If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Demonising fat people
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Sorry I was getting wound up:o
You've done precisely the same thing though in your assumption though. It wasn't about laziness.
Calories going in vs. calories going out = either loss or gain. If you naturally burn up more calories (metabolism) then it will be easier, if you don't then it will be harder. But it's not impossible for anyone to lose weight. I watched a documentry about this 50 stone guy in Brazil I think it was, he was really determined to lose weight and did. I can't find the link now, but here's another link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4818036.stm
It's not impossible, it may be difficult. That's why I was saying "its common sense" if more goes in than comes out you're going to put on weight. Conversly, cut down on calories by eating food less loaded with sugars and carbohydrates, increase your activity levels so you're using more energy and it will drop off. It does not relate to laziness. It's not a victimisation of overweight people that they're being lazy.
I think some people on this thread have strong opinions which is good but if you look through from a balanced perspective as soon as someone doesn't say 'I love overweight people, they're super sexy' everyone thinks that's demonisation. (exaggeration for illustrative purposes
It depends. If your 'normal' diet has been over 2500 calories a day, with huge portions and processed snacks etc, then cutting down to 1800-2000 while eating a balanced diet isn't likely to result in fat storage. Cutting to something like 800 calories a day probably would.
Comes down to balance. If a person eats properly, they can have a lifestyle where they maintain their weight without even going hungry. The problem is mass media doesn't really promote balanced and healthy eating (healthy food is often linked to extremes rather a la Awful Poo Woman). People are still buying into the low-fat high-carb diets from the 80s, although it appears carbs are getting a bashing now. There's nothing wrong with any food group, you can get carbs, fats and proteins which might not do you much good in excess, but eat plenty of the right ones and you're well on your way.
According to another friend in the medical / medicine profession (he's a health economist for a major drugs company), this lack of routine also contributes significantly to depression, believe it or not.
Calories is just the measure of energy inside food. If you take some sugar, set fire to it and see how much energy is released, that energy is measured in calories. Sugar has lots of calories in, whereas celery probably has none. Your body uses sugars in their natural form for respiration, along with oxygen. Glucose + oxygen = carbon dioxide + water + energy (for muscles and things). Carbohydrates are just long chains of glucoses, which is why their better than sugar, because say you eat at 3pm and your body takes 3 hours to break it apart, you're getting slow release energy and not storing any.
By continuously topping up on sugar though, your body converts the 'excess' glucose into fat, for use at a later date. By making our body burn more glucose through physical activitiy it can start to burn it off.
Metabolism is the rate at which your body uses sugars naturally, i.e. how much your heart uses. Generally younger people have higher metabolism. You can boost your metabolism temporarily with stimulants like caffeine, as well. Certain drugs have small amounts of caffeine in them to boost the rate your body metabolises the active ingredient, making you feel better sooner.
So certainly eating more complex carbohydrates such as brown bread, brown rice and so on (less processed, basically), will be better in that you will have a steady stream of energy. But most people who do struggle with their weight intake too many calories because of tiredness from lack of good food.
Although I've never been overweight I have seen the doctor for fatigue and this was their advice, and I've got to say a good routine does work wonders for energy levels. More constant energy = less hunger = less snacking.
:yes:
Exactly.
What prersumption?
NO IT DOESN'T! Don't be a tard, if cals in = cals out then the result is MAINTENANCE, doh!
But go_away as usual is right about a major cut causing your body to go into starvation mode and slowing metabolism.
A nice sensible cut complimented with decent balanced food choices will give a nice, well paced weight loss.
You need all your essential fatty acids, good quality carbs and lean proteins... but in reality, for average joe, you just need to cut the shit out of your diet, eat sensibly, then monitor and adjust accordingly..
And also throw in some exercise :thumb:
Since when did 'versus' mean 'is equal to'?
I like that quote, too, and I can see where you're coming from. In a way.
I think it's a wonderful thing to have a strong and healthy body, I think it's the ideal and it's what I personally find attractive. I'm not talking ripped muscles and all that. I guess these days I see health as someone who could run around after kids, who could work a busy day and climb a mountain and run around the park after little Tommy and not be out of breath. Of course, while strength and health can come in many different shapes and sizes, I don't buy that the woman in question's figure is healthy. HOWEVER, her health is her concern, not mine. All I know and all I can say is that I would never be happy with my body were it to be or become like that. I'm happy I'm not that weight, just as she may be unhappy to be my weight. Who knows. In a similar way I find very skinny figures unattractive, they don't scream health to me either. Extremes aren't attractive to me, I guess they aren't attractive to most people... but it takes allsorts and in relationship terms, people go for more than the physical. Most of the time.
I don't think that lady is attractive and I'm surprised that other people do, but then we're all blinded by our own tastes and preferences. It doesn't surprise me. I don't feel badly about that though, I think it's fair game to have an opinion.
As for liking healthy, strong (and yes, probably "slender") bodies being a "programmed" thing, maybe so. If that were the case then I'm not sure it's necessarily a bad thing. Anyway, it's a world apart from the new lust for ribcages on sticks... if that's what was being got at.
Far be it from me to give lifestyle advice to overweight people - I've never been overweight and I don't presume to know better. BUT I think that while a lot of overweight people are happy, content and not really sweating their extra pounds here and there... well, for every one person who feels like that there are ten more who WOULD be happier being a little bit more lithe. If they lost that little bit of weight, were that little bit more active. If people are truely happy being very overweight then fair enough. However, if it's affecting their health then i think they should take action to correct it. I really do. I wouldnt be attracted to a big-big man, and I find grossly overweight people less attractive. Whether I've been programmed to feel that or it's a genuine feeling, who can say.
Speaking on a personal level, my father-in-law is incredibly over-weight. He's Sicilian and while he was a young whippet of a thing he's just enormous now as though living up to some olde age stereotype. So much so he cant really walk anymore, has diabetes, high blood pressure, water retention in his legs which cause them to swell elephant's legs. Also in turn means he weeps fluid from his legs and bleeds constanly if he cuts himself. I know from my husband that watching your dad, the fella who used to outrun you, who used to throw you up in the air, who used to go on crazed bike races through the Swedish wilderness with you, winning everytime and never feeling bad about it (:D)... go through this solely because he ate too much. Well I know that that's soul destroying. It's a very difficult thing, obviously it's an extreme-extreme. We only see him every few months and every time he comes away heartbroken and shocked that his dad is so disenfranchised and resigned to his fate, that his wife still buys crap food and feeds him too much, that he's getting bigger and promises to try to diet, but it never lasts. NOTHING will shock him into action and he will lose his dad to this. Obviously this is an extreme, as I said, but it's an extremely sensitive subject for me, it was so, so avoidable and is so, so unnecessary.
Looking at his life makes me determined never to become even a shadow of that. It's unhealthy and it's breaking his childrens' hearts.
When I was pregnant I read Fat is a Feminist Issue, recommended by a friend of mine who had a whole lifestyle upheaval last year. I agreed to read it because of my beloved F-word screaming loudly at me from the title but it's not specifically a feminist book at all. I guess that was a time I was worried about becoming "fat", as well. It definitely crossed my mind that it could happen, and it wasn't something I wanted. I would say that at least some of the criticism of fat people is borne of a fear of being that way of being perceived that way ourselves. I'm sure the fear of fat is fed by society... but maybe it is something we should be worried about. In the extreme cases, anyway.
Anyway, the book looks at WHY people are fat, and what has happened to make them that way. Basically the upshot says, if you really wanted to be slender and live a healthy life then you would be and you would DO. It went on further to say that many people use fat as some sort of subconscious excuse as to why they're not doing something they want to do in their lives. That they could come out and blame the fat, their unhappiness with their body image etc... and so there is a self-perpetuating weight retention which goes along with some self loathing. Maybe it's a load of rubbish, maybe it's an offensive idea, but it held my thoughts for a while.
I'm just rambling, I hope it doesn't deeply offend anyone. It's an interesting topic... people's opinions are interesting, sometimes not what you'd expect.
You were referring to "fat does not equal lazy" which was what I was trying to clarify, because as soon as they mentioned the calory intake being too high and not enough going out people thought that obviously meant they were saying all fat people were lazy. It's like people are trying to find something to argue about.
No undue offence intended, but you're the one being the tard. It's obvious that if your calories coming in is the same as the calories going out you're not going to lose or gain weight, but I was clarifying in the first post a simple point that saying overweight people need to cut their intake and increase their outgoing does not equal accusing overweight people of laziness - and in the second post I was just trying to make this clearer.
I was worried at first that maybe I was writing in gibberish, but Kiezo seems to have understood what I was saying.
1. Calories in > calories out = net gain
2. Calories in = calories out = no net change
3. Calories in < calories out = net loss
Although that's not exactly true, because of a combination of other factors that are too complicated for me to even start to decipher (salt, water retention, sweat, and so on) I thought it was quite simple what I was getting at.
Regardless, this is completely besides the point. The first post was simply me saying people are picking on cheese on toast for stating his opinion because big gay said he thought obese people were sexy and cheese on toast couldn't understand that. Then people jumped on him, accusing him of being 'fatist' essentially. My point was people obviously have strong opinions but are jumping into arguments without thinking about them - making unfounded accusations. As it seems you've done to me on a semantic point rather than discussing the actual issues.
I don't think it's offensive briggi, it is something that you have probably expressed in a better way than I did millions of pages ago, and it makes an interesting point for discussion. I read an interesting article drawing upon what you said just now. I'd rather not post it on this thread as I feel I'd have a better fate by saying I stomp on cute puppies for a living, but if you want to have a gander, PM me
he said cals in VERSUS cals out equals either gain or loss, i was just pointing out the fallacy of that statement so kiss my bony skinny little butt!
Argh! I wasn't even trying to hint or suggest that you thought fat people were lazy, I even made a disclaimer.. And, if it's obviuos that there's no net change when cals in equals cals out then it's equally as obvious that extra cals equals extra lard and visa versa. There just didn't and doesn't seem much point to you pointing it out.
Why oh why do people think (and this IS NOT directed at you specifically) that they need to tell people that they should only do this or be that way to lose weight? If a fat person does feel miserable about being fat, the last thing that they're going to want, I presume, is a skinny telling them about cals in and cals out, which I also presume they alreasy know. That's my point I guess, just that the persistant need skinnys feel of telling fatties how to be thinnies is part of the 'demonisation' as though they are asking for advice by being visably fat. I have afat friend who whinges at me about being fat, not because she wants nutritional advice from me, which I could and would give her if she asked, but because she just wants a sympathetic ear to her problems. Just as I 'whine' about my problmes to her without wanting her to give me patronising advice.
I think I take this subject far to persoanlly to be objective in this thread though, so will hence forth refrain from drunken postages.
Yes, depending on which one is more. He said versus each other, not equal each other. If it's cals in -vs- cals out, and cals in are more than cals out, then this equals weight gain and vice versa.
You know, in the same way a football team versus another, but goals scored do not need to be the same.
Seriously, are you not understanding the word 'versus' or something?
te he, take another read chumpo, it is you not I who has made the mistake.
Let's take your footy anaolgy, gols for and goals against equal a win, loss or DRAW, not just a win or draw - that's all I was saying. Quite simple now I've spelled it out for you, eh?
It's funny even that after ShyBoy confirmed my understanding of him was right, you're still saying it's wrong
Also, what's with all the 'chumpo' and 'kiss my skinny little butt'? Do you revert to a child like status when drunk?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7121566.stm
Seriously.
haha oh ffs
If it is just going to turn into people laughing at fat people, or other user's previous comments then it's probably time to close it.
No, do you?
Definitely, send it my way when you get the chance :thumb:
edited to add: here it is - if you mind it being reposted let me know Kangoo and I'll remove it