Skinny Shaming

IvyTheTerrible

I don't know, I don't think you always know what's inside the head of someone who you think might be an "attention whore".
My sister was very overweight/obese from about the age of 7 til the age of 18, when she worked very hard to lose the weight. She was really miserable basically the whole way through school because of it (lots of bullying, other stuff). Now she is a normal weight, but she always worries that she'll go back to how she was, so she guilt trips herself when she eats something "fattening". So people might see her saying "oh I'm making a pig of myself" and think she's looking for attention but nothing could be further from the truth.

Shakespeare's Sister

That's so true. I have two friends who both lost a huge amount of weight - one went to a size 8-10, the other to a size 6-8.
I got the winter vomiting bug/noro-virus one year and lost a relatively high amount of weight in a few days (put it all back on very quickly and then some - it was Christmas :pac:) and when I told them about this particular outcome of the noro-virus, they suddenly started hugging me and saying they'd like to snog me and stuff.

When I said this really wasn't a good outlook considering they had lost all the weight they could possibly lose, they came to their senses, and then made the point that once you've ever been big, you'll always feel big, even when you know you aren't.
The psychology of all this stuff is mad.

DoYouEvenLift

Das Kitty wrote: »

I think it's disgusting to openly judge or shame anyone over how their body looks.

To me it says much more about the commenter and where they place value than anything else.

Ftfy

We all judge, even if just subconsciously, other people. How someone looks physically is literally the first thing you see before they even open their mouth so we normally do assess their image but of course that changes once you actually get to talk to them and then you reach whatever your final opinion of them as a whole person. But to openly let the person know whatever flaws you think they have and belittle them for them, yeah that's being an ass hole.

Thoie wrote: »

Any thread I read on Boards about weight (either under or over weight) is ****ing depressing. You get the same comments every bloody time about "it's not healthy, it's not this, it's not that".

You know who gets to comment on what's healthy for me? My GP, ideally backed up with science - blood tests, measurements, and more importantly, a plan to help you change. If you're not my GP or an immediate family member, my bloody health is no concern of yours.

Someone will now say "oh, we're all paying for everyone's health issues". If that's the case, remember the next time you see a cancer patient to remind them that they're costing you a fortune. Or if you see someone with an amputation, don't forget to point out that was a very expensive operation - think of the number of more minor surgeries that could have been performed during that time. How about your friend with depression? Should they be yelled at on the street, and then be told "it's not healthy, so they should suck it up"? Think that's a bit harsh, and no decent person would dream of talking to people like that? Then make sure you mind your own business, and let the doctors look after the health side of things.

That comparison isn't really right. People with cancer didn't choose to get it. People who are obese almost always choose to be obese, the few exceptions being those with genuine medical issues and medication side effects that cause them to gain weight.

meeeeh

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

Ftfy
That comparison isn't really right. People with cancer didn't choose to get it. People who are obese almost always choose to be obese, the few exceptions being those with genuine medical issues and medication side effects that cause them to gain weight.

You didn't really think this through, did you? Cancer is very often the result of lifestyle choices. You are a lot more likely to be obese if you are born into the poorer areas. The same areas where you will be a lot less likely to go to third level education and average income is lower. I'm not saying that personal responsibility doesn't come into it but you are simplifying things a lot. Especially when we are talking about obese children.

I realize obesity is a problem and something has to be done about it but I wish people wouldn't make sweeping generalizations about "the fat people" so they would feel better about themselves.

Thoie

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

That comparison isn't really right. People with cancer didn't choose to get it. People who are obese almost always choose to be obese, the few exceptions being those with genuine medical issues and medication side effects that cause them to gain weight.

I didn't explain myself well in the first post, but was talking about using "the health costs/it's unhealthy" as an excuse to be rude to people who are not a healthy weight. Fat/skinny people are not the only ones to cost us money on healthcare, but as a society we would never think of "shaming" any other group in public the same way. Maybe the amputee lost a limb through some choice they made, maybe it was a freak accident, maybe the cancer patient made choices that led to their awful diagnosis (and believe me, I know exactly how awful cancer is, and what it does to people), maybe it was just entirely random (as it often is). Maybe the person with liver problems has them through choices they made, or maybe it was a congenital defect.

You cannot tell by looking at someone what led to where they are now, and no-one would dream of passing remarks on cancer patients/amputees etc. But commenting on a stranger's (or an acquaintance's) weight seems to be perfectly acceptable, and one of the excuses often given is that "Well, it's unhealthy".

Lots of people are unhealthy for a million different reasons, it doesn't give anyone the excuse to wander around commenting on it.

Choccie Lover

FairytaleGirl wrote: »

I dont really agree with the whole skinny shame thing tbh. I mean I acknowledge it does exist, and can see why it does bother some girls, but to be honest - when 99% of media/fashion is saying skinny is beautiful, some shops stock a size 6 (for a grown woman ) and yet don't stock past a size 12, and style at the moment encompasses crop tops and the like - it's much, much tougher to be on the 'bigger' end of the scale.
If clothes are literally made to look good on you, you don't have to worry about whether you look nice or not and you're what's considered 'beautiful' by the majority, then suck it up if someone passes comment on your weight.

I say this as a size 12 by the way.

There are many 'grown women' that are a size 6. I am one of them, as is my sister and a lot of people I know (and healthy with that). Your comment about 'grown women' is a bit clumsy and comes across poorly.

It's poor form though that some stores don't stock past a 12. All sizes should be accommodated.

meeeeh

Choccie Lover wrote: »

It's poor form though that some stores don't stock past a 12. All sizes should be accommodated.

I actually don't agree with that. Sizing is only part of the story. Tailoring especially in premium brands is a lot more precise and does not fit all sizes. I know there is also some kind of snobbery present when certain brands refuse to cater for bigger sizes because they don't fit into their aesthetics. But in the same way plus size brands don't cater for smaller sizes. And a lot of brands in general don't cater for size six and even less for smaller sizes.

I don't think this has anything to do with skinny shaming or fat shaming but if you are plus size it is likely that you will be better served by plus size brands. Size six and 20 can't wear the same type of a cropped top. I think I am around size 12 (possibly 10 on top) and I am under no illusion that certain brands are not for me. Not because they don't sell my size but because their tailoring doesn't suit me. And I'm ok with that.

Neyite

I agree, people can get too hung up on sizes, when it really is a variable unit of measurement for clothes.

The first thing you learn about in dressmaking is to ignore what sizing you think you are, and re- measure yourself for each and every garment, reason being that a 16 in a Burda pattern might be a 12 in a Simplicity. I'm a general size 8 in most shops, but one dress I made was- according to the pattern- a size 8 on the bust, a 6 on the waist and a 16 on the hips.

So I go by actual inches on my measuring tape and what fits me best in the changing room rather than what's on the label.

DoYouEvenLift

meeeeh wrote: »

You didn't really think this through, did you? Cancer is very often the result of lifestyle choices. You are a lot more likely to be obese if you are born into the poorer areas. The same areas where you will be a lot less likely to go to third level education and average income is lower. I'm not saying that personal responsibility doesn't come into it but you are simplifying things a lot. Especially when we are talking about obese children.

I realize obesity is a problem and something has to be done about it but I wish people wouldn't make sweeping generalizations about "the fat people" so they would feel better about themselves.

I honestly didn't know that, links to stats from studies for these points? I'm having trouble thinking how being born into a poorer area would correlate to being more likely to be obese, food costs money so less money would result in less food and malnourishment if anything, no?

Dolbert

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

I honestly didn't know that, links to stats from studies for these points? I'm having trouble thinking how being born into a poorer area would correlate to being more likely to be obese, food costs money so less money would result in less food and malnourishment if anything, no?

You can be obese and malnourished on cheap convenience food. People in poorer socio-economic areas have less access to good nutritional education. Fresh, organic free-range produce is best for everyone but generally tends to be the preserve of the middle-class.

meeeeh

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

I honestly didn't know that, links to stats from studies for these points? I'm having trouble thinking how being born into a poorer area would correlate to being more likely to be obese, food costs money so less money would result in less food and malnourishment if anything, no?

Not sure if serious..

http://healthyfoodforall.com/food-poverty/

I don't want to be mean but this is one of the most communicated points around obesity and you really have to live under a rock not to know it. And if you still don't believe me you should walk down the Henry or O'Conell street and down Grafton street. The difference is obvious. Also if you drive past a school in disadvantaged area and a private school. There is plenty of research on the subject but this is one of those issues where differences are noticeable with naked eye.

BonsaiKitten

meeeeh wrote: »

I actually don't agree with that. Sizing is only part of the story. Tailoring especially in premium brands is a lot more precise and does not fit all sizes. I know there is also some kind of snobbery present when certain brands refuse to cater for bigger sizes because they don't fit into their aesthetics. But in the same way plus size brands don't cater for smaller sizes. And a lot of brands in general don't cater for size six and even less for smaller sizes.

I don't think this has anything to do with skinny shaming or fat shaming but if you are plus size it is likely that you will be better served by plus size brands. Size six and 20 can't wear the same type of a cropped top. I think I am around size 12 (possibly 10 on top) and I am under no illusion that certain brands are not for me. Not because they don't sell my size but because their tailoring doesn't suit me. And I'm ok with that.

Yes, very much this. At smaller sizes the weight distribution is easier to predict, and so designing clothes in smaller sizes will be easier.

At higher weights though it's less easy to predict where someone will store weight, so not all clothes will correctly fit.

And what exactly does all sizes mean anyway? It's a nice sentiment, yes. But does that mean shops should (lets choose random size numbers out of my head here) stock size 40 or above if demand isn't high enough to be profitable for them? Should a shop sell an xxxs top if there isn't demand for it? Or are they discriminating against some sizes by not stocking every possible size ever.

At the end of the day, shops are businesses - if there is demand they will supply. (ignoring Abercrombie etc who stock smaller sizes to fit into their aesthetics).

Dial Hard

Neyite wrote: »

I agree, people can get too hung up on sizes, when it really is a variable unit of measurement for clothes.

It shouldn't be, though, which is the point I think was being made - sizes should be standardised so that a 12, say, is a 12 is a 12 no matter what shop you go into.

skallywag

Dial Hard wrote: »

...sizes should be standardised so that a 12, say, is a 12 is a 12 no matter what shop you go into.

Is that practically possible though, considering the wide variety of origin of our clothes these days? e.g. along the same lines that one can be a size 42.5 in an ASIC shoe but a 44 in an Adidas, etc.

Semele

http://clinpsyeye.wordpress.com/2014/09/17/a-shallow-look-at-fat/#respond

This is a lovely response from a clinical psychologist to the whole Katie-Hopkins-showing-how-easy-it-is-to-lose-weight nonsense a while ago.

It still surprises me when people cling to the idea that weight loss is a straightforward matter of calories consumed versus calories burned and that anyone who has difficulty with that is lazy or lying. It's like saying that love is a chemical reaction in the brain- it's true, on one level, but its not how many of us experience falling in love and it doesn't hold much relevance as an explanation of why you still can't get over your ex!

There are "true" and there are "meaningful" explanations for most human experiences and it is much more useful IMO to work with where they meet, rather than valuing one at the expense of the other.

DoYouEvenLift

Semele wrote: »

http://clinpsyeye.wordpress.com/2014/09/17/a-shallow-look-at-fat/#respond

This is a lovely response from a clinical psychologist to the whole Katie-Hopkins-showing-how-easy-it-is-to-lose-weight nonsense a while ago.

It still surprises me when people cling to the idea that weight loss is a straightforward matter of calories consumed versus calories burned and that anyone who has difficulty with that is lazy or lying. It's like saying that love is a chemical reaction in the brain- it's true, on one level, but its not how many of us experience falling in love and it doesn't hold much relevance as an explanation of why you still can't get over your ex!

There are "true" and there are "meaningful" explanations for most human experiences and it is much more useful IMO to work with where they meet, rather than valuing one at the expense of the other.

Eh, probably because for the majority of people who don't suffer from actual health concerns that cause weight gain or take medication with weight gain as a side effect that is what it's all down to?

I lost over 10lbs coming up towards summer by doing literally nothing extra than my typical day to day life aside from tailoring my calories to be at a deficit of between 300-500 each day. One could even sit on a couch all day and still lose weight by just calculating the correct amount of calories for one's lifestyle. Now add in high intensity cardio into the equation and one will be struggling to keep up with how fast they can lose weight.

Malari

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

Eh, probably because for the majority of people who don't suffer from actual health concerns that cause weight gain or take medication with weight gain as a side effect that is what it's all down to?

I lost over 10lbs coming up towards summer by doing literally nothing extra than my typical day to day life aside from tailoring my calories to be at a deficit of between 300-500 each day. One could even sit on a couch all day and still lose weight by just calculating the correct amount of calories for one's lifestyle. Now add in high intensity cardio into the equation and one will be struggling to keep up with how fast they can lose weight.

Did you read the article? Yes of course the formula is less calories in than calories out, but the point is that it is not as simple for everyone (although I agree the article does not really make the point very well).

People who are usually slim and eat what they need to maintain a healthy weight are used to subconsciously thinking 'I'm full now, so I'll stop eating' or 'I'll wait till I'm hungry to have lunch' and have those chemical pathways in their brain. For people who struggle to lose weight the logical side of their brain is telling them not to eat portions that big, or to eat that often, or to make healthier choices at the same time the more primal, instinctual part of their brain is saying to eat the food, food is energy, it may not be there later. There is a constant war going on which is what makes it so difficult to change habits. A normally slim person has the pathways in place to lose a few extra kilos after a holiday or Christmas

If you say to someone who is terrified of doing a bungee jump 'you are just being lazy or stupid if you don't just see that all you have to do is step forward. You take steps every day, you should be able to step off a cliff' it's the same kind of thing. You might know logically that this will not kill you, the safety ropes are there, dozens of people have done this safely before you, etc. and you know that the adrenaline rush will be amazing and you will feel happier for doing it. The instinctive part of your brain is telling you that it is insane to jump off a cliff and will not let the logical part of your brain simply take a step forward.

So even though people know to 'just' eat less and exercise more, practically doing that is the challenge, despite knowing the reward is healthy and maybe greater happiness.

skallywag

Malari wrote: »

Did you read the article? Yes of course the formula is less calories in than calories out, but the point is that it is not as simple for everyone

The science behind the formula is definitely true, i.e. one will certainly lose weight if one can consistently take in less calories than are being consumed. This fact is true regardless of any clinical psychology arguments.

The issue is that some people will struggle to consistently take in less calories than are being consumed, due to the arguments being outlined in the article.

Malari

skallywag wrote: »

The science behind the formula is definitely true, i.e. one will certainly lose weight if one can consistently take in less calories than are being consumed. This fact is true regardless of any clinical psychology arguments.

The issue is that some people will struggle to consistently take in less calories than are being consumed, due to the arguments being outlined in the article.

Eh, yeah, that's exactly what I said!???

skallywag

Malari wrote: »

Eh, yeah, that's exactly what I said!???

I didn't read your comment that way myself i.e. you wrote:

"Yes of course the formula is less calories in than calories out, but the point is that it is not as simple for everyone"

... with my point then being that the formula is indeed that simple for everyone, regardless of any other factors.

I assume now though that you were not referring to the formula when you wrote 'it' but to rather to the ability to lose weight.

Das Kitty

I thought it was pretty clear that the "it" Malari was referring to was losing weight...

Malari

skallywag wrote: »

I didn't read your comment that way myself i.e. you wrote:

"Yes of course the formula is less calories in than calories out, but the point is that it is not as simple for everyone"

... with my point then being that the formula is indeed that simple for everyone, regardless of any other factors.

I assume now though that you were not referring to the formula when you wrote 'it' but to rather to the ability to lose weight.

Well, yes, which was clear from the rest of my post.

skallywag

Malari wrote: »

Well, yes, which was clear from the rest of my post.

My apologies if I may have misinterpreted your opening sentence.

I agree fully with your arguments though.

DoYouEvenLift

Malari wrote: »

Did you read the article? Yes of course the formula is less calories in than calories out, but the point is that it is not as simple for everyone (although I agree the article does not really make the point very well).

People who are usually slim and eat what they need to maintain a healthy weight are used to subconsciously thinking 'I'm full now, so I'll stop eating' or 'I'll wait till I'm hungry to have lunch' and have those chemical pathways in their brain. For people who struggle to lose weight the logical side of their brain is telling them not to eat portions that big, or to eat that often, or to make healthier choices at the same time the more primal, instinctual part of their brain is saying to eat the food, food is energy, it may not be there later. There is a constant war going on which is what makes it so difficult to change habits. A normally slim person has the pathways in place to lose a few extra kilos after a holiday or Christmas

If you say to someone who is terrified of doing a bungee jump 'you are just being lazy or stupid if you don't just see that all you have to do is step forward. You take steps every day, you should be able to step off a cliff' it's the same kind of thing. You might know logically that this will not kill you, the safety ropes are there, dozens of people have done this safely before you, etc. and you know that the adrenaline rush will be amazing and you will feel happier for doing it. The instinctive part of your brain is telling you that it is insane to jump off a cliff and will not let the logical part of your brain simply take a step forward.

So even though people know to 'just' eat less and exercise more, practically doing that is the challenge, despite knowing the reward is healthy and maybe greater happiness.

Cliffs:
- Lack of will power

Malari

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

Cliffs:
- Lack of will power

Pardon?

Thoie

And we've moved once again from "skinny shaming" to "fat people have no willpower".

AmyPL

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

Cliffs:
- Lack of will power

You are aware Binge Eating Disorder is a recognised eating disorder, right?

Wibbs

Awareness may be the stumbling block there AmyPL...

Will power is a tiny part of it. Never mind that there is a huge difference between losing 10 pounds and losing 10 stones. It is not just do the same thing for ten times longer. Not even close. I would suggest people who have difficulty with this should research things like setpoint weight. Basically weightgain can be akin to an elastic band. Put on a stone, band stretches a bit, but can spring back with ease to its original length/size. Put on ten stones and the elastic stretches beyond a certain point and the body sees a new original length/size. So there can come a point with very overweight folks where dropping weight is beyond difficult no matter what will power is involved. Even folks who undergo gastric band operations where they physically can't eat more than a couple of spoonfuls, yes they lose weight initially and can lose a lot, but look at the results of follow ups at five years or ten. Many have gained back a good amount of their original weight.

Basically you can say "sure it's easy" if you're talking about a few pounds, but you cannot equate that to someone struggling with real obesity. It's a vey different thing going on.

BonsaiKitten

Wibbs wrote: »

Awareness may be the stumbling block there AmyPL...

Will power is a tiny part of it. Never mind that there is a huge difference between losing 10 pounds and losing 10 stones. It is not just do the same thing for ten times longer. Not even close. I would suggest people who have difficulty with this should research things like setpoint weight. Basically weightgain can be akin to an elastic band. Put on a stone, band stretches a bit, but can spring back with ease to its original length/size. Put on ten stones and the elastic stretches beyond a certain point and the body sees a new original length/size. So there can come a point with very overweight folks where dropping weight is beyond difficult no matter what will power is involved. Even folks who undergo gastric band operations where they physically can't eat more than a couple of spoonfuls, yes they lose weight initially and can lose a lot, but look at the results of follow ups at five years or ten. Many have gained back a good amount of their original weight.

Basically you can say "sure it's easy" if you're talking about a few pounds, but you cannot equate that to someone struggling with real obesity. It's a vey different thing going on.

...and it's also possible to stretch out gastric bands by having portions that are too big. It's also possible to go on a diet that will initially reduce the weight, before returning to your original eating habits. Obviously that will cause weight gain - doesn't mean the diet failed.

I don't disagree that losing weight is hard, and tougher to shift as you lose more weight. As weight decreases, so will the TDEE for that body. It isn't a linear process - reducing your initial calorie deficit won't equal having the same calorie deficit produce the same results over time. You then up the amount of exercise or decrease the calories. I have a lot of sympathy for folks trying to lose weight, it must be so frustrating to try and manage.

Relevant link: I saw this on /r/dataisbeautiful earlier actually, it was quite an interesting read. http://possiblywrong.wordpress.com/2014/10/21/calories-in-calories-out/

beks101

The "calories in versus calories out" approach takes no account of the fact that we are not all walking robots whose problems cannot be quickly solved by following simplistic maths equations. The uniquely individual chemical processes occurring in our brains combined with individual genetic makeup, environmental variances, physiological, social and cultural factors means that we each respond to external stimuli differently.

So someone can have a weight problem for literally an infinite number of reasons - ONE of which may be that they simply eat too much without any deeper motivation. Those types of 'meh, I like food and am not aRsed' people MIGHT respond well to 'eat less, exercise more' if they suddenly decide they're ready to lose weight. And those cases are rare in my experience. For most overweight people, it's about as helpful as telling an alcohol to go for a run instead of hitting the bottle or telling a depressed person to 'go for a walk in the sunshine and get over yourself'.