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
-
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »thickspo91 wrote: »Some people are fat based on genetics. Also skinny people who don't take care of themselves don't get judged as harshly. I think people should be allowed to be fat if that's the life they choose. Fat is often a correlation with a disease, not the causation. Judging people for whether or not they are ill is wrong. Judging people for being fat is wrong.
Which genes cause cancer again?
This is woo of the highest order. Obesity is a result of behavior. Otherwise you would see a similar population of obesity in Somalia (or wherever the latest food shortage/warlord takeover occurs) - or are you suggesting that Somalians are lacking obesity genes?
Errr dude, pretty much everyone involved in oncology agrees that cancer is a genetics/epigenetics problem.
Yup - huge error on my part. Meant to state "Which genes cause obesity again?"
Agree - cancer is by and large genetic with a small population resulting from environmental causes. My n of 1 substantiates this.
There have actually been some interesting studies on epigenetics and obesity. There's also research on microbiomes and obesity. It's not as simple as fat people are lazy and indulgent. It's just not.3 -
My 39 year-old son died April 3 of malignant melanoma.He had the BRAF gene-implicated in 66% of spontaneous(not inherited) melanoma cases, Not to mention all the heritable genes (tyr, mcr1,rb1,cdkn2a.....ad nauseum...) which increase the risk.
Which genes cause cancer again?
This is woo of the highest order.
tl:dr: wear your sunblock,cover your skin
My deepest condolences to you.
I meant to state "Which genes cause obesity again?"
As a cancer survivor and medical scientist I agree - cancer is largely caused by genetics and only a small part of the population is resulting from environmental factors.3 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »thickspo91 wrote: »Some people are fat based on genetics. Also skinny people who don't take care of themselves don't get judged as harshly. I think people should be allowed to be fat if that's the life they choose. Fat is often a correlation with a disease, not the causation. Judging people for whether or not they are ill is wrong. Judging people for being fat is wrong.
Which genes cause cancer again?
This is woo of the highest order. Obesity is a result of behavior. Otherwise you would see a similar population of obesity in Somalia (or wherever the latest food shortage/warlord takeover occurs) - or are you suggesting that Somalians are lacking obesity genes?
Errr dude, pretty much everyone involved in oncology agrees that cancer is a genetics/epigenetics problem.
Yup - huge error on my part. Meant to state "Which genes cause obesity again?"
Agree - cancer is by and large genetic with a small population resulting from environmental causes. My n of 1 substantiates this.
thanks for clarifying...momma will now come off her high horse and re-lurk....0 -
Heather_MXP wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »thickspo91 wrote: »Some people are fat based on genetics. Also skinny people who don't take care of themselves don't get judged as harshly. I think people should be allowed to be fat if that's the life they choose. Fat is often a correlation with a disease, not the causation. Judging people for whether or not they are ill is wrong. Judging people for being fat is wrong.
Which genes cause cancer again?
This is woo of the highest order. Obesity is a result of behavior. Otherwise you would see a similar population of obesity in Somalia (or wherever the latest food shortage/warlord takeover occurs) - or are you suggesting that Somalians are lacking obesity genes?
Errr dude, pretty much everyone involved in oncology agrees that cancer is a genetics/epigenetics problem.
Yup - huge error on my part. Meant to state "Which genes cause obesity again?"
Agree - cancer is by and large genetic with a small population resulting from environmental causes. My n of 1 substantiates this.
There have actually been some interesting studies on epigenetics and obesity. There's also research on microbiomes and obesity. It's not as simple as fat people are lazy and indulgent. It's just not.
The choices are not either genetics cause obesity or fat people are only fat because they are lazy and indulgent.
One issue with the microbiome argument is that what you eat changes your microbiome -- it's not like you just have what you have and are stuck with it (absent some fecal transplant or the like).1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »The choices are not either genetics cause obesity or fat people are only fat because they are lazy and indulgent.
One issue with the microbiome argument is that what you eat changes your microbiome -- it's not like you just have what you have and are stuck with it (absent some fecal transplant or the like).
Sure. I agree 100% that it's not either/or. But there is an attitude that it's all self-inflicted, as if everyone starts out with the same body situation, etc, (as is obvious in the "what gene" question)... which is obviously not the case.
I also agree that one's microbiome changes with one's diet. But it's still a factor in controlling one's cravings (and even their will-power). I've also read that once someone "ruins" their microbiome with a refined carb diet, it will never go back to microbiome it was / "could have been" on a high fiber, whole foods, etc, diet.1 -
MJ2victory wrote: »I maintain that being hateful and disrespectful towards fat people does a lot towards keep us fat.
I have seen literally nobody in this thread saying that being hateful is ok. The question is whether or not people should be celebrating the fact that they are fat instead of trying to become more healthy. I haven't seen anyone say that fat shaming is ok, only that we shouldn't be glorifying being unhealthy.3 -
Heather_MXP wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »The choices are not either genetics cause obesity or fat people are only fat because they are lazy and indulgent.
One issue with the microbiome argument is that what you eat changes your microbiome -- it's not like you just have what you have and are stuck with it (absent some fecal transplant or the like).
Sure. I agree 100% that it's not either/or. But there is an attitude that it's all self-inflicted, as if everyone starts out with the same body situation, etc, (as is obvious in the "what gene" question)... which is obviously not the case.
I also agree that one's microbiome changes with one's diet. But it's still a factor in controlling one's cravings (and even their will-power). I've also read that once someone "ruins" their microbiome with a refined carb diet, it will never go back to microbiome it was / "could have been" on a high fiber, whole foods, etc, diet.
Your microbiome is in constant fluctuation and will never be constant even if you ate the same regimented diet and followed the same routine day in/day out. These are competing bacterial strains and in constant struggle to compete over the resources available. While this is a variable, it is a very short term variable and has little impact on the long term.
0 -
MJ2victory wrote: »Tempted to call this a "today in things that never happened" but I do try to have an open mind and am willing to be proven wrong. I care about truth.
But, recall, even if someone has, under the guise of fat acceptance, said inaccurate or ignorant things... accepting fat people, at its core, is still a good idea.
You can also go into the "Unpopular opinions" thread in here for a live example of someone outright denying obesity is a health risk.4 -
willdarr79 wrote: »MJ2victory wrote: »I maintain that being hateful and disrespectful towards fat people does a lot towards keep us fat.
I have seen literally nobody in this thread saying that being hateful is ok. The question is whether or not people should be celebrating the fact that they are fat instead of trying to become more healthy. I haven't seen anyone say that fat shaming is ok, only that we shouldn't be glorifying being unhealthy.
but the thing is that accepting your body and deciding to love yourself doesn't necessarily mean you're not trying to become more healthy.3 -
Heather_MXP wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »The choices are not either genetics cause obesity or fat people are only fat because they are lazy and indulgent.
One issue with the microbiome argument is that what you eat changes your microbiome -- it's not like you just have what you have and are stuck with it (absent some fecal transplant or the like).
Sure. I agree 100% that it's not either/or. But there is an attitude that it's all self-inflicted, as if everyone starts out with the same body situation, etc, (as is obvious in the "what gene" question)... which is obviously not the case.
I think there are differences, but in terms of managing one's own body weight it's not a particularly helpful thing to worry about (and you never know how hard or easy it was for someone else). For an individual, it makes sense to me to focus on the fact that is IS manageable, that you can lose weight, and to figure out how to improve the things that make it harder.
I don't think saying "you aren't genetically programmed to be fat" (which I believe) means that I am saying "all fat people are just lazy and self-indulgent." I think for many people (a majority) in a situation of food abundance and an environment that generally encourages overconsumption of food (which I think we have), it takes work of some sort (or the imposition of limitations on the environment in some way) to avoid overeating. This is something I deal with myself, and although I've lost the weight I don't think my being fat was the result of terrible personality traits or that I was more lazy and self indulgent when fat than I am now. I have some better habits now, and I am more aware of some of the things that lead me to overeat.
On the microbiome, what CSARdiver said.1 -
stevencloser wrote: »MJ2victory wrote: »Tempted to call this a "today in things that never happened" but I do try to have an open mind and am willing to be proven wrong. I care about truth.
But, recall, even if someone has, under the guise of fat acceptance, said inaccurate or ignorant things... accepting fat people, at its core, is still a good idea.
You can also go into the "Unpopular opinions" thread in here for a live example of someone outright denying obesity is a health risk.
Oh wait, that's you yourself. Ironic.6 -
Heather_MXP wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »The choices are not either genetics cause obesity or fat people are only fat because they are lazy and indulgent.
One issue with the microbiome argument is that what you eat changes your microbiome -- it's not like you just have what you have and are stuck with it (absent some fecal transplant or the like).
Sure. I agree 100% that it's not either/or. But there is an attitude that it's all self-inflicted, as if everyone starts out with the same body situation, etc, (as is obvious in the "what gene" question)... which is obviously not the case.
I also agree that one's microbiome changes with one's diet. But it's still a factor in controlling one's cravings (and even their will-power). I've also read that once someone "ruins" their microbiome with a refined carb diet, it will never go back to microbiome it was / "could have been" on a high fiber, whole foods, etc, diet.
Your microbiome is in constant fluctuation and will never be constant even if you ate the same regimented diet and followed the same routine day in/day out. These are competing bacterial strains and in constant struggle to compete over the resources available. While this is a variable, it is a very short term variable and has little impact on the long term.
I never said it stayed exactly the same from day to day. But, I don't think it's accurate to say there is no long term impact from diet. There was an entire section about it in Ed Yong's book. I looked up a few of the studies from the footnotes and there does seem to be evidence that one can permanently alter their microbiome with their diet. Obviously that could be proven wrong in the future. But I'm pretty sure that's the current understanding of the research that has been done.0 -
MJ2victory wrote: »willdarr79 wrote: »MJ2victory wrote: »I maintain that being hateful and disrespectful towards fat people does a lot towards keep us fat.
I have seen literally nobody in this thread saying that being hateful is ok. The question is whether or not people should be celebrating the fact that they are fat instead of trying to become more healthy. I haven't seen anyone say that fat shaming is ok, only that we shouldn't be glorifying being unhealthy.
but the thing is that accepting your body and deciding to love yourself doesn't necessarily mean you're not trying to become more healthy.
I haven't seen anyone in this thread saying that fat people shouldn't love themselves either. I am fairly certain that isn't in dispute. The negative response to the movement is the glorification of being unhealthy plain and simple. Sure, love yourself, but if you truly do love yourself then maybe try to become healthier so you can stick around for a while.2 -
willdarr79 wrote: »MJ2victory wrote: »willdarr79 wrote: »MJ2victory wrote: »I maintain that being hateful and disrespectful towards fat people does a lot towards keep us fat.
I have seen literally nobody in this thread saying that being hateful is ok. The question is whether or not people should be celebrating the fact that they are fat instead of trying to become more healthy. I haven't seen anyone say that fat shaming is ok, only that we shouldn't be glorifying being unhealthy.
but the thing is that accepting your body and deciding to love yourself doesn't necessarily mean you're not trying to become more healthy.
I haven't seen anyone in this thread saying that fat people shouldn't love themselves either. I am fairly certain that isn't in dispute. The negative response to the movement is the glorification of being unhealthy plain and simple. Sure, love yourself, but if you truly do love yourself then maybe try to become healthier so you can stick around for a while.
I think the glorification of obesity is a myth. I've never actually seen it. I 100% agree with what you're saying and think most people would. As I've said over and over, the constant mocking and exclusion of fat people is, for many, the reason they don't love themselves enough to make healthier choices. Though the fat acceptance movement may be vocal, it's small and unpopular.5 -
Heather_MXP wrote: »Heather_MXP wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »The choices are not either genetics cause obesity or fat people are only fat because they are lazy and indulgent.
One issue with the microbiome argument is that what you eat changes your microbiome -- it's not like you just have what you have and are stuck with it (absent some fecal transplant or the like).
Sure. I agree 100% that it's not either/or. But there is an attitude that it's all self-inflicted, as if everyone starts out with the same body situation, etc, (as is obvious in the "what gene" question)... which is obviously not the case.
I also agree that one's microbiome changes with one's diet. But it's still a factor in controlling one's cravings (and even their will-power). I've also read that once someone "ruins" their microbiome with a refined carb diet, it will never go back to microbiome it was / "could have been" on a high fiber, whole foods, etc, diet.
Your microbiome is in constant fluctuation and will never be constant even if you ate the same regimented diet and followed the same routine day in/day out. These are competing bacterial strains and in constant struggle to compete over the resources available. While this is a variable, it is a very short term variable and has little impact on the long term.
I never said it stayed exactly the same from day to day. But, I don't think it's accurate to say there is no long term impact from diet. There was an entire section about it in Ed Yong's book. I looked up a few of the studies from the footnotes and there does seem to be evidence that one can permanently alter their microbiome with their diet. Obviously that could be proven wrong in the future. But I'm pretty sure that's the current understanding of the research that has been done.
You can never permanently alter your microbiome, which is why I made the comment. While we may not have fistulated humans, we have decades worth of environmental data from fistulated swine showing only a minor impact on weight. This is chasing a minor factor - similar to the impact hormones have on weight management.0 -
There have been a LOT of excellent points raised here, on both sides. I am clinically 'morbidly obese', and have been for some time now. Now, for the most part, I've always had an hour-glass figure. My favorite joke has always been that as I got older, there were 'more minutes in the hour', but I kept the same basic shape. I was lucky (in my opinion) that when I gain weight, I gain it everywhere! Some women, (because that's the demographic I belong to, don't mean to leave our 'brothers' out of it), gain weight on top or all in the bottom, or just become kinda round. I stayed pretty proportional as I got bigger. I'm grateful for the cosmetics, but I think it made it a bit harder to notice just how big I was getting. My point is, that for a long, long time I was definitely someone who thought you could be beautiful at ANY size. I was also fond of saying 'sexy is an attitude, not a physical attribute'.
Now, don't get me wrong, for the most part, I still believe those things. You can be big AND beautiful! And how you carry yourself and the person you are can make an average person, stunning or a playmate model ugly! However, there is a LOT of diabetes, high cholesterol and heart disease in my family. I've attended a lot of funerals because of obesity and all the medical complications that come with it. I'm not even 50 years old and I can't play with my 2-year-old grandson because my knees can't handle the weight. My back is in constant pain. I walk to the kitchen to cook dinner and I'm out of breath. The truth is, self-esteem aside, I'm gonna die if I don't make a change.
Is it possible to be healthy and big? Sure it is. Just like there are people who jog and work-out constantly, who are in shape, and then die of heart attacks. They weren't fat. But maybe their cholesterol or blood pressure was bad. So yes, I've seen heavy people who are active, and who certainly have better breath support than I do! Regardless of your size, or your body type, I am of the opinion that if you are healthy, you have energy, you are active and you feel good about yourself, NO ONE should have anything to say about how you look! I agree with every person who has said that shaming people about how they look is just plain, wrong!
Ok. End of rant. LOL4 -
You can never permanently alter your microbiome, which is why I made the comment. While we may not have fistulated humans, we have decades worth of environmental data from fistulated swine showing only a minor impact on weight. This is chasing a minor factor - similar to the impact hormones have on weight management.
Scads of research regarding changes to human microbiomes say otherwise. One doesn't even have to troll scientific journals to find it.2 -
Heather_MXP wrote: »You can never permanently alter your microbiome, which is why I made the comment. While we may not have fistulated humans, we have decades worth of environmental data from fistulated swine showing only a minor impact on weight. This is chasing a minor factor - similar to the impact hormones have on weight management.
Scads of research regarding changes to human microbiomes say otherwise. One doesn't even have to troll scientific journals to find it.
...and any microbiology textbook would disagree. I welcome the citation to the contrary.
It's your use of the word "permanently" I hold issue with. No such thing in the realm of microbiology.3 -
Heather_MXP wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »thickspo91 wrote: »Some people are fat based on genetics. Also skinny people who don't take care of themselves don't get judged as harshly. I think people should be allowed to be fat if that's the life they choose. Fat is often a correlation with a disease, not the causation. Judging people for whether or not they are ill is wrong. Judging people for being fat is wrong.
Which genes cause cancer again?
This is woo of the highest order. Obesity is a result of behavior. Otherwise you would see a similar population of obesity in Somalia (or wherever the latest food shortage/warlord takeover occurs) - or are you suggesting that Somalians are lacking obesity genes?
Errr dude, pretty much everyone involved in oncology agrees that cancer is a genetics/epigenetics problem.
Yup - huge error on my part. Meant to state "Which genes cause obesity again?"
Agree - cancer is by and large genetic with a small population resulting from environmental causes. My n of 1 substantiates this.
There have actually been some interesting studies on epigenetics and obesity. There's also research on microbiomes and obesity. It's not as simple as fat people are lazy and indulgent. It's just not.
The only studies I'm aware of are from the phychological aspect, which are highly dubious and historically hold a poor record on rechallenge and repeatability. Epigenetics in this case are completely out of context and are not some modern equivalent of reading tea leaves. Genetics establishes basic parameters. Your behavior can either accept those or push the boundaries.
You seem fixated on the judgmental aspect of this. No judgement or emotion required. It's a simple matter of eating more than you burn, which is stored as fat. This is primarily dependent on behavior.3 -
...and any microbiology textbook would disagree. I welcome the citation to the contrary.
It's your use of the word "permanently" I hold issue with. No such thing in the realm of microbiology.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v529/n7585/full/nature16504.html
"Here we show that changes in the microbiota of mice consuming a low-MAC diet and harbouring a human microbiota are largely reversible within a single generation. However, over several generations, a low-MAC diet results in a progressive loss of diversity, which is not recoverable after the reintroduction of dietary MACs. To restore the microbiota to its original state requires the administration of missing taxa in combination with dietary MAC consumption. Our data illustrate that taxa driven to low abundance when dietary MACs are scarce are inefficiently transferred to the next generation, and are at increased risk of becoming extinct within an isolated population. As more diseases are linked to the Western microbiota and the microbiota is targeted therapeutically, microbiota reprogramming may need to involve strategies that incorporate dietary MACs as well as taxa not currently present in the Western gut."
Since I don't see my fellow MFP-ers running out for fecal transplants or other microbiota reprogramming, I think you're being terribly pedantic and I stand by my use of the word "permanent."
I'm off to enjoy my evening. So this concludes my participation in this debate.
Cheers.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 910 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions