Health At Every Size

estudent

Being a Homosexual is Genetic so I don't see the problem with being Obese, do you?

Pat Mustard

estudent wrote: »

You're contradicting LGBT beliefs with this opinion.

:pac:

DoYouEvenLift

estudent wrote: »

Being a Homosexual is Genetic so I don't see the problem with being Obese, do you?

If genetics or side effects from medication are the cause for the individuals obesity, of course I see no problem. Otherwise:




You also didn't answer my question if that post was directed at me.

TimeToShine

estudent wrote: »

You're contradicting LGBT beliefs with this opinion.

If a man wants to be a woman, it's genetic.
If a woman wants to be a man, it's genetic.

Just as a woman desires another woman.
Just as a man desires another man.

Just as a man desires a young boy...oh...sorry, Are we talking about gay rights here?
Fat people are fat because of genetics just the same as a Man desires another man, it's genetic.

Can't you see you're just a bigot and homophobe?
You're a fatophobe.

Your trolling is mediocre at best. Good day.

estudent

TimeToShine wrote: »

Your trolling is mediocre at best. Good day.

It's not trolling, it's absolute FACT.

On the one hand, you'll accept genetic differences with regard to sexuality but on the other hand when it comes to weight...whole different story, isn't it?

No trolling here, just exposing logical flaws which you don't want to accept.

estudent

The Mustard wrote: »

:pac:

What's so funny? The fact your beliefs are contradictory?

Being gay is genetic, but being fat isn't.

Right?

DoYouEvenLift

estudent wrote: »

What's so funny? The fact your beliefs are contradictory?

Being gay is genetic, but being fat isn't.

Right?

Do you believe every single fat person is fat because of genetics? Because that's the only way your points could make any sense to compare with gays, since gays are all gay because of genetics.

estudent

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

Do you believe every single fat person is fat because of genetics?

Do you believe every single gay person is gay because of genetics?

Penny Tration

estudent wrote: »

What's so funny? The fact your beliefs are contradictory?

Being gay is genetic, but being fat isn't.

Right?

Being fat is not genetic.

Being predisposed to quick weight gain is probably genetic, but ultimately it boils down to the same thing for everyone - eat a calorie surplus, you'll gain weight.

If we're going to talk about genetics - I have PCOS, a genetic condition. One of the problems with PCOS is that it makes it very difficult to lose weight, and people with PCOS tend to hold excess fat around the waist, which is obviously the worst place to hold it.

Add to that some mental health issues leading to me comfort eating and boom - I hit 23 stone. as a 5'1 female, I could barely walk at that weight.

Should I blame genetics? Nope. I was massive because I ate too much and moved too little.

So, I got off my fat ass and did something about it.

As I mentioned, PCOS makes it difficult to lose weight. Funnily enough though, I managed to lose more than half of my body weight in 3 years.

So, nope, genetics is bollocks. I'm predisposed to weight gain because of a genetic condition and yet I very easily lost the weight of a bloody person!

JuliusCaesar

The Mustard wrote: »

Anyone who is the size of a dump-truck has made a decision to allow things to come to that.

Really? I think the accounts here show that most people do not DECIDE to become fat.


Becoming overweight is usually due to a number of factors: enforced idleness due to circumstances (disability eg broken leg, or comfort eating due to stress, or whatever).


Losing weight is a hugely emotional decision for most people, and the Health At Every Size people really do have the right idea - they take the focus off weight and put it on health.

Plus there are a lot of studies that show that people who are mildly overweight tend to live longer than slim people; that people who have hypertension and are overweight live longer than slim people with hypertension etc etc etc. That overweight by itself is not necessarily unhealthy. (Not talking about the morbidly obese here.)

I would urge all of you to have a read of the HAES stuff before assuming that they are all about fat-pride

Wibbs

estudent wrote: »

You're contradicting LGBT beliefs with this opinion.

If a man wants to be a woman, it's genetic.
If a woman wants to be a man, it's genetic.

Just as a woman desires another woman.
Just as a man desires another man.

Just as a man desires a young boy...oh...sorry, Are we talking about gay rights here?
Fat people are fat because of genetics just the same as a Man desires another man, it's genetic.

Can't you see you're just a bigot and homophobe?
You're a fatophobe.

Man I've read some beauts over the years, but this is up there. :pac: Genetics eh? Where was DNA involved 50 years ago when we were much slimmer? Take the US of A, a country built on peoples and cultures and genetics from around the world, how come they're fatter than those with similar genetics from the "old country"? Genetics my arse.

Wibbs

bb1234567 wrote: »

What seriously? People in Northern Europe ie. Cold are the tallest in the world while people in tropical places like India are some of the shortest

Height is a separate thing. I was talking about overall bodyshape.

estudent wrote: »

You know, you're making a lot of assumptions there, Wibbs.

I could walk an average of 5-10KM each day and when I cycle, it's up to 30KM yet this hasn't much impact on my weight because it doesn't fluctuate the way it might for others.

Then if you're not eating more(and it doesn't have to be that much), you're breaking a number of biological and physical laws by generating energy from nothing.

I started to fill out around 28 and this isn't because I was eating more, it's because metabolism amongst most people tends to slow down in late 20s.

If you think Metabolism is BS, fine...but I have seen this affect many people.

Again, unless you have an actual medical metabolic condition, your heavier self has a higher metabolic rate.

As for people "filling out" in their 20's metabolism has feck all to do with it. It's subtle changes in lifestyle that make the difference. Changes that are hard to spot unless you were being measured on a daily basis. Take a very broad stroked example. Guy at 22, in college, moving from lecture to lecture, walking and moving more, same guy at 29, in an office environment, sat at a desk. Even if his food intake was identical he's gonna put on the weight. An extra say 200 calories a day taken in, or not burnt off will lead to weight gain over a couple of years and 200 calories is feck all.

Grayson

estudent wrote: »

It's not trolling, it's absolute FACT.

On the one hand, you'll accept genetic differences with regard to sexuality but on the other hand when it comes to weight...whole different story, isn't it?

No trolling here, just exposing logical flaws which you don't want to accept.

Except you're attributing a zero sum result to something that is not zero sum.

If both you and I eat 2000 calories a day and both walk 2 miles a day, you could weigh 10 stone and I'd weigh 11. That's describing the genetic differences between us. When we match diet and exercise exactly, we are different weights. However I could chose to eat 1500 calories a day and exercise the same and I would weigh less. Maybe even less than you. That's because exercise and diet can have an effect on your genetic predisposition.

Sexual orientation is different. I'm straight and no matter how much cock I decide to suck, I'm still going to prefer boobies. Likewise if I was gay I'm going to assume that no amount of muff diving would be as enjoyable as a cock meat sandwich.

Kelly06

Jingle_Balls wrote: »

As I mentioned, PCOS makes it difficult to lose weight. Funnily enough though, I managed to lose more than half of my body weight in 3 years.

This is just amazing, fair play to you ! What an achievement! You really should be very proud of yourself x

Penny Tration

Kelly06 wrote: »

This is just amazing, fair play to you ! What an achievement! You really should be very proud of yourself x

thanks the last 2 stone is a pain in the hole to shift, though. Maybe in the next year I'll get shot of that and be a healthy weight

Kelly06

Jingle_Balls wrote: »

thanks the last 2 stone is a pain in the hole to shift, though. Maybe in the next year I'll get shot of that and be a healthy weight

You will get there in time just know that this is an amazing achievement !

I'm more or less the same height as you so I know how easy it is to put on weight when your so tiny also even a half stone weight gain really shows!

blacklilly

Jingle_Balls wrote: »

Being fat is not genetic.

Being predisposed to quick weight gain is probably genetic, but ultimately it boils down to the same thing for everyone - eat a calorie surplus, you'll gain weight.

If we're going to talk about genetics - I have PCOS, a genetic condition. One of the problems with PCOS is that it makes it very difficult to lose weight, and people with PCOS tend to hold excess fat around the waist, which is obviously the worst place to hold it.

Add to that some mental health issues leading to me comfort eating and boom - I hit 23 stone. as a 5'1 female, I could barely walk at that weight.

Should I blame genetics? Nope. I was massive because I ate too much and moved too little.

So, I got off my fat ass and did something about it.

As I mentioned, PCOS makes it difficult to lose weight. Funnily enough though, I managed to lose more than half of my body weight in 3 years.

So, nope, genetics is bollocks. I'm predisposed to weight gain because of a genetic condition and yet I very easily lost the weight of a bloody person!

Well done JB, fantastic achievement,

bb1234567

estudent wrote: »

Would you say the same about LGBT?

Remember, it's genetic...

How on earth is this even slightly related to lgbt people

bb1234567

estudent wrote: »

I'm talking about genetics.

The fact is, some people are fat or thin based purely on their DNA.

I myself was skinny for many years but this is unacceptable to society.
Just as being fat is unacceptable to society.

However, if you're a man and like to dress like a woman, that's perfectly normal. Isn't it?

I think fat and skinny people are more accepted by society than transvestites. How many fat and skinny people do you know? Probably hundreds of each, and they probably suffer very little discrimination. How many transvestites do you know? Probably very few, and they probably suffer A LOT of discrimination.

Wanderer2010

I dont know where people get the idea that being fat is "unacceptable by society", who are these members of society who line the streets ready to slag off and point at heavy people?? Fact is that there are MORE OVERWEIGHT PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY THAN NORMAL WEIGHT PEOPLE. Therefore to discriminate against the majority would be silly..

bb1234567

estudent wrote: »

Do you believe every single gay person is gay because of genetics?

Whole heartedly. What else do you think makes them gay? listening to too much show tunes? playing with dolls when they're toddlers?

Penn

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

Really? I think the accounts here show that most people do not DECIDE to become fat.


Becoming overweight is usually due to a number of factors: enforced idleness due to circumstances (disability eg broken leg, or comfort eating due to stress, or whatever).


Losing weight is a hugely emotional decision for most people, and the Health At Every Size people really do have the right idea - they take the focus off weight and put it on health.

Plus there are a lot of studies that show that people who are mildly overweight tend to live longer than slim people; that people who have hypertension and are overweight live longer than slim people with hypertension etc etc etc. That overweight by itself is not necessarily unhealthy. (Not talking about the morbidly obese here.)

I would urge all of you to have a read of the HAES stuff before assuming that they are all about fat-pride

The difference is, HAES isn't about being healthy in a normal or slightly overweight range, it's health at every size. That a 400lb person can somehow be considered healthy.

I weigh just over 19 stone. I haven't been to a doctor in over 2 years. Am I healthy? No, because I know my weight is having a negative effect on my health. I get back pain, leg pain, have high cholesterol, acid reflux, sweat like a mother****er etc. All of which can be attributed to or are certainly worsened by my weight.

The problem with HAES is that it's teaching "body positivity" over health. It reinforces ideas in people that "maybe your sore knees aren't a result of you weighing 400lb because thin people sometimes have sore knees too".

If someone is outside of the normal BMI range, the only people able to confirm if they're healthy is a doctor. And even then, just because their weight isn't negatively affecting their health now, doesn't mean it won't.

Grayson

bb1234567 wrote: »

Whole heartedly. What else do you think makes them gay? listening to too much show tunes? playing with dolls when they're toddlers?

It's not genetics. If it was then identical twins would both be gay. there's very little difference the the number of twins who are gay.

A theory at this moment is that gay people are born that way, but it's not genetics. they have found that there's a higher amount of later children who are gay. Statistically if you are the fifth child in a family you have a higher chance of being gay than the first child does. Note that this doesn't mean the first child will never be gay, it's just that statistically there are more gay children that are the youngest in the family.

This led people to believe for a while that gay children were raised that way. maybe they were over mothered etc...

However someone else has recently done a study in which they examined the prevalence of homosexuality in adopted children. they specifically looked at households where there was a youngest adopted child. They found no difference between the number of gay people who were the youngest adopted child and the general population.

This would mean that rearing doesn't have an effect but at the same time a youngest child still has a statistical higher chance of being gay. So why is that? If it's not genetics and it's not postnatal environment then it must be prenatal environment.

Current studies are looking at the environment in utero. Studies have been examining the hypothesis that over a number of pregnancies a woman's uterus under goes changes and that those changes can generate a higher statistical chance of being gay. They have found that certain hormones are more prevalent in later pregnancies and those are believed to "generate" gayness.

So no-one is conceived gay but they are born that way.

Now here's the thing. These studies have led down an interesting path. If no-one is conceived gay does that mean that they were all conceived heterosexual? That's looking unlikely too. It may actually be that we all get our sexuality in utero. Nobody is conceived straight or gay but we are born that way.

(Complete tangent I know, but I thought it was worth mentioning)

strobe

If you people were fish, you'd just jump right into the boat, wouldn't ye?

rainbow kirby

No matter what size you are, there is pretty much always something that you can be doing to be healthier. That should be the real definition of Health At Every Size.

HAES as it seems to be practiced by a bunch of fat acceptance activists (Oh look, you can be healthy at 150kg!) is a bunch of absolute horse crap that does more harm than good.

bb1234567

Grayson wrote: »

It's not genetics. If it was then identical twins would both be gay. there's very little difference the the number of twins who are gay.

A theory at this moment is that gay people are born that way, but it's not genetics. they have found that there's a higher amount of later children who are gay. Statistically if you are the fifth child in a family you have a higher chance of being gay than the first child does. Note that this doesn't mean the first child will never be gay, it's just that statistically there are more gay children that are the youngest in the family.

This led people to believe for a while that gay children were raised that way. maybe they were over mothered etc...

However someone else has recently done a study in which they examined the prevalence of homosexuality in adopted children. they specifically looked at households where there was a youngest adopted child. They found no difference between the number of gay people who were the youngest adopted child and the general population.

This would mean that rearing doesn't have an effect but at the same time a youngest child still has a statistical higher chance of being gay. So why is that? If it's not genetics and it's not postnatal environment then it must be prenatal environment.

Current studies are looking at the environment in utero. Studies have been examining the hypothesis that over a number of pregnancies a woman's uterus under goes changes and that those changes can generate a higher statistical chance of being gay. They have found that certain hormones are more prevalent in later pregnancies and those are believed to "generate" gayness.

So no-one is conceived gay but they are born that way.

Now here's the thing. These studies have led down an interesting path. If no-one is conceived gay does that mean that they were all conceived heterosexual? That's looking unlikely too. It may actually be that we all get our sexuality in utero. Nobody is conceived straight or gay but we are born that way.

(Complete tangent I know, but I thought it was worth mentioning)

Actually that pattern is observed in male children only. Any male born after his brother(s) has a higher chance of being gay. If the first born is a girl, and the second child is a male then there is no higher chance of him being gay than a first born male. And in the same, way if you have a male first born then it has no effect on the chances of any female children born after him being gay.

Grayson

bb1234567 wrote: »

Actually that pattern is observed in male children only. Any male born after his brother(s) has a higher chance of being gay. If the first born is a girl, and the second child is a male then there is no higher chance of him being gay than a first born male. And in the same, way if you have a male first born then it has no effect on the chances of any female children born after him being gay.

last response on this because i don't want to derail the thread.

All the info i read was about males it didn't mention females at all. However the evidence for males would suggest that it is not genetic (hence the twins) but that it was in utero.

One incidental anecdotal story I read was about a woman who had been a lesbian all her life. Since her teens she'd had female partners. Until in her twilight years she was in a nursing home, fell in love with a man and got married.

I think some people are straight, some are gay, some are bi and sometimes the heart just wants what the heart wants and who knows why?

Mod

estudent banned for trolling

RDM_83 again

StormWarrior wrote: »

Why don't men start a "Big fat men are gorgeous too" campaign. Get James Corden and Sinbad from Brookside to get their shirts off, wobble their man boobs around and see if constant coverage of this can brainwash people into thinking fat men are sexy too. The fat men can bitch about Brad Pitt and Keanu Reeves and how they obviously starve themselves to stay slim.

I'd imagine its actually a lot harder to achieve the male "perfect" body than the female one. The ideal appears to be both lean and muscular for a man, for a woman its simply slim and toned.
Achieving weight loss and a low body fat isn't actually conductive to putting on muscle though of course its probably easier for guys because there is less of a judgement on physical appearance (as long as you have a half way decent personality )

In relation to the value judgment about people being obese, I guess part of it is that you don't see how you could let yourself reach that weight, and as its something that can be simply influenced unlike a lot of other physical things.

I do think though that at the same time its one of the few things its in someway socially acceptable to mock which is something I've never really got the need to do, it says more about that person than those they comment on, its fine not to be attracted to some-one carrying weight its not really ok to demean them because of it though I know personally I've said some very insensitive things but they weren't coming from a bad place just my standard foot-in-mouth syndrome.

DoYouEvenLift

estudent wrote: »

Do you believe every single gay person is gay because of genetics?

Lmao, definitely trolling, I answered your stupid question in the post you directly quoted.