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
Replies
-
thisonetimeatthegym wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »thisonetimeatthegym wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »thisonetimeatthegym wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »thisonetimeatthegym wrote: »CipherZero wrote: »thisonetimeatthegym wrote: »I think there are two competing ideas going on.
1. Fat shaming is wrong and cruel no one can know where another person is in their life or how hard they're working to be the person they want to be.
2. Fat acceptance is dangerous. You get these "statistics" which say humans CAN be healthy at varying levels of being overweight, but the simple fact is the vast majority are not. If people are not eating healthy foods and exercising as part of their routines, they're not going to be healthy. The emphasis of such movements should always be for people to seek help first, be it a food logging app or a commitment with buddies to do the gym.
You can't believe #2 and #1 concurrently.
Because while you are spouting politically correct narratives, you are mentally judging fat people.
Nonsense. Humans mentally judge each other; it's built into us.
1. I see no reason to give someone crap for their choice to be overfat to the point of self-destruction.
2. It doesn't make it less dangerous to be overfat.
My issue is with #1. Did they choose?
People don't understand the power of habit, genetic makeup, medications and stress that combine to make weight loss or gain more complicated than a choice.
For years, I chose to lose weight and gained weight instead.
It was only after much prayer and solutions to the obstacles I faced was I able to lose weight.
So what I'm saying is that you think a lot less compassionately than you act, and I'm sure it comes across even if you are unaware of it.
You are right, there are many factors combined in trying to lose weight. The fact that you were ineffectively engaged in trying to lose weight didn't take away from the fact that you were still trying.
And that makes you different from a good chunk of fat acceptance advocates.
What you fail to realize is that there are people actively choosing to give up on losing weight and are actively choosing to be overfat.
If I'm not mistaken, that is the group of people the other poster was referring to.
Sometimes getting off the rollercoaster for a while to just love oneself is what is needed for some people's mental health. And better self love and peace leads to positive change.
As for me, I just refused to hate myself (God forgave me, so I'm not holding on to guilt), and I refused to stop trying. But you couldn't tell that from looking at me, so I'm sure people were busy judging, no matter that I was putting in more effort.
And advice from people like move less, eat more or calories in, calories out, do the hard work, or just do it, was the equivalent of a business person saying the key to business success is to make more sales than expenses. You see how trite it sounds to your ears when applied in other situations.
You're missing what I'm saying here.
I am not talking about people like you, who are still interested in pursuing a healthy weight at some point. I'm not talking about people who are aware they have issues with food and a problem with eating and just can't figure out how to address it.
I am not talking about the idea that people can't and shouldn't love and accept themselves.
There is a group of people who actively embrace out and out gluttony. There is just no other word for it. Posts from the celebrating binging in parking lots on fast food. This is behavior most people would feel embarrassed about, and they celebrate it as part of the life they lead.
They want to be protected as a special class, feeling they were just born this way, wanting to eat massive quantities of unhealthy food and have absolutely no self-awareness connecting their behavior to their size or idea that they might have emotional issues underlying the drive to keep eating.
This is a good chunk of the Fat Acceptance movement. Can you really support these people, committing slow suicide by food, not through ignorance, nor inability to conquer demons in spite of their best efforts, but through the active choice to plug their ears to and blind their eyes to everything telling them that it's unhealthy to be the way they choose to be.
I know I can't.
Just look at what Tararenee3913 said. She said it better than I could.
Have a nice day.
http://articles.latimes.com/1997/dec/26/news/mn-2357
Read this.
Especially the second page, about the Size Acceptance movement involvement. That's what the movement is about. That's the what the arm of the movement I'm talking about is. And it's not the fringe. They are making inroads. I posted proof above.
This isn't about accepting yourself and empowering yourself to make positive changes. This is something else entirely.
Have a nice day.
First, the girl went on her 1st diet at 2. By 9, the girl refused to go to the doctor after going more than 90 times. She obviously had some type of metabolic issue.
Very sad for the little girl.
How do your comments address the role of the size acceptance movement in her life?
I'm not talking about the poor girl.
My issues are with the formal Fat Acceptance Movement.
Again, I will reiterate my position. I am not against body positivity. I am not against loving yourself. After all, I personally chose to love myself at Class II obese as part of my own path to becoming well. I feel it's important to accept yourself, flaws and all as part of making positive life changes. I think it's important to make positive life changes and to adopt healthy life habits.
I am firmly against the Fat Acceptance Movement and think that a lot of people in this thread aren't familiar with the darker parts of it.4 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »seekingdaintiness wrote: »These threads are alwasy a kitten storm. yes I types kitten ahead of the censors. lol
Fact - I am no healthier for losing weight because my weight NEVER made me unhealthy. It's amazing how many people get super angry with me and want me to not believe my own personal experience, backed up with medical records. It's amazing how many doctors would get visibly angry when they would test me for all the "fat person" illnesses and couldn't find any. My real illnesses have been present since birth and it is very true that doctors have never had any interest in treating them because they were too busy looking for reasons to be mad at me for being fat.
I have been on this stupid "weight loss journey" for social acceptance, nothing more, because people are viciously, hatefully cruel to fat people, have called me names you wouldn't believe, told me to die or kill myself, that I shouldn't exist, shouldn't do anything, shouldn't eat at all, shouldn't be allowed to have an opinion, and things I can't say here because they would all be "kittened" out. None of these things made me want to do anything more than lock myself in my bedroom and cry. Why do people think these things "encourage people to lose weight"?
I suppose in a sense it is true - eventually they pushed me into an eating disorder because I hated myself. I have not lost weight healthily and am in much worse shape now than when I was fat.
You are 1 person. There are many that have a plethora of illnesses caused by or contributed to by their obesity.
Additionally, health is a snapshot. It's not usually stable over time. Obesity is like water. It's patient. It's effects show the longer it lasts. This poster may have been healthy when she was still obese, but chances are she would not have remained healthy.
One of the dark secrets of the Fat Acceptance movement is that they have to keep changing out their spokespeople. The prominent members age and succumb to the inevitable consequences of their life choices and get shuttled out of the limelight because they're no longer presenting the illusion of vibrant, healthy, sassy activists.
My father was obese. He was energetic and seemed healthy for decades until his health issues began rapidly popping up and causing complications with each other. He was also a heavy drinker, but I have no doubt that his weight was a significant factor in the illnesses that caused the end of his life. The things he had -- high blood pressure, heart disease, gout, strokes, type 2 diabetes -- these are things that tend to happen when people are older and have stressed their bodies for years. Doctors warned him when he was younger, but he didn't really listen because he felt fine. He played tennis, he wrestled with his kids, he did lots of yard work. He didn't think of himself as having anything to worry about.1 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »
Mostly fish and vegetables, based on the traditional Japanese diet with less "Western" food choices.midwesterner85 wrote: »How exactly do they make "healthy" cafeteria menus?
Also reasonable portion sizes...
Do a Google search for details.
As much as I keep hearing on these forums that it doesn't matter WHAT you eat, it is HOW MUCH, I wouldn't expect the actual ingredients to matter. Nonetheless, most fast food meals in America come with a vegetable (potatoes / french fries), so the difference is fish vs. beef and portion sizes.
So then if I were to subscribe to the argument that the "healthy" difference related to prevalence of obesity is portion size (unless everyone here wants to agree that obesity is about what foods you eat and not how much... which I'm not seeing), then what stops people from ordering multiple portions? Is there a difference with suggestive selling? In the U.S., that is common... example is when McDonald's offers a 2nd McRib sandwich for $1 with purchase of a McRib meal. Do they NOT do that in Japan?
I'm not sold on the type of food being the answer. Portion sizes just don't match for the enormous difference in obesity, especially when the alternative (multiple portions) are just as easily obtained.
I work for a company based in Japan. They send management-track Japanese employees to locations all around the world for years at a time. In my time here, I've seen dozens of Japanese employees come and go from the U.S. I can only think of 1 that was noticeably overweight. He was overweight when he came, and he was just as overweight when he left. As far as I can tell, all of the rest switched to eating American food for years - both portion sizes and ingredients - without becoming noticeably overweight. I would suggest there must be another difference with a bigger impact.
So...when you equivocate "vegetable" sides, there is a huge calorie difference in pickled daikon radish vs. fries, which are a calorie bomb (400 for the Wendy's medium). Basically, one fry equals a nice pile of daikon. I don't think the Japanese are typically frying their vegetables in a vat of Crisco like we do with our fries, so you can't say those are comparable foods. And it's not just beef vs. fish....it's cultural touchpoints like Kobe beef vs. fatty dripping hamburgers covered in sauce and cheese (which, I have to admit, IS the pinnacle of culinary brilliance), or tuna sashimi or pickled squid vs. fish n' chips or fried shrimp.
Are you close enough to your Japanese coworkers to ask them about their perceptions and experience with American food? Or anyone that would have eaten with them on a regular basis who could make observations? It would be very interesting to hear their perspective. I suspect it still is coming down to restraint in portion size and eating modestly. It goes entirely against their culture to gorge themselves, no matter what kind of food they are eating. And, especially, management trainees are going to be careful to show restrain and discipline in all things. Also, while they may not appear to be overweight to your visual inspection, that is not to say they didn't gain 10 or 20 lbs living in the US (while still not getting actually fat).
I love going out for sushi, because the food is so low calorie (I don't do rolls) and it all comes on discreet platters and teeny-tiny plates and bowls and tiny little cups of sake. It's great for my daily calorie count, but makes me feel like a huge meat-fisted Viking eating off a child's toy china set (and I am thin for an American woman).4 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »seekingdaintiness wrote: »Fact - I am no healthier for losing weight because my weight NEVER made me unhealthy.
You are missing the point. I never had health issues related to my weight either, but that doesn't change the fact that being obese was a greater risk factor and the likelihood that I would have health problems if I continued to be obese, especially as I got older, was higher than now. That one specific person does not (or has not yet) suffered health problems doesn't change this, any more than the fact my mother never had any problems due to smoking means that smoking is just fine for health (she smoked from around age 18 to age 60).I have been on this stupid "weight loss journey" for social acceptance, nothing more, because people are viciously, hatefully cruel to fat people, have called me names you wouldn't believe, told me to die or kill myself, that I shouldn't exist, shouldn't do anything, shouldn't eat at all, shouldn't be allowed to have an opinion, and things I can't say here because they would all be "kittened" out. None of these things made me want to do anything more than lock myself in my bedroom and cry. Why do people think these things "encourage people to lose weight"?
I suspect they mostly don't, that to the extent they happened as you describe they did it for other reasons. (And I'd say hang out with better people, as I didn't get most of that when I was fat, thank goodness. I had self-esteem issues, that really started before I was fat, and body hatred, again even before I was fat, that I would agree were not at all helpful.)
You seem to think that most of us here are have not been fat ourselves, but I don't think that's true.
I am very much in favor of self-acceptance and body positivity and agree with many of the criticisms of the dieting industry by people like Laura Fraser, as I mentioned above. I don't think that's the same thing that people are talking about when critiquing fat acceptance.
As I keep saying, I think people are largely talking past each other because we have different ideas of what fat acceptance is (and because it is probably to some degree a big tent with both elements in it). If you think people here are defending fat shaming I think you have been misreading the discussion.
I think you're right. The conversation seems to keep going round and round.
Here are some bullet points for thread participants to challenge, agree with or disagree with.
*If someone thinks overweight is unattractive but keeps quiet about it, is it accepting or not?
*If someone thinks overweight is unattractive and discusses it with other non-overweight people, but is careful to not let any overweight person overhear the sentiments, is it accepting or not?
*If an obese adult, somehow, seems to have an obese child (as is so common) is the obese adult morally repugnant? Is the obese adult legally culpable for the suffering, in any form, of the obese child? Would it be prudent for the adult to be forced to stop fattening up the child under threat of losing custody? What measures, specifically, should be taken to protect children from obese parents who would sentence their own children to the suffering of obesity, while constantly decrying that it's not their fault and that they have little control over the situation?
*Is the "health" of another person over the age of 18 anyone else's business?
*Are people allowed to be "unhealthy" for any reason, if they so choose? And if the answer is yes, why don't we all shut up about it?
*If taxpayers have to foot the bill for the willfully "unhealthy", should that include limits and what should they be?
*Should taxpayers have to foot the bill for the willfully "unhealthy" under any circumstances? Or should the willfully "unhealthy" have to lie in the bed they made?
*Have the words "health" and "unhealthy" become politicized buzzwords which in fact allow for politically incorrect discussions dedicated to raw topics take place? Topics such as physical unattractiveness, social unacceptability, visceral and repugnant lack of self control, moral failings, lower social standing, and the celebration of thinly veiled elitism?
*Has all this become so overemphasized and overly obsessed about that it's become boring? My Morrocan hair stylist left Morroco in the early 2000s. He said up until the time he left there, women were generally happy at any size and didn't really care if they were fat. He said they all got married, had children and enjoyed the pleasure of close family bonds anyway and fatness didn't really matter to them. He did say it's different now though, and fatness as associated with unattractiveness has become more of an issue for the young women there.
I think that obesity should be addressed as a serious problem, but not by the government with taxation. For the government side, I'd love to see some food lobbies have less sway so that initiatives like the First Lady tried wouldn't get skewered and watered down again. My Plate is laughable compared to what it started out to be, thanks to lobbyists.
My dream solution to it would be treating it as a medical specialty, where you had specialist offices, similar to my migraine clinic for it. There would be a staff of not only medical doctors, but behavior specialists, exercise specialists, and nutrition specialists.
I'd also love for junk science and diet gurus to be launched into a black hole along with bad media coverage on diet information that misinforms the public on how weight loss works.
Heck, I can dream.
2 -
FWIW, there is a big difference between having a few more expensive "healthy" choices and having mostly affordable healthy choices.
Many people pick the less healthy choices because of price, taste preference, etc.
By making most or all of the choices "healthy" and pricing them accordingly, the problem can begin to solve itself.
One might not like how Japan does it, but anyone would be hard pressed to argue with results.
Eating out is a social event in Japan; cooking, eating and food are part of the culture.
Food presentation by itself is literally an art form in Japan.
There are companies that specialize in making plastic models of food just to entice customers into one restaurant instead of another.
The Japanese eat white rice (carbs, oh no!!) with every meal, 3 times a day, every day.
But about 5% obesity numbers. So what gives?
They eat much less "junk" food, walk & bike almost everywhere, and eat much smaller portion sizes.
They also eat with chopsticks (hashi, おはし) which forces them to slow down instead of shoveling food in as fast as possible.
Potato chips and the like are an occasional treat, not a daily snack.
They rarely eat until they "feel full".
When I get some rice and a couple of chicken breasts for lunch downstairs, it is in the neighborhood of $10.
A burger & fries is closer to $5. I am fortunate that the extra $5 is not that big of a deal these days but when I was younger, $10 would need to stretch for 2 or 3 meals a day.
Some people do not see the value in spending the extra $5, so that is why the Japanese government stepped in:
Buy this, not that; eat this, not that.
Yes it may cost more now, but we will tax you more later if you are unhealthy so decide when you want to spend the money.
Yes, the Government makes the decision if you are healthy or not. For better or worse.
The Japanese program does what it is meant to do, unlike the "food pyramid" or "fat is bad" crowd.
@CSARdiver I agree with your observations about the "conformist" culture in Japan, but I disagree with the "openly mock the obese" comment.
The Japanese are usually embarrassed and uncomfortable around obese people but I have never seen anyone openly mocking them.
Disclaimer: I study Japanese, do volunteer work in the Japanese-American community, have a Japanese language teacher and have been training Japanese & Okinawan based martial arts for almost 30 years.1 -
jmbmilholland wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »
Mostly fish and vegetables, based on the traditional Japanese diet with less "Western" food choices.midwesterner85 wrote: »How exactly do they make "healthy" cafeteria menus?
Also reasonable portion sizes...
Do a Google search for details.
As much as I keep hearing on these forums that it doesn't matter WHAT you eat, it is HOW MUCH, I wouldn't expect the actual ingredients to matter. Nonetheless, most fast food meals in America come with a vegetable (potatoes / french fries), so the difference is fish vs. beef and portion sizes.
So then if I were to subscribe to the argument that the "healthy" difference related to prevalence of obesity is portion size (unless everyone here wants to agree that obesity is about what foods you eat and not how much... which I'm not seeing), then what stops people from ordering multiple portions? Is there a difference with suggestive selling? In the U.S., that is common... example is when McDonald's offers a 2nd McRib sandwich for $1 with purchase of a McRib meal. Do they NOT do that in Japan?
I'm not sold on the type of food being the answer. Portion sizes just don't match for the enormous difference in obesity, especially when the alternative (multiple portions) are just as easily obtained.
I work for a company based in Japan. They send management-track Japanese employees to locations all around the world for years at a time. In my time here, I've seen dozens of Japanese employees come and go from the U.S. I can only think of 1 that was noticeably overweight. He was overweight when he came, and he was just as overweight when he left. As far as I can tell, all of the rest switched to eating American food for years - both portion sizes and ingredients - without becoming noticeably overweight. I would suggest there must be another difference with a bigger impact.
So...when you equivocate "vegetable" sides, there is a huge calorie difference in pickled daikon radish vs. fries, which are a calorie bomb (400 for the Wendy's medium). Basically, one fry equals a nice pile of daikon. I don't think the Japanese are typically frying their vegetables in a vat of Crisco like we do with our fries, so you can't say those are comparable foods. And it's not just beef vs. fish....it's cultural touchpoints like Kobe beef vs. fatty dripping hamburgers covered in sauce and cheese (which, I have to admit, IS the pinnacle of culinary brilliance), or tuna sashimi or pickled squid vs. fish n' chips or fried shrimp.
Are you close enough to your Japanese coworkers to ask them about their perceptions and experience with American food? Or anyone that would have eaten with them on a regular basis who could make observations? It would be very interesting to hear their perspective. I suspect it still is coming down to restraint in portion size and eating modestly. It goes entirely against their culture to gorge themselves, no matter what kind of food they are eating. And, especially, management trainees are going to be careful to show restrain and discipline in all things. Also, while they may not appear to be overweight to your visual inspection, that is not to say they didn't gain 10 or 20 lbs living in the US (while still not getting actually fat).
I love going out for sushi, because the food is so low calorie (I don't do rolls) and it all comes on discreet platters and teeny-tiny plates and bowls and tiny little cups of sake. It's great for my daily calorie count, but makes me feel like a huge meat-fisted Viking eating off a child's toy china set (and I am thin for an American woman).
That goes back to the "how much" more so than the "what kind of food" point.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I do think it's easy enough to have healthy cafeterias and many places probably do. My old employer had what I'd consider a healthy in-house lunch available for $4. My current one has no lunch, except for a group thing every other Friday that isn't cafeteria like at all. (Sometimes it's more healthy than others.)
There is a big difference between having a few more expensive "healthy" choices and having mostly affordable healthy choices.
Many people pick the less healthy choices because of price, taste preference, etc.
By making most or all of the choices "healthy" and pricing them accordingly, the problem can begin to solve itself.
You might not like how Japan does it, but you are hard pressed to argue with results.
I am confused by this -- I wasn't arguing against your idea. Midwesterner was, of course. You seem to word this as if I were arguing with you: "you might not like how Japan does it." (I haven't stated an opinion and on the cafeteria thing think I like it, without having enough information to say for sure. I do think there are other cultural differences that will make a difference to success.)
As for my former employer's choices, they were generally "healthy" to the extent individual foods can be. There'd usually be meat (usually lean meat, most commonly chicken breast or fish), salad, a cooked veg, some kind of starch (potatoes, rice, etc.). Also salad dressing that was higher cal as well as lower, cheese and bacon bits and croutons that could be added to salad, and usually some kind of dessert option (definitely a difference, I'd assume). You could also make a sandwich (there was always bread and sandwich makings) and could eat unlimited amounts.
The office was probably more health-conscious than the public as a whole and obesity was extremely rare -- I think the cafeteria being generally "healthy" was a result of that rather than the cause.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »seekingdaintiness wrote: »Fact - I am no healthier for losing weight because my weight NEVER made me unhealthy.
You are missing the point. I never had health issues related to my weight either, but that doesn't change the fact that being obese was a greater risk factor and the likelihood that I would have health problems if I continued to be obese, especially as I got older, was higher than now. That one specific person does not (or has not yet) suffered health problems doesn't change this, any more than the fact my mother never had any problems due to smoking means that smoking is just fine for health (she smoked from around age 18 to age 60).I have been on this stupid "weight loss journey" for social acceptance, nothing more, because people are viciously, hatefully cruel to fat people, have called me names you wouldn't believe, told me to die or kill myself, that I shouldn't exist, shouldn't do anything, shouldn't eat at all, shouldn't be allowed to have an opinion, and things I can't say here because they would all be "kittened" out. None of these things made me want to do anything more than lock myself in my bedroom and cry. Why do people think these things "encourage people to lose weight"?
I suspect they mostly don't, that to the extent they happened as you describe they did it for other reasons. (And I'd say hang out with better people, as I didn't get most of that when I was fat, thank goodness. I had self-esteem issues, that really started before I was fat, and body hatred, again even before I was fat, that I would agree were not at all helpful.)
You seem to think that most of us here are have not been fat ourselves, but I don't think that's true.
I am very much in favor of self-acceptance and body positivity and agree with many of the criticisms of the dieting industry by people like Laura Fraser, as I mentioned above. I don't think that's the same thing that people are talking about when critiquing fat acceptance.
As I keep saying, I think people are largely talking past each other because we have different ideas of what fat acceptance is (and because it is probably to some degree a big tent with both elements in it). If you think people here are defending fat shaming I think you have been misreading the discussion.
I think you're right. The conversation seems to keep going round and round.
Here are some bullet points for thread participants to challenge, agree with or disagree with.
*If someone thinks overweight is unattractive but keeps quiet about it, is it accepting or not?
*If someone thinks overweight is unattractive and discusses it with other non-overweight people, but is careful to not let any overweight person overhear the sentiments, is it accepting or not?
*If an obese adult, somehow, seems to have an obese child (as is so common) is the obese adult morally repugnant? Is the obese adult legally culpable for the suffering, in any form, of the obese child? Would it be prudent for the adult to be forced to stop fattening up the child under threat of losing custody? What measures, specifically, should be taken to protect children from obese parents who would sentence their own children to the suffering of obesity, while constantly decrying that it's not their fault and that they have little control over the situation?
*Is the "health" of another person over the age of 18 anyone else's business?
*Are people allowed to be "unhealthy" for any reason, if they so choose? And if the answer is yes, why don't we all shut up about it?
Don't want to get into the politics of it today, but my thoughts on these questions:
-People have their preferences. They are allowed to have those. That doesn't mean they should show disrespect or bias toward other human beings. If you think fat is unattractive, be aware of your preferences and don't let it color your behavior. If you think redheads are gorgeous and blondes aren't, do you only hold the door open for redheads and not for blondes? Do you only hire redheads, not blondes? Do you treat redheads like they're brilliant while telling dumb blonde jokes? No, no, no. Do you only date redheads? Maybe, that's your prerogative. Just be a decent, respectful human being and don't let your bias get in the way if you're in a position of privilege or power.
-If you wouldn't say it in front of a fat person, don't say it to your non-fat friends. This comes with the being-a-decent-human thing. If want to talk about "fat issues" like the obesity epidemic, do so in a way that you would in front of fat people. Don't use "issues" or "concerns about health" as a veil to go on about how fat people suck. Basically, don't gossip, because that's definitely not accepting.
-I don't feel qualified to comment on the parenting thing, but I feel the same "rules" should apply to parents with obese children and parents who chainsmoke around their kids or who constantly project their negative issues surrounding their body/success/popularity/etc. onto their children. None of that is good for the child's health, but we don't threaten loss of custody in the other situations.
-The health of any individual over 18 is only the concern of their health professionals, and possibly of friends/family members if that individual has allowed that. My husband's health is my concern, my health is his concern, and we discuss weight/exercise/drinking/depression/stress when needed. My mom and I discuss her health, but we don't discuss mine. My dad and I don't talk about health at all. I certainly don't comment on an acquaintance's or stranger's health. Obesity is a societal concern, and we can talk about solutions that affect society (i.e. should hospitals upgrade equipment to effectively treat the morbidly obese, or is this another step toward being too tolerant of obesity in our society?) without disparaging the individual.
-Yes. We let people smoke, binge drink, drive fast cars, etc., all things that carry some level of risk, and in some cases can affect other people negatively. But it doesn't mean we should stop speaking out about the association between smoking and cancer, the dangers and illegality of drunk driving, or the consequences of driving recklessly. People should be allowed to make their own decisions, but we want to encourage them to make smart decisions, and we want to create environments and societal values where the smart choice seems like the best choice.1 -
Sorry, @lemurcat12 the "you" was general; not directed at anyone in particular.lemurcat12 wrote: »I am confused by this -- I wasn't arguing against your idea. Midwesterner was, of course. You seem to word this as if I were arguing with you: "you might not like how Japan does it." (I haven't stated an opinion and on the cafeteria thing think I like it, without having enough information to say for sure. I do think there are other cultural differences that will make a difference to success.)
I was just trying to add some background because it seemed like people have been referencing parts of my post for a while.
1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »seekingdaintiness wrote: »Fact - I am no healthier for losing weight because my weight NEVER made me unhealthy.
You are missing the point. I never had health issues related to my weight either, but that doesn't change the fact that being obese was a greater risk factor and the likelihood that I would have health problems if I continued to be obese, especially as I got older, was higher than now. That one specific person does not (or has not yet) suffered health problems doesn't change this, any more than the fact my mother never had any problems due to smoking means that smoking is just fine for health (she smoked from around age 18 to age 60).I have been on this stupid "weight loss journey" for social acceptance, nothing more, because people are viciously, hatefully cruel to fat people, have called me names you wouldn't believe, told me to die or kill myself, that I shouldn't exist, shouldn't do anything, shouldn't eat at all, shouldn't be allowed to have an opinion, and things I can't say here because they would all be "kittened" out. None of these things made me want to do anything more than lock myself in my bedroom and cry. Why do people think these things "encourage people to lose weight"?
I suspect they mostly don't, that to the extent they happened as you describe they did it for other reasons. (And I'd say hang out with better people, as I didn't get most of that when I was fat, thank goodness. I had self-esteem issues, that really started before I was fat, and body hatred, again even before I was fat, that I would agree were not at all helpful.)
You seem to think that most of us here are have not been fat ourselves, but I don't think that's true.
I am very much in favor of self-acceptance and body positivity and agree with many of the criticisms of the dieting industry by people like Laura Fraser, as I mentioned above. I don't think that's the same thing that people are talking about when critiquing fat acceptance.
As I keep saying, I think people are largely talking past each other because we have different ideas of what fat acceptance is (and because it is probably to some degree a big tent with both elements in it). If you think people here are defending fat shaming I think you have been misreading the discussion.
I think you're right. The conversation seems to keep going round and round.
Here are some bullet points for thread participants to challenge, agree with or disagree with.
*If someone thinks overweight is unattractive but keeps quiet about it, is it accepting or not?
*If someone thinks overweight is unattractive and discusses it with other non-overweight people, but is careful to not let any overweight person overhear the sentiments, is it accepting or not?
*If an obese adult, somehow, seems to have an obese child (as is so common) is the obese adult morally repugnant? Is the obese adult legally culpable for the suffering, in any form, of the obese child? Would it be prudent for the adult to be forced to stop fattening up the child under threat of losing custody? What measures, specifically, should be taken to protect children from obese parents who would sentence their own children to the suffering of obesity, while constantly decrying that it's not their fault and that they have little control over the situation?
*Is the "health" of another person over the age of 18 anyone else's business?
*Are people allowed to be "unhealthy" for any reason, if they so choose? And if the answer is yes, why don't we all shut up about it?
*If taxpayers have to foot the bill for the willfully "unhealthy", should that include limits and what should they be?
*Should taxpayers have to foot the bill for the willfully "unhealthy" under any circumstances? Or should the willfully "unhealthy" have to lie in the bed they made?
*Have the words "health" and "unhealthy" become politicized buzzwords which in fact allow for politically incorrect discussions dedicated to raw topics take place? Topics such as physical unattractiveness, social unacceptability, visceral and repugnant lack of self control, moral failings, lower social standing, and the celebration of thinly veiled elitism?
*Has all this become so overemphasized and overly obsessed about that it's become boring? My Morrocan hair stylist left Morroco in the early 2000s. He said up until the time he left there, women were generally happy at any size and didn't really care if they were fat. He said they all got married, had children and enjoyed the pleasure of close family bonds anyway and fatness didn't really matter to them. He did say it's different now though, and fatness as associated with unattractiveness has become more of an issue for the young women there.
There is so much bs in here I can hardly stand it.
*If someone thinks overweight is unattractive but keeps quiet about it, is it accepting or not?
Yes. You don't have to desire sommething to accept it.
*If someone thinks overweight is unattractive and discusses it with other non-overweight people, but is careful to not let any overweight person overhear the sentiments, is it accepting or not?
No. This is terrible. How do you feel when you find out someone is talking behind your back? Gossip is just as bad as obesity! Maybe instead of talking about one person's sins, you should focus on fixing your gossip problem.
This is just an awful paragraph:
*If an obese adult, somehow, seems to have an obese child (as is so common) is the obese adult morally repugnant?
No, just they need to get their act together. If they knew how to "do" thin, they would have done it for themselves a long time ago.
Is the obese adult legally culpable for the suffering, in any form, of the obese child? Would it be prudent for the adult to be forced to stop fattening up the child under threat of losing custody? What measures, specifically, should be taken to protect children from obese parents who would sentence their own children to the suffering of obesity, while constantly decrying that it's not their fault and that they have little control over the situation?
What is wrong with you people? Are you so vain that you think being fat is worse for a kid that not having parents? Would YOU have liked to be in foster care? Ugh. Ugh. Ugh. So disgusted with self-righteous jerks that think only of their pet issues rather than the person they claim to be caring about.
FYI: My kids are all slim and very into exercise. They can do acrobatics and strength tricks, swim, etc.
Just because they are GENETICALLY predisposed to be tall and slim, and I put reasonable limits on the amount of sweets, fast food or sugary drinks they can have, and have daily exercise, and athletic classes does NOT put me in a position to judge parents with pudgy kids that haven't yet solved the rubix cube of having a physically fit family in today's fast paced, high calorie, high fat world.
I can't even answer the rest I'm so disgusted with the last question.3 -
thisonetimeatthegym wrote: »What is wrong with you people? Are you so vain that you think being fat is worse for a kid that not having parents? Would YOU have liked to be in foster care? Ugh. Ugh. Ugh. So disgusted with self-righteous jerks that think only of their pet issues rather than the person they claim to be caring about.
You went off on a tangent here and made some logical fallacies. I was in foster care.
As hard as my life was, there were people who had it harder. I know that better than most.
That doesn't change the idea that a parent or guardian is responsible for their kids' well-being until they are old enough to legally be responsible for themselves.
Failure as parents to meet these responsibilities mean you lose your kids.
Like I said, I was in foster care, along with my brother. I'm speaking from experience.
So with that in mind, do you think the State would or should let foster parents keep foster kids if it is determined that they are being underfed / overfed while in their care?
Do you think a case worker is especially tolerant of multiple signs of unhealthy markers in a foster child's regular diet?
I'll help you here: The answer to question #2 is "No."
One of the first things that happened when my brother and I went into the system is that we were sent to a doctor to have our overall health evaluated.
Since we were both borderline malnourished at the start, that is one of the things they checked on every few weeks.
So why shouldn't the same general health rules apply to natural parents before their kids get put into the system?
Why should foster parents be held to a "standard of health" for a given child but the natural parent should not?
I know plenty of overweight people who realize they are making bad choices but continue to do it anyway because it is easier and less scary than changing their lifestyle.
They are surrounded by people who want to help them "do thin", but they do not take advantage of it.
Any kids in the picture will have a tendency to eat the same way as the parents simply because of what food is available.
Keep "junk foods" out of the house for everyone and you have a start.
Low-income families being able to afford healthier foods is another problem to solve, unfortunately.
Let's not make straw man arguments or appeals to emotion.
Everyone try to keep it civil as well, please?5 -
thisonetimeatthegym wrote: »What is wrong with you people? Are you so vain that you think being fat is worse for a kid that not having parents? Would YOU have liked to be in foster care? Ugh. Ugh. Ugh. So disgusted with self-righteous jerks that think only of their pet issues rather than the person they claim to be caring about.
You went off on a tangent here and made some logical fallacies. I was in foster care.
As hard as my life was, there were people who had it harder. I know that better than most.
That doesn't change the idea that a parent or guardian is responsible for their kids' well-being until they are old enough to legally be responsible for themselves.
Failure as parents to meet these responsibilities mean you lose your kids.
Like I said, I was in foster care, along with my brother. I'm speaking from experience.
So with that in mind, do you think the State would or should let foster parents keep foster kids if it is determined that they are being underfed / overfed while in their care?
Do you think a case worker is very tolerant of multiple signs of unhealthy markers in a foster child's regular diet?
I'll help you here: The answer to question #2 is "No."
One of the first things that happened when my brother and I went into the system is that we were sent to a doctor to have our overall health evaluated.
Since we were both borderline malnourished at the start, that is one of the things they checked on every few weeks.
So why shouldn't the same general health rules apply to natural parents before their kids get put into the system?
I know plenty of overweight people who know they are making bad choices but continue to do it anyway because it is easier and less scary than changing.
They are surrounded by people who want to help them "do thin", but they do not take advantage of it.
Any kids in the picture will have a tendency to eat the same way as the parents simply because of what food is available.
Keep "junk foods" out of the house for everyone and you have a start.
Low-income families being able to afford healthier foods is another problem to solve, unfortunately.
Let's not make straw man arguments or appeals to emotion.
Everyone try to keep it civil as well, please?
To that, I say, I'm sorry you had to go through that. Hugs.
To the rest, I just said what I said:
My kids are all slim and very into exercise. They can do acrobatics and strength tricks, swim, etc.
Just because they are GENETICALLY predisposed to be tall and slim, and I put reasonable limits on the amount of sweets, fast food or sugary drinks they can have, and have daily exercise, and athletic classes does NOT put me in a position to judge parents with pudgy kids that haven't yet solved the rubix cube of having a physically fit family in today's fast paced, high calorie, high fat world.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I do think it's easy enough to have healthy cafeterias and many places probably do. My old employer had what I'd consider a healthy in-house lunch available for $4. My current one has no lunch, except for a group thing every other Friday that isn't cafeteria like at all. (Sometimes it's more healthy than others.)
There is a big difference between having a few more expensive "healthy" choices and having mostly affordable healthy choices.
Many people pick the less healthy choices because of price, taste preference, etc.
By making most or all of the choices "healthy" and pricing them accordingly, the problem can begin to solve itself.
You might not like how Japan does it, but you are hard pressed to argue with results.
I am confused by this -- I wasn't arguing against your idea. Midwesterner was, of course. You seem to word this as if I were arguing with you: "you might not like how Japan does it." (I haven't stated an opinion and on the cafeteria thing think I like it, without having enough information to say for sure. I do think there are other cultural differences that will make a difference to success.)
As for my former employer's choices, they were generally "healthy" to the extent individual foods can be. There'd usually be meat (usually lean meat, most commonly chicken breast or fish), salad, a cooked veg, some kind of starch (potatoes, rice, etc.). Also salad dressing that was higher cal as well as lower, cheese and bacon bits and croutons that could be added to salad, and usually some kind of dessert option (definitely a difference, I'd assume). You could also make a sandwich (there was always bread and sandwich makings) and could eat unlimited amounts.
The office was probably more health-conscious than the public as a whole and obesity was extremely rare -- I think the cafeteria being generally "healthy" was a result of that rather than the cause.
No, you have clearly misunderstood my point.
Here's clarification: "Healthy" is an incredibly subjective term, defined differently by different people... and often defined differently by the very same person in different circumstances or conversations.
In this thread, the subjective term "healthy" is to be defined as "foods in Japanese cafeterias, specifically fish and vegetables in the quantities often seen in Japanese cafeterias." It is also apparently agreed that eating healthy foods (i.e. foods seen commonly in Japanese cafeterias) is the key to preventing obesity.
I actually agree that some foods are healthy while others are unhealthy, but my viewpoint of which foods are or are not healthy is different than most of those commenting here. I disagree that most or all Japanese cafeteria food is inherently healthy. Additionally, I believe that quantity of food has a great deal more to do with obesity than the type of food... something that seems to be merely an after-thought with the definition of "healthy" that is mentioned in this thread. I am amazed at how many here are ready to hop on the band-wagon that obesity results from which foods a person eats more so than quantity of that food.
If I were at a Japanese cafeteria, I can guarantee I'm not eating fewer calories than I am here in the U.S. I'm going to be eating just as much, it just might cost more. Unless that cafeteria imposes a limit to how much can be ordered, in which case I just eat more frequently. Before I was losing weight and tracking calories (and sometimes even since), I would sometimes visit a fast food place and take it to go only to realize I was still hungry and stop at yet another fast food place maybe 30-40 min. later. Why couldn't I do the same in Japan, even if there is a calorie limit per order?0 -
FWIW, there is a big difference between having a few more expensive "healthy" choices and having mostly affordable healthy choices.
Many people pick the less healthy choices because of price, taste preference, etc.
By making most or all of the choices "healthy" and pricing them accordingly, the problem can begin to solve itself.
One might not like how Japan does it, but anyone would be hard pressed to argue with results.
Eating out is a social event in Japan; cooking, eating and food are part of the culture.
Food presentation by itself is literally an art form in Japan.
There are companies that specialize in making plastic models of food just to entice customers into one restaurant instead of another.
The Japanese eat white rice (carbs, oh no!!) with every meal, 3 times a day, every day.
But about 5% obesity numbers. So what gives?
They eat much less "junk" food, walk & bike almost everywhere, and eat much smaller portion sizes.
They also eat with chopsticks (hashi, おはし) which forces them to slow down instead of shoveling food in as fast as possible.
Potato chips and the like are an occasional treat, not a daily snack.
They rarely eat until they "feel full".
When I get some rice and a couple of chicken breasts for lunch downstairs, it is in the neighborhood of $10.
A burger & fries is closer to $5. I am fortunate that the extra $5 is not that big of a deal these days but when I was younger, $10 would need to stretch for 2 or 3 meals a day.
Some people do not see the value in spending the extra $5, so that is why the Japanese government stepped in:
Buy this, not that; eat this, not that.
Yes it may cost more now, but we will tax you more later if you are unhealthy so decide when you want to spend the money.
Yes, the Government makes the decision if you are healthy or not. For better or worse.
The Japanese program does what it is meant to do, unlike the "food pyramid" or "fat is bad" crowd.
@CSARdiver I agree with your observations about the "conformist" culture in Japan, but I disagree with the "openly mock the obese" comment.
The Japanese are usually embarrassed and uncomfortable around obese people but I have never seen anyone openly mocking them.
Disclaimer: I study Japanese, do volunteer work in the Japanese-American community, have a Japanese language teacher and have been training Japanese & Okinawan based martial arts for almost 30 years.
I agree - Mocking is not the best word in this scenario. They do not mean to offend, but come off very politically incorrect due to being direct and open (one of many reasons why I love this culture). On one trip to Tokyo we had a few obese women in our group. While in the city there was no issue as most of the populace is used to foreigners. When we traveled out to some historic sites she was asked "Why are you so fat?". This was not meant as an offense, but out of genuine curiosity. The Japanese are incredibly driven and purposeful, so their perception isn't one that she did not have an impact on this, but why she was choosing to be overweight as if this was part of a plan.
I have a similar background and spent the better part of the last 30 years studying Hapkido, Kendo and Shorin Ryu.2 -
I don't know you so these are just some generalizations and insights into the "Japanese Cafeteria" we are discussing:midwesterner85 wrote: »If I were at a Japanese cafeteria, I can guarantee I'm not eating fewer calories than I am here in the U.S. I'm going to be eating just as much, it just might cost more.
1. Japanese foods are eaten with chopsticks, which means you will eat slower
2. Eating slower means you will feel full before you eat as much
3. Japanese rice, vegetables, etc. are more filling than many Western foods (eat a cup or two of short grain rice and you'll know what I mean)
4. Frequently eating in this manner will make your stomach shrink, which means you will continue to eat "less" calories
You can get around this chain of events a lot of ways, like by eating without chopsticks ("shoveling it in") and eating a lot of "Western" foods but that is a not really following the "diet", eh?
If you are interested in what it looks like when big American learns to eat a Japanese diet, you can check this out:
Miso Hungry (2016)
0 -
thisonetimeatthegym wrote: »thisonetimeatthegym wrote: »What is wrong with you people? Are you so vain that you think being fat is worse for a kid that not having parents? Would YOU have liked to be in foster care? Ugh. Ugh. Ugh. So disgusted with self-righteous jerks that think only of their pet issues rather than the person they claim to be caring about.
You went off on a tangent here and made some logical fallacies. I was in foster care.
As hard as my life was, there were people who had it harder. I know that better than most.
That doesn't change the idea that a parent or guardian is responsible for their kids' well-being until they are old enough to legally be responsible for themselves.
Failure as parents to meet these responsibilities mean you lose your kids.
Like I said, I was in foster care, along with my brother. I'm speaking from experience.
So with that in mind, do you think the State would or should let foster parents keep foster kids if it is determined that they are being underfed / overfed while in their care?
Do you think a case worker is very tolerant of multiple signs of unhealthy markers in a foster child's regular diet?
I'll help you here: The answer to question #2 is "No."
One of the first things that happened when my brother and I went into the system is that we were sent to a doctor to have our overall health evaluated.
Since we were both borderline malnourished at the start, that is one of the things they checked on every few weeks.
So why shouldn't the same general health rules apply to natural parents before their kids get put into the system?
I know plenty of overweight people who know they are making bad choices but continue to do it anyway because it is easier and less scary than changing.
They are surrounded by people who want to help them "do thin", but they do not take advantage of it.
Any kids in the picture will have a tendency to eat the same way as the parents simply because of what food is available.
Keep "junk foods" out of the house for everyone and you have a start.
Low-income families being able to afford healthier foods is another problem to solve, unfortunately.
Let's not make straw man arguments or appeals to emotion.
Everyone try to keep it civil as well, please?
To that, I say, I'm sorry you had to go through that. Hugs.
To the rest, I just said what I said:
My kids are all slim and very into exercise. They can do acrobatics and strength tricks, swim, etc.
Just because they are GENETICALLY predisposed to be tall and slim, and I put reasonable limits on the amount of sweets, fast food or sugary drinks they can have, and have daily exercise, and athletic classes does NOT put me in a position to judge parents with pudgy kids that haven't yet solved the rubix cube of having a physically fit family in today's fast paced, high calorie, high fat world.
It's a fair question, though. People who are obese as children have a higher risk of obesity-related health conditions in early adulthood. They're at higher risk for early death. Obese children may not have time as an adult to correct their parents' mistakes. On top of health issues, they're also developing habits that could make losing weight difficult. Basically, their parents are stacking the deck against them in life-altering ways by not teaching them healthy habits.
Is it abusive? Is it negligent? Is it akin to smoking around your child? Is it somehow forgivable if the parents really love their kids? Is it something else entirely? How do we as society handle it, and are we not being "accepting" if we say childhood obesity is bad?
As I said before, I don't really feel qualified to comment, but I do think it's a fair question about a known problem.
Studies to ponder:
Early adiposity rebound: causes and consequences for obesity in children and adults
http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v35/n7/abs/ijo2010222a.html
Health-Related Quality of Life of Severely Obese Children and Adolescents
http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/1963432 -
Yes, I have seen variations of this as well. Fascinated with the size and appearance.When we traveled out to some historic sites she was asked "Why are you so fat?". This was not meant as an offense, but out of genuine curiosity. The Japanese are incredibly driven and purposeful, so their perception isn't one that she did not have an impact on this, but why she was choosing to be overweight as if this was part of a plan.
1 -
I don't know you so these are just some generalizations and insights into the "Japanese Cafeteria" we are discussing:midwesterner85 wrote: »If I were at a Japanese cafeteria, I can guarantee I'm not eating fewer calories than I am here in the U.S. I'm going to be eating just as much, it just might cost more.
1. Japanese foods are eaten with chopsticks, which means you will eat slower
2. Eating slower means you will feel full before you eat as much
3. Rice, vegetables, etc. will be more filling in general (eat a cup or two of short grain rice and you'll know what I mean)
4. Frequently eating in this manner will make your stomach shrink, which means you will continue to eat "less"
You can get around this a lot of ways, like by eating without chopsticks and eating a lot of "Western" foods but that is a not really following the diet, eh?
If you are interested in what it looks like you can check this out:
Miso Hungry (2016)
1. I never use chopsticks, so of course it would be slower when using an unfamiliar tool. If I ate with chopsticks at every meal, I am sure I would be faster at using them.
2. Nope. I realize you don't know me, so I'll set the record straight: slower eating only means digestion speed is faster in comparison to eating speed. As it is, I already am often far enough along in digestion by the time I finish eating that I can continue to eat in perpetuity. By eating slower, I'm only going to grow hungrier and hungrier as I eat.
3. Also no. There is no such food that is filling enough for me to just eat until full and prevent obesity. Maybe that applies to some others, but I can't comprehend that nearly everyone could feel full exactly at maintenance calories with a particular food. The types of foods that satisfy one person may not satisfy another. For me, there isn't such a food, which is why I'm always frustrated with hunger.
4. That sounds logical, but it is predicated on all of the above being true. They aren't, so this fails as a result.0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »1. I never use chopsticks, so of course it would be slower when using an unfamiliar tool. If I ate with chopsticks at every meal, I am sure I would be faster at using them.
2. Nope. I realize you don't know me, so I'll set the record straight: slower eating only means digestion speed is faster in comparison to eating speed. As it is, I already am often far enough along in digestion by the time I finish eating that I can continue to eat in perpetuity. By eating slower, I'm only going to grow hungrier and hungrier as I eat.
3. Also no. There is no such food that is filling enough for me to just eat until full and prevent obesity. Maybe that applies to some others, but I can't comprehend that nearly everyone could feel full exactly at maintenance calories with a particular food. The types of foods that satisfy one person may not satisfy another. For me, there isn't such a food, which is why I'm always frustrated with hunger.
4. That sounds logical, but it is predicated on all of the above being true. They aren't, so this fails as a result.
To your point, if you think you will learn to eat as fast with chopsticks as you can with a fork & spoon then you would be in for a rude awakening.
Even Korean and Chinese people frequently use a spoon to eat because it is faster - and they have been using chopsticks since they were 3 or 4 years old.
Japanese people do not often use a spoon except when eating things like curry, which really isn't part of the "diet".
I don't know why you think you will surpass that degree of proficiency, no matter how much you practice.
Since #1 of the "diet" is based on using chopsticks, you will not eat as fast as you think and the rest will therefore follow.
You will get better with chopsticks, but you will not get faster than a native Japanese, Korean or Chinese person who was using them since they could walk.
Doesn't matter and I don't want to debate it but you are starting with a flawed premise.
Thinking you will become faster with chopsticks than someone using them their whole life is simply misguided.2 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »1. I never use chopsticks, so of course it would be slower when using an unfamiliar tool. If I ate with chopsticks at every meal, I am sure I would be faster at using them.
2. Nope. I realize you don't know me, so I'll set the record straight: slower eating only means digestion speed is faster in comparison to eating speed. As it is, I already am often far enough along in digestion by the time I finish eating that I can continue to eat in perpetuity. By eating slower, I'm only going to grow hungrier and hungrier as I eat.
3. Also no. There is no such food that is filling enough for me to just eat until full and prevent obesity. Maybe that applies to some others, but I can't comprehend that nearly everyone could feel full exactly at maintenance calories with a particular food. The types of foods that satisfy one person may not satisfy another. For me, there isn't such a food, which is why I'm always frustrated with hunger.
4. That sounds logical, but it is predicated on all of the above being true. They aren't, so this fails as a result.
To your point, if you think you will learn to eat as fast with chopsticks as you can with a fork & spoon then you would be in for a rude awakening.
Even Korean and Chinese people frequently use a spoon to eat because it is faster - and they have been using chopsticks since they were 3 or 4 years old.
Japanese people do not often use a spoon except when eating curry, which really isn't part of the "diet".
I don't know why you think you will surpass that degree of proficiency, no matter how much you practice.
Since #1 of the "diet" is based on using chopsticks, you will not eat as fast as you think and the rest will follow.
You will get better, but you will not get faster than a native Japanese, Korean or Chinese person who was using them since they could walk.
Doesn't matter and I don't want to debate it but you are starting with a flawed premise.
Thinking you will become faster with chopsticks than someone using them their whole life is simply misguided.
Fair enough. So I guess I'm spending a whole lot more time eating, then. This doesn't mean I will eat less, it just means that I have to spend all my waking hours eating. Incredibly inefficient, since I won't have time to do anything more productive.0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »1. I never use chopsticks, so of course it would be slower when using an unfamiliar tool. If I ate with chopsticks at every meal, I am sure I would be faster at using them.
2. Nope. I realize you don't know me, so I'll set the record straight: slower eating only means digestion speed is faster in comparison to eating speed. As it is, I already am often far enough along in digestion by the time I finish eating that I can continue to eat in perpetuity. By eating slower, I'm only going to grow hungrier and hungrier as I eat.
3. Also no. There is no such food that is filling enough for me to just eat until full and prevent obesity. Maybe that applies to some others, but I can't comprehend that nearly everyone could feel full exactly at maintenance calories with a particular food. The types of foods that satisfy one person may not satisfy another. For me, there isn't such a food, which is why I'm always frustrated with hunger.
4. That sounds logical, but it is predicated on all of the above being true. They aren't, so this fails as a result.
To your point, if you think you will learn to eat as fast with chopsticks as you can with a fork & spoon then you would be in for a rude awakening.
Even Korean and Chinese people frequently use a spoon to eat because it is faster - and they have been using chopsticks since they were 3 or 4 years old.
Japanese people do not often use a spoon except when eating curry, which really isn't part of the "diet".
I don't know why you think you will surpass that degree of proficiency, no matter how much you practice.
Since #1 of the "diet" is based on using chopsticks, you will not eat as fast as you think and the rest will follow.
You will get better, but you will not get faster than a native Japanese, Korean or Chinese person who was using them since they could walk.
Doesn't matter and I don't want to debate it but you are starting with a flawed premise.
Thinking you will become faster with chopsticks than someone using them their whole life is simply misguided.
Fair enough. So I guess I'm spending a whole lot more time eating, then. This doesn't mean I will eat less, it just means that I have to spend all my waking hours eating. Incredibly inefficient, since I won't have time to do anything more productive.
Do you feel like eating large piles of romaine or spinach or other low-calorie green veggies has no impact on your hunger? Like, if you just had your burger or whatnot as usual, but rather than fries you had piles of greens fixed in a tasty manner, it wouldn't have an impact? Aren't there some foods that contribute to satiety more than others?
Just to further elaborate, today I brought a slice of quiche with a lard crust which is over 450 calories. I didn't have time to pack my sides, so I went down to our cafeteria and, inspired by our discussion (thank you!), grabbed 100 g of calamari, a huge pile of romaine, a huge pile of pickled onions and cucumbers, and a tablespoon of a lime-vinaigrette dressing--all that food was a mere 250 calories, and additionally contributed to satiety and hit many important micronutrients as well as putting a dent in my protein macro.
Had I instead grabbed a medium fry and then attempted to eat 250 calories worth, it would have been a fail because I would have eaten the whole box (can't moderate) and probably not been as filled, mentally, physically, and nutritionally, as with the pile of squid and veg.
Interestingly, while the Japanese portion of my lunch is manifestly healthy, the French portion (handmade lard crust, heavy cream, eggs, onions, cheese and bacon) is the poster child for the stereotypical "Western" diet (being another crown jewel of French provincial cuisine) and has people screaming and dancing about the evil "unhealthy" fat, meats, and dairy on MFP on a regular basis. Thus, we also have the mysterious "French Paradox." (Again, I suspect much of this comes down to portion sizes and lots of walking, plus very long meals and lots of talking, which likely has the same effect as the chopsticks referenced above). I can fit one slice of quiche in my diet and it is still perfectly healthy; of course, more is definitely not better.5 -
jmbmilholland wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »1. I never use chopsticks, so of course it would be slower when using an unfamiliar tool. If I ate with chopsticks at every meal, I am sure I would be faster at using them.
2. Nope. I realize you don't know me, so I'll set the record straight: slower eating only means digestion speed is faster in comparison to eating speed. As it is, I already am often far enough along in digestion by the time I finish eating that I can continue to eat in perpetuity. By eating slower, I'm only going to grow hungrier and hungrier as I eat.
3. Also no. There is no such food that is filling enough for me to just eat until full and prevent obesity. Maybe that applies to some others, but I can't comprehend that nearly everyone could feel full exactly at maintenance calories with a particular food. The types of foods that satisfy one person may not satisfy another. For me, there isn't such a food, which is why I'm always frustrated with hunger.
4. That sounds logical, but it is predicated on all of the above being true. They aren't, so this fails as a result.
To your point, if you think you will learn to eat as fast with chopsticks as you can with a fork & spoon then you would be in for a rude awakening.
Even Korean and Chinese people frequently use a spoon to eat because it is faster - and they have been using chopsticks since they were 3 or 4 years old.
Japanese people do not often use a spoon except when eating curry, which really isn't part of the "diet".
I don't know why you think you will surpass that degree of proficiency, no matter how much you practice.
Since #1 of the "diet" is based on using chopsticks, you will not eat as fast as you think and the rest will follow.
You will get better, but you will not get faster than a native Japanese, Korean or Chinese person who was using them since they could walk.
Doesn't matter and I don't want to debate it but you are starting with a flawed premise.
Thinking you will become faster with chopsticks than someone using them their whole life is simply misguided.
Fair enough. So I guess I'm spending a whole lot more time eating, then. This doesn't mean I will eat less, it just means that I have to spend all my waking hours eating. Incredibly inefficient, since I won't have time to do anything more productive.
Do you feel like eating large piles of romaine or spinach or other low-calorie green veggies has no impact on your hunger? Like, if you just had your burger or whatnot as usual, but rather than fries you had piles of greens fixed in a tasty manner, it wouldn't have an impact? Aren't there some foods that contribute to satiety more than others?
Just to further elaborate, today I brought a slice of quiche with a lard crust which is over 450 calories. I didn't have time to pack my sides, so I went down to our cafeteria and, inspired by our discussion (thank you!), grabbed 100 g of calamari, a huge pile of romaine, a huge pile of pickled onions and cucumbers, and a tablespoon of a lime-vinaigrette dressing--all that food was a mere 250 calories, and additionally contributed to satiety and hit many important micronutrients as well as putting a dent in my protein macro.
Had I instead grabbed a medium fry and then attempted to eat 250 calories worth, it would have been a fail because I would have eaten the whole box (can't moderate) and probably not been as filled, mentally, physically, and nutritionally, as with the pile of squid and veg.
Interestingly, while the Japanese portion of my lunch is manifestly healthy, the French portion (handmade lard crust, heavy cream, eggs, onions, cheese and bacon) is the poster child for the stereotypical "Western" diet (being another crown jewel of French provincial cuisine) and has people screaming and dancing about the evil "unhealthy" fat, meats, and dairy on MFP on a regular basis. Thus, we also have the mysterious "French Paradox." (Again, I suspect much of this comes down to portion sizes and lots of walking, plus very long meals and lots of talking, which likely has the same effect as the chopsticks referenced above). I can fit one slice of quiche in my diet and it is still perfectly healthy; of course, more is definitely not better.
Nope. I was just mentioning today in another thread that I once ate 9 lbs. of salad and only stopped because I ran out, not because I was full. The logic that any particular food is going to be filling for everyone ignores individual differences.
ETA: More recently (yesterday), I ate 38.2 ounces of salad. This is something I had mixed together starting with a Dole Classic Iceberg lettuce, then added diced cucumbers and diced tomatoes. I ate that while I was impatiently waiting for a corned beef brisket to finish cooking. Then after eating the brisket, I was still hungry so I chopped up and ate more than 20 ounces of celery. At that point, I was still hungry but was already over my calories for the day and decided to stop eating. Before I cared about losing weight, I would have eaten quite a bit more.0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I do think it's easy enough to have healthy cafeterias and many places probably do. My old employer had what I'd consider a healthy in-house lunch available for $4. My current one has no lunch, except for a group thing every other Friday that isn't cafeteria like at all. (Sometimes it's more healthy than others.)
There is a big difference between having a few more expensive "healthy" choices and having mostly affordable healthy choices.
Many people pick the less healthy choices because of price, taste preference, etc.
By making most or all of the choices "healthy" and pricing them accordingly, the problem can begin to solve itself.
You might not like how Japan does it, but you are hard pressed to argue with results.
I am confused by this -- I wasn't arguing against your idea. Midwesterner was, of course. You seem to word this as if I were arguing with you: "you might not like how Japan does it." (I haven't stated an opinion and on the cafeteria thing think I like it, without having enough information to say for sure. I do think there are other cultural differences that will make a difference to success.)
As for my former employer's choices, they were generally "healthy" to the extent individual foods can be. There'd usually be meat (usually lean meat, most commonly chicken breast or fish), salad, a cooked veg, some kind of starch (potatoes, rice, etc.). Also salad dressing that was higher cal as well as lower, cheese and bacon bits and croutons that could be added to salad, and usually some kind of dessert option (definitely a difference, I'd assume). You could also make a sandwich (there was always bread and sandwich makings) and could eat unlimited amounts.
The office was probably more health-conscious than the public as a whole and obesity was extremely rare -- I think the cafeteria being generally "healthy" was a result of that rather than the cause.
No, you have clearly misunderstood my point.
I understood you to be arguing with the idea that Japanese cafeterias focused on "healthy" food would be a possible help. I understood that that was in part because you were taking issue with the idea that they were "healthier" or that people would eat less based on the food differences, but wasn't really interested in that. My (limited) point was the one arguing about the cafeteria thing was you, not me.
Since the poster actually seems to have understood this, I have no further need to comment.
Oh, okay, one more:If I were at a Japanese cafeteria, I can guarantee I'm not eating fewer calories than I am here in the U.S.
That's nice. I don't happen to think they are the solution here either, for a lot of reasons, but I do think that given a choice between that or fast food MOST people (not everyone) would consume more calories at the fast food place. But I'm not trying to say eating fast food makes you fat or that it should be outlawed or that companies should have to have cafeterias or any such thing.0 -
JstTheWayIam wrote: »And it's not just about calories, the food industry is willing to sell cancer causing substances wrapped in sugar to kids in order to make an extra penny on the dollar.
That is some FoodBabe/Mercola level b.s. right there. Can you provide one example of a product currently on shelves marketed towards children that contains a KNOWN group 1 carcinogen (ie not a group 2,3 or 4)? Can you even name one that is group 2A or 2B that isn't something like bacon? (which you better not be complaining about bacon man). Not only that but at levels significantly above what is in everything else to actually be concerned (keep in mind I could list off some class 1 known carcinogens present in fruit).
I just don't get people who say stuff like this. If you genuinely believed there was a KNOWN carcinogen being sold to kids in a grocery store right now that was going to ACTIVELY cause them to develop cancer then why aren't you in that store ripping it off the shelf?15 -
I'm indifferent. Not my body, not my problem. If someone is completely happy being fat, then good for them. If anyone has a problem with someone being happy with their fat, then they really need to take a look at their lives and think about why they have a problem with it and why they feel the need to tear someone down.5
-
There is a massive gulf between fat shaming and fat acceptance. The key is to see past an individual attribute (in this case, size) to realize that this is a human being of worth with feelings and intelligence. Their size does not diminish those things. Respecting them for who they are is not acceptance of their flaws but embracing the person despite their flaws. This shouldn't be ground breaking or controversial and yet, 26 pages in, it still seems to be.6
-
jammer1963 wrote: »The term "Thick" comes to mind. I'm not fat, I'm "thick". No, your fat, but in a political correct world, that's not the proper thing to say, so saying "thick" is more acceptable and expected. That only exacerbates the problem.
I love this so much cos in Ireland if you call someone "Thick" it is in no way related to their weight/body. If you're "thick" over here it means you're stupid!! Lol
However I do think The HAES is definitely related to bigger people. I have seen so much stuff on Facebook about "men want meat, not bones" or similar stuff. It seems OK to shame slimmer people, but you say boo to a heavier person you're seen as a bad person. How many people have told me in the last few months "Is that all you're having for lunch?" or "You have lost TOO much weight" but wouldn't dream of saying to an obese person "Are you eating ALL of that for lunch?" or "You've gained too much weight". :-(
5 -
obiwankendrobi wrote: »I'm indifferent. Not my body, not my problem. If someone is completely happy being fat, then good for them. If anyone has a problem with someone being happy with their fat, then they really need to take a look at their lives and think about why they have a problem with it and why they feel the need to tear someone down.
I'd like to step in here and make a point that there a discussion going on about the movement, not about individuals.
I have a huge problem with obesity as a societal issue, because it is a drain on society and we aren't effectively addressing it. The Fat Acceptance Movement actively promotes obesity. I don't have a problem with any individual obese people.
I have a huge problem with a movement that glorifies and promotes unhealthy behaviors among its members and ultimately wants civil rights protection for obesity.
I don't have a problem with my next door neighbor or the grocery store cashier with the cool purple hair.
There is a difference.7 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »obiwankendrobi wrote: »I'm indifferent. Not my body, not my problem. If someone is completely happy being fat, then good for them. If anyone has a problem with someone being happy with their fat, then they really need to take a look at their lives and think about why they have a problem with it and why they feel the need to tear someone down.
I'd like to step in here and make a point that there a discussion going on about the movement, not about individuals.
I have a huge problem with obesity as a societal issue, because it is a drain on society and we aren't effectively addressing it. The Fat Acceptance Movement promotes actively promotes obesity. I don't have a problem with any individual obese people.
I have a huge problem with a movement that glorifies and promotes unhealthy behaviors among its members that ultimately wants civil rights protection for obesity.
I don't have a problem with my next door neighbor or the grocery store cashier with the cool purple hair.
There is a difference.
I view it much the same as drug users who are in extremely deep. It's none of my business what they put in their bodies on an individual level, but I think we can all agree that a nation consisting of 40+% apathetic smackheads would be a problem, especially if they suddenly became a protected class.6 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »obiwankendrobi wrote: »I'm indifferent. Not my body, not my problem. If someone is completely happy being fat, then good for them. If anyone has a problem with someone being happy with their fat, then they really need to take a look at their lives and think about why they have a problem with it and why they feel the need to tear someone down.
I'd like to step in here and make a point that there a discussion going on about the movement, not about individuals.
I have a huge problem with obesity as a societal issue, because it is a drain on society and we aren't effectively addressing it. The Fat Acceptance Movement actively promotes obesity. I don't have a problem with any individual obese people.
I have a huge problem with a movement that glorifies and promotes unhealthy behaviors among its members and ultimately wants civil rights protection for obesity.
I don't have a problem with my next door neighbor or the grocery store cashier with the cool purple hair.
There is a difference.
On civil rights...I agree there should not be a need for "special rights" for anyone...they should be the same for us all. The problem is...people take it upon themselves to decide who is "worthy" of being treated equally.
However...we know prejudices exist...they exist in forms of discriminations against many including those that are obese. No laws can stop it...maybe only slow it down a bit. I am sure that there are some people that have been denied job/promotions in the work place because of their size. Possibly there have been obese people denied housing because they are obese.
Sadly, no matter what laws that exist, people seem to be able to find a way around them if they are bigoted against any one group of people.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions