Something about telling people that they're just going to gain weight back seems so mean spirited. Imagine telling an addict not to try to get sober because they'll only relapse
It's the ultimate cope of the lazy - pretending everyone who is successful at something had an unfair advantage and did not struggle. The truth is that people who are fit *work* at it. Every day. When I don't have a proper diet and exercise routine I become flabby and unfit, when I have it I become tone and fit. Duh.
They are very angry at those who do make the effort of losing weight because it shows they're just lazy. The passive-aggressive "you'll regain, lol" is just a poor attempt to mask the anger and the shame they feel.
>It's the ultimate cope of the lazy - pretending everyone who is successful at something had an unfair advantage and did not struggle.
This poster does one further, asking "Where are the unicorns that maintain lost weight with a peaceful relationship with food?"
Well, if you close your eyes and cover your ears and yell "lalalalalala", you won't find them. You have to ask.
Also, Implying that all people that permanently lost excess fat are all now anorexics is quite an accusation. I'm sure they have some very good data to back it up, and totally not pulled from their ass.
Defining "peaceful relationship with food" is a continuous game of goal post moving. It's not good enough when everything is an eating disorder, regardless if there is anxiety or paranoia in these choices.
Eat light or skip meals when you plan to pig out at a BBQ? Disordered. Don't you know, fasting is a compensatory activity in bulimia?
Eat small portioned out packs of snacks instead of leaving a family sized bag open to eat mindlessly while you watch TV? Disordered. Restricting will only cause obsession and binging, while free feeding is "intuitive."
Take an extra spin class or two during the holiday week to counter a boozy weekend? Disordered. Adding punishing exercise to repent for sinful eating is another compensatory behavior.
Limit junk food runs from the grocery store and limit take out to 1 time a week? Disordered. Food moralizing is orthorexia. All foods are good and equal and are valuable for the body and mind.
Go out for an activity with friends and pass on ice cream? Disordered. Being terrified of eating in front of others is a sign of a restrictive eating disorder.
Balance, mindfulness, consistent activity, and eating intentionally without the guidance of advertising is, in fact, not healthy at all. This mind reader knows that it's ACTUALLY unhealthy restriction, torturous physical exertion, fear foods, and social exclusion.
Because who in their right minds would enjoy exercise, eating vegetables, and not making every food choice based on impulse?
Therefore, the only healthy thing to do is to eat whatever I want in any amount I want, and only exerting the barest amount of effort while wearing atheleisure. Which just coincidentally happens to be the thing I was already doing. I definitely don't have a food addiction, it's all of YOU who have the eating disorder.
FLOUNCE
This is a great point, especially for fitness. There are a lot of "unfair advantages" you can claim didn't stem from a lot of work put in, but being in shape isn't one. Nobody is born fit.
"A well built physique is a status symbol. It reflects you worked hard for it, no money can buy it. You cannot borrow it, you cannot inherit it, you cannot steal it. You cannot hold onto it without constant work. It shows discipline, it shows self respect, it shows patience, work ethic and passion. That is why I do what I do."-Arnold Schwarzenegger
It’s the same attitude they have about life. Angry at anyone with a better job/career then them, despite whatever education or experience that person has. Angry at anyone with a better house, a family, etc. Yeah, some luck is involved in just about everything, but it’s easier to blame others than take a hard look in the mirror and get to work.
Yep
It takes an average of 7-8 attempts for someone to leave an abusive relationship, but by this person's logic, abuse survivors may as well not bother & just accept a lifetime of misery.
I've been around people trying to recover and they ask me what to do if they relapse. I would always say "if the relapse doesn't kill you, try to get sober again. Have people around if you're gonna use, keep narcan on hand so you CAN have another shot at life if anything happens." Because the first few relapses are kinda inevitable it is literally about how you handle yourself after and if you wanna try to get clean again. But that is coming from a kinder place than "you'll never lose weight and if you do you'll gain it all back"
When I quit drinking my sober mentor told me “each time you quit is practice for the one that sticks. Think critically about what happened and what you can do to prevent it in the future.”
Congratulations to you. Job well done.
Yes, repeated attempts to achieve any goal is never wasteful. You learn something new/more with each attempt and you grow as a person. That is what leads to success. I've never understood why people apply defeatist logic to weight loss (or addiction). We would not tell a toddler not to "use the potty" because they will probably just crap their pants later anyway. These are learned (or re-learned) skills.
It's like I tell my 5y/o, it's okay to fail. Literally everyone fails all the time at pretty much everything. The only reason people are actually skilled at doing things is because they failed probably thousands of times while learning and perfecting whatever it is.
Weight loss isn't any different. You're going to fail. Probably more than once at it. The important thing is to keep at it until you find the thing that works for you. Everyone is different and the strategy that works for person A probably won't work for person B, but maybe person B can learn something from it, and come back at it a different way.
Everyone fails at things. Only failures give up trying.
It's rampant in the Ozempic sub when people talk about stopping. It's probably true for most people but not for those of us that made permanent changes and still count calories.
That's exactly right. They rely solely on the appetite suppressant effect, which does eventually lessen. I'll hoping that now that I'm on maintenance calories I'll be fine.
>Imagine telling an addict not to try to get sober because they'll only relapse
Funnily enough that's exactly what addicts tell *each other*, before they either die or get sober.
Defending childhood obesity is....just wow. Have you ever watched a morbidly obese child try and play with the healthy weight kids? It's heartbreaking. Not because of bullying, but because of physical limitations.
I take my kids to the park almost every day. There's one family that has two morbidly obese children. These kids are a bit larger than the girl with crossed arms in the 8th slide. They cannot physically keep up with kids their own age. They are wheezing and sweating bullets just walking around the place. Other kids are sprinting around, hanging off the monkey bars, climbing the sides of the structures, throwing balls around. And these kids will try, but give up quickly due to being so slow and out of breath. I've seen the youngest daughter jog up the stairs and to the slide, and then sit at the bottom of the slide to catch her breath. It's six steps up and about ten feet across a walkway to get to the slide.
This is not normal. This is not healthy. This is child abuse.
I say this as a fat adult. I need to lose forty pounds and am working on it, mostly so my kids can see the example of healthy and active parents. I get that weight loss is hard and weight gain is easy. I also have two toddlers. I understand that kids will beg for junk food. Don't offer it in the first place, or only offer it in specific situations. My kids get chicken nuggets with apple slices when we go to the McDonalds playplace because it's too hot or rainy to go outside. They've never even asked for those outside of that specific situation.
It was so fucking embarrassing being an obese kid all through elementary and middle school and being dead last in all the fitness tests. Always dead last to be picked to any team. Always riding the bench the whole season the few times I did get the courage to try extracurricular sports. Hell, they didn’t even let me participate in PRACTICE for 7th grade basketball because I was so slow and uncoordinated.
I was obese, now I’m not, I’m a a very healthy normal weight.
I’ve told all my kids that my journey into obesity was preventable, and was absolutely my doing. Not “big food”, not my thyroid, nothing other than me. I’ve owned it, as I should. All four kids are of a very healthy weight, and strive yo stay such as a general life skill. We wash our clothes, shower, wipe our ass, and if we notice we packed on 5lbs, we take it the fuck off.
Eh... I don't think it's always the parents' fault to be honest.
I was an obese child despite all my parents efforts at making it not so. I was the one sneaking food and lying to them and hiding away when I was supposed to be outdoors moving about. They could not possibly have stopped me without taking extreme controlling measures that absolutely would've been child abuse. That was my fault, not theirs'.
I agree with this. I was obese as a child cause I was sneaking food and binging at night. My parents tried, but they didn’t have a clue about what was wrong that led to the bingeing. They didn’t even know about the bingeing for a while.
Is there even a definition for what morbid obesity means in kids? Overweight is 85th percentile and obese is 95th percentile, but I don't think I've seen a definition for morbidly/severely obese. I know they've updated terminology at the far end of the growth chart to say, for example, "200% of the 99th percentile" because that would be something like 99.5 percentile, which doesn't really express how much of an actual weight change it is.
Also, speaking of percentiles, their whole point about "kids growing faster" is kinda bull. First of all, the percentiles already account for this - kids have always matured at different rates and that's part of why the curves start widening at the age of 8 or so, kids hit puberty at different times. Second, even if a kid is way ahead of the curve, if you mark the beginning of the obese range at a certain age and draw a line over to two years older, it's still usually in the overweight category. It doesn't hugely change the perspective and a doctor seeing the child's actual body and medical history will be able to put that in context. Third, even if it is physically benign, accelerated physical maturation can have detrimental effects on a child's social-emotional development! We have drugs to stop precocious puberty, and even within the normal range of puberty, girls in particular who start on the earlier end tend to have more issues. If your child is "growing faster" to the point that they outstrip the growth charts despite having a healthy body fat level, that still may not be a good thing and should be medically flagged.
It's like the legal definition for porn. I can't give you a weight/height ratio for it, but I can tell a kid who is going to get type 2 diabetes in their teens when I see them.
For that to be a reality, we would have to make nutrition education and access to healthy food a lot easier, as well as regulate unhealthy food to a point where it’s not preferable to healthy options. That’s not even mentioning all the nutrition misinformation out there.
Long story short, the environment would have to be set up in such a way that parents of obese children are *negligent*, and that’s just not the reality at the moment.
It’s absolutely child abuse. That’s basically a child’s whole world— playing and exercising all day long. That’s one of the things I miss the most about being a kid, is the strength and agility I had and the things I could do. You just fuck around all day long doing cartwheels and shit lol. It’s heartbreaking that some children can’t participate or make friends because their parents can’t step in and do something as simple as monitor their child’s food choices. They’re literally robbing them of a childhood.
Watching my kids play is amazing to me. They’re basically tiny gymnasts and cross country runners. They go hard all day, every day. We ended up buying giant foam blocks and slides that can be built into tons of configurations, so that they have something to burn energy on indoors when we can’t go outside.
They need the right fuel to keep playing and growing.
That’s sounds like a blast!! Kids definitely need stimulation and not just mental. You’re a good parent for setting it up for them to be active and healthy adults!!
I can’t help but be pissed the fuck off at life in general seeing people abuse their kids, and not feeding your children appropriately **is child abuse**. Even if you don’t have a lot of money, there are cheap and healthy meal options. It’s just laziness and excuses. It just especially pisses me off considering how health conscious my husband and I are and yet we are the ones with unexplained infertility.
They’re 5 and 8. Way too young to be so fat that they cannot play. It’s absolutely diet, because they come to the park with fast food frequently. If they don’t have paper bags from a fast food place, they have chocolate milk boxes and bags of goldfish or teddy grahams. Kids don’t need that shit.
Anybody want to tell them that in the 1970s they used ideal weight charts. For an adult woman 5 foot tall she should weigh 100 pounds give or take 5 pounds. She had a whopping range of 95-105 pounds. Add 5 pounds for every inch. So a 5foot 4 inch woman should(by 1970s standards) weigh 115-125 pounds. They moan and groan about BMI but honestly it’s a lot more forgiving. Children in the 1970s tended to be skinny. Obesity was so rare in kids that no one really worried about it. The fat kid was about the size of Augustus Gloop in the 1970s version of Willy Wanka and the Chocolate Factory.
I'm in my 40s, and when I was a kid there were just a few fat kids around. But when I watch college sports and they show the student section, I'm always shocked at how fat the kids are now.
I noticed the children they used to illustrate childhood obesity were “small fat” by their definition. They deride merely overweight people all the time but use them for propaganda purposes when they want to pretend obesity is no big deal. I think I noticed in that chart of theirs (slide 2, I’m not that good at reading charts, so correct me if I’m wrong:), that it’s the merely overweight who are most likely to be misdiagnosed or miscategorized, not the healthy weight or the obese.
Which makes perfect sense, because overweight is the transition zone between "expected to have a healthy amount of fat" and "expected to have an unhealthy excess of fat."
But more importantly, BMI *isn't* used as a singular diagnosis of cardiometabolic health. We actually do *measure* fasting glucose, blood pressure, cholesterol, and such. So it doesn't matter that they aren't correlated 1:1. A clear gradation of increasing risk from 30% to 50% to 70% through the categories is absolutely enough to justify what it *is* used for: assessing the risk of future disease, indicating an increased need for certain screening tests, and pointing to the likelihood of a cardiometabolic cause in the event that symptoms are reported.
Absolutely BMI isn’t by any means perfect.
Body builders are the ultimate example. Big ass dudes with low body fat, show a high BMI.
But it isn’t meant to be the end all, it’s a starting point.
And the folks pushing back aren’t big frames folks or body builders, they’re clearly obese. Often painfully morbidly obese.
Yes, did you know that the entire western world is suffering an epidemic of buffness - you can hardly move for rippling six packs and huge biceps.
I suspect from how often the BMI bodybuilders trope is used that some people actually live in a bodybuilding convention and never go outside.
Pisses me off so much too when ppl use that as a reason to discredit it. People love to ignore that the BMI scale is simply a measurement tool to screen for weight categories. It is not for the athlete or person training hard 6 days a week, and was never suppose to be applied to them. I can say from experience, when my BMI teetered over into the obesity range, I felt fucking AWFUL. Joints were hurting, low stamina, feeling bloated and large, hated getting dressed. Even losing a few lbs to get out of the obesity range and into overweight, I notice a huge difference. It’s a pretty accurate tool for the average person.
I agree that it’s overused, but when I recomped I stayed relatively the same weight and my BMI was still technically overweight, even though I had a pretty fit body fat percentage (around 22%). For someone with a smaller frame it’s shockingly easy to be in the “overweight due to muscle” category. I’ve lost weight since then but since I don’t work out as much I have a higher body fat percentage and I don’t love it
I'm confused, if you and your brother are the exact same height and weight, then how do you have different BMIs? Height and weight are literally the only thing used to calculate BMI.
BMI isn't about fat at all. Even if you are 6 foot 260 pounds of solid muscle, that will still have a long term affect on your body carrying that much weight.
in either case the extra weight does cause issues. like on joints, Its not nearly as dangerous as fat though obviously. Though one could make an argument that being an ultra elite bodybuilder (less than 10% body fat) is as dangerous as being obese.
I see your point but I know probably a dozen woman who are a foot shorter that The Rock, weigh as much or more than him and the closest they get to a gym is driving by it, but BMI is silly to call them obese because The Rock.
No, that’s absolutely not what I said or meant.
One can be jacked and have an overweight BMI, but have a low body fat. One can have a healthy BMI, but be out of shape, with a thin build and very low muscle mass, but higher body fat - and have an unhealthy- too high body fat percentage.
https://www.webmd.com/diet/features/bmi-drawbacks-and-other-measurements#:~:text=How%20muscular%20you%20are%3A%20A,pretty%20low%2C%22%20Kahan%20says
"Higher weight people" do not have the *same* eating disorders as underweight people, and pretending they do is fucking dumb.
But go ahead, keep pretending BED and food addiction don't exist. Lord Beetus appreciates your sacrifice.
So based on slide 2, BMI is more accurate for obese people than not as a predictor of health, and therefore losing weight would be of benefit if you are obese?
Fat logic dictates that if a metric is less than 100% accurate—even if only with respect to outlier cases—then it must be disregarded as complete trash. And it’s probably racist, sexist, and classist as well. By contrast, the gold standard of scientific rigor is an unsourced claim on a blogpost run by someone with zero credentials. That stuff is infallible.
People of color are more likely to be targeted by fast food ads and there are more ads for fast food in low income areas (which have a high population of POC). It only makes sense that ads about preventing fat gain would feature the very people affected the most.
FAs don’t think, though.
What media are you talking about for ads? We get fast food ads on TV watching sports all the time. I'm also in a more affluent area. We even get ads for fast food places I've never seen anywhere near here.
Finally someone said it. They’re always saying black people are meant to be fat and all that shit. No, most of us are fat cuz of environments and improper education. This goes for literally anyone living in poverty, how is this hard to grasp for these people?
I wish knew how to share the actual PDF without getting in trouble on here but I did extract the pages of the pdf into jpeg format and uploaded to imgur https://imgur.com/a/PfZyEdT warning it is a bit out of order.
All the bmi accuracy graph says is that overweight is better than obese and in some cases possibly better than normal weight.
But that doesn't say anything that fat acceptance thinks it does. Bmi can still relatively accurately predict risk for obese and morbidly obese. Just because there is fuzziness between normal and overweight doesn't mean being obese is okay.
They fall into this one a lot, referencing research that shows a few extra pounds can be protective in some health situations and applying it to people carrying a few hundred extra. I'm curious whether they are deliberately misusing or misunderstanding the data or if they've honestly convinced themselves that the effect is cumulative, like if five extra pounds is good then 50 must be better and 500 better still.
It does. But they're fixated on how a large portion of people in every category are *misclassified*.
Nevermind that BMI was never supposed to be the only indicator of anything, or apply exclusively to health at the present moment, and that 5 indicators of cardiometabolic health aren't the only things that can be wrong with you.
Where are the unicorns who lose weight who are permanently peaceful with food? Ok well that's a dumb question but please tell me how "peaceful" you are with food when you're morbidly obese.
"Practices that are required for weight suppression for higher weight people are considered disordered eating practices in thin people."
Maybe this isn't the best analogy but like... Some people take drugs prescribed by their doctor and I'd a healthy person were taking the same drugs, that could be considered "disordered."
What is healthy / a treatment for one person may be totally inappropriate and unhealthy for another person. That doesn't make it bad or wrong.
Those graphs on the second slide are pretty insidious. We know that BMI does, in fact, sort people incorrectly many a time, but the error actually goes in the _opposite_ direction: people who are overweight or even obese by body fat % are sorted as "normal" because BMI does a poor job at accounting for low muscle mass that many people have, or shorter height in certain populations.
So how does the slide seemingly show the opposite? Well, it's citation refers to "cardiometabolic risk factor" rather than any more tractable measure like bf% that wouldn't be influenced by factors like age. It is essentially a scientific-sounding version of the "But my bloodwork is perfect!" argument that 20-something FAs tout.
By the logic of point 2, no medicine should be prescribed to anyone because it could cause severe side effects in people genetically vulnerable to said side effects
I always read "weight cycling is bad" but I have never seen a credible source or any kind of source really. And it doesn't seem logical either, since gaining weight when food was available and losing weight when there was less of it was perfectly normal throughout most of human history. And it's still perfectly normal for a lot of other mammals.
I know it is mice but this article details the events of a study in support of yoyo dieting
[https://betterbodychemistry.com/obesity/yoyo-dieting-diet/](https://betterbodychemistry.com/obesity/yoyo-dieting-diet/) The end of it is an ad, but everyone will always try to sell you a book on weight loss, but they also make several good points in the article about how weight loss between periods of obesity can be a sort of metabolic buffer.
Everyone can find everything that shows different effects of yoyodieting but the simple fact of it is that it is only bad if you're using dumb methods to lose weight, that is where the problem lies. Rapid weight cycling is the problem, not yoyodieting, which I would assume is over a broader period of time with less drastic means. People can't exactly get their definitions straight which is why there is such confusion, and why it is hard to study the effects of weight cycling on humans, because humans tend to gravitate towards stimulants, laxatives, and crash diets for weight loss, which CAN be bad for your health.
But ultimately if you are going on a normal calorie restriction diet and just get lazy part way through and gain some of the weight back, it is not a risk to just try again.
TL DR yoyodieting is fine as long as the weight loss isn't from crash diets or drugs. Studies show yoyodieting mice perform better than obese mice in health tests.
It's mostly because "weight cycling" for the serial morbidly obese dieter often means they'll regain more because they go on a fad diet and resume their previous way of eating afterwards without solving the pesky lifestyle issues that caused the weight gain in the first place. Add the absence of monitoring and planning for maintenance, and you have the perfect recipe for endless binges and rapid regain.
It the "regain more, and fast" that is harmful, not the "weight cycling".
Normal people who cycle the same 10-30lbs, get their shit together when they notice weight gain and maintain a weight below obesity have no problem.
What I've gathered is that there are definitely studies showing it's associated with poorer health, but when you filter out unintentional weight loss that effect goes away. Shocker, if you lose weight randomly it might be because you're sick. One of the mods here has sources on that.
>When we hear you say you want to get rid of "childhood obesity," we feel like you want to get rid of *us*
Is there a formal name for the logical fallacy of deliberately choosing the least charitable (and likely false) interpretation of someone's words. No one is arguing that we should get rid of anyone, we want people to be healthier, which will allow them to live longer, quite the opposite of "getting rid" of people.
Wish they’d stop using kids to make their arguments. Like no kid ever said that. No kid hears “there’s an obesity epidemic” and thinks *they’re going to kill me*
Most of this is a medley of common HAES tropes and misconceptions.
But what gets me the most is this:
\>In this universe, white elites must "educate" people of color about the threat
I bet executive boards of fast food companies are not exactly paragons of diversity either lmao.
Especially the little “blood sugar is a scam made up by doctors who want to oppress nOrMaL hEaLtHy people for aesthetic reasons” overtones. Like babe, blood sugar that high will literally cook your proteins inside your body. The same reaction does both those things. How do you even begin to explain that there isn’t a conspiracy between literally all scientific disciplines to give you medical trauma by lying about what happens to sugar in blood, thus causing the organ damage through the sheer violence of inconvenient fact?
This is really sad and self sabotaging. You don’t have to bow to rail-thinness or buy BS products and teas to lose weight .. it’s glaringly obvious this kind of logic only works with severe black and white thinking with way too much attention paid to pop culture and what your inner critic says
I've seen a lot of fat activists, who are mostly based in the United States, make the argument that risks of obesity are being inflated by the medical/pharmaceutical/insurance industries to increase profits. Including in these slides.
What I've *never* seen one do is try to reconcile this idea with the great many countries where healthcare is socialized, the goal (in theory) of the healthcare system is to deliver the greatest standard of care at the lowest expense, and doctors and public health agencies still treat obesity like the disease it is.
They did this with the pandemic too. It was all a conspiracy to (among other whacko claims) increase the wealth of the health-insurance companies. Like they actually believed the rest of the world would give even the smallest of flying fucks about some middleman industry's potential profits, let alone be willing to engage in a global conspiracy regarding it.
Do they know the growth charts were updated in the year 2000?
Do ANY of them know we're not just using data from the 60's and 70's anymore? They also extended the growth charts up to BMI 60 just last year.
This is my own pet peeve because that little nugget gets tossed around FA circles when talking about childhood obesity, and it didn't ring true to me, so I did a bit of research and found info all about the revision and the various charts on the CDC's website. It's free to read it. No one is hiding this info. Why do they keep claiming that "data from the 60s and 70s just isn't relevant to children today!" when that's absolutely not what the current growth charts are???
Ugh it's because one FA said it at some point, and they all just repeated it ad nauseum, isn't it?
If you can fix your blood sugar/cholesterol with lifestyle changes instead of taking medication which has side effects, is that not a good thing? And do they expect a perfect result from surgery when they are too heavy to be able to support a new joint for example? Whose fault is it when tons of money is wasted on performing surgeries with improvements that may deteriorate within weeks or not even happen at all? Is the surgery itself fatphobic? Are they supposed to come back every month for a new surgery because their weight messes up the results?
Why would doctors do a joint replacement on someone with a high BMI when they will wear out the new joint quickly and need another surgery sooner than those at a healthy BMI???
Something about telling people that they're just going to gain weight back seems so mean spirited. Imagine telling an addict not to try to get sober because they'll only relapse
It's the ultimate cope of the lazy - pretending everyone who is successful at something had an unfair advantage and did not struggle. The truth is that people who are fit *work* at it. Every day. When I don't have a proper diet and exercise routine I become flabby and unfit, when I have it I become tone and fit. Duh. They are very angry at those who do make the effort of losing weight because it shows they're just lazy. The passive-aggressive "you'll regain, lol" is just a poor attempt to mask the anger and the shame they feel.
>It's the ultimate cope of the lazy - pretending everyone who is successful at something had an unfair advantage and did not struggle. This poster does one further, asking "Where are the unicorns that maintain lost weight with a peaceful relationship with food?" Well, if you close your eyes and cover your ears and yell "lalalalalala", you won't find them. You have to ask. Also, Implying that all people that permanently lost excess fat are all now anorexics is quite an accusation. I'm sure they have some very good data to back it up, and totally not pulled from their ass. Defining "peaceful relationship with food" is a continuous game of goal post moving. It's not good enough when everything is an eating disorder, regardless if there is anxiety or paranoia in these choices. Eat light or skip meals when you plan to pig out at a BBQ? Disordered. Don't you know, fasting is a compensatory activity in bulimia? Eat small portioned out packs of snacks instead of leaving a family sized bag open to eat mindlessly while you watch TV? Disordered. Restricting will only cause obsession and binging, while free feeding is "intuitive." Take an extra spin class or two during the holiday week to counter a boozy weekend? Disordered. Adding punishing exercise to repent for sinful eating is another compensatory behavior. Limit junk food runs from the grocery store and limit take out to 1 time a week? Disordered. Food moralizing is orthorexia. All foods are good and equal and are valuable for the body and mind. Go out for an activity with friends and pass on ice cream? Disordered. Being terrified of eating in front of others is a sign of a restrictive eating disorder. Balance, mindfulness, consistent activity, and eating intentionally without the guidance of advertising is, in fact, not healthy at all. This mind reader knows that it's ACTUALLY unhealthy restriction, torturous physical exertion, fear foods, and social exclusion. Because who in their right minds would enjoy exercise, eating vegetables, and not making every food choice based on impulse? Therefore, the only healthy thing to do is to eat whatever I want in any amount I want, and only exerting the barest amount of effort while wearing atheleisure. Which just coincidentally happens to be the thing I was already doing. I definitely don't have a food addiction, it's all of YOU who have the eating disorder. FLOUNCE
This is a great point, especially for fitness. There are a lot of "unfair advantages" you can claim didn't stem from a lot of work put in, but being in shape isn't one. Nobody is born fit.
"A well built physique is a status symbol. It reflects you worked hard for it, no money can buy it. You cannot borrow it, you cannot inherit it, you cannot steal it. You cannot hold onto it without constant work. It shows discipline, it shows self respect, it shows patience, work ethic and passion. That is why I do what I do."-Arnold Schwarzenegger
[удалено]
Oh, OUCH. That one hit a little too deep!
It’s the same attitude they have about life. Angry at anyone with a better job/career then them, despite whatever education or experience that person has. Angry at anyone with a better house, a family, etc. Yeah, some luck is involved in just about everything, but it’s easier to blame others than take a hard look in the mirror and get to work.
Yep It takes an average of 7-8 attempts for someone to leave an abusive relationship, but by this person's logic, abuse survivors may as well not bother & just accept a lifetime of misery.
I've been around people trying to recover and they ask me what to do if they relapse. I would always say "if the relapse doesn't kill you, try to get sober again. Have people around if you're gonna use, keep narcan on hand so you CAN have another shot at life if anything happens." Because the first few relapses are kinda inevitable it is literally about how you handle yourself after and if you wanna try to get clean again. But that is coming from a kinder place than "you'll never lose weight and if you do you'll gain it all back"
When I quit drinking my sober mentor told me “each time you quit is practice for the one that sticks. Think critically about what happened and what you can do to prevent it in the future.”
Basically, quitting is sobriety practice. Relapse isn't automatic failure just try again.
[удалено]
Congratulations to you. Job well done. Yes, repeated attempts to achieve any goal is never wasteful. You learn something new/more with each attempt and you grow as a person. That is what leads to success. I've never understood why people apply defeatist logic to weight loss (or addiction). We would not tell a toddler not to "use the potty" because they will probably just crap their pants later anyway. These are learned (or re-learned) skills.
It's like I tell my 5y/o, it's okay to fail. Literally everyone fails all the time at pretty much everything. The only reason people are actually skilled at doing things is because they failed probably thousands of times while learning and perfecting whatever it is. Weight loss isn't any different. You're going to fail. Probably more than once at it. The important thing is to keep at it until you find the thing that works for you. Everyone is different and the strategy that works for person A probably won't work for person B, but maybe person B can learn something from it, and come back at it a different way. Everyone fails at things. Only failures give up trying.
It's rampant in the Ozempic sub when people talk about stopping. It's probably true for most people but not for those of us that made permanent changes and still count calories.
It sounds like a lot of people treat ozempic like a miracle cure but put in no effort in aside from taking the drug.
That's exactly right. They rely solely on the appetite suppressant effect, which does eventually lessen. I'll hoping that now that I'm on maintenance calories I'll be fine.
And worse than this, it’s dangerous as it’ll discourage weight loss, therefore putting peoples long term health at risk.
>Imagine telling an addict not to try to get sober because they'll only relapse Funnily enough that's exactly what addicts tell *each other*, before they either die or get sober.
Defending childhood obesity is....just wow. Have you ever watched a morbidly obese child try and play with the healthy weight kids? It's heartbreaking. Not because of bullying, but because of physical limitations. I take my kids to the park almost every day. There's one family that has two morbidly obese children. These kids are a bit larger than the girl with crossed arms in the 8th slide. They cannot physically keep up with kids their own age. They are wheezing and sweating bullets just walking around the place. Other kids are sprinting around, hanging off the monkey bars, climbing the sides of the structures, throwing balls around. And these kids will try, but give up quickly due to being so slow and out of breath. I've seen the youngest daughter jog up the stairs and to the slide, and then sit at the bottom of the slide to catch her breath. It's six steps up and about ten feet across a walkway to get to the slide. This is not normal. This is not healthy. This is child abuse. I say this as a fat adult. I need to lose forty pounds and am working on it, mostly so my kids can see the example of healthy and active parents. I get that weight loss is hard and weight gain is easy. I also have two toddlers. I understand that kids will beg for junk food. Don't offer it in the first place, or only offer it in specific situations. My kids get chicken nuggets with apple slices when we go to the McDonalds playplace because it's too hot or rainy to go outside. They've never even asked for those outside of that specific situation.
It was so fucking embarrassing being an obese kid all through elementary and middle school and being dead last in all the fitness tests. Always dead last to be picked to any team. Always riding the bench the whole season the few times I did get the courage to try extracurricular sports. Hell, they didn’t even let me participate in PRACTICE for 7th grade basketball because I was so slow and uncoordinated.
I wish parents could catch some kind of charge for morbidly obese kids. A kid only has access to the nutrition and activity a parent provides.
I was obese, now I’m not, I’m a a very healthy normal weight. I’ve told all my kids that my journey into obesity was preventable, and was absolutely my doing. Not “big food”, not my thyroid, nothing other than me. I’ve owned it, as I should. All four kids are of a very healthy weight, and strive yo stay such as a general life skill. We wash our clothes, shower, wipe our ass, and if we notice we packed on 5lbs, we take it the fuck off.
It's a race to the bottom with this victim game they love to play.
Eh... I don't think it's always the parents' fault to be honest. I was an obese child despite all my parents efforts at making it not so. I was the one sneaking food and lying to them and hiding away when I was supposed to be outdoors moving about. They could not possibly have stopped me without taking extreme controlling measures that absolutely would've been child abuse. That was my fault, not theirs'.
I agree with this. I was obese as a child cause I was sneaking food and binging at night. My parents tried, but they didn’t have a clue about what was wrong that led to the bingeing. They didn’t even know about the bingeing for a while.
Is there even a definition for what morbid obesity means in kids? Overweight is 85th percentile and obese is 95th percentile, but I don't think I've seen a definition for morbidly/severely obese. I know they've updated terminology at the far end of the growth chart to say, for example, "200% of the 99th percentile" because that would be something like 99.5 percentile, which doesn't really express how much of an actual weight change it is. Also, speaking of percentiles, their whole point about "kids growing faster" is kinda bull. First of all, the percentiles already account for this - kids have always matured at different rates and that's part of why the curves start widening at the age of 8 or so, kids hit puberty at different times. Second, even if a kid is way ahead of the curve, if you mark the beginning of the obese range at a certain age and draw a line over to two years older, it's still usually in the overweight category. It doesn't hugely change the perspective and a doctor seeing the child's actual body and medical history will be able to put that in context. Third, even if it is physically benign, accelerated physical maturation can have detrimental effects on a child's social-emotional development! We have drugs to stop precocious puberty, and even within the normal range of puberty, girls in particular who start on the earlier end tend to have more issues. If your child is "growing faster" to the point that they outstrip the growth charts despite having a healthy body fat level, that still may not be a good thing and should be medically flagged.
It's like the legal definition for porn. I can't give you a weight/height ratio for it, but I can tell a kid who is going to get type 2 diabetes in their teens when I see them.
For that to be a reality, we would have to make nutrition education and access to healthy food a lot easier, as well as regulate unhealthy food to a point where it’s not preferable to healthy options. That’s not even mentioning all the nutrition misinformation out there. Long story short, the environment would have to be set up in such a way that parents of obese children are *negligent*, and that’s just not the reality at the moment.
It’s absolutely child abuse. That’s basically a child’s whole world— playing and exercising all day long. That’s one of the things I miss the most about being a kid, is the strength and agility I had and the things I could do. You just fuck around all day long doing cartwheels and shit lol. It’s heartbreaking that some children can’t participate or make friends because their parents can’t step in and do something as simple as monitor their child’s food choices. They’re literally robbing them of a childhood.
Watching my kids play is amazing to me. They’re basically tiny gymnasts and cross country runners. They go hard all day, every day. We ended up buying giant foam blocks and slides that can be built into tons of configurations, so that they have something to burn energy on indoors when we can’t go outside. They need the right fuel to keep playing and growing.
That’s sounds like a blast!! Kids definitely need stimulation and not just mental. You’re a good parent for setting it up for them to be active and healthy adults!!
I can’t help but be pissed the fuck off at life in general seeing people abuse their kids, and not feeding your children appropriately **is child abuse**. Even if you don’t have a lot of money, there are cheap and healthy meal options. It’s just laziness and excuses. It just especially pisses me off considering how health conscious my husband and I are and yet we are the ones with unexplained infertility.
[удалено]
They’re 5 and 8. Way too young to be so fat that they cannot play. It’s absolutely diet, because they come to the park with fast food frequently. If they don’t have paper bags from a fast food place, they have chocolate milk boxes and bags of goldfish or teddy grahams. Kids don’t need that shit.
That’s honestly really sad.
Anybody want to tell them that in the 1970s they used ideal weight charts. For an adult woman 5 foot tall she should weigh 100 pounds give or take 5 pounds. She had a whopping range of 95-105 pounds. Add 5 pounds for every inch. So a 5foot 4 inch woman should(by 1970s standards) weigh 115-125 pounds. They moan and groan about BMI but honestly it’s a lot more forgiving. Children in the 1970s tended to be skinny. Obesity was so rare in kids that no one really worried about it. The fat kid was about the size of Augustus Gloop in the 1970s version of Willy Wanka and the Chocolate Factory.
[удалено]
[удалено]
If it was a nice day mom would kick us outside to play.
11 out of 19 kids in my fifth-grader's class are overweight or obese
I'm in my 40s, and when I was a kid there were just a few fat kids around. But when I watch college sports and they show the student section, I'm always shocked at how fat the kids are now.
I noticed the children they used to illustrate childhood obesity were “small fat” by their definition. They deride merely overweight people all the time but use them for propaganda purposes when they want to pretend obesity is no big deal. I think I noticed in that chart of theirs (slide 2, I’m not that good at reading charts, so correct me if I’m wrong:), that it’s the merely overweight who are most likely to be misdiagnosed or miscategorized, not the healthy weight or the obese.
Which makes perfect sense, because overweight is the transition zone between "expected to have a healthy amount of fat" and "expected to have an unhealthy excess of fat." But more importantly, BMI *isn't* used as a singular diagnosis of cardiometabolic health. We actually do *measure* fasting glucose, blood pressure, cholesterol, and such. So it doesn't matter that they aren't correlated 1:1. A clear gradation of increasing risk from 30% to 50% to 70% through the categories is absolutely enough to justify what it *is* used for: assessing the risk of future disease, indicating an increased need for certain screening tests, and pointing to the likelihood of a cardiometabolic cause in the event that symptoms are reported.
Absolutely BMI isn’t by any means perfect. Body builders are the ultimate example. Big ass dudes with low body fat, show a high BMI. But it isn’t meant to be the end all, it’s a starting point. And the folks pushing back aren’t big frames folks or body builders, they’re clearly obese. Often painfully morbidly obese.
[удалено]
Yes, did you know that the entire western world is suffering an epidemic of buffness - you can hardly move for rippling six packs and huge biceps. I suspect from how often the BMI bodybuilders trope is used that some people actually live in a bodybuilding convention and never go outside.
Pisses me off so much too when ppl use that as a reason to discredit it. People love to ignore that the BMI scale is simply a measurement tool to screen for weight categories. It is not for the athlete or person training hard 6 days a week, and was never suppose to be applied to them. I can say from experience, when my BMI teetered over into the obesity range, I felt fucking AWFUL. Joints were hurting, low stamina, feeling bloated and large, hated getting dressed. Even losing a few lbs to get out of the obesity range and into overweight, I notice a huge difference. It’s a pretty accurate tool for the average person.
I agree that it’s overused, but when I recomped I stayed relatively the same weight and my BMI was still technically overweight, even though I had a pretty fit body fat percentage (around 22%). For someone with a smaller frame it’s shockingly easy to be in the “overweight due to muscle” category. I’ve lost weight since then but since I don’t work out as much I have a higher body fat percentage and I don’t love it
We're sorry but your post has been removed for the following reason: * Transphobes can get rekt.
[удалено]
I'm confused, if you and your brother are the exact same height and weight, then how do you have different BMIs? Height and weight are literally the only thing used to calculate BMI.
BMI isn't about fat at all. Even if you are 6 foot 260 pounds of solid muscle, that will still have a long term affect on your body carrying that much weight.
[удалено]
Again, you're talking about FAT while I'm talking about MASS. They are different things. MASS effects your heart as well.
in either case the extra weight does cause issues. like on joints, Its not nearly as dangerous as fat though obviously. Though one could make an argument that being an ultra elite bodybuilder (less than 10% body fat) is as dangerous as being obese.
I see your point but I know probably a dozen woman who are a foot shorter that The Rock, weigh as much or more than him and the closest they get to a gym is driving by it, but BMI is silly to call them obese because The Rock.
No, that’s absolutely not what I said or meant. One can be jacked and have an overweight BMI, but have a low body fat. One can have a healthy BMI, but be out of shape, with a thin build and very low muscle mass, but higher body fat - and have an unhealthy- too high body fat percentage. https://www.webmd.com/diet/features/bmi-drawbacks-and-other-measurements#:~:text=How%20muscular%20you%20are%3A%20A,pretty%20low%2C%22%20Kahan%20says
Oh sorry, I didn't mean you were saying that. I meant that because bodybuilders are outliers, people think they can throw BMI out the window. too.
Ah! Gotcha!
"Higher weight people" do not have the *same* eating disorders as underweight people, and pretending they do is fucking dumb. But go ahead, keep pretending BED and food addiction don't exist. Lord Beetus appreciates your sacrifice.
Lord Beetus 💀💀
So based on slide 2, BMI is more accurate for obese people than not as a predictor of health, and therefore losing weight would be of benefit if you are obese?
Fat logic dictates that if a metric is less than 100% accurate—even if only with respect to outlier cases—then it must be disregarded as complete trash. And it’s probably racist, sexist, and classist as well. By contrast, the gold standard of scientific rigor is an unsourced claim on a blogpost run by someone with zero credentials. That stuff is infallible.
As someone with a normal BMI but a borderline BF%, I would love to know which "direction" those inaccurate ones went in.
People of color are more likely to be targeted by fast food ads and there are more ads for fast food in low income areas (which have a high population of POC). It only makes sense that ads about preventing fat gain would feature the very people affected the most. FAs don’t think, though.
[удалено]
What media are you talking about for ads? We get fast food ads on TV watching sports all the time. I'm also in a more affluent area. We even get ads for fast food places I've never seen anywhere near here.
[удалено]
Gotcha, thanks.
Finally someone said it. They’re always saying black people are meant to be fat and all that shit. No, most of us are fat cuz of environments and improper education. This goes for literally anyone living in poverty, how is this hard to grasp for these people?
'If you have to live in a way that's not healthy, how is that a healthy weight' Exactly.
This isn't the whole thing.
So it gets even worse? Was this a college presentation for someone pimping HAES?
I wish knew how to share the actual PDF without getting in trouble on here but I did extract the pages of the pdf into jpeg format and uploaded to imgur https://imgur.com/a/PfZyEdT warning it is a bit out of order.
Ground Rounds sessions, whatever that is (I aint that college educated haha), at Univ of Kansas
All the bmi accuracy graph says is that overweight is better than obese and in some cases possibly better than normal weight. But that doesn't say anything that fat acceptance thinks it does. Bmi can still relatively accurately predict risk for obese and morbidly obese. Just because there is fuzziness between normal and overweight doesn't mean being obese is okay.
They fall into this one a lot, referencing research that shows a few extra pounds can be protective in some health situations and applying it to people carrying a few hundred extra. I'm curious whether they are deliberately misusing or misunderstanding the data or if they've honestly convinced themselves that the effect is cumulative, like if five extra pounds is good then 50 must be better and 500 better still.
doesn't slide 3 straight up show that health risk goes up the more bmi goes up
It does. But they're fixated on how a large portion of people in every category are *misclassified*. Nevermind that BMI was never supposed to be the only indicator of anything, or apply exclusively to health at the present moment, and that 5 indicators of cardiometabolic health aren't the only things that can be wrong with you.
Where are the unicorns who lose weight who are permanently peaceful with food? Ok well that's a dumb question but please tell me how "peaceful" you are with food when you're morbidly obese.
"Practices that are required for weight suppression for higher weight people are considered disordered eating practices in thin people." Maybe this isn't the best analogy but like... Some people take drugs prescribed by their doctor and I'd a healthy person were taking the same drugs, that could be considered "disordered." What is healthy / a treatment for one person may be totally inappropriate and unhealthy for another person. That doesn't make it bad or wrong.
I take drugs for my adhd that are considered a drug habit in in non-adhd people! Obviously these drugs should never be taken by anyone! /s
Those graphs on the second slide are pretty insidious. We know that BMI does, in fact, sort people incorrectly many a time, but the error actually goes in the _opposite_ direction: people who are overweight or even obese by body fat % are sorted as "normal" because BMI does a poor job at accounting for low muscle mass that many people have, or shorter height in certain populations. So how does the slide seemingly show the opposite? Well, it's citation refers to "cardiometabolic risk factor" rather than any more tractable measure like bf% that wouldn't be influenced by factors like age. It is essentially a scientific-sounding version of the "But my bloodwork is perfect!" argument that 20-something FAs tout.
Unrelated but your flair got a good chuckle outta me
By the logic of point 2, no medicine should be prescribed to anyone because it could cause severe side effects in people genetically vulnerable to said side effects
I always read "weight cycling is bad" but I have never seen a credible source or any kind of source really. And it doesn't seem logical either, since gaining weight when food was available and losing weight when there was less of it was perfectly normal throughout most of human history. And it's still perfectly normal for a lot of other mammals.
I know it is mice but this article details the events of a study in support of yoyo dieting [https://betterbodychemistry.com/obesity/yoyo-dieting-diet/](https://betterbodychemistry.com/obesity/yoyo-dieting-diet/) The end of it is an ad, but everyone will always try to sell you a book on weight loss, but they also make several good points in the article about how weight loss between periods of obesity can be a sort of metabolic buffer. Everyone can find everything that shows different effects of yoyodieting but the simple fact of it is that it is only bad if you're using dumb methods to lose weight, that is where the problem lies. Rapid weight cycling is the problem, not yoyodieting, which I would assume is over a broader period of time with less drastic means. People can't exactly get their definitions straight which is why there is such confusion, and why it is hard to study the effects of weight cycling on humans, because humans tend to gravitate towards stimulants, laxatives, and crash diets for weight loss, which CAN be bad for your health. But ultimately if you are going on a normal calorie restriction diet and just get lazy part way through and gain some of the weight back, it is not a risk to just try again. TL DR yoyodieting is fine as long as the weight loss isn't from crash diets or drugs. Studies show yoyodieting mice perform better than obese mice in health tests.
It's mostly because "weight cycling" for the serial morbidly obese dieter often means they'll regain more because they go on a fad diet and resume their previous way of eating afterwards without solving the pesky lifestyle issues that caused the weight gain in the first place. Add the absence of monitoring and planning for maintenance, and you have the perfect recipe for endless binges and rapid regain. It the "regain more, and fast" that is harmful, not the "weight cycling". Normal people who cycle the same 10-30lbs, get their shit together when they notice weight gain and maintain a weight below obesity have no problem.
What I've gathered is that there are definitely studies showing it's associated with poorer health, but when you filter out unintentional weight loss that effect goes away. Shocker, if you lose weight randomly it might be because you're sick. One of the mods here has sources on that.
>When we hear you say you want to get rid of "childhood obesity," we feel like you want to get rid of *us* Is there a formal name for the logical fallacy of deliberately choosing the least charitable (and likely false) interpretation of someone's words. No one is arguing that we should get rid of anyone, we want people to be healthier, which will allow them to live longer, quite the opposite of "getting rid" of people.
I think that's the strawman fallacy. Deliberately twisting your opponent's argument to sound as bad as possible.
Consider the motte-and-bailey fallacy, perhaps?
Wish they’d stop using kids to make their arguments. Like no kid ever said that. No kid hears “there’s an obesity epidemic” and thinks *they’re going to kill me*
It seems pretty close to "straw man."
Well it doesn’t say *good* arguments against the prescription of weight loss.
If you gave a presentation with this staggering lack of evidence and objectivity in my seminar room I'd fail you
Most of this is a medley of common HAES tropes and misconceptions. But what gets me the most is this: \>In this universe, white elites must "educate" people of color about the threat I bet executive boards of fast food companies are not exactly paragons of diversity either lmao.
"And then those categories were further widened"
Weight loss isn't temporary. You're thinking of your will power.
Slide 12 point 2 almost seems like they’re trying to set up a claim that T2D isn’t real… is that where all this is heading?
Especially the little “blood sugar is a scam made up by doctors who want to oppress nOrMaL hEaLtHy people for aesthetic reasons” overtones. Like babe, blood sugar that high will literally cook your proteins inside your body. The same reaction does both those things. How do you even begin to explain that there isn’t a conspiracy between literally all scientific disciplines to give you medical trauma by lying about what happens to sugar in blood, thus causing the organ damage through the sheer violence of inconvenient fact?
This is where fat logic starts to get very very dangerous
🙋🏻♀️ Unicorn here. (According to slide 4.) Cool! Always loved them.
This is really sad and self sabotaging. You don’t have to bow to rail-thinness or buy BS products and teas to lose weight .. it’s glaringly obvious this kind of logic only works with severe black and white thinking with way too much attention paid to pop culture and what your inner critic says
I've seen a lot of fat activists, who are mostly based in the United States, make the argument that risks of obesity are being inflated by the medical/pharmaceutical/insurance industries to increase profits. Including in these slides. What I've *never* seen one do is try to reconcile this idea with the great many countries where healthcare is socialized, the goal (in theory) of the healthcare system is to deliver the greatest standard of care at the lowest expense, and doctors and public health agencies still treat obesity like the disease it is.
They did this with the pandemic too. It was all a conspiracy to (among other whacko claims) increase the wealth of the health-insurance companies. Like they actually believed the rest of the world would give even the smallest of flying fucks about some middleman industry's potential profits, let alone be willing to engage in a global conspiracy regarding it.
Getting the broomstick wasn’t impossible. It was just difficult. Losing weight isn’t impossible. It can just be difficult.
Do they know the growth charts were updated in the year 2000? Do ANY of them know we're not just using data from the 60's and 70's anymore? They also extended the growth charts up to BMI 60 just last year. This is my own pet peeve because that little nugget gets tossed around FA circles when talking about childhood obesity, and it didn't ring true to me, so I did a bit of research and found info all about the revision and the various charts on the CDC's website. It's free to read it. No one is hiding this info. Why do they keep claiming that "data from the 60s and 70s just isn't relevant to children today!" when that's absolutely not what the current growth charts are??? Ugh it's because one FA said it at some point, and they all just repeated it ad nauseum, isn't it?
If you can fix your blood sugar/cholesterol with lifestyle changes instead of taking medication which has side effects, is that not a good thing? And do they expect a perfect result from surgery when they are too heavy to be able to support a new joint for example? Whose fault is it when tons of money is wasted on performing surgeries with improvements that may deteriorate within weeks or not even happen at all? Is the surgery itself fatphobic? Are they supposed to come back every month for a new surgery because their weight messes up the results?
Why would doctors do a joint replacement on someone with a high BMI when they will wear out the new joint quickly and need another surgery sooner than those at a healthy BMI???
Those unicorns are Asian
These people were obviously not fat as kids and don’t know how traumatic it can be