Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.

Fat Acceptance Movement

1…1011131516…49

Replies

  • one1fast68
    one1fast68 Posts: 51 Member
    one1fast68 wrote: »

    Right, and there should be some sort of appeal process, such as providing your BF%.

    [/quote]

    Agreed.[/quote]

    x2
  • jofjltncb6
    jofjltncb6 Posts: 34,415 Member
    PSA:

    Please do not delete the tags from quoted posts. They're the things in the brackets ([ ]). These are important.

    Okay, now back to this thread on insurance policy.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited April 2016
    BioShocked89 wrote: »
    Where do we say, "your weight is dangerous, you need to do something" without shaming and letting people love them selves no matter what?

    Who is the "we" here.

    I think doctors ought to advise patients about their weight (and claiming that's shaming you is silly). I think insurance wellness programs are similar and fine.

    I think we should be able to talk about the obesity problem, generally discuss what healthy weight levels are as a public policy/scientific matter, and have efforts like Michelle Obama's and others to try to reduce obesity.

    In none of these cases would I (as someone not a medical professional) ever need to say to someone "wow, you are fat, maybe you should lose weight").

    If asked how I lost weight or if a friend told me she was struggling with her weight, I'd discuss it with her (or him). For a parent or sibling or spouse or child, depending on circumstances, I can see raising the subject delicately (although on the whole I think the desire to lose needs to be self-directed and people KNOW if they are significantly overweight and know it's not healthy).

    So I guess I don't see how this dilemma comes up. Am I missing something?
  • GaleHawkins
    GaleHawkins Posts: 8,159 Member
    Man has been judging and profiling others for eons because if not we would not be on the planet today. When we stop then the gene pool may away over time.
  • DorkyUnicorn
    DorkyUnicorn Posts: 14 Member
    I think that there's nothing wrong with encouraging someone to accept themselves and see themselves as beautiful for who they are regardless of weight, but being severely overweight should never be promoted as being healthy.
  • WakkoW
    WakkoW Posts: 567 Member
    SapiensPisces wrote: »
    WakkoW wrote: »
    As an adult, I am very happy that I was fat shamed. I would have totally fallen for some fat acceptance crap telling me being fat was okay.

    While this worked well for you, it does the exact opposite for a majority of "fat" people. The consensus is that fat shaming tends to make people feel hopeless and just give up instead of inspiring them to change.

    I'm glad that you got healthy though! It's a tremendous accomplishment.

    Not being fat is not an accomplishment.
  • 100df
    100df Posts: 668 Member
    paulajobelle wrote: »
    My only concern is that we are moving away from talking about being healthy for fear of being called "fat haters". I am very worried about the growing numbers of children who are overweight as young as 5 as I know that they can run a higher risk for medical issues later on. No one should be shamed or bullied for their body size or shape but we must also not ignore the real risk that morbid obesity has on a person's health. I am one of those people who has run the gamut in terms of weight and what usually gets me back on track is knowing that the risks as I age can be compounded by excess weight and that is one thing that I know I can address.

    I agree.

    There's a difference between discussing obesity in general and talking about it with someone who is obese. There's no doubt in my mind that the jerks of the world who are mean about it do not help the person. I do not believe in tough love from strangers. I think you have to love the person for it to be effective. With that, saying it's fine to be obese doesn't help either. I am not sure what the answer is.

    I also think unless you have been in the position of being in the obese categories I, II and III, it is hard to understand. I may get hit for saying this because it's just as hard to lose 10 pounds as it is to lose 100. However, I don't think it's same. The weight loss phase is much longer when it's 100+ pounds.

    The myths and misinformation about weight has complicated the issue. People who don't have a weight problem see the same myths and misinformation. They think obese people could take Dr Oz supplements and drop the weight in 3 months.
  • sunflowerhippi
    sunflowerhippi Posts: 1,099 Member
    PiperGirl08 wrote: »
    sunflowerhippi wrote: »
    sunnybeaches105 wrote: »
    PiperGirl08 wrote: »
    auddii wrote: »
    PiperGirl08 wrote: »
    auddii wrote: »
    ArmyofAdrian wrote: »
    mskessler89 wrote: »
    ArmyofAdrian wrote: »
    mskessler89 wrote: »
    ArmyofAdrian wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    ArmyofAdrian wrote: »
    RobD520 wrote: »
    jofjltncb6 wrote: »
    RobD520 wrote: »
    ArmyofAdrian wrote: »
    RobD520 wrote: »
    ArmyofAdrian wrote: »
    stealthq wrote: »
    ArmyofAdrian wrote: »
    stealthq wrote: »
    ArmyofAdrian wrote: »
    tomteboda wrote: »
    ArmyofAdrian wrote: »
    I don't know what definition of obesity you are using, but we're going to have to agree to disagree. I'm going with the CDC's definition of obesity: "Weight that is higher than what is considered as a healthy weight for a given height is described as overweight or obese. " A weight that is higher than what is healthy would be unhealthy.

    Also, the AMA, The World Health Organization, Food and Drug Administration (FDA), National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists each recognize obesity as a disease. A disease is included in the set of things that are unhealthy.

    Of course, the line between healthy and unhealthy is uniform for a height regardless of any other factors? That seems very, very arbitrary to me. The BMI definition of obesity is population-statistical. It's uninformative for any individual.

    How can it be arbitrary when it's based on statistical analysis? Anyway, quibbling over the diagnostic criteria doesn't change the plain fact that obesity is unhealthy.

    For several reasons. One, BMI does not include sufficient variables to adequately be more than an estimation for an individual. Two, BMI does not adequately cover sufficient populations to really develop an all-inclusive model with the variables it does include (i.e. the model doesn't fit well for Asians as an example). It also does not fit the very short or the very tall. Three, how exactly were cut-offs picked? They have some basis in risk analysis, but what level of risk is considered unacceptable is basically arbitrary.

    Basing a criterion on its statistical significance using huge data sets is not at all "arbitrary".

    Deciding that a 20.1% risk* is unacceptable whereas a 20% risk* is acceptable is arbitrary. There is no standard for when health risk crosses from 'acceptable' to not.

    Also, when dealing with global population and physiological diversity, I'd hardly consider the sampling used to generate the BMI model as 'huge'.

    *Not actual numbers, used only as an example.

    You arbitrarily pull numbers out of the air then pretend those arbitrary numbers somehow refute the actual statistical analysis??

    Totally missed the point, didn't you?

    Okay Rob, I'll ignore the AMA, CDC, NIH, and WHO since they didn't clear their statistical methods with you first and because they can't guarantee absolute 100% predictably of outcomes based on risk factors.

    Which of these organizations compell you to hold overweight people in contempt?

    I need direct quotes on this one.

    The funny thing is I don't disagree that obesity increases health risks. But that isn't really what's being debated here.

    it is though, isn't it? I mean, no one here is arguing that obese people should be shamed, held in contempt, mocked, etc. The argument is about the inherent increased risks of obesity (and in my opinion, is best contrasted with the same person if they were not obese).

    Read all the posts for the person towards which my response was directed.

    If the argument was about the inherent risks of obesity the argument would be over.

    There are plenty of people on this thread downplaying or outright denying that obesity is unhealthy. Heck that's the entire point of "fat acceptance" and "healthy at any size"; they're trying to sugar coat the issue and ignore the elephant in the room.

    I don't believe so. The argument you were responding to was that a cutoff of 25 BMI (or some such) as the line between "healthy" and not is rather arbitrary on an individual basis.

    I tend to think that most of the disagreement in this thread is due to people reading things into terms that others don't mean by them. Almost unanimously people have said that denying that obesity is unhealthy is a mistake, and denying that weight loss is a positive goal when one is obese is a bad thing -- those corners of HAES and fat acceptance that say otherwise haven't gotten any support that I've seen.

    I don't see the "entire point" of fat acceptance or HAES as saying obesity is not unhealthy. As I (and others) stated above, accepting ourselves while still fat (working on the self-hatred issues) helped us take control and lose weight. And I see a positive element of HAES that even while you are fat you can improve healthfulness by getting out there and getting active. And again, for me, focusing on what I was doing as about "getting fit and being as healthy as I could" was less scary than the idea of trying to lose weight and failing, as I knew I could control what I ate and my exercise choices. And, of course, I also lost weight -- typically focusing on getting fit and healthy will result in weight loss.

    Please look up the word "arbitrary", then look at the statistical analysis behind the diagnostic criteria used to diagnose obesity. The criteria is anything but "arbitrary". The fact that it cannot single-handedly predict outcomes with absolute certainty does not make it "arbitrary".

    These attempts to "spin" obesity guidelines as arbitrary is another example of the denial you claim isn't happening.

    If people truly acknowledge that obesity is unhealthy then accepting their own obesity seems bizarre. If they are trying to lose weight, then they can't accurately say they've accepted being fat. They can't have their cake and eat it too.

    For individuals, BMI is arbitrary. BMI is used to assess populations on a large scale. You can't use BMI to determine if an individual is healthy, or even if an individual is overfat.

    I have always been a "normal" BMI, but at my highest weight, I had a high enough body fat % to be considered obese. According to your argument, I was healthy. Reality is that, had I not lost weight, I would have stayed at higher risk for obesity-related health problems. On the flip side, there's tall or muscular people who get classified as overweight because BMI goes off height and weight alone, not accounting for fat %. Fat % is a much more accurate way of establishing risk in individuals, but according to your BMI-is-not-arbitrary stance, these lean-but-heavy individuals are unhealthy.

    ETA: Definition of arbitrary
    MATHEMATICS
    (of a constant or other quantity) of unspecified value.

    The reason people keep calling BMI arbitrary is that while, yes, BMI has specified values, not everyone who falls into those categories actually ARE what the value specifies. A person with a BMI of 25 will not, by other quantifiable standards such as body fat %, be overweight (overfat and therefore unhealthy) every single time.

    Spin spin spin.

    I could have lived in denial about the status of my health by saying I was at a healthy BMI and therefore healthy. Or I could use a tool more applicable for individuals instead of mass population, realize my body fat % was too high, and fix it. Yep, all spin there.

    BMI is not the best tool for assessing risk on an individual scale. That does not mean obesity is a good state for people to be in, or that anyone here is encouraging people to be obese. That does not mean that the morbidly obese people trying to throw BMI out the window by claiming they're "big-boned" are in any way justified. It just means BMI is not always going to be an accurate indicator of a person's health or body composition. And there are probably a lot more people out there thinking they're healthy when they're actually at risk, especially if that's compounded with other lifestyle risk factors.

    BMI guidelines are just that: Guidelines. No one anywhere claimed BMI guidelines are the sole tool necessary to make a determination about overall health. That's a straw-man argument. None of this makes BMI guidelines "arbitrary".

    No, but many insurance companies in the US are talking about using BMI as a way to regulate how much your premiums are (if you're overweight or obese, you'll have higher premiums because you are associated with a higher burden of cost for health care expenses). As can be expected, a lot of people have problems with that.

    My insurance company warned us that in a year we'd be screened for 5 metrics. And then at 6 months allowed us to take a test run. And then at that one year mark, screened everyone. Those who failed on two or more metrics paid higher premiums. As I recall, the metrics included smoking, waist size, blood pressure, and two others that elude me.

    The point being that insurance should be for the unexpected, i.e. those things outside our control. We, the consumer, the insured, should be responsible for those things within our control. And if we're not willing to be, then we ought to pay some price, i.e. have some skin in the game, instead of wantonly pawning off our foreseeable costs on someone else.

    Um, fine?

    But BMI is not accurate FOR SOME. In general, most people fall under the bell curve for which it is applicable, but when you make it a hard and fast rule for defining coverage, then it does become a problem for those few outliers.

    BMI is in fact pretty generous. Most Americans are not Greeks God and Goddesses or Olympic class athletes and it is *not* muscle mass that drives them towards the higher ends of the scale.

    Where there are real exceptions, provisions are in place to accommodate them. This is a false argument.

    Knowledge of BMI is not enough to be making judgments about a specific individual. It's a very simplistic calculation and while its fine to use for a population because one can assume a normalized distribution, it shouldn't be used for insurance calculations. I've already had one friend who was forced to lose 20 pounds of muscle mass so he could save money on his life insurance premiums. I'm not looking forward to the possiblity of being rated myself for health insurance.

    I would be an example... even with a 27% body fat...

    I'm confused. 27% body fat is better than, say, 33%, but it isn't exactly the stuff of Adonis. So in this case BMI and body fat % would actually both confirm that one does not have to lose muscle in order to drop weight or BMI categories.

    I know it is not ideal I was down at 25% prior to a pregnancy and still overweight BMI. I am working on getting down to 23% in the end now, but when applying for life insurance since my daughters birth they use BMI not body fat, obviously like most companies. They have brackets for prices. I was saying how BMI for Life insurance is not a good method of long term cost projection because you can have a overweight BMI but be healthy body fat levels but that BMI levels for insurances basically encourages crash diets and unhealthy lifestyle to hit these pointless BMI numbers.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    paulajobelle wrote: »
    My only concern is that we are moving away from talking about being healthy for fear of being called "fat haters".

    What's the evidence that we are doing this? If anything, I've noticed MORE talk about it, not less (which I think is good).
  • lithezebra
    lithezebra Posts: 3,670 Member
    edited April 2016
    I think loving yourself as you are is an excellent start to taking care of your health, and if that includes needing to lose weight, that's what responsible self love requires. At the other end, taking care of yourself means not trying to maintain a body weight that is unhealthily low.
  • GaleHawkins
    GaleHawkins Posts: 8,159 Member
    WakkoW wrote: »
    JShailen wrote: »
    WakkoW wrote: »
    SapiensPisces wrote: »
    WakkoW wrote: »
    As an adult, I am very happy that I was fat shamed. I would have totally fallen for some fat acceptance crap telling me being fat was okay.

    While this worked well for you, it does the exact opposite for a majority of "fat" people. The consensus is that fat shaming tends to make people feel hopeless and just give up instead of inspiring them to change.

    I'm glad that you got healthy though! It's a tremendous accomplishment.

    Not being fat is not an accomplishment.

    Of course it is. If you were were fat and you lost weight, that by definition is an accomplishment. It doesn't mean you have to praise or laud the person however, that's up to you.

    http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/accomplishment

    Well, the comment was directed towards me and I say it wasn't an accomplishment. Not being fat does not take work or effort. You just need to eat less. You don't need to exercise. You don't need special foods. You don't need a special diet. You just need to take in fewer calories. It does not need to be overly complicated and not being fat should be expected of every person in our society.

    Do you understand once one is obese it may take more than just eating less of the same macro that enabled obesity to develop? A guy that was at a good weight say at 180 pounds may NOT medically be the same guy after gaining to 280 then losing back down to 180.
  • meganjcallaghan
    meganjcallaghan Posts: 949 Member
    zyxst wrote: »
    Some people feel FA means you don't give a sh1t about your health. From what I understood it to mean is you don't have to be a certain weight to love yourself. The opponents I've heard from are in disbelief that fat people can love themselves and have "good" blood work/health markers.

    True story...I only lost weight because if I hadn't I wouldn't have been allowed to donate a kidney. I was actually quite happy and healthy when I was fat. No medical issues whatsoever, better cardio stamina than most of my thin friends... I lost the weight and everyone kept saying "you must FEEL so much better!", but I actually felt healthier and more energetic when I was bigger.
  • kmbrooks15
    kmbrooks15 Posts: 941 Member
    Shaming anyone for any reason is not acceptable. We should view people for who they are and their contribution to society. Adele is a great example; she's overweight but an incredible singer, so what people remember about her first and foremost is her incredible talent.

    HOWEVER--acceptance of the obesity epidemic in this country is dangerous. If we don't do things to try to motivate people to eat healthy foods and exercise, then we are doing our whole country a disservice (I realize I'm preaching to the choir here :wink:). I don't think legislation to limit sodas (as in New York) or Michelle Obama's crappy school lunch program is the answer. Education and incentives would go a long way toward convincing people to get up and move. As for health at any size--I think that's a dangerous road to go down. We know from years of medical research that losing even 10% of your body weight can have serious health benefits in reducing risk of heart disease, diabetes, and a host of other issues. I do think that anyone, of any weight, can get up and move. If you start eating more vegetables, fruits, whole grains, and lean protein and moving around more, you are likely going to naturally lose some weight. The problem is that there are people (I see them in the gym all the time) who work out, and yes, that's healthy; but then they eat crappy food with no nutritional value, and they lose no weight. While they may be healthier than someone (of any size) that sits around doing nothing, you can't tell me they are as healthy as someone who eats a proper diet and exercises.

    So this whole fat acceptance thing is good on a mental health level--learn to love yourself no matter what. But on a physical level, it's dangerous because many will use it as an excuse not to try to improve their health. We're already one of the unhealthiest countries on the planet.
  • Kay_Fancy
    Kay_Fancy Posts: 34 Member
    I'll also comment that a lot of issues I have with this "movement" have to do with the lack of consistency when it comes to the "voice" of the FA movement. I think the people with the loudest voices are often the extremists of any issue, and because of this it's very easy to get a narrow perspective on what the issue actually means to the majority of the people who are in support of it.

    People can do what they want, but they must accept the consequences, imo
  • WakkoW
    WakkoW Posts: 567 Member
    newmeadow wrote: »
    So, along those lines, other developments which are not accomplishments to be lauded:

    Stifling a lifelong habit of the gratuitous use of crass profanity

    Abstaining from the illicit, recreational or addictively used street or pharmaceutical drugs

    Becoming sober after years of habitual drunkenness

    Refraining from slapping your sex partners around, after being repeatedly jailed for it

    Committing to daily bathing, after years of limiting showering activity to once every two weeks

    Exactly! Not doing these things should be expected out of each and every person, not praised. Not only that, but it is acceptable to shame drunks, smokers, drug addicts, abusers, etc.
  • 100df
    100df Posts: 668 Member
    WakkoW wrote: »
    newmeadow wrote: »
    So, along those lines, other developments which are not accomplishments to be lauded:

    Stifling a lifelong habit of the gratuitous use of crass profanity

    Abstaining from the illicit, recreational or addictively used street or pharmaceutical drugs

    Becoming sober after years of habitual drunkenness

    Refraining from slapping your sex partners around, after being repeatedly jailed for it

    Committing to daily bathing, after years of limiting showering activity to once every two weeks

    Exactly! Not doing these things should be expected out of each and every person, not praised. Not only that, but it is acceptable to shame drunks, smokers, drug addicts, abusers, etc.

    Who says it is acceptable to shame these people?
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    kmbrooks15 wrote: »
    Education and incentives would go a long way toward convincing people to get up and move.

    For discussion purposes, what specifically would you propose? I don't think it's an easy problem to solve as a society (on the individual level I think we know what people need to do). I also see lots of education efforts already, and doubt it's a knowledge issue, but I'm generally pro education.
    As for health at any size--I think that's a dangerous road to go down. We know from years of medical research that losing even 10% of your body weight can have serious health benefits in reducing risk of heart disease, diabetes, and a host of other issues. I do think that anyone, of any weight, can get up and move. If you start eating more vegetables, fruits, whole grains, and lean protein and moving around more, you are likely going to naturally lose some weight.

    For me, that's the positive message of HAES. Some people have given up on losing weight, either because they just don't believe they can, are confused about what to do, or--and I think these are the people most attracted to things like FA/HAES--have struggled for a long time with self loathing and yoyo dieting and bingeing and overrestricting and the rest. FOR THEM focusing on ways to improve health (to be as healthy as possible) other than losing weight and giving the dieting efforts a rest would likely be helpful. And IMO if you get active and improve your diet/nutrition, then you will start losing weight and perhaps feel capable of it or perhaps continue to think that dieting messed with your head but keep the positive behaviors and make improvements to your health you wouldn't otherwise have done.

    I was never messed up from yoyo dieting (I've dieted twice, found it reasonably easy both times), but before I did the first time I was convinced I had no control over my weight and it wouldn't work (I was lucky enough when younger to be able to stay at a healthy weight without ever thinking about weight control). Trying to "diet" would have been much more difficult for me than what I did -- deciding that I'd be as fit and healthy as I possibly could, no matter my weight, and deciding to eat better (including less) and get really active and fit through exercise. Although I'd not heard of FA (and did not accept being fat) or HAES, I see this as not all that different in some important ways.
    So this whole fat acceptance thing is good on a mental health level--learn to love yourself no matter what. But on a physical level, it's dangerous because many will use it as an excuse not to try to improve their health. We're already one of the unhealthiest countries on the planet.

    Again, this is not the world I live in. Self-loathing would not have made it easier to lose weight, and accepting myself as a decent, worthwhile person, despite being fat, never once made me think "well, I'd just as soon stay fat." On the other hand, realizing that there were things I could do to improve my fitness (and that I was a confident, capable person in all sorts of other areas who was good at problem solving and not a loser) was immensely helpful in my being able to successfully tackle my weight.
  • distinctlybeautiful
    distinctlybeautiful Posts: 1,041 Member
    rankinsect wrote: »
    Obesity is unhealthy. That doesn't mean each obese person is unhealthy. There's a huge difference between the two.

    All I can think of after reading this are those logic problems that go something like this..

    If all fruits are sweet and some fruits are strawberries, then all strawberries are sweet, true or false?

    Except it's more like if having obesity is unhealthy and some people who have obesity have other indicators of good health, then all people who have obesity and other indicators of good health are unhealthy, true or false?

    (I used the phrase "have obesity" to try to neutralize the statement. I didn't think "suffer from" provided an objective enough perspective.)
  • DearestWinter
    DearestWinter Posts: 595 Member
    Kay_Fancy wrote: »
    singingflutelady wrote: »
    The problem I have with HAES (which should be HABS-health at bigger size) is that they demonize anyone who is trying to lose weight or unintentionally lose weight and they bodyshame thin people. It seems to be covering up binge eating disorder behaviours

    Agreed. Also, I have an issue with things like flights and such. If you take up two seats you have to buy two tickets, the dissent in the FA community about spacial realities baffles me. I don't want to shame anyone, but reality still has to be taken into consideration.

    Does this happen? The issue of getting extra seats for free seems like a theoretical argument that most individuals accept is unrealistic. Maybe there are proponents but I suspect they're extremists. Perhaps I'm wrong.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories