Right but we are talking about being fat. Why isn't this guy fat? I eat bran cereal for breakfast, a banana and protein drink at 10, 250 calorie soup at lunch, an apple at 3, and then a vegetable and meat combo for supper. I also workout 30 minutes minimum per day. I am fat. This guy isn't. How is that explained?

While I generally agree with you Crompsin, I will take issue with your usage of BMI as evidence. The science(there is none, go figure) behind Body Mass Indexing is a load of crap. It was created as a statistical device before the turn of the 20th Century. It does not take into account lean muscle mass, nor does it take into account body structure. It's use is one of the things that irritates me with the whole "anti-fat" crowd (for lack of a better term).

Metabolism efficiency due to genetics. Some people are born into a body that can metabolize high calorie foods more efficiently than others. This doesn't make them immune to other effects of bad foods, but it can mean that this person will have a lower body fat percentage despite poor diet and little to no exercise.

It's not fair, I know. I myself have genes that require a lot of dieting and exercising. With only moderate dieting and 30 minutes a day of exercising, I'd be about 220 lbs. with a gut. With little to no exercise and poor diet, I'd likely be in the 260s.
-----Added 28/1/2009 at 03 : 36 : 58-----
Yeah, body fat percentage is a better method of measuring fat than BMI.

Wow, someone that finally agrees with me.

This is what I have been saying for years and years and most people want to flat out refuse to believe it.

Two people that eat the same thing everyday and yet one is fat and one isn't. That is very important data. Using that data you could conclude that a fat person may not eat themselves into oblivion, they may eat the same thing as you but simply have bad metabolism efficiency due to genetics.
-----Added 28/1/2009 at 03 : 48 : 31-----
Low Blood Pressure = Check
Regular Cholesterol = Check
Regular Blood Sugar = Check
Under 33% Body fat = well, I don't know mine, but my twin brother's is around 20% and I am in better shape than he is.

No, if you're fat, you're unhealthy. It doesn't go both ways. There's no one that looks like John Goodman on the outside and is built like Lance Armstrong on the inside. If you're over 33% body fat, you're overweight and if you're over (I think) 40%, you're obese.
Then you're not fat. 20% bod fat is average, healthy.

How am I not fat but I have a gigantic gut that I've had since I was 6 months old? When people see me they think "fat guy." I don't hide it because it's true.

http://photos-b.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-...83025_2167.jpg

I don't think you're less than 20% body fat. I'd guess you're around 24-25%. What does your exercise routine look like?

Oh, and I was wrong before. In men body fat percentage above 25% in men is obese. 18-25% is acceptable to overweight, 14-17% is fit, 6-13% is athletes. It's different for men and women.
http://www.healthchecksystems.com/bodyfat.htm

Lasereth, do you have a large stature? (ie. When you place your index finger and thumb around your wrist, do they touch?)

You look like you're an endomorph. You aren't supposed to be "skinny."

I'd say you're looking good. :thumbsup:

That's real cool, will, but you don't have to go further than the title of this thread to see the tone that was established and how it was acceptable to react to the topic. Most of comments made here do not fall into the category of 'legitimate.'

I don't see it as an unreasonable interpretation of how some might interpret the article, though. They'll graze through it, miss the fact that the virus likely only lasts 3 months, and then think they're fat because they caught it.

It's not illegitimate to make it clear that there are clear and proven causes for being overweight and there are clear and proven methods to become lean and healthy.

All of the fat people I know, know exactly how they got fat and why they stay that way. Sorry, but I see these threads as opportunistic avenues for judgment based on the specious assumption that most fat people deny why they are fat. Fat people are fat, not stupid.

There's a difference between being in denial and being stupid, and you know that. All you have to do is look at sales of the Hollywood Diet (drinking fruit juice for 48 days and supposedly losing 10 lbs.), the cabbage diet (eating almost nothing but cabbage soup for a week, lose 10 lbs.), the Master Cleanse (nothing but lemonade for 10-40 days), and it becomes frighteningly clear that many, many people are confused and are making bad decisions due to denial and a lack of education on health. I'm glad none of your friends apparently fit into that statistics, but maybe, just maybe, there are some people that need to hear "eat right and exercise" now and again to put them on or keep them on the right track. It's not a judgment party, it's an attempt at a solution.

But if they are attempting to diet, then obviously they understand that they are fat and what the reason for that is, right? Where is the denial? Denial of the proper method of losing weight?
That has not been the issue at hand in much of this thread and its not what I've been responding to.
-----Added 28/1/2009 at 05 : 07 : 19-----
I think you are confusing the very common tendency for people to look for an easy way out of their problems with denial.

Denial of what's making them fat and how to deal with it would be what I'm referring to. If you think you're fat because of a virus, then you may not choose diet and exercise as a remedy. If you think you're fat because you're big-boned/endomorphic/etc., you may think there's nothing you can do. If you think you're fat because it's genetic (which is possible), you may not know that it could be as simple as a slight diet and exercise change to become a much healthier shape.

Whenever you talk about obesity or fat, it makes sense that the conversation can turn towards causes and remedies. The thread title was, through sarcasm, pointing out that a virus isn't really an excuse for being fat and it won't likely lead you to a solution. In doing so, he was attempting to eliminate something that could facilitate denial (which I called enabling above).


Just so we're clear, I don't think any overweight or obese people are stupid, or even gullible. Having been overweight, though, I know things can be difficult. There are a lot of distractions and red herrings just waiting to prey on you at the first sign of wavering from a path to good health. It's not all healthy options like Jenny Craig or Men's Health; there are a lot of bad options disguised as good options out there, and denial of the real path to good health—diet and exercise—can facilitate giving into the temptation of a false hope.

You're bouncing all over the place here, will, and I don't appreciate it.
I have neither the need nor the inclination to dance with you.

Didn't medical researchers in the 50's say that close dancing could contribute to unwanted pregnancies. This sounds like the same lunacy.

I'm sorry to have offended you, but that wasn't my intent. I'm trying to figure out why I, among others, am being accused of ridicule.
What an odd thing to say.

What gets me about people who are obese, is that they constantly make excuses for their weight. I have RARELY heard someone who's skinny complain that they need to gain weight. Now, I realize that some skinny people have the tendency to OVERcontrol how much they eat and are obsessed with being thin. BUT they're not complaining about their extra weight, or making excuses, or complaining that the airplane seats aren't made to fit them(or in their case have too little padding so that their bones hurt their ass when they sit), or complaining that they just can't do this or that because their too tired, feet hurt, ankles are swollen, or other numerous problems that come with obesity.

I have to be extremely careful about what I eat just to maintain a 22% BMI and I have to exercise. There are so many people out there though who try to make excuses instead of getting up off their butt and TRYING to loose a little weight.

I worked on a house last summer installing new siding. The homeowners were getting a grant from the state to winterize their home. The husband had a part time job but nothing more. MOST of the time we were working on the house the two homeowners were sitting in the livingroom watching TV in the middle of a filthy house with garbage everywhere and a coating of dust on everything that looked as if it had been several years since anything had been cleaned. I mean, after replacing a window and vacuuming up our mess, the floor under the window was worlds cleaner than the rest of the carpeting anywhere else. EVERY time I walked through their livingroom I saw them with a bag of chips, soda (the man was drinking from a LITER bottle, not a glass), or many other kinds of junk food. One day the two of them devored 2 frozen pizzas for lunch and complained that they were still hungry. Oh poor them, they're starving, getting money from the government and can't bother to take their dog for a walk around the block even. Too many people behave like that - they just HAPPEN to be fat too, because of it. I think that's the reason that healthy people complain about people who are overweight. The majority of people who are overweight are not that way because of anything other than their own choices. In fact I have a friend who had a portion of her thyroid removed because of problems she was having. Now she has to take thyroid hormones to maintain a normal energy level. She isn't the least bit fat but only because she exercises daily and doesn't overindulge.

This victim mentality, even to the point of complaining that people pick on your because of something, is way out of hand. When will these 'victims' start taking some responsibility for their choices?

This makes me violent and I totally agree.

We accept people who are handicapped because they had no say in their condition. Getting hit by a car and put in a wheelchair? That sucks. Let me help you.

Now we also accept people who are handicapped because they're conveyor belts and storage units of fat calories.

We're not self-righteous assholes for disapproving of the former. It's not much different than the feeling associated crackheads. You wish they would straighten up their act, get some help, etc.

It's easy for the "You're just another fat-people hater!" types to assume that we're referring to everybody who is overweight. Not true. Just the bored gelatinous spoon tyrants.

...

I'm wondering where the "food addict" point is floating around. I want to compare to heroin addicts to Ben 'n Jerry's addicts in this thread.

...

Somebody with a college education explain to me why Japanese adults and America adults have drastically different waistlines. We're all human, right?

Fair comments, but I'm uncertain about where you're going. I hope it doesn't get as far as my having to say it's like telling depressed people to lighten the fuck up.

What are you getting at? You know this isn't just about physiology and simple food choices, right?

Culture and diet usually have strong links to one another. Just look at omega-3 content alone.

the world health organization points to two major causes of obesity rates globally--which have drastically increased over the past decade or so:

there's alot more here:
WHO | Obesity

naturally, when the initial who reports came out, the bush administration had a Problem with it because it points to structural factors, many of which are directly linked to the american industrial food system and to changes in work and transportation that are linked to the "american way of life"---instead, the bush people preferred to talk in terms not unlike many of the folk above--structural factors are neutral, and it's all a matter of atttitude blah blah blah.

but that's bullshit.
of course, thinking in terms of structural factors tends to short circuit the fun and excitement of self-righteous blather---but maybe that blather is really little more than that--mixed with an avoidance of difficult problems that lead to kinda important questions (like does the american industrial food model, in its subordination of food production to profit maximization, really make sense?) in favor of a kind of nitwit empiricism, so that only what's in front of your face is real.

Yes, but healthy food isn't scarce, rb. It's not like the only options available to us are full of high fructose corn syrup or deep fried in processed animal fats. Sure, we get advertisements shoved down our throats, but we also get tons of advertisements and product placement for American cars and those don't seem to dictate our shopping.

In other words, while the "structural factors" do come into play, I don't think they're the primary reason.

I have never struggled with my weight but I think I was born that way. My entire family is thin and healthy.

One problem with overweight people, especially the ones I have known is that they are either disinterested in the quality of the food they should eat or are so trained to stuff themselves that they rarely enjoy their food. Eating is a means to an end until the fridge door opens again.

This "full" mentality is just something very foreign to my way of thinking. The need to always feel full drives these people. It is something like smoking. When I quit several years ago, once and a while I would get a craving. But instead of lighting up, I knew the urge would pass. If people ate normal amounts instead of stuffing themselves, the stomach will shrink to accomodate only the food which is needed.

I think obesity and boredom go hand in hand as well. If you are sitting and waiting around until your next feed time, you are going to expand. No one exercises these days. Just walking 20 minutes a day is a start on the right road. But when the boredom sets in, so does the laziness.

I know some people have medical conditions and can't help their weight. I work with a woman who does nothing but bitch about her weight. Oddly enough, it is everyone elses problem that she is obese except herself. "The cafeteria serves only fatty foods", umm the salad bar is only about 40 feet long- turn your freakin' head in that direction. "My husband does the shopping", so tell him to buy the food you want to eat to put an effort forth. "I can't exercise because my doctor said it could bring on a stroke", yawn- well then keep eating.

So fat people who are tidy and don't drink out of 2L bottles are okay?

If these people were thin it would be okay?

Why is the fact that these people are fat even relevant?

rb makes a very important point when he mentions the misguided importance of 'what you see in front of your face.' Obesity is an issue for most people only because of what they see - and the stereotypes they ascribe to what they see. If a thin person drinks out of a milk jug or a 2L bottle it is uncouth, at worst. If a fat person does it, it is repulsive and indicative of something more than just a bad habit. It is simply not fair and is the same sort of thinking that leads to racism, sexism and all other sorts of prejudicial -isms.

And the bottom line is, as always - it's none of your damn business anyway. (That is the collective you.)

that depends entirely on where you are, both geographically and economically.
this applies not only within the united states, but in the world.
obesity is not only an american problem. it's global.
and this is pretty basic.

the problem with confronting these facts is that it undercuts the self-righteousness, which starts from the assumption that everywhere is just like where you are--so that the same range of alternatives you have are everywhere. that's obvious false.

the second is that the economic position you occupy is universal. that's just goofy.

the third is that the way you are is the way everyone should be, so that any "failing" can be judged easily. this is a variant of the others, and is only worth noting because it seems to be the sanctimoniousness generator.

i'm not going to bother to connect the dots.

So you're suggesting that fat people don't have access to healthy foods? Economically, I've already had the debate about how unhealthy food is cheaper. It's not. I'm more than willing to demonstrate that again. The assumption then falls to location. Well, there are more obese people in the US than anywhere else on the planet. Are you suggesting that people in the US don't have access to healthy foods? How is it that they can have access to unhealthy foods and not have access to healthy foods? Even 7/11 has sandwiches with lean meats an veggies on wheat bread. Even McDonalds has salads that you don't have to eat the dressing with. Where are these mystery locations where people only have access to unhealthy foods?
I don't think it's honest to call obesity a global problem. Obesity is really only common among westernized cultures, and it's really only a problem in the US, Mexico, and the UK, namely the US.
Assuming that obesity is a global problem assumes that everywhere is like we are, which isn't the case. But most places with any kind of media do have advertisements for McDonalds and Pepsi, just like the US. If you don't believe me, we can travel to Italy, Japan, and other places that don't have high obesity rates.
No one should be like me. One is more than enough.

People should, though, take responsibility for their health, and it's not some horrible intrusion of privacy to point out that some people are obese and they should do something about it. It's not ridicule to say "You have a fault, and you should do this about it".

It's a global problem.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/image...ity_gr_men.gif

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/image...y_gr_women.gif

WHO :: Global Database on Body Mass Index

this should be accessible for free---i think it is anyway:

Dietary Implications of Supermarket Development: A Global Perspective
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/c...29500/PDFSTART

I was just browsing this. And before someone says "BMI isn't an accurate measure for body fat," look at the data on this site. The BMI makeup of these nations aren't reflecting thousands of bodybuilders; you can see data of the changes in diet over the past 30+ years. Many nations have seen an increase in average daily calories by as much as 750 calories within 20 years. Some go as high as 3,000 calories/day. That's an average. Look at China alone since the '70s. They've nearly doubled their average calories. And these extra calories aren't coming mainly from rice...it's sugar, fats, oils, eggs, meat, etc.

You can see data like this for nations around the world. Look at changes in BMI over time.

If you think obesity isn't becoming an increasing global problem, look again.

i added the article on supermarkets while you were posting, baraka...it's also interesting.

Thanks. I don't have the time to look at all that yet, but I'm intrigued.

If you had been in Japan for a long time, you would have noticed the increase in the numbers of fat people, especially fat kids. When i was young, i did not see fat kids in Japan.

Of course, you can chalk that up to an increase in the Moral Deficiency Index, but looking for the changes in how and what people eat the last 40 years might give some clues as to how to address the problem.

just in case it doesn't work, here's the cite:


Corinna Hawkes: Dietary Implications of Supermarket Development: A Global Perspective
in Development Policy Review, Volume 26, Issue 6 (p 657-692)

here's the main page for the journal, so there's an alternate way to navigate to the piece:
Development Policy Review - Journal Information

First, that's based on BMI, not body fat percentage. Second, the US is missing.

The U.S. is worse than average, you can be sure.

WHO :: Global Database on Body Mass Index

Take the time to have a look. The U.S. is in there.

I was there in 2002, and there weren't anywhere near as many obese people as there are here. And the SF Bay Area is generally ranked among the more healthy places.

The last time I went to Fresno, I didn't see anyone that wasn't overweight, and I was there for a few days. And Fresno is surrounded by healthy produce. Geography and economics may factor in to some small degree on some places, but I cannot accept that they are primary causes for obesity.
-----Added 29/1/2009 at 03 : 13 : 53-----
That was my point. If the US is more obese, and we clearly have more access to produce than others due to location and economics, I have to say that disproves the theory that geography and economics are the deciding factors when it comes to obesity.

Will, you're assuming the U.S. is homogenized when it comes to geography and economics.

No, I'm asking for something more than just "you're wrong, Will" when I say that people have access to healthy foods.

People aren't "homogenized" on my block, even. We have several millionaire neighbors and several low income neighbors. We all manage to get food, though, and the poor and rich each have access to healthy foods. Is it the same healthy foods? Not necessarily. I suspect that the more affluent shop at Trader Joe's and I've bumped into them at Whole Foods, but I've also bumped into a neighbor at the Safeway around the corner, where food is a lot cheaper. Still, Safeway still carries healthy foods. And cheap healthy foods. You can get a huge bag of lentils for practically nothing. Where in the US are you cut off from access to lentils? Or canned fruits and veggies? Or even frozen fruits and veggies?

it's not that you're entirely wrong, will--it's just that the position you're arguing is way too simple, and that this is a kinda fucked up thread for a serious discussion on this question because it departs from that loopy faux-news story about the "fat virus"...

when i have some time, i'll see if i can find the study on the supermarket geography in the states, particularly in urban areas---the article i posted to references it and other materials---fact is that peoples's choices are differentially constrained, that it's simply not the case that everyone has the same kind of access to a range of types of food. it simply isn't the case in the united states.

the problems of supermarkets (you know, mainstream ones) and their intertwining with the industrial food system is another central issue--on that the article above is quite good. and it's good on the consequences of that. again, what folk *can* choose between is differentially constrained--there's no one-size-fits-all explanation.

and this is a global problem. if you look at it in more global terms, the structural features emerge pretty clearly and function to situate--and to a significant extent diminsh the role of--the moral impairment arguments that seem so popular in these threads.

this isn't to say that there are no people whose choices are not the driver behind obesity--but it is to say that you have to think in more complex ways about obesity--and treat it as a social problem---not to fall into the all-too-easy trap of reducing it to one or another version of a matter of "will"---all that's changed from one end of the thread to this one is that the language of that argument has become a bit more polite, and so the space is now not so repellent that folk who oppose that "explanation" are not inclined to provide other information.

what you do with it is up to you, of course.

and there's alot more information available. this isn't an easy problem. it really isnt.