Why is being fat/obese socially acceptable?

ocokev

kowloon wrote: »

Why would you go there if you can't go on the rides?

There is alot more to do than the rides, like the stunt show and all the other attractions. It was pitiful though the kids (teenagers) must have been 20-30 stone, if you ask me its a form of child abuse to be feeding a mouth like that with crap.

amacachi

m@cc@ wrote: »

Obesity shouldn't be a social stigma. It should be a motivator to maintain your health and increase your life expectancy. What would it take for you to 'feel' obese? Do you even know?

The person you were quoting may well just be obese in the strict definition of the term.

Anyway, to be perfectly honest, I'm constantly surprised people are willing to talk to some as fat as me.

m@cc@

Hugo Drax wrote: »

Well I weigh 220 lbs...that's medically classed as obese believe it or not.

I should weigh around 180....

Obese is defined as excessively overweight. I'd call 40 lbs a substantial amount to be overweight by.

Hugo Drax

m@cc@ wrote: »

Obese is defined as excessively overweight. I'd call 40 lbs a substantial amount to be overweight by.

Would you? 40lbs/3 stone?

Well I am currently in the process of losing it but it's tough.

Hugo Drax

m@cc@ wrote: »

Obese is defined as excessively overweight. I'd call 40 lbs a substantial amount to be overweight by.

It's hardly excessively overweight.

I would call excessively overweight being overweight to the point where it actually interferes with your life....

m@cc@

Hugo Drax wrote: »

Would you? 40lbs/3 stone?

Well I am currently in the process of losing it but it's tough.

No, I'm not trying to put you down, I guess it depends on your height. But you shouldn't just dismiss the 'obese' definition.

m@cc@

Hugo Drax wrote: »

It's hardly excessively overweight.

I would call excessively overweight being overweight to the point where it actually interferes with your life....

Well, take what you want from it. Overweight by it's definition points to 'excessive'.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

m@cc@ wrote: »

Obese is defined as excessively overweight. I'd call 40 lbs a substantial amount to be overweight by.

Depends on his height. He could be 300lbs and still have a healthy fat %.

Hugo Drax wrote: »

It's hardly excessively overweight.

I would call excessively overweight being overweight to the point where it actually interferes with your life....

I don't understand, opinions don't matter when you are dealing with facts. You know this, right?

If you're obese, you're obese, if you're over weight, you're overweight... You may be excessively overweight and it may not effect your life. Everybody is different.

Hugo Drax

m@cc@ wrote: »

No, I'm not trying to put you down, I guess it depends on your height. But you shouldn't just dismiss the 'obese' definition.

I know that, I suppose obese just conjures up an image of a very fat person.

But it's better for overweight people to hear it so maybe it will motivate them to lose it.

Re height, I'm 5'10, I should weigh 180 I reckon...

beegirl

As far as I know, any time a doctor says you are overweight/obese etc. the only thing they are basing it on is the BMI. A BMI of over 25 is supposed to overweight, over 30 is obese and I think it's over 40/50 for 'morbidly' obese.

BMI seems to work fine for me (5' 6", female) i.e. I do feel a little heavy at the top end of 'normal' and felt most happy with my weight when I was somewhere bang in the middle of normal (around 22/23 BMI). But I definitely think for taller, broader people it doesn't work so well... my partner is supposedly well into the overweight category, but he is not 'fat' at all. Maybe I'm biased though But seriously for him to get into the normal BMI range he'd probably end up looking like a rake.

Anyway my point is that a doctor could tell you that you were 20 pounds overweight when in reality you might look fine and feel fine...

Hugo Drax

Maleah Tasteless Skater wrote: »

Depends on his height. He could be 300lbs and still have a healthy fat %.



I don't understand, opinions don't matter when you are dealing with facts. You know this, right?

If you're obese, you're obese, if you're over weight, you're overweight... You may be excessively overweight and it may not effect your life. Everybody is different.

True, but the question I'm asking is it acceptable to label someone who is 1 stone overweight, "obese"?

danbohan

Elessar wrote: »

Absolutely. Obese people are lazy and overeat. Every other excuse is smoke and mirrors. They are the cause of their problem.

and what is your excuse for been dumb ? , your mother and father perhaps?

Ayankabroad

Bonito wrote: »

Fair play. Did you lose the weight because you wanted to or was it because of what people on the streets that you don't even know thought about you when they seen you? Did you realise yourself that you needed to cut out the bad habits and start exercising and trim it down? Then the big question, do you feel losing the weight changed who you are in yourself or have you kept the same morals and principles from when you were overweight?

To be honest I lost the weight becasue of the realisation of how I had let myself go. From a vanity perspective I was unhappy of the image that my size portrayed to others about how I felt about myself. I also came to realisation that my lifestyle/eating habits were impacting how my children may view me but also about the message that this sends to them about their own bodies. If my kids end up overweight that is their choice but it will not be because of misxed messages that I send.

As far as changing who I was the only thing that it changed was my confidence levels and my ability to be the person that I actually wanted to be vs. reflecting the image that others saw in me.

partyguinness

The BMI index is a bit of a joke...it doesnt take into account increased muscle mass in a person. Muscle is heavier than fat. A lot of the people (men usually) who pump iron alot and are well defined in terms of muscle mass etc are grossly overweight according to the BMI index even though they might have only 5-10% body fat.

Theta

danbohan wrote: »

and what is your excuse for been dumb ? , your mother and father perhaps?

Jaysus thats a bit harsh?

Hugo Drax

Theta wrote: »

Jaysus thats a bit harsh?

I don't if he's actually calling anybody dumb....

Canis Lupus

danbohan wrote: »

and what is your excuse for been dumb ? , your mother and father perhaps?

haha... Insult fail.

Theta

Hugo Drax wrote: »

I don't if he's actually calling anybody dumb....

I suppose maybe they were dumb and are not anymore. Hence been dumb?

Hugo Drax

Theta wrote: »

I suppose maybe they were dumb and are not anymore. Hence been dumb?

I been down so goddamn long....that it looks like up to me.

Wibbs

beegirl wrote: »

But I definitely think for taller, broader people it doesn't work so well... my partner is supposedly well into the overweight category, but he is not 'fat' at all. Maybe I'm biased though But seriously for him to get into the normal BMI range he'd probably end up looking like a rake.

It would so depend on basic bodyshape and muscle size alright. That said we have gotten used to bigger people, so if he did drop down weight, you may see him as a rake, but he wouldnt be. Look at hunter gatherers, humans in the "wild" as it were. They would be considered rakes, yet contrary to popular belief are far fitter, with healthier and more varied diets. Diabetes(type 2) is almost unknown, yet in the west they're claiming it may be genetic. Even though our great grandparents were smaller in size and had far less diabetes. Ditto for dental caries, heart disease, bone loss and a host of other diseases of excess.

Our perception of what is big and indeed what is small is changing along with our waistlines. And the waistlines are changing in men and women. Looking back in the last century at womens clothes sizes and the stats show it. Women are taller, broader shouldered, bigger breasted, heavier and the classic hourglass shape is rarer. More women put on weight in the belly now, which increases the risks of heart disease and hormonal issues.

In cultures where the US diet didnt take over so much there are more hourglass shaped young women and less big bellied young men.

topper75

I have looked at the bootcamp website and what they offer makes a lot of sense. I only have one gripe remaining - the name - it's a misnomer! From the website it is clear that what they offer is ongoing (v important) and measured, not a bootcamp. Go for it!

kowloon

Just came across this

http://www.youtube.com/show/thefatplague

Don't know if you can watch 4 OD in Irelnd, I'm stuck in the UK at the moment so I'm going to give it a watch after dinner. Not sure what I'll make of it.

Wibbs

Its an interesting theory, but even if true only works in a percentage of cases. And where was it 100 years ago?

There have been studies that showed women who pile on weight after pregnancy did have a genetic component. It decreased metabolism and increased appetite in those women. We all know women who had very trim figures before children. You even see it in families. Slim sister who hasnt had kids yet is way smaller than the sister who has. Then other women who have 4 kids and not gain significant weight. I know two women who had what could only be described as spectacular figures. Their mum was very heavy, so you would think they took after the dad. But no, one has had one child and is gaining weight fast, yet her activity levels have remained pretty similar.

Those women who pile on weight on the pill had the same gene it seems. Other women can be on the pill for years and have no weight gain. So chances are if the pill makes you put on weight, having children will have the same effect.

While I agree eat less move more is the basic mechanism, it is so so much more complex than that. I'm thin cos I eat very little. Simple as (If I exercise I raise the appetite accordingly). If I put many similar sized men on my diet they would probably collapse or start biting chunks out of passing cats People do differ. Especially in appetite and requirements. But yea in general while we all differ, there is a sweet spot where we should be and our bodies work well at.

Glenster

techdiver wrote: »

Any thoughts?

We hate fat people because we fear becoming them ourselves.

Son Of A Vidic

bonerm wrote: »

Besides the obvious costs to the exchequer, smokers impact on society by spreading their disease via passive smoking. Drinkers likewise can cause harm by getting violent when drunk or even cause harm by drink-driving.

Fattys however are usually too tired and slow to do anything to you .... except maybe let off a vicious fart if you're unlucky to get trapped in a lift with one. Hense they are more socially acceptable.

Skinny fcuks farts are as bad - because they are Catobolising their own muscle continiously through starvation and anorexia. They produce particularly rotten smelling ar$e coughs due to the protein breakdown.

Dionysus

Bonito wrote: »

Why shouldn't it be socially acceptable? Just because someone is overweight it doesn't mean they should be out cast from society and looked down upon in any way.

I'm no slim Jim, but my overeating is a sign of weakness, of not dealing with things in a healthier, more intelligent way. It's as simple as that.

Fat people are, in this perspective, just as big losers (pun unintended) as smokers and people with alcohol problems.

drkpower

danbohan wrote: »

and what is your excuse for been dumb ? , your mother and father perhaps?

While this was presumably an attempt at a bit of a slag, its a relevent enough point. Obesity/excessive weight is both a matter of choice and of biology/genetics. As is someone's intelligence/education levels.

But it would be incredibly socially unacceptable for someone to say to someone who is a little unintelligent that they are a disgrace and that they really should engage in a programme of further education and learning to get their intelligence/education levels up a bit...

Now, of course, the 'choice' aspect of being overweight is probably more significant than the choice element of being stupid/uneducated. But there is no doubt that if stupid people committed themselves to a programme of education, they would become smarter, or at least more educated.

So, why when someone you know fails an exam, or cant answer a single question at the local pub quiz, or cant figure out how to programme the SkyPlus, is it not socially acceptable to tell the stupid b*stard to sort himself out and get himself down to the adult education centre?

donfers

what I don't understand is all these people whining and moaning about how hard it is to get large biceps, a sixpack etc etc.....a few months in the gym and you're sorted there...but developing a beer belly takes many many years of solid boozing and is certainly not easily attainable and thus should be appreciated more

Giselle

Dionysus wrote: »

I'm no slim Jim, but my overeating is a sign of weakness, of not dealing with things in a healthier, more intelligent way. It's as simple as that.

Fat people are, in this perspective, just as big losers (pun unintended) as smokers and people with alcohol problems.

No, they aren't.

Smokers contaminate the air and health of those around them, alcoholics cause legions of social and family problems.

Overweight people just harm their own health, no one elses.

Dionysus

Giselle wrote: »

No, they aren't.

Smokers contaminate the air and health of those around them, alcoholics cause legions of social and family problems.

Overweight people just harm their own health, no one elses.

Not true. An obese person directly affects the life of those around him/her, usually through dying earlier and leaving his/her partner to shoulder responsibility for the family. A fat parent is also much, much, much more likely to pass on his/her bad food choices to the children and thereby be critical in making nice, cute little babies into fat teenagers and obese adults.

It's like that absolute tank of a mother on Gerry Ryan's Operation Transformation show a couple of months ago saying: "she (her daughter) knows its (her obesity) all her own fault". Brazen or what.