Eat junk/oily/processed/sugary food and higher caloric intake = slow metabolism.


----------



## Dolorous Haze

katemess said:


> Are you suggesting that thinness has nothing to do with genetics as well, then? That slim people must just be mimicking the habits of their parents?


For the most part, yeah.

I used to think being fat was genetic. Both my parents are obese and I was 18 with a bmi of 30. I used to think it was "so unfaaaaaaair" and "I eat barely aaaaaaanything".

Then I grew up, examined my diet and exercised and realised that the laws of thermodynamics mean that I can't create energy out of nothing. You eat more than you burn, you put on weight...easy as.

If your parents are thin, you're more likely to be thin. This is mainly because they are responsible for developing your eating habits and your idea of a normal portion of food. If your parents eat 1,000 calories of junk food for dinner, you'll be more likely to eat that too. If your parents eat fresh vegetables and balanced meals, you'll be more likely to adopt healthier habits.


----------



## Dante Scioli

I don't like how OP reduced intolerance of fat people (or "fat shaming" lol) to a simple judgment of health. Yes, health is obviously a large part of it: fat people are more likely to require medical assistance, placing a burden on everyone else. Especially given the coercive institution of social healthcare, being fat (or otherwise unhealthy) is morally objectionable as well as irresponsible.

But it's not just about health. Gluttony is also a big factor. Fat people consume more food than they need or can even use. The additional food is worse than wasted, since it poisons them. Wouldn't we be better off if they just threw the bag of doritos unopened into the trash? And no one would approve of that, surely.

But gluttony is also repulsive in its own right, even without considering the wasted resources. It demonstrates redundant desire combined with lack of self control. It's just not inspiring.



acidicwithpanic said:


> Whether you like it or not, genes do play a big part. Just like how there are people out there who have a hard time losing weight due to inherited illnesses, there are people like me who have a hard time gaining weight. And I DON'T exercise regularly, at least consistently. I also am physically one of the most healthy kids in my family despite being the only child who never played a sport growing up. Both my sisters are much more active, yet they both have high blood pressure. Meanwhile I'm sitting on my ass eating chips using my phone as a remote because I can't reach the one that's five feet away and somehow can maintain a healthy blood pressure. From the looks of it, they've inherited dad's bad genes while me and my brother have gotten mother's healthy genes.


Society wasn't fat until very recently, so genes aren't the problem.


Anyway, disclaimers and shit. Personally I think people in the "overweight" BMI category (as a general example) are perfectly fine, _especially_ if they are a bit older. Humans, especially women, are designed to carry a little extra weight. Only when it's excessive do I mind.

I do judge people if they are what I consider excessively overweight (for gluttony). I also judge people (anyone) if they eat trash or have a slovenly demeanor. These latter two judgments are independent and can apply to anyone, though there is a noticeable correlation with obesity.


----------



## Dolorous Haze

Dante Scioli said:


> I don't like how OP reduced intolerance of fat people (or "fat shaming" lol) to a simple judgment of health. Yes, health is obviously a large part of it: fat people are more likely to require medical assistance, placing a burden on everyone else. Especially given the coercive institution of social healthcare, being fat (or otherwise unhealthy) is morally objectionable as well as irresponsible.
> 
> But it's not just about health. Gluttony is also a big factor. Fat people consume more food than they need or can even use. The additional food is worse than wasted, since it poisons them. Wouldn't we be better off if they just threw the bag of doritos unopened into the trash? And no one would approve of that, surely.
> 
> But gluttony is also repulsive in its own right, even without considering the wasted resources. It demonstrates redundant desire combined with lack of self control. It's just not inspiring.


Exactly. Humans are programmed to find obesity repulsive because it is a visual indicator of a lack of self-control and greed. Fat people simply consume more resources than society can support and that is morally abhorrent. God knows how many planets we would need if everyone ate as much as the obese eat.

I would never date someone who is overweight and I don't think that makes me a bad person.


----------



## Flaming Bassoon

While I agree that obesity is a problem you don't need to go all Old Testament and call them "gluttons".


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda

Why don't you shame everyone who is not healthy?


----------



## Dolorous Haze

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> Why don't you shame everyone who is not healthy?


I don't "shame" fat people. But apparently pointing out that being fat is unhealthy and undesirable is shaming these days. I don't hate fat people in the same way I don't hate drug addicts.


----------



## Dante Scioli

sink said:


> Eat junk/*oily*/processed/sugary food and higher caloric intake = slow metabolism.


Just wanna nitpick here. Oily food doesn't deserve its bad reputation. Oils are just fats and fats are simplistically the best source of calories you can eat. Of the two primary sources of human calories, fats and carbs, fats are superior in general.

I'd replace "oily" on your list with "plain carbs." Foods like plain cereal and pretzels are essentially animal feed. Good for fattening up a pig, but not much else.



The only difference between a jelly doughnut and a jelly sandwich on wonderbread is the fatty oil content in the doughnut, which is actually the best part. Assuming the calories were equal between the doughnut and the sandwich, you'd be better off eating doughnuts.

This is counterintuitive because calories in fats are easily detected. They have texture, they have taste, they make us feel full. The human body is very good at detecting the caloric content of fatty food. They seem "rich." Thus fatty foods have a reputation of being gluttonous. But the human body is very poor at detecting the caloric content of complex carbs. You could eat 800 calories of fat and feel disgusting, but you could eat 800 calories of carbs and feel nothing. Guess which one will lead you to overeat?


----------



## Dante Scioli

Flaming Bassoon said:


> While I agree that obesity is a problem you don't need to go all Old Testament and call them "gluttons".


Lol it's a meaningful concept. I'm not trying to invoke the idea of sin, of Judeo-Christian "evil," just run-of-the-mill pagan "badness."


----------



## Ulyana

For me it is simple, I don't care what someone else chooses to do with their body.


----------



## sink

Dante Scioli said:


> Just wanna nitpick here. Oily food doesn't deserve its bad reputation. Oils are just fats and fats are simplistically the best source of calories you can eat. Of the two primary sources of human calories, fats and carbs, fats are superior in general.
> 
> I'd replace "oily" on your list with "plain carbs." Foods like plain cereal and pretzels are essentially animal feed. Good for fattening up a pig, but not much else.
> 
> 
> 
> The only difference between a jelly doughnut and a jelly sandwich on wonderbread is the fatty oil content in the doughnut, which is actually the best part. Assuming the calories were equal between the doughnut and the sandwich, you'd be better off eating doughnuts.
> 
> This is counterintuitive because calories in fats are easily detected. They have texture, they have taste, they make us feel full. The human body is very good at detecting the caloric content of fatty food. They seem "rich." Thus fatty foods have a reputation of being gluttonous. But the human body is very poor at detecting the caloric content of complex carbs. You could eat 800 calories of fat and feel disgusting, but you could eat 800 calories of carbs and feel nothing. Guess which one will lead you to overeat?


By oily I didn't mean fat. By oily I meant processed oils that are used to cook/fry food in. Fat and oil should be distinguished here. And yes, I would include olive oil in this too. But not nuts. See the difference?

Plant carbs are the ones that don't deserve their bad reputation. Potatoes, fruit, rice, wholegrains, etc. High fat foods are mostly animal products and a diet based around that is a bad one. Do you have to eat a larger quantity of carbs as opposed to animal protein? Yes. Serving sizes are different. Would I consider this a drawback? Not at all. Who doesn't like to eat more food? We're talking whole foods here though.


----------



## Watchtower

MarlaSinger said:


> I don't "shame" fat people. But apparently pointing out that being fat is unhealthy and undesirable is shaming these days.


It is shaming. You find fat people unhealthy and undesirable, which are negative notions. What is your goal by pointing this out? To shame them to change, so they'd be healthy and desirable?

Do you really think fat people don't already know that being overweight is a health risk, that the majority of people find them undesirable by modern standards that you feel the need to point this out?

You mentioned that you used to be fat yourself. Did you change your habits because somebody pointed it out to you?


----------



## LittleHawk

I don't understand the concept of fat shaming. What does it achieve other than informing the rest of the world that you're an insensitiv douchebag? 

Supporting and accepting people- Encourages positive change. It's really not rocket science. And considering most people eat as a coping technique (stress eating) it's the least we can do not to throw stones at them.


----------



## Dolorous Haze

Watchtower said:


> It is shaming. You find fat people unhealthy and undesirable, which are negative notions. What is your goal by pointing this out? To shame them to change, so they'd be healthy and desirable?
> 
> Do you really think fat people don't already know that being overweight is a health risk, that the majority of people find them undesirable by modern standards that you feel the need to point this out?
> 
> You mentioned that you used to be fat yourself. Did you change your habits because somebody pointed it out to you?


Fat people don't understand the extent of the damage they are doing or the effect it truly has. There are no #effyoursoberstandards or drug addict acceptance movements. Obesity is becoming the norm and is just not sustainable. Many of the people I love are fat, including my parents and it kills me to see it killing them.

And yes, I was shamed. My sister and some of my friends pointed out that I was getting fat and it would be harder to lose it the further I went. The people who said nothing were more damaging because it allowed me to live in denial.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda

So if you are fit and healthy, you then have the right to shame or judge people. I don't judge people by their health because I don't even care about my own. I don't share the opinion that fat people are beautiful for the most part, that is just some self-esteem garbage. I don't think most people are beautiful either. There ain't no discrimination in that.


----------



## Dante Scioli

sink said:


> By oily I didn't mean fat. By oily I meant processed oils that are used to cook/fry food in. Fat and oil should be distinguished here. And yes, I would include olive oil in this too. But not nuts. See the difference?
> 
> Plant carbs are the ones that don't deserve their bad reputation. Potatoes, fruit, rice, wholegrains, etc. High fat foods are mostly animal products and a diet based around that is a bad one. Do you have to eat a larger quantity of carbs as opposed to animal protein? Yes. Serving sizes are different. Would I consider this a drawback? Not at all. Who doesn't like to eat more food? We're talking whole foods here though.


Wellll... there's no major difference between fat content in foods and fat content in cooking oils. Maybe you mean because cooking oils are pure calories with little micronutrient value a diet composed of cooking oils is unhealthy? That's true. But humans need a lot of energy each day and getting a chunk of it from cooking oils is fine so long as micronutrients are obtained elsewhere (low-caloric vegetables, for example).

I mean, heavily processed oils _are_ bad. Trans fats are dangerous substances. Hexane residue in chemically extracted and purified oils is a concern. But if we're talking something like virgin olive or coconut oil (or organic lard or tallow), there's no chemical residue or trans fats. These are good foods in every sense. Foods prepared in or with these oils are only enhanced in quality.


The carb-based whole foods you're talking about are good foods, but this is because the protein, fat, and fiber content of a whole grain slows the digestion of the carb content. The carbs themselves are an inferior calorie source. These foods are best offset by a roughly equal amount of similarly high-quality fats.

Fruit is a poor calorie source, for example. Fruits are rich in micronutrients, which make them good additions to a diet, but their sugar content makes them a poor choice for a caloric staple.

Animal products are not bad foods in any sense. Low-quality animal products are bad foods, just as any low-quality food is a bad food. But it's not impossible to find quality meats, eggs, and cheeses.


----------



## Dante Scioli

Watchtower said:


> It is shaming. You find fat people unhealthy and undesirable, which are negative notions. What is your goal by pointing this out? To shame them to change, so they'd be healthy and desirable?


I don't like spiders. I think they are hideous.

But I'm not trying to shame them into not being spiders.


----------



## Dolorous Haze

dante scioli said:


> i don't like spiders. I think they are hideous.
> 
> But i'm not trying to shame them into not being spiders.


i am 400lbs and my blood tests are perfect and you are obliged to find me attractive and don't you dare say that the fact i can't walk two steps without getting winded is my own fault.


----------



## sink

Dante Scioli said:


> Animal products are not bad foods in any sense. Low-quality animal products are bad foods, just as any low-quality food is a bad food. But it's not impossible to find quality meats, eggs, and cheeses.


To quickly comment on this last paragraph; _there isn't anything in animal meat and secretions that humans would need that we cannot get from plant sources_. In fact, strictly biologically speaking, our digestive system is not meant to process animal protein. Look at how long it is. That's why so many people are constipated, because animal protein has no business being in our digestive tract (not because of this sole purpose, but it definitely contributes). It takes way too long to digest, whereas plants take maybe one third of the time. Not to even mention how many diseases animal protein consumption has been linked to.


----------



## Dante Scioli

sink said:


> To quickly comment on this last paragraph; _there isn't anything in animal meat and secretions that humans would need that we cannot get from plant sources_. In fact, strictly biologically speaking, our digestive system is not meant to process animal protein. Look at how long it is. That's why so many people are constipated, because animal protein has no business being in our digestive tract (not because of this sole purpose, but it definitely contributes). It takes way too long to digest, whereas plants take maybe one third of the time. Not to even mention how many diseases animal protein consumption has been linked to.


We have omnivorous viscera. We're not like cats; we aren't meant to survive on animal protein. We're meant to survive on animal fat.

We can survive on plants alone. That's a useful adaptation. But to thrive on a vegan diet requires an extraordinary combination of plants from various regions of the world and would have been impossible until very recently. It's not natural.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda

Dante Scioli said:


> We have omnivorous viscera. We're not like cats; we aren't meant to survive on animal protein. We're meant to survive on animal fat.
> 
> We can survive on plants alone. That's a useful adaptation. But to thrive on a vegan diet requires an extraordinary combination of plants from various regions of the world and would have been impossible until very recently. It's not natural.


We are omnivorous because we eat meat and plants, our body does not determine this squire. Just a living fact that we eat both determines this.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda

We were not designed, rather shaped like rounded rocks in a river. We are not meant to do anything.


----------



## Dante Scioli

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> We are omnivorous because we eat meat and plants, our body does not determine this squire. Just a living fact that we eat both determines this.


Yoda please. People have a difficult enough time grasping this already. Your ironic irony will only make things worse.

Some men just want to see the world burn.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda

Dante Scioli said:


> Yoda please. People have a difficult enough time grasping this already. Your ironic irony will only make things worse.
> 
> Some men just want to see the world burn.


Some people think plants don't have feelings or that it matters if something has feelings when we can clone them and kill them instantly.


----------



## BlackDog

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> We were not designed, rather shaped like rounded rocks in a river. We are not meant to do anything.


You tell 'em, Yoda. Amen.


----------



## M00ny

B3LIAL said:


> These days, I find it difficult to judge fat people. Why?
> 
> Not just because I don't like fat shaming, but because we have this ridiculous idea that being slim automatically means you're healthy. Despite being slim reducing your risk of weight related illnesses, It does not mean you're healthy in general.
> 
> In fact, there are plenty of attractive celebrities, models and bodybuilders who have eating disorders, take steroids, over-use supplements in place of a good diet, or starve themselves to stay the way they are or achieve a stupid physique goal.
> 
> Yes, that's right. The beautiful model that you desire to look like probably couldn't run a 5k!
> 
> When it comes to my own personal observations, I've seen many young, slim 20-30 year olds refuse to do the slightest physical exertion like walk up a flight of stairs at work, and instead take the elevator/lift.
> 
> Most people, not just fat people, are so unfit its unreal. I can't believe young 25 year olds require energy drinks and coffee to get through their day!
> 
> Does anyone else agree?
> 
> Most slim people who fat shame are probably unfit themselves, and think they're superior simply for being slim.
> 
> Unless you work out regularly and eat a good diet, and that doesn't just mean restricting calories so you don't put on weight, then you can shut the fuck up judging fat people, and if you do workout and pay attention to good nutrition, you will probably come to the realization that simply judging fat people is illogical.
> 
> Slim/skinny people can be just as unfit and be lacking in good nutrition. They might not be at risk of heart disease, but is simply not being at the same risk of heart attack good enough to consider yourself healthy? Really? My ass.


You're definitely right. I'm one of those people who can eat whatever and never gain weight. I'm stuck at 50 kgs and 179 cm tall. I was playing netball once a week a month ago, but now that it's over, find no motivation to exercise at all. I know I need to, to be fit and healthy etc. but you're definitely right in the fact that just because people are slim doesn't mean they're healthy. 

Sometimes I'm scared to go for a run because I fear people think I'm anorexic or trying to lose weight. I just want to make my heart stronger and fitter!


----------



## BlackDog

Dante Scioli said:


> We have omnivorous viscera. We're not like cats; we aren't meant to survive on animal protein. We're meant to survive on animal fat.
> 
> We can survive on plants alone. That's a useful adaptation. But to thrive on a vegan diet requires an extraordinary combination of plants from various regions of the world and would have been impossible until very recently. It's not natural.


Yeah, but meat eating itself was an adaptation in turn. A useful one, granted, but no more set in stone than any other. GM Yoda has a point, and its that these discussions are often inappropriately teleological. There is no way humans are "designed" to eat. There are better and worse ways to eat, insofar as impact on health is concerned. But humans are remarkably adaptable. Large populations have evolved to tolerate lactose but that doesn't mean dairy products are optimal choices for our health. 

The only reason I say something is because some people walk away from these discussions with the idea that if they discover the "right" way to eat - the way they were "designed" to eat - they will be healthy. It just isn't like that. There are some requirements that are universal to human beings, and there are some which are more specific to individuals. It is possible to be healthy with a wide range of diets, and these may include any combination of plant based foods or animal foods. It's not an either/or situation.


----------



## Dante Scioli

BlackDog said:


> Yeah, but meat eating itself was an adaptation in turn. A useful one, granted, but no more set in stone than any other. GM Yoda has a point, and its that these discussions are often inappropriately teleological. There is no way humans are "designed" to eat. There are better and worse ways to eat, insofar as impact on health is concerned. But humans are remarkably adaptable. Large populations have evolved to tolerate lactose but that doesn't mean dairy products are optimal choices for our health.
> 
> The only reason I say something is because some people walk away from these discussions with the idea that if they discover the "right" way to eat - the way they were "designed" to eat - they will be healthy. It just isn't like that. There are some requirements that are universal to human beings, and there are some which are more specific to individuals. It is possible to be healthy with a wide range of diets, and these may include any combination of plant based foods or animal foods. It's not an either/or situation.


From an individual's point of view it does make sense to say there is a "right" way to eat (within some epistemological bounds of course). You have only one body and this body is better nourished in some ways than others. To describe this teleologically is at worst convenient shorthand and at best completely applicable, don't you think?

Our viscera is the way it is for a reason. It is adapted to a diet containing significant amounts of animal fat. Does it not make sense to say you and I inherited our viscera for the "purpose" of eating animal fat? Obviously I mean purpose in a loose, un-minded kind of way, but what's wrong with that?

Perhaps more loosely put, you and I inherited our viscera in the "expectation" of eating animal fat. In "anticipation" of it. That's better. Anticipation is a pretty mindless word I think.

Of course, it's capable of doing far more than merely what it was bred (designed?) to do. Today you can eat a diet of pure vegetables in contravention of your visceral anticipation and be completely healthy. Perhaps one day you could eat a diet solely of synthetic compounds and be healthier than any natural diet would permit.

But the safe bet is to do what's natural. It may not be optimal, but it's at least tried and tested. When I make appeals to nature, it's usually under this premise. Extremely complex systems like nutrition or human psychology are too complex to be easily improved upon, so I try to keep nature in perspective.

In this case, I was also trying to make the admittedly sentimental point that a vegan diet is not historical or natural. That is not to say it is not viable, though it is to suggest that it is not _easily_ viable. It's easy to put together a vegan diet. It's not so easy to put together a healthy vegan diet. And it's impossible to put together a healthy vegan diet with indigenous resources.


----------



## Wellsy

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> We were not designed, rather shaped like rounded rocks in a river. We are not meant to do anything.


I was meant to be fabulous and you can't take that away from me!

Also, shaming seems rather self indulgent as it's clearly about appeasing one's own judgements than supporting health outcomes, it makes a person feel bad as a whole rather than to be concerned about a behavior and support change.
Perhaps a good framing of this is by focusing on a person's weight, one reveals a false concern for health because you don't direct your focus to points of health but only what's perceived to be an outcome of poor health. Diet and physical activity are mentioned as the auxiliary point about weight rather than being a primary point and let weight be just as it may in trying to address diet and physical activity.
This would likely require looking at issues of poverty, since those that aren't well off that are quite likely to sustain worse health outcomes.
http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/publications/pdf/pp-ch7.pdf


----------



## Watchtower

MarlaSinger said:


> Fat people don't understand the extent of the damage they are doing or the effect it truly has. There are no #effyoursoberstandards or drug addict acceptance movements. Obesity is becoming the norm and is just not sustainable. Many of the people I love are fat, including my parents and it kills me to see it killing them.
> 
> And yes, I was shamed. My sister and some of my friends pointed out that I was getting fat and it would be harder to lose it the further I went. The people who said nothing were more damaging because it allowed me to live in denial.


You're only looking at it from your own point of view. Since you lived in denial, every singe fat person out there must be living in denial. Since shaming worked for you and motivated you to change your habits, it must work for others as well. Unfortunately it is not so. Shaming does more damage than good and it is a more complicated problem than you make it seem.

Not all skinny people are smart and not all fat people are dumb, so much so that they are completely unaware of what is happening with their bodies or around them. 

Treating sober standards as a joke might make people kill each other while drunk. Drugs are not legal, so drug addict acceptance movements are illegal. 

Food is completely legal, readily available at every street corner, people need to eat. You will eventually die if you don't eat. You will not die if you don't drink or take drugs. Why is it so hard to understand that excessive eating is addictive behavior equal to alcoholism and drug addiction?

Fat acceptance movement is about being treated equally regardless of size. It is not about making obesity the norm. It is just as misunderstood and has become twisted like the feminism movement for some people.



Dante Scioli said:


> I don't like spiders. I think they are hideous.
> 
> But I'm not trying to shame them into not being spiders.


So you regard spiders more highly than fat people since they were born to be spiders, and fat people only became fat because they're lowly gluttons?


----------



## VinnieBob

B3LIAL said:


>


how'd you get a pic of me mum?

i be thin [5'7 150 lbs 4%bf] due to health reasons
me bod violently rejects fat amongst other things
and i do get ''thin shamed'' quite often
several times a year


----------



## Red Panda

Dante Scioli said:


> From an individual's point of view it does make sense to say there is a "right" way to eat (within some epistemological bounds of course). You have only one body and this body is better nourished in some ways than others. To describe this teleologically is at worst convenient shorthand and at best completely applicable, don't you think?
> 
> Our viscera is the way it is for a reason. It is adapted to a diet containing significant amounts of animal fat. Does it not make sense to say you and I inherited our viscera for the "purpose" of eating animal fat? Obviously I mean purpose in a loose, un-minded kind of way, but what's wrong with that?
> 
> Perhaps more loosely put, you and I inherited our viscera in the "expectation" of eating animal fat. In "anticipation" of it. That's better. Anticipation is a pretty mindless word I think.
> 
> Of course, it's capable of doing far more than merely what it was bred (designed?) to do. Today you can eat a diet of pure vegetables in contravention of your visceral anticipation and be completely healthy. Perhaps one day you could eat a diet solely of synthetic compounds and be healthier than any natural diet would permit.
> 
> But the safe bet is to do what's natural. It may not be optimal, but it's at least tried and tested. When I make appeals to nature, it's usually under this premise. Extremely complex systems like nutrition or human psychology are too complex to be easily improved upon, so I try to keep nature in perspective.
> 
> In this case, I was also trying to make the admittedly sentimental point that a vegan diet is not historical or natural. That is not to say it is not viable, though it is to suggest that it is not _easily_ viable. It's easy to put together a vegan diet. It's not so easy to put together a healthy vegan diet. And it's impossible to put together a healthy vegan diet with indigenous resources.



One of the reasons I chose to pursue a degree in dietetics is this whole issue of what is natural and best for us to eat and after all these years, after the research I've read, and conferences and discussions with other professionals I'm pretty much convinced that the best diet is the closest to Mediterranean, which means a very limited amount of saturated fat, ideally coming from plant sources (even olive oil is 14% SFA) and plant protein as the main source of protein, coming from whole grains, legumes, nuts, seeds and other plants. Animal products should be complementary, mostly fish and lean meats, with red and high fat meats consumed on monthly basis.
There is no research at the moment (and likely won't ever be) that has found the use of high fat animal products to have health benefits. The only thing that's changed from the past is that they had overestimated the risks associated, and thus you'll see in some papers that they say that only _partial _ replacement of SFA with polyunsaturated was found to be beneficial, and not complete replacement. Pretty much all epidemiological research that studies several diseases like heart disease and cancers find that animal products have a more detrimental effect compared to those who consume a diet based on plants and plant protein.
Fat has been demonized, for sure, but this whole "our ancestors ate tons of meat" that seems to becoming popular in USA and some parts of Europe is a fad and people are profiting from it. Fortunately, even some anthropologists are stepping up and speak about it and no, our ancestors did not eat that many animal fat because animals then didn't even have that much fat as they do today, nor were they always able to successfully hunt and definitely did not eat as much animal fat as we do today.


----------



## Dolorous Haze

Watchtower said:


> You're only looking at it from your own point of view. Since you lived in denial, every singe fat person out there must be living in denial. Since shaming worked for you and motivated you to change your habits, it must work for others as well. Unfortunately it is not so. Shaming does more damage than good and it is a more complicated problem than you make it seem.


I was asked if fat shaming worked for me. It did. I didn't say it works for everyone.



Watchtower said:


> Treating sober standards as a joke might make people kill each other while drunk. Drugs are not legal, so drug addict acceptance movements are illegal.
> 
> Food is completely legal, readily available at every street corner, people need to eat. You will eventually die if you don't eat. You will not die if you don't drink or take drugs. Why is it so hard to understand that excessive eating is addictive behavior equal to alcoholism and drug addiction?


Yes you have to eat. But no, you don't have to eat 3,000 kcal of empty junk food every day. And the last sentence makes my point. In a lot of cases it is addictive behaviour and should be treated as such. It shouldn't be accepted or promoted.


----------



## Caveman Dreams

MarlaSinger said:


> I was asked if fat shaming worked for me. It did. I didn't say it works for everyone.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you have to eat. But no, you don't have to eat 3,000 kcal of empty junk food every day. And the last sentence makes my point. In a lot of cases it is addictive behaviour and should be treated as such. It shouldn't be accepted or promoted.


Former fattie here as well. The shaming worked for me.

I think you are hitting the nail on the head as well. Lately the media seems to be promoting fattiness and encouraging it.

But I guess if people want diabetes and heart attacks, I will wish them the best of luck.

The facts are out there, how people choose to live and die is there choice.

Personally I have stopped caring now.

People wanna get fat, cool I will cheer them on and buy them lard.

It seems anything about being healthy or confident is viewed by society as bad.

I think society really does want people to become a load of couch potatoes who are useless.


----------



## Watchtower

MarlaSinger said:


> I was asked if fat shaming worked for me. It did. I didn't say it works for everyone.


So it's ok then to shame everybody in case it works for some regardless of what shaming does to those it doesn't work on?



> Yes you have to eat. But no, you don't have to eat 3,000 kcal of empty junk food every day. And the last sentence makes my point. In a lot of cases it is addictive behaviour and should be treated as such. It shouldn't be accepted or promoted.


Don't you think food addicts know that? They're not ignorant. You can't say to an alcoholic or a drug addict that you don't have to use alcohol or drugs in such quantities, just use a bit and live on. Why is it ok to say that to food addicts? Obesity is all about food addiction, even moderately overweight people struggle with it.

Shaming is not treating addictive behavior as such. Fat acceptance is not promoting obesity. It is quite clear that nobody has ever accepted being overweight and it has and apparently always will be regarded as a weakness against the individual.


----------



## Watchtower

cybersloth81 said:


> Former fattie here as well. The shaming worked for me.
> 
> I think you are hitting the nail on the head as well. Lately the media seems to be promoting fattiness and encouraging it.
> 
> But I guess if people want diabetes and heart attacks, I will wish them the best of luck.
> 
> The facts are out there, how people choose to live and die is there choice.
> 
> Personally I have stopped caring now.
> 
> People wanna get fat, cool I will cheer them on and buy them lard.
> 
> It seems anything about being healthy or confident is viewed by society as bad.
> 
> I think society really does want people to become a load of couch potatoes who are useless.


What irks me about this kind of thinking is that 'seems to be promoting' is not actually 'promoting'. Talking about something is not promoting it.

How is the media promoting fattiness and encouraging it? By talking about overweight people, introducing them to the mainstream media without apparent negative judgments and shaming, making fat people seen and heard in a way that hasn't been done before? If something is not talked about, does it mean it doesn't exist? Or is it actually more comfortable that fat people are not openly talked about?

How about thinking about it this way that by actually talking openly about the problem, presenting overweight people as regular people in the society, not freaks who deserve to be shamed left and right, you're helping them deal with the problem. It is actually easier to deal with weight issues when you're not constantly criticised and pressured to change, and basically immediately rejected based on your current appearance. Support matters a lot, and supporting overweight people does not mean supporting unhealthy behavior.

Nobody is saying that obesity doesn't mean higher health risks. Every fat person out there knows or feels the risks. I think this subject has been hashed and rehashed for what feels like forever. It's pretty obvious that overweight people are always seen in a negative context when compared to 'normal' weight people. But talking about them negatively does not make the problem of obesity disappear or talking about them positively will not make them 'the norm' in the society.


----------



## Dante Scioli

Red Panda said:


> One of the reasons I chose to pursue a degree in dietetics is this whole issue of what is natural and best for us to eat and after all these years, after the research I've read, and conferences and discussions with other professionals I'm pretty much convinced that the best diet is the closest to Mediterranean, which means a very limited amount of saturated fat, ideally coming from plant sources (even olive oil is 14% SFA) and plant protein as the main source of protein, coming from whole grains, legumes, nuts, seeds and other plants. Animal products should be complementary, mostly fish and lean meats, with red and high fat meats consumed on monthly basis.
> There is no research at the moment (and likely won't ever be) that has found the use of high fat animal products to have health benefits. The only thing that's changed from the past is that they had overestimated the risks associated, and thus you'll see in some papers that they say that only _partial _ replacement of SFA with polyunsaturated was found to be beneficial, and not complete replacement. Pretty much all epidemiological research that studies several diseases like heart disease and cancers find that animal products have a more detrimental effect compared to those who consume a diet based on plants and plant protein.
> Fat has been demonized, for sure, but this whole "our ancestors ate tons of meat" that seems to becoming popular in USA and some parts of Europe is a fad and people are profiting from it. Fortunately, even some anthropologists are stepping up and speak about it and no, our ancestors did not eat that many animal fat because animals then didn't even have that much fat as they do today, nor were they always able to successfully hunt and definitely did not eat as much animal fat as we do today.


Indigenous people certainly ate meat as much as we do today, but you make an interesting point about those animals being leaner in those days. Then again, nearly all the plants which would have been available before agriculture would also have been less rich than their cultivated forms we enjoy today. This is observable in surviving Paleolithic cultures:

https://i.gyazo.com/ad56eacdebbe6b549b2c5cd97ba432e7.png

The meat consumption is very similar to modern rates. The major difference between this diet and the modern one is the ratio of fats to carbs. It's striking. Only cultivation permits a diet where carbs dwarf fats, and _there is no dietary advantage to this_.

Surely animal fats are preferable to plant carbs, even if plant fats are preferable to animal fats, at least in a modern diet with far too many carbs and not enough fat, wouldn't you agree? And why do you say unsaturated plant fats are better than saturated plant fats? To my knowledge there is no difference since the lipid hypothesis has been disproven.


----------



## Dante Scioli

cybersloth81 said:


> People wanna get fat, cool I will cheer them on and buy them lard.


Hey don't talk shit about lard.


----------



## Noctis

I eat very healthy, but I have difficulty gaining weight or muscle as an ectomorph, but I exercise at least 2Xs a week.


----------



## Luck

I don't normally respond to this topic bc of how closed minded people can be and it seems that opinion rather than science or educated opinion rules, but I read the word glutton too many times not to respond. 

What if there were two possible but distinct ways in the human body to run energy? Imagine, just for fun, that one system runs basically on animal fat (and a small amount of animal protein converted to very small amounts of sugar for a few functions) and is the most efficient system. While this system is 'on' the body is able to unlock the fat out of our fat cells and manage fat uptake and intake efficiently. So much so that calories are somewhat irrelevant. You naturally stop eating when you're full from the high fat and you only want to eat when you're actually hungry which happens far less frequently than on the other system bc you are able to access the energy contained in your fat cells so efficiently. Weight management occurs naturally. But this system only turns on in the absence of carbs. Any significant carb intake turns on the other energy system.

Now let's say that the other mutually exclusive system runs on carbs (which become let's call it sugar, in the human body). As sugar is poison to parts of the human body such as our eyes, our insulin spikes, rushing through our blood stream to effectively get that sugar locked up safely into fat cells. In this system, when insulin is in your blood stream the fat in fat cells stays locked up and bc your body is on burn sugar rather than burn fat mode anyway, when the sugar in your bloodstream drops the signal to the brain is 'eat more carbs' (think carb cravings, carb addiction, food addiction etc). On this highly inefficient system, a person with hundreds of thousands of calories of energy tucked away in fat cells is, in a sense, unable to utilize them -- meaning it would be possible to be obese and, from an energy perspective, be starving every few hours. The inability to unlock fat cells while being driven to eat more carbs is a weight management nightmare. This is all absurdly simplified but you get the basic concept.

Just for kicks, let's pretend the above is 100% true. Now let's say that we have a theoretical obese person who eats typically and happens to be unusually carb sensitive meaning they are very good at locking up fat with insulin. They run to the pantry every few hours to grab some more carbs as their body is screaming at them to do. They try to eat some fruit and veggies (also carbs) but can never stick to any low fat, low calorie diet despite exhibiting self discipline in other areas of their life. They even try to follow the governments food pyramid (lots of carbs) and stay away from things like butter, egg yolks and red meat as they've been told to do. When they walk into the grocery store they trust that they are purchasing 'food'. To their mind if there is sugar in virtually everything and there are 'healthy' carbs and we have governmental oversight and regulations, it must be okay on some level to be buying bread, pasta, cereal, fruit etc liberally with smaller amounts of chips, soda etc that they've heard to consume in moderation. They try to a reasonable extent, yet they still packed on pounds year after year and are now obese.

If all of the above were all true, they aren't gluttons, they are naive. Some might even call them victims. Especially if you view obesity as a symptom of diabetes and diabetes as a symptom of running our inefficient energy system in a carb rich environment where we as a society like to play the emperors new clothes. The kicker to all this is that *as long as we are fat shaming them, saying it's all within their control and that they are immoral and weak, we keep our eye on them, we lay the blame at their swollen feet rather than looking to who and what is truly to blame with the aim of moving forward and fixing this obesity epidemic. It is in our interest, as a society, to define this responsibility correctly.*

Instead of fat shaming, let's instead look to the stores and food companies selling insulin spiking food without warning labels (and I mean right down to certain high glycemic fruits and veggies), the FDA for not doing better, to the government for still endorsing outdated ideas with the food pyramid. Let's hold them to a higher standard so they don't fail us in the first place by promoting bad ideas like the low fat one decades ago (which correlates nicely with the rise in obesity) based on very flimsy research. Maybe we should hold researchers to a higher standard too, since they have such preconceived ideas that they don't run the most basic experiments like comparing one group who eats animal products alone with another group that eats only plants (to my knowledge this has never been done which is ridiculous).

At a minimum, if we're going to put our heads back in the sand, let's say we don't know why we are having an obesity epidemic rather than assume it's a rise in gluttony when there is no evidence to support that and be nice to each other. It's almost as if some worry that if we stop shaming it will be okay to be obese. It's not like they don't know they are obese or unhealthy and need some random person pointing that out to them. "Oh excuse me sir, you have toilet paper stuck to your shoe and by the way you're fat and it's unhealthy and you have a rotten character". Nice one. I struggle to imagine being obese and feeling happy. I for one am not going to make them feel worse. And bc I know some will wonder if this is some defensive posture, no, I'm thin. I exercise and eat a ketogenic diet (the efficient energy system -- I don't even view food as food, I see it as energy and nutrients with a dash of toxin avoidance). I have optimal health (tested).

And yes, I expect there are some obese people who aren't doing their best so to speak. To my mind, even that doesn't make it okay to shame them. What happened to basic respect and live and let live? Bullying to feel good is so immature and passé. Go buy some Pepsi shares or similar if you strongly feel the need to capitalize on them.


----------



## Dolorous Haze

I don't get how pointing out that being obese is unhealthy is now considered bullying.

Obesity is a modern phenomenon. Sure, governments and advertisers have *a lot* to answer for, but jesus...why can't people just take some damn responsibility for their actions anymore?


----------



## Caveman Dreams

Dolorous Haze said:


> I don't get how pointing out that being obese is unhealthy is now considered bullying.
> 
> Obesity is a modern phenomenon. Sure, governments and advertisers have *a lot* to answer for, but jesus...why can't people just take some damn responsibility for their actions anymore?


Welcome to the modern day.

Why should people take responsibility for their actions when they can do what the goverment and adverts say and shove food down their mouths. Then get praise and respect for it.


----------



## ai.tran.75

I disagree - I think people should eat what they want but slim/athletic people are naturally healthier . I'm quite sure I'm slender - 166cm 49 kg 14% body fat - and I rarely ever get sick . I notice that I'm thin bc Im extremely active ( I can't sit still ) and I like healthy food by choice . As for models and celebrities most are very healthy - unless they're anorexic ( which is an illness and not as common as how media portray it - most thin people are naturally thin ) or partying hardcore with drugs . 
With all that said- I agree that fat slamming is annoying - healthy eating however should be promoted more 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Dante Scioli

@Luck

Yay someone who understands how it works! Can't thank you enough for that alone.

I both agree and disagree with your judgment of fat people.

I agree completely that the public has been misled. I agree the government food agencies have been horribly irresponsible and/or incompetent. I agree that the public are victims of this combination of government incompetence and corporate deception. I agree that those who suck it all up are naive. You are right that once they have damaged their fat cells it is very difficult to return to healthy eating habits. And I agree that there's no reason to "shame" them (what a vile word). I do not advocate such a thing.

I believe that the human mind is a machine, and that what you get out of it is what you put into it. This dispels some notions of blame entirely. It's not his fault he's obese after all; circumstances beyond his control led to this outcome. But you can say that about literally anything. It's not a perfect excuse. He has gluttonous fat cells which make him gluttonous. You can sympathize with that struggle. But the result is he's still gluttonous. Of course it has a cause, all things have a cause.

He should be able to take a step back and ask himself "does it make sense how much I eat?" The intuitive answer is no, it doesn't make sense. Something is clearly wrong. It's up to him to find out what it is. The information is out there.

I certainly don't advocate bullying people who eat a garbage diet or anything like that. There's no need to go out of your way to act on such judgments. Bullying is an action. Thinking that fat people are responsible for their own behavior and body is not bullying.

I dislike the institutions which created such people and I quietly disapprove of such people continuing to exist in ignorance. Holding these beliefs does not equate to shaming or bullying.


----------



## Red Panda

Dante Scioli said:


> Indigenous people certainly ate meat as much as we do today, but you make an interesting point about those animals being leaner in those days. Then again, nearly all the plants which would have been available before agriculture would also have been less rich than their cultivated forms we enjoy today. This is observable in surviving Paleolithic cultures:
> 
> https://i.gyazo.com/ad56eacdebbe6b549b2c5cd97ba432e7.png
> 
> The meat consumption is very similar to modern rates. The major difference between this diet and the modern one is the ratio of fats to carbs. It's striking. Only cultivation permits a diet where carbs dwarf fats, and _there is no dietary advantage to this_.
> 
> Surely animal fats are preferable to plant carbs, even if plant fats are preferable to animal fats, at least in a modern diet with far too many carbs and not enough fat, wouldn't you agree? And why do you say unsaturated plant fats are better than saturated plant fats? To my knowledge there is no difference since the lipid hypothesis has been disproven.


A major issue that paleo promoters omit is that there is not one paleo diet, but as many as the places people lived. A tribe in Africa may survive on eating meat every day because that was the most readily available. Humans are omnivorous because we evolved to survive on whatever was available. But now that it's not just an issue of survival, but having good health to live our long lives, things are different.

We just know now that fats are not the only thing affecting blood cholesterol, especially total and LDL and things might be more complicated than we thought but disproved? Not by a long shot. 
There's one recent meta analysis that came out last year that merely showed that the evidence is conflicting, and that was crushed by other scientists for having a poor design and choosing to compare diets of refined grains and sugar which we already know are generally detrimental to health, as opposed to other, better designed studies who compare healthy diets like the Mediterranean. It's important to compare all kinds of foods if you want sound results and the studies that do this always show that saturated, animal fat is generally worse compared to plant sources of fat and plant carbs have a good place in our diets, provided they come from unprocessed, whole food sources. 
There are also a few others that mostly point out that evidence is not as strong, but still, not disproved. There's not enough evidence to change the guidelines yet, which is quite important.

It's also important to understand, and I've seen many people on the internet who debate these things do this, that there is not one ingredient in our diets that is miraculous or horrible, but the most important of all is the whole lifestyle. At a personal level, one might never adopt a Mediterranean diet and still live with perfect health to their 100s because of other factors, but the perspective changes when we study diets at a population level. 
There is no scientific, epidemiological evidence on the paleo diet as is being promoted, only people who have theories that base them on mostly their ideals of strong, paleo men, and singling out specific ingredients and studies and ignoring whatever doesn't suit them. I think the most striking example of this is how they bash legumes, when pretty much all epidemiological papers show they are a great food to include in our diets.
Even the NHS in UK has put paleo diet on the list of the worst fads of 2014 if I remember correctly.


----------



## johnnyyukon

B3LIAL said:


> These days, I find it difficult to judge fat people. Why?
> 
> Not just because I don't like fat shaming, but because we have this ridiculous idea that being slim automatically means you're healthy. Despite being slim reducing your risk of weight related illnesses, It does not mean you're healthy in general.




I used to be like you too. Every time I saw an overweight person at a public restaurant, I would always tell them, "Hey, fuck you fatty!"

Then I met this skinny vegetarian that was anemic and now my new thing is Skinny-shaming. "Hey, fuck you, toothpick!" is what I say.


----------



## SuperDevastation

A better reason would be to acknowledge no one's perfect, even so being overweight or worse obese should never just be accepted like it's normal and healthy.


----------



## Peter

DemonAbyss10 said:


> I find myself in agreement. It isn't just eating too much (or too little since there are plenty of unhealthy thin people), it is a problem that needs a more broad multipronged approach. Eating too much or too little is one thing to change. Another is to figure out WHAT one is eating, are they getting the proper nutrition (IE vitamins, minerals (including proper amounts of sodium), protiens, carbs, lipids... yes you do need some fat in your diet), are they at least getting a decent amount of exercise to at the very least not fall into worse shape, can the individual work out more to improve general fitness levels?


The reason that the body is asking for more food is usually lack of certain required nutricians. Usually when people get obese it's because their diet is a huge amount of carbohydrates and way too little of everything else, which causes lack of many micronutrients (vitamins and minerals). It's this lack of micronutrients that cause the body to signal to eat again. Rarely you'll find an obese person eat a healthy balanced diet.

Working out helps, but if your diet doesn't contain enough micronutrients it's almost impossible to work out. Carbohydrates are the main energy source for the muscles to do their work, but muscles only work well when the Cental Nervous System is fed well. That requires decent amounts of micronutrients (i.e. vegetables and fruits).


What keeps the body healthy isn't one single thing. It's the combination of everything,... balanced food, excersize, mental health, hapiness, etc.

If you do enough of everything the body is very good at staying healthy. In fact, it's what evolution made it to be good at. If you knew how often and how intensely the body is under attack almost non-stop, you'd be surprised that a living being can actually be alive.


----------



## Fredward

SuperDevastation said:


> Except fat people are a bother to other people.


Why?


----------



## Cbyermen

I think regardless of what you want to call it--fat shaming, slim shaming, whatever--you should first and foremost _be a decent human being_. Commenting on someone's weight might not seem like a huge deal to yourself, but to them they might be really insecure about the fact that they're overweight or underweight or whatever. Even as a joke, it shouldn't be said.

But yes, I totally agree with you. Fat can mean healthy, skinny can mean healthy, fat can mean unhealthy, skinny can mean unhealthy. Health and weight has no real correlation, and you never know the full extent of someone's situation, so I applaud you for being aware of this.


----------



## dragthewaters

ai.tran.75 said:


> I disagree - I think people should eat what they want but slim/athletic people are naturally healthier . I'm quite sure I'm slender - 166cm 49 kg 14% body fat - and I rarely ever get sick . I notice that I'm thin bc Im extremely active ( I can't sit still ) and I like healthy food by choice . As for models and celebrities most are very healthy - unless they're anorexic ( which is an illness and not as common as how media portray it - most thin people are naturally thin ) or partying hardcore with drugs .
> With all that said- I agree that fat slamming is annoying - healthy eating however should be promoted more
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


This. I'm thin (5'4" 118lbs) but I very rarely work out. However I could easily go on an 8hr hike with no problems, or run a mile (probably not a very fast one, but still). Could a fat person with similar exercise levels as me do that? Probably not.

My husband actually does work out 5x a week and when he was 40lbs overweight, if we went on a walk together he would be complaining after 20 minutes about how he was tired and wanted to sit down. Now he's only 20lbs overweight and doesn't do that anymore.

As for the diet argument....

Veganism isn't natural. A healthy vegan diet wasn't possible until recently with the advent of supplements and so on. There isn't enough evidence to indicate whether it's long-term healthy or not, simply because there have only been a very small number of vegans until recently. There's only anecdotal evidence as to the effects of the diet over 20 or 30 years. If you want to be a vegan it should be for ethical and environmental reasons only, and even then, tread carefully. It's not supposed to be some kind of health craze. I considered veganism but ultimately decided it was too risky, so I am a lacto-vegetarian. I eat about 2 servings of dairy per day and the rest is vegan. Works fine for me. Lacto-vegetarianism has been practiced for thousands of years in various cultures.

The "paleo" diet is complete bullshit because you can't judge the healthiest diet based on what ancient humans ate. Ancient humans had very limited food options. They ate anything that was available and edible because otherwise they would starve.

The truth about health is boring:
*Eat your required calories for the day.
*Reach your macros and micros.
*Limit sugar and sodium.
*Avoid foods with unnatural additives.
*Do cardio and strength training.

And you'll be fine. The rest of this diet stuff is just a combination of fear-mongering, snake oil sales tactics, and people trying to get out of the boring work of what is required to be healthy.

I guarantee to anyone overweight, barring people with certain rare disorders or on toxic medications like antidepressants that make them fat, that they will be able to lose weight and get healthy through boring old calorie counting.


----------



## IDontThinkSo

I fat shame those who use their fat as an argument to violate my right to criticize them when they're wrong, my right to chose my personal relations, and my right to refuse to make one's personal issue a social priority.


----------



## Endologic

Dolorous Haze said:


> A "good metabolism" is bullsh!t.
> 
> At most, metabolism maybe accounts for ~100 kcal difference, unless you have hypothyroidism or something. Even hypothyroidism can only account for around ten lbs of additional weight.
> 
> Bottom line is, if you eat more than your TDEE, you gain weight. Eat less, you lose weight. Eat at your TDEE and you maintain your weight.
> 
> If you're "forever eating" and are slim, you are overestimating how much you eat. If you "eat 500 kcal a day" and are obese, you are vastly underestimating how many calories you consume.


I can stuff anything in my body (which I do), and I don't gain a single pound, except for what I gain because of the weight of the food put in my body which gets shat out anyway.


----------



## MJC

IDontThinkSo said:


> I fat shame those who use their fat as an argument to violate my right to criticize them when they're wrong, my right to chose my personal relations, and my right to refuse to make one's personal issue a social priority.


How can someone "violate" a right to criticize? If you're criticizing to begin with, then whats the issue?


----------



## Bipedal P 314

As an extraordinarily fat man I don't enjoy fat-shaming but I understand it. I don't even like looking at myself so I can imagine it isn't too pleasant being on the other end. I'm incredibly unhealthy, well I'm at a high risk for being unhealthy. People should not feel good about being unhealthy especially when it's preventable and reversible. People can express disapproval without resorting to childish taunts.

I'm okay, you're okay, we're all okay is bullshit. Only people who are actually okay are okay.


----------



## DualGnosis

I don't fat shame, I tell people to go to the gym with me.


----------



## IDontThinkSo

MJC said:


> How can someone "violate" a right to criticize? If you're criticizing to begin with, then whats the issue?


Are you serious?


----------



## Carpentet810

If you don't like fat people then fat shaming is NOT the answer! The answer is Fat empowerment! Let them know its awesome to eat 5 dozen boxes of Krispy Kreme followed by 6 triple Whoppers, 6 large Fries and 4 litres of Coke. At EVERY MEAL followed by Fried Chicken, deep fried potato wedges, mashed potatoes with Gravy and side of Meat loaf. The Right to be Filled!

Before you know it fat people would no longer be a problem.


----------



## MJC

IDontThinkSo said:


> Are you serious?


Yes. What rights of yours are being violated? Can you no longer express them? Or do you just want to say whatever you want-despite how correct/incorrect it may be-without any opposition?


----------



## with water

Who here is fat?


----------



## Derange At 170

B3LIAL said:


> When it comes to my own personal observations, I've seen many young, slim 20-30 year olds refuse to do the slightest physical exertion like walk up a flight of stairs at work, and instead take the elevator/lift.


To be fair, if they exercise, this is probably the smart thing to do. Since they're getting their physical activity from the exercise. And they're better off preserving energy for that than wasting it on activities that have a much smaller effect on their overal fitness.


----------



## B3LIAL

Derange At 170 said:


> To be fair, if they exercise, this is probably the smart thing to do. Since they're getting their physical activity from the exercise. And they're better off preserving energy for that than wasting it on activities that have a much smaller effect on their overal fitness.


Yes but

1. Working out is not enough.

You also have to have an active lifestyle. Working out for 30 minutes and then sitting on your arse for the next 23 1/2 hours is still not healthy.

I really doubt that all these young people are working out so intensely that they're worried that the slightest exersion after working out with push them over the edge.

And walking up flights of stairs can actually do wonders for your fitness, it's these little things like choosing not to take your car 0.5 miles down the road to the store and walking instead than can also prolong your life.

I worked in the national health service for years, and most of old people that lived into their late 80's/90's/100's weren't athletes, they just did things for themselves like gardening, taking their dogs out for long walks, doing their own shopping, not relying on their kids and just staying in their house all day.

2. I saw most of these people attempt physical exertion and they were all out of breath pretty quickly.


----------



## Biracial

There is such a thing as skinny fat. Anywho, fuck being skinny* GAIN MUSCLE. *


----------



## marblecloud95

Biracial said:


> There is such a thing as skinny fat. Anywho, fuck being skinny* GAIN MUSCLE. *


#hustleforthemuscle


----------



## Caveman Dreams

Carpentet810 said:


> If you don't like fat people then fat shaming is NOT the answer! The answer is Fat empowerment! Let them know its awesome to eat 5 dozen boxes of Krispy Kreme followed by 6 triple Whoppers, 6 large Fries and 4 litres of Coke. At EVERY MEAL followed by Fried Chicken, deep fried potato wedges, mashed potatoes with Gravy and side of Meat loaf. The Right to be Filled!
> 
> Before you know it fat people would no longer be a problem.


Don't forget melting lard over it first.

Then cheer them on. Yeah you can do it, eat it eat it eat it.

Nah if people wanna live like that cool, just don't want them involved in my life as I have a different outlook.

Each to their own.

Also I have said my peace, so diabeties, heart attacks,obesity related issues, don't come moaning at me or wanting my sympatyhy,all I will do is laugh and say "I told you so".


----------



## Daniel Jackson

Agni of Wands said:


> Who here is fat?


Well I think there is a real medical definition of "fat" or over weight that is of serious concern to people with glandular problems and such. But I also think there is a mental definition of "fat" which many people develop because the media makes us think we aren't skinny enough because we don't look like the people on the screen in front of us. 

I suffered from a slightly mixed cocktail of the two when I was growing up and it sucked. In the end I went from 185 down to 165 being 5'9" and only 16 years old at the time. I slowly grew back into myself as I gained more muscle and got older to the point where it was healthy to be a bit thicker. But I also began to realize the I was never really "fat" in the first place.


----------

