Down with "fattism"...

[Lootifer]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/ ... ed-scholar

I think you know where I stand on the matter...

[Haggis_McMutton]

I'm all for the Louis C.K. solution

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FB81Ho-hAoA&t=1m55s

[saxitoxin]

How can New Zealand be the third fattest nation in the world? The whole country is one big fucking beach.

[notyou2]

How can New Zealand be the third fattest nation in the world? The whole country is one big fucking beach.

and sheep

[BigBallinStalin]

"Fat hatred" should be banned like racism or sexism, says a pro-fat scholar who argues that obesity isn't a health problem.

By scholar, does the author mean "semi-literature blogger"?



In Taiwan, if a foreigner was fat, the locals would make sure that the foreigner knew she or he was fat. They weren't even be rude because they say it so matter-of-factly. We need that attitude in the US. Then, fat people could either accept themselves for who they are, thus not becoming annoyed, or if they get annoyed, then obviously they should fix their fat problem.

[saxitoxin]

In Taiwan, if a foreigner was fat, the locals would make sure that the foreigner knew she or he was fat.

elaborate on this a bit

[BigBallinStalin]

"Oh, wow, you're (so) fat."

"Oh, you're fat, did you know?"

"Ooh, you should eat less."


Something along those lines. Nothing dangerous, and it wasn't mean-spirited. Just matter-of-factly.

I found it to be hilarious.

[Army of GOD]

but you have to say it with a Tawainese accent

"ohhh, you so fat!"

[nagerous]

Does this whole equality thing mean I have to hook up with as many fat birds as I do fit birds?

[tkr4lf]

Related?

http://www.cracked.com/quick-fixes/fat-officially-incurable-according-to-science/

[Symmetry]

How can New Zealand be the third fattest nation in the world? The whole country is one big fucking beach.

Obesity is usually judged on outdated "ideal body weight" metrics, and everyone knows that the Lord of the Rings movies were filmed in New Zealand (using green screen to filter out all the beaches). Hobbits, ents, orcs and elves will tend to distort what can be considered a healthy weight.

[tkr4lf]

Related?

http://www.cracked.com/quick-fixes/fat-officially-incurable-according-to-science/

You guys should really give that article a good read. Pretty interesting stuff.

[BigBallinStalin]

How rare? Well, this person did the math, and as far as they could tell, two out of 1,000 Weight Watchers customers actually maintain large weight losses permanently. Two out of a thousand. That means if you are fat, you are 25 times more likely to survive getting shot in the head than to stop being fat

Oh, wait a minute. This study implies that the Weight Watchers diet is ineffective.

It doesn't support the author's earlier point that "You can lose and keep off some minor amount, 10 or 15 pounds, for the rest of your life -- it's hard, but it can be done. Rarer cases may keep off a little more. But no one goes from actually fat to actually thin and stays thin permanently."


The second study he mentions only looks at "structured weight-loss programs," which compare only dieting. From the abstract, there's no mention of those who regularly exercise; it seems to be only about dieting programs.

So, if that's true, then this article is total bullshit because the studies confirm that weight-loss programs that only involve dieting on average suck, to use a technical term. After skimming through the 2nd study, it's apparent that they're only talking about diet programs and not exercise programs.

I still can't believe I interpreted this correctly. Either I'm wrong, or the author is being an irresponsible idiot for writing a totally unfounded conclusion of his own. Maybe too much of his fat is interfering with his bias.

[tkr4lf]

Still, this part especially is interesting.

"Well, just stop eating so much!" Sure, kid. To feel what it's like, try this: Go, say, just 72 hours without eating anything. See how long it is until the starvation mechanism kicks in and the brain starts hammering you with food urges with such machine gun frequency that it is basically impossible to resist. That's what life is like for a formerly fat person all the time. Their starvation switch is permanently on. And they're not going 72 hours, they're trying to go the rest of their lives. Don't take my word for it. Here's a breakdown of the science, in plain English. It's like being an addict where the withdrawal symptoms last for decades.

As that article explains, the person who is at 175 pounds after a huge weight loss now has a completely different physical makeup from the person who is naturally 175 -- exercise benefits them less, calories are more readily stored as fat, the impulse to eat occurs far, far more often. The formerly fat person can exercise ten times the willpower of the never-fat guy, and still wind up fat again. The impulses are simply more frequent, and stronger, and the physical consequences of giving in are more severe. The people who successfully do it are the ones who become psychologically obsessive about it, like that weird guy who built an Eiffel Tower out of toothpicks.

This is the article that these 2 paragraphs are based on. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/magazine/tara-parker-pope-fat-trap.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

The Australian scientist's study that the article starts out with says that after the weight loss, the participants were in contact with nutritionists who encouraged them to exercise regularly and to eat more vegetables and less fat. Now, whether they actually did exercise regularly or not is debatable. But if they did, then it would, at least partially, validate the Cracked article.

[BigBallinStalin]

I recall listening to a professor on abnormal psychology mention that for most people it takes about 4-5 years to permanently adjust your eating habits, which explains why so many people gain weight as their metabolism rate decreases.

[tkr4lf]

I recall listening to a professor on abnormal psychology mention that for most people it takes about 4-5 years to permanently adjust your eating habits, which explains why so many people gain weight as their metabolism rate decreases.

I read somewhere (I think in another Cracked article, which means it could be true or it could not be true...but whatever) that fat people actually have higher metabolism than thin people. It explained Metabolism as simply the body doing it's job, doing the things it needs to do. It says something along the lines of fat people have higher metabolism because it takes their bodies significantly more energy and effort to do the things it has to get done. Thin people have lower metabolisms since their bodies can accomplish the same tasks with less energy.

That was how it explained it anyway. I think it was one of those articles about common misconceptions that people hold as truths. If I can find the article, I'll link to it.

[Symmetry]

I recall listening to a professor on abnormal psychology mention that for most people it takes about 4-5 years to permanently adjust your eating habits, which explains why so many people gain weight as their metabolism rate decreases.

Not really, eating habits and metabolism are linked, sure, but eating habits can be altered in a day.

Metabolic adjustment could well take time, maybe even years, but eating habits?

[Lootifer]

How rare? Well, this person did the math, and as far as they could tell, two out of 1,000 Weight Watchers customers actually maintain large weight losses permanently. Two out of a thousand. That means if you are fat, you are 25 times more likely to survive getting shot in the head than to stop being fat

Oh, wait a minute. This study implies that the Weight Watchers diet is ineffective.

It doesn't support the author's earlier point that "You can lose and keep off some minor amount, 10 or 15 pounds, for the rest of your life -- it's hard, but it can be done. Rarer cases may keep off a little more. But no one goes from actually fat to actually thin and stays thin permanently."


The second study he mentions only looks at "structured weight-loss programs," which compare only dieting. From the abstract, there's no mention of those who regularly exercise; it seems to be only about dieting programs.

So, if that's true, then this article is total bullshit because the studies confirm that weight-loss programs that only involve dieting on average suck, to use a technical term. After skimming through the 2nd study, it's apparent that they're only talking about diet programs and not exercise programs.

I still can't believe I interpreted this correctly. Either I'm wrong, or the author is being an irresponsible idiot for writing a totally unfounded conclusion of his own. Maybe too much of his fat is interfering with his bias.

Let alone the fact that paid-for diet programs are incentivised to get you to lose weight, then put it back on; otherwise they'd never have repeat customers.

The hormonal stuff makes sense though. So maybe the answer is hormonal treatment?

The other more likely option, imo, is the single minded approach imbalances your body. If you just focus on the incoming (calories eaten) and ignore for the most part the outgoing (calories consumed) then of course your body is going to scream for food.

People say things like "oh yeh I walk every day - i get plenty of exercise" I call horseshit. People are lazy and refuse to acknowledge what actual exercise means.

You need to guzzle, in steady state existence (ie every day forever), at least 300-400 cals worth of exercise per day on average (you can have as many rest days you like but the more rest, the more you need to do the next day). The problem is to do this if you dont actually want to put in any effort you have to walk for in excess of an hour.

Sorry fatties, but if you want to keep weight off you have to run; you have to get that sluggish, seldom extended, heartrate up above 140; you have to sweat; you actually have to work.

5 minute programs, yoga, walking, and other shit is all good stuff; but if thats all you do then you will put the weight back on. It is simply not enough, even if you maintain a good diet (as the report rightly says, dieting is HARD).

Also the "fat burning" zone is one of the greatest failures in exercise physiology. Yes you burn a higher proportion of fat at lower heart rates. However if you only have 30 minutes for exercise every day you will burn a shit load more fat at 150 BPM than 120 BPM; you will also consume a bunch more carbs and you can then go home and actually satisfy that urge for cake.

Exercise or gtfo.

[Lootifer]

I recall listening to a professor on abnormal psychology mention that for most people it takes about 4-5 years to permanently adjust your eating habits, which explains why so many people gain weight as their metabolism rate decreases.

I read somewhere (I think in another Cracked article, which means it could be true or it could not be true...but whatever) that fat people actually have higher metabolism than thin people. It explained Metabolism as simply the body doing it's job, doing the things it needs to do. It says something along the lines of fat people have higher metabolism because it takes their bodies significantly more energy and effort to do the things it has to get done. Thin people have lower metabolisms since their bodies can accomplish the same tasks with less energy.

That was how it explained it anyway. I think it was one of those articles about common misconceptions that people hold as truths. If I can find the article, I'll link to it.

Completely true.

Thats why if you stand on a treadmill, to get an accurate calorie count you need to enter your weight. Carrying 120kg 5km takes a heap more energy than carrying 75kg the same distance.

The same (but not as obvious) applies to normal non exercise living. You need to pump blood further, you need to feed more cells with oxygen, etc etc; think of it like an engine, takes more energy to idle a big ole chevvy than it does to turn a scooter over.

That supports the notion that exercise is a highly critical element and we literally just need to do more work.

[Lootifer]

Also @ fat guy with urges writing cracked article:

Get fucked fatty; I try to hold my weight constant, I exercise 6 days a week, I. AM. ALWAYS. FUCKING. HUNGERY. ALWAYS.

[tkr4lf]

Also @ fat guy with urges writing cracked article:

Get fucked fatty; I try to hold my weight constant, I exercise 6 days a week, I. AM. ALWAYS. FUCKING. HUNGERY. ALWAYS.

lol

How rare? Well, this person did the math, and as far as they could tell, two out of 1,000 Weight Watchers customers actually maintain large weight losses permanently. Two out of a thousand. That means if you are fat, you are 25 times more likely to survive getting shot in the head than to stop being fat

Oh, wait a minute. This study implies that the Weight Watchers diet is ineffective.

It doesn't support the author's earlier point that "You can lose and keep off some minor amount, 10 or 15 pounds, for the rest of your life -- it's hard, but it can be done. Rarer cases may keep off a little more. But no one goes from actually fat to actually thin and stays thin permanently."


The second study he mentions only looks at "structured weight-loss programs," which compare only dieting. From the abstract, there's no mention of those who regularly exercise; it seems to be only about dieting programs.

So, if that's true, then this article is total bullshit because the studies confirm that weight-loss programs that only involve dieting on average suck, to use a technical term. After skimming through the 2nd study, it's apparent that they're only talking about diet programs and not exercise programs.

I still can't believe I interpreted this correctly. Either I'm wrong, or the author is being an irresponsible idiot for writing a totally unfounded conclusion of his own. Maybe too much of his fat is interfering with his bias.

Let alone the fact that paid-for diet programs are incentivised to get you to lose weight, then put it back on; otherwise they'd never have repeat customers.

The hormonal stuff makes sense though. So maybe the answer is hormonal treatment?

The other more likely option, imo, is the single minded approach imbalances your body. If you just focus on the incoming (calories eaten) and ignore for the most part the outgoing (calories consumed) then of course your body is going to scream for food.

People say things like "oh yeh I walk every day - i get plenty of exercise" I call horseshit. People are lazy and refuse to acknowledge what actual exercise means.

You need to guzzle, in steady state existence (ie every day forever), at least 300-400 cals worth of exercise per day on average (you can have as many rest days you like but the more rest, the more you need to do the next day). The problem is to do this if you dont actually want to put in any effort you have to walk for in excess of an hour.

Sorry fatties, but if you want to keep weight off you have to run; you have to get that sluggish, seldom extended, heartrate up above 140; you have to sweat; you actually have to work.

5 minute programs, yoga, walking, and other shit is all good stuff; but if thats all you do then you will put the weight back on. It is simply not enough, even if you maintain a good diet (as the report rightly says, dieting is HARD).

Also the "fat burning" zone is one of the greatest failures in exercise physiology. Yes you burn a higher proportion of fat at lower heart rates. However if you only have 30 minutes for exercise every day you will burn a shit load more fat at 150 BPM than 120 BPM; you will also consume a bunch more carbs and you can then go home and actually satisfy that urge for cake.

Exercise or gtfo.

As for this...I completely agree. In order to lose weight effectively, you should decrease caloric input and increase caloric output. And to keep it off requires a total lifestyle change. I'm actually in the process of this now.

For a while, I stopped caring about anything really. I let myself go, gained a bunch of weight, etc. For the past 1.5-2 months I've been dieting seriously, exercising seriously, and it has payed off. And like you said, it's not that walking crap. Sure, that helps, but it's not enough. I do weight training and swim laps (currently up to 70 at a time) for two days on, take one day off. So far I've lost 25 pounds. I feel like it would be more, but some of that fat is turning into muscle from the weight training, so it's balancing out.

I guess I'll find out eventually how much the article applies to me, but I honestly feel like with an actual lifestyle change, the weight loss can be permanent. I mean sure, if after I lose all the weight I want to, I go back to eating crap food all the time and never exercising, then of course I'm going to put the weight back on. But I think that continuing the diet, eating healthy almost all of the time, letting myself splurge once every week or two, and maintaining my exercise regimen, then I can keep that weight off.

And I honestly feel like if I can do it, then anybody can, because when it comes to self-discipline and willpower in regards to food/drugs, stuff of that nature, I'm woefully lacking. That's why I think it requires an actual lifestyle change. Without changing the way you think and behave about life and in regards to your health, then I think you may actually be doomed to a constant rollercoaster ride of losing the weight and then putting it back on. Dieting as just something you're doing for the time doesn't work so well. Dieting as a lifestyle does work.




As for the actual OP, I don't really care either way. Some people are jerks to fat people, some people aren't. It doesn't really bother me. I mean, hell, I find fat people just as disgusting as most skinny people do, and I am one of them. I wasn't always, but I have become one. Maybe the constant belittling will encourage the fatties of the world to do something about it. It didn't in my case, I just kind of said "whatever." But I had clinical depression and didn't really give a shit about anything else, so why would I about that. Maybe what will actually help them is for them to feel good about themselves enough to want to change. Changing for somebody else rarely works. Changing for yourself works out a lot of the time.

But as far as fattism goes, I don't think that's a real thing. Racism, sexism, ageism, etc., those are all real things. They are hatred for another because of something they were born with, or cannot control. The vast majority of fat people had control over getting to that point. They chose to keep eating so much, or to not exercise at all. Black people didn't choose to be black, nor gay people to be gay. So I don't really think the same things apply to racism, homophobia, etc. and fattism. I think perhaps the people that get so up in arms about "fattism" are fatties themselves who don't want to put forth the massive effort required to change, but don't want to be called out on their unhealthy lifestyles. Just my view as a formerly fit person, turned fat person, now turning back (albeit, slowly) into a fit person.

[Army of GOD]

But as far as fattism goes, I don't think that's a real thing. Racism, sexism, ageism, etc., those are all real things.

meh, I think that's just a complicated discussion. Like, putting something like racism or sexism into action is one thing and is very bad (I mention those two specifically because ageism, heightism, fattism etc. are rarely reasons for physical discrimination). I mean like when an employer doesn't give someone a job because they're black, or a woman, or a black woman. Same goes for things like hate crimes based on race or sexual orientation or whatever.

I've always been of the opinion that making fun of someone because of their race, sex, age, height, gender etc is ok, on the other hand. And I mean friendly "haha you're a fat f*ck" or "haha you love dick in your ass" or "haha you're so short you need to sit on top of books when you drive" (I get that a lot, for some reason). Not complete verbal beat downs that leave the victim in tears though.

So yes, I'll make fun of fat people, in a friendly way. If that's "fattism", then oh well.

[Dibbun]

Everyone against fattism is a fat f*ck.

[BigBallinStalin]

I recall listening to a professor on abnormal psychology mention that for most people it takes about 4-5 years to permanently adjust your eating habits, which explains why so many people gain weight as their metabolism rate decreases.

Not really, eating habits and metabolism are linked, sure, but eating habits can be altered in a day.

Metabolic adjustment could well take time, maybe even years, but eating habits?

Yeah, eating habits, as in forcing yourself to consume less than normal. Your body/brain will still feel hungry because it's used to consuming the previously normal amount, so for awhile it'll keep sending signals that you should consume the "normal" amount.

[BigBallinStalin]

How rare? Well, this person did the math, and as far as they could tell, two out of 1,000 Weight Watchers customers actually maintain large weight losses permanently. Two out of a thousand. That means if you are fat, you are 25 times more likely to survive getting shot in the head than to stop being fat

Oh, wait a minute. This study implies that the Weight Watchers diet is ineffective.

It doesn't support the author's earlier point that "You can lose and keep off some minor amount, 10 or 15 pounds, for the rest of your life -- it's hard, but it can be done. Rarer cases may keep off a little more. But no one goes from actually fat to actually thin and stays thin permanently."


The second study he mentions only looks at "structured weight-loss programs," which compare only dieting. From the abstract, there's no mention of those who regularly exercise; it seems to be only about dieting programs.

So, if that's true, then this article is total bullshit because the studies confirm that weight-loss programs that only involve dieting on average suck, to use a technical term. After skimming through the 2nd study, it's apparent that they're only talking about diet programs and not exercise programs.

I still can't believe I interpreted this correctly. Either I'm wrong, or the author is being an irresponsible idiot for writing a totally unfounded conclusion of his own. Maybe too much of his fat is interfering with his bias.

Let alone the fact that paid-for diet programs are incentivised to get you to lose weight, then put it back on; otherwise they'd never have repeat customers.

The hormonal stuff makes sense though. So maybe the answer is hormonal treatment?

The other more likely option, imo, is the single minded approach imbalances your body. If you just focus on the incoming (calories eaten) and ignore for the most part the outgoing (calories consumed) then of course your body is going to scream for food.

People say things like "oh yeh I walk every day - i get plenty of exercise" I call horseshit. People are lazy and refuse to acknowledge what actual exercise means.

You need to guzzle, in steady state existence (ie every day forever), at least 300-400 cals worth of exercise per day on average (you can have as many rest days you like but the more rest, the more you need to do the next day). The problem is to do this if you dont actually want to put in any effort you have to walk for in excess of an hour.

Sorry fatties, but if you want to keep weight off you have to run; you have to get that sluggish, seldom extended, heartrate up above 140; you have to sweat; you actually have to work.

5 minute programs, yoga, walking, and other shit is all good stuff; but if thats all you do then you will put the weight back on. It is simply not enough, even if you maintain a good diet (as the report rightly says, dieting is HARD).

Also the "fat burning" zone is one of the greatest failures in exercise physiology. Yes you burn a higher proportion of fat at lower heart rates. However if you only have 30 minutes for exercise every day you will burn a shit load more fat at 150 BPM than 120 BPM; you will also consume a bunch more carbs and you can then go home and actually satisfy that urge for cake.

Exercise or gtfo.

Hey loot, when you see a fat person, do you scream, "GET SOME EXERCISE, YOU FAT BASTARD!!!" ?

Just wondering!