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.
Interesting way that people excuse their overweight / obesity
Replies
-
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »There is tremendous variation in human bone density, shape, and even connectivity at some points (the clavicle comes to mind) that affect overall body size fairly considerably. There are also variations in musculature and adiposity related to genetics.
People who deny this clearly have not studied anatomy with any degree of diligence.
I don't recall anyone being goofy enough to say that there was no genetic input. Which one of the two has a bigger impact over a lifetime would be the point.
Except that @shredcamps and @trigden1991 have made exactly that argument.0 -
I haven't read all the replies in this thread (ok, I haven't actually read any...) so forgive me if this point has been made before.
Wasn't your conversation essentially about whether (absolute) free will as most people understand it - being the ability to wilfully have chosen a decision different from the one you made - exists or not?
If we reject mind-body dualism and accept we are physical organisms bound by the natural laws of the universe then our "choices" are not choices at all but rather already determined and our illusion of choice is simply a post hoc false rationalisation of what we did.
The only way you could have made a different choice is we have the ability to change one or both of these conditions: a) the configuration of the universe prior to the point the decision was made and b) the physical laws which determine how the universe moves from one state to another.
We have control over neither.0 -
There is tremendous variation in human bone density, shape, and even connectivity at some points (the clavicle comes to mind) that affect overall body size fairly considerably. There are also variations in musculature and adiposity related to genetics.
People who deny this clearly have not studied anatomy with any degree of diligence.
Define tremendous.1 -
VeganRaptor wrote: »In eating disorder recovery therapists and dietitians usually use set point theory- patients are expected to gain weight until it balances out at a healthy place for them, which can be very different for different people.
I always see people talking about how set point theory doesn't actually work how the theory says it should, and that people just gain weight due to the number of calories they eat- so I don't know why I should trust my therapist that gaining weight is okay now that I'm at a healthy BMI because I'm not at my set point/personal healthy weight yet- why shouldn't I just eat less and stay at a low healthy range BMI? If set point isn't real, gaining weight until I reach it seems pointless and it seems like I'll just be gaining weight forever.
Not sure if that really went anywhere, I'm just dubious about set point theory but am expected to put my trust in it- so I am in a strange situation at the moment.
ED recovery is an entirely different ballgame. You're trying to eat without fear. You're trying to relearn hunger cues. Your therapist is trying to avoid you restricting your intake when you may not be in a place where you can safely do so yet. Intentionally cutting back by a couple hundred calories to maintain your BMI on the lower end could trigger a relapse.
My personal anecdote - I reached a "set point" in the middle of the healthy BMI range, meaning the amount I eat and feel full on balances out with my activity level, and I find it very easy to maintain this weight. I could lose weight by restricting my calories, but then maintaining that lower weight is harder - it requires me to include more activity than my lifestyle currently is conducive to, or it requires me to mindfully eat less. This means I'm thinking about food and exercise frequently, which ultimately can be triggering for me.
Moral of the story: trust your therapist.2 -
Raptor2763 wrote: »My second-to-last job in the Army was Drill Sergeant, and you'd be amazed at the range of excuses basic training privates made for why they were puffy and out of shape. People nowadays don't (a) take responsibility for their actions (or inaction) and (b) expect somebody else to fix it. Great thing about being in the Army is the privates got to fix that crap themselves - one pushup, one situp, and one mile at a time. Mine is a no-excuse zone, whether from myself or others.
This is one of the most insidious thoughts invading culture - you are not responsible for the outcome.
When I processed out of the Navy I had six months left and was given my choice of assignments. I picked Recruit Division Commander (Navy Drill Instructor) and ran two divisions of females through boot camp. From day one I held them to male standards. Each and every one met these standards prior to graduation. Several received outstanding marks. At day one I broke them down and smashed every preconceived notion drilled into their heads on what they were not capable of, then built them back together and challenged daily on what barrier they were going to break.
You do not achieve excellence by lowering standards. You do not achieve excellence by shirking responsibility or playing a victim. You achieve excellence by taking personal responsibility and owning the outcome.14 -
chocolate_owl wrote: »VeganRaptor wrote: »Moral of the story: trust your therapist.
Thanks for the advice, that does make sense, kinda. I'm just not feeling recovery so much at the moment but I'll get back to a place where I am
0 -
trigden1991 wrote: »Mary_Anastasia wrote: »shredcamps wrote: »Guns_N_Buns wrote: »I'm not fat, I'm big boned!
of course you are. the cemeteries are full of obese skeletons!
Big Boned!!! bs..
My nutritionist said I was big boned!! No lie, she measured my wrist bones and said it's a thing and that I'm big boned!! But she did say it doesn't affect your weight as much as people want it to LOL
I would get a new nutritionist.
There is validity to the big boned thing. But as she said, it doesn't affect your weight as much as people want.
Check out http://health.bizcalcs.com/Calculator.asp?Calc=Frame-Size-Wrist
At 6' with a wrist of 8 inches, my ideal weight is up to 188 pounds. Not 220 (my current target), not 300 (my current weight) not 325 (about where I started). I will care about this as I get a hell of a lot closer to the weight I want to be.0 -
And on the whole CICO thing, I feel like my head exploded.
You can't say CICO doesn't work. Of course it does. 100%. Medical conditions just mean you can't use the models that apply to the general population as the condition effects either CI or CO. So you need to do a lot more work to figure out CI (are all calories eaten absorbed?) or CO (is your BMR or TDEE out of line). Doesn't mean CICO doesn't work. But it does mean it is a lot harder to figure out.6 -
grmckenzie wrote: »And on the whole CICO thing, I feel like my head exploded.
You can't say CICO doesn't work. Of course it does. 100%. Medical conditions just mean you can't use the models that apply to the general population as the condition effects either CI or CO. So you need to do a lot more work to figure out CI (are all calories eaten absorbed?) or CO (is your BMR or TDEE out of line). Doesn't mean CICO doesn't work. But it does mean it is a lot harder to figure out.
Why is it harder? Just restrict input or increase output until you start losing at a comfortable rate. It's not rocket science.2 -
There is tremendous variation in human bone density, shape, and even connectivity at some points (the clavicle comes to mind) that affect overall body size fairly considerably. There are also variations in musculature and adiposity related to genetics.
People who deny this clearly have not studied anatomy with any degree of diligence.
Those variances do not go outside of healthy BMI ranges. I challenge you to find a source that states otherwise. Adult bones weigh an average of 20-30lbs. It is outright laughable to claim they can account for serious differences.
I am "big boned". I know this, because I've had a bone scan. I'm also hourglass shaped with a large bust line, which is, of course, genetics. Those factors combined, my doctors (multiple) were pleased to report that I'd likely have a healthy body fat percentage (and they meant this including visceral fat...the kind that kills you and has nothing to do with appearance) in the top ten pound range of the healthy BMI for my height. So....at 5'8, I could expect to reach a healthy goal weight in the mid 150's to 160, instead of 135. A person who is healthy at my height at 135 would have "smaller bones", and genetics that indicated not so much curvature. BMI gives a plentiful range. Bones and shape are accounted for.
6 -
MissusMoon wrote: »There is tremendous variation in human bone density, shape, and even connectivity at some points (the clavicle comes to mind) that affect overall body size fairly considerably. There are also variations in musculature and adiposity related to genetics.
People who deny this clearly have not studied anatomy with any degree of diligence.
Those variances do not go outside of healthy BMI ranges. I challenge you to find a source that states otherwise. Adult bones weigh an average of 20-30lbs. It is outright laughable to claim they can account for serious differences.
I am "big boned". I know this, because I've had a bone scan. I'm also hourglass shaped with a large bust line, which is, of course, genetics. Those factors combined, my doctors (multiple) were pleased to report that I'd likely have a healthy body fat percentage (and they meant this including visceral fat...the kind that kills you and has nothing to do with appearance) in the top ten pound range of the healthy BMI for my height. So....at 5'8, I could expect to reach a healthy goal weight in the mid 150's to 160, instead of 135. A person who is healthy at my height at 135 would have "smaller bones", and genetics that indicated not so much curvature. BMI gives a plentiful range. Bones and shape are accounted for.
True0 -
grmckenzie wrote: »And on the whole CICO thing, I feel like my head exploded.
You can't say CICO doesn't work. Of course it does. 100%. Medical conditions just mean you can't use the models that apply to the general population as the condition effects either CI or CO. So you need to do a lot more work to figure out CI (are all calories eaten absorbed?) or CO (is your BMR or TDEE out of line). Doesn't mean CICO doesn't work. But it does mean it is a lot harder to figure out.
Agreed0 -
MissusMoon wrote: »There is tremendous variation in human bone density, shape, and even connectivity at some points (the clavicle comes to mind) that affect overall body size fairly considerably. There are also variations in musculature and adiposity related to genetics.
People who deny this clearly have not studied anatomy with any degree of diligence.
Those variances do not go outside of healthy BMI ranges. I challenge you to find a source that states otherwise. Adult bones weigh an average of 20-30lbs. It is outright laughable to claim they can account for serious differences.
I am "big boned". I know this, because I've had a bone scan. I'm also hourglass shaped with a large bust line, which is, of course, genetics. Those factors combined, my doctors (multiple) were pleased to report that I'd likely have a healthy body fat percentage (and they meant this including visceral fat...the kind that kills you and has nothing to do with appearance) in the top ten pound range of the healthy BMI for my height. So....at 5'8, I could expect to reach a healthy goal weight in the mid 150's to 160, instead of 135. A person who is healthy at my height at 135 would have "smaller bones", and genetics that indicated not so much curvature. BMI gives a plentiful range. Bones and shape are accounted for.
Ruff, Christopher. "Variation in human body size and shape." Annual Review of Anthropology (2002): 211-232.
Nicholson, C., and H. Sandeman Allen. "Variation in the female pelvis." The Lancet 248.6415 (1946): 192-195.
Caldwell, W. E., and H. C. Moloy. "Anatomical variations in the female pelvis: Their classification and obstetrical significance:(section of obstetrics and gynæcology)." Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine 32.1 (1938): 1.
Schmidt-Nielsen, Knut. Scaling: why is animal size so important?. Cambridge University Press, 1984.
Ruff, Christopher. "Growth in bone strength, body size, and muscle size in a juvenile longitudinal sample." Bone 33.3 (2003): 317-329.
And my personal favorite
Ruff, C., Niskanen, M., Junno, J. A., & Jamison, P. (2005). Body mass prediction from stature and bi-iliac breadth in two high latitude populations, with application to earlier higher latitude humans. Journal of Human Evolution, 48(4), 381-392.
This one is great because it discusses specifically the weakness of older models in predicting height/mass and the nonlinearity of tissue associated with bones.
I'm OBVIOUSLY not saying bone weight accounts for the differences. "Healthy BMI" is a construct that was invented for the purposes of statistical evaluation. It has many, many weaknesses that have been roundly discussed by statisticians and physicians alike for many, many years. But one of the primary ones is the limitation that it assumes that bodies just don't have much variance in mass / height. That simply doesn't hold true, and its a reason that it is such a weak predictor of body fat %.0 -
MissusMoon wrote: »There is tremendous variation in human bone density, shape, and even connectivity at some points (the clavicle comes to mind) that affect overall body size fairly considerably. There are also variations in musculature and adiposity related to genetics.
People who deny this clearly have not studied anatomy with any degree of diligence.
Those variances do not go outside of healthy BMI ranges. I challenge you to find a source that states otherwise. Adult bones weigh an average of 20-30lbs. It is outright laughable to claim they can account for serious differences.
I am "big boned". I know this, because I've had a bone scan. I'm also hourglass shaped with a large bust line, which is, of course, genetics. Those factors combined, my doctors (multiple) were pleased to report that I'd likely have a healthy body fat percentage (and they meant this including visceral fat...the kind that kills you and has nothing to do with appearance) in the top ten pound range of the healthy BMI for my height. So....at 5'8, I could expect to reach a healthy goal weight in the mid 150's to 160, instead of 135. A person who is healthy at my height at 135 would have "smaller bones", and genetics that indicated not so much curvature. BMI gives a plentiful range. Bones and shape are accounted for.
Ruff, Christopher. "Variation in human body size and shape." Annual Review of Anthropology (2002): 211-232.
Nicholson, C., and H. Sandeman Allen. "Variation in the female pelvis." The Lancet 248.6415 (1946): 192-195.
Caldwell, W. E., and H. C. Moloy. "Anatomical variations in the female pelvis: Their classification and obstetrical significance:(section of obstetrics and gynæcology)." Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine 32.1 (1938): 1.
Schmidt-Nielsen, Knut. Scaling: why is animal size so important?. Cambridge University Press, 1984.
Ruff, Christopher. "Growth in bone strength, body size, and muscle size in a juvenile longitudinal sample." Bone 33.3 (2003): 317-329.
And my personal favorite
Ruff, C., Niskanen, M., Junno, J. A., & Jamison, P. (2005). Body mass prediction from stature and bi-iliac breadth in two high latitude populations, with application to earlier higher latitude humans. Journal of Human Evolution, 48(4), 381-392.
This one is great because it discusses specifically the weakness of older models in predicting height/mass and the nonlinearity of tissue associated with bones.
I'm OBVIOUSLY not saying bone weight accounts for the differences. "Healthy BMI" is a construct that was invented for the purposes of statistical evaluation. It has many, many weaknesses that have been roundly discussed by statisticians and physicians alike for many, many years. But one of the primary ones is the limitation that it assumes that bodies just don't have much variance in mass / height. That simply doesn't hold true, and its a reason that it is such a weak predictor of body fat %.
The healthy weight range already accounts for up to 40 and more pounds at the same height when it goes to taller people. How much more does it need to be satisfactory?3 -
@stevencloser there's a lot of support in the medical, anatomy, and statistics fields for modification of the BMI scale. This really isn't the point of the thread, or my posting it. I wanted to point out that blanket assertions that there's no "real" or "significant" difference in frame sizes are just flat out wrong.0
-
trigden1991 wrote: »Mary_Anastasia wrote: »shredcamps wrote: »Guns_N_Buns wrote: »I'm not fat, I'm big boned!
of course you are. the cemeteries are full of obese skeletons!
Big Boned!!! bs..
My nutritionist said I was big boned!! No lie, she measured my wrist bones and said it's a thing and that I'm big boned!! But she did say it doesn't affect your weight as much as people want it to LOL
I would get a new nutritionist.
Yes, I did when she insisted I not pay for my last session, and told me to find a different type of nutritionist because "you're doing everything right from what I can tell, I can't do anything else, I don't know what to do!" She came from my endocrinologists network, the endo who told me I'm destined to be overweight because that's what my body wants, and that its okay to be 100lbs overweight since I'm active....I fired that endo.
3 -
Mary_Anastasia wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »Mary_Anastasia wrote: »shredcamps wrote: »Guns_N_Buns wrote: »I'm not fat, I'm big boned!
of course you are. the cemeteries are full of obese skeletons!
Big Boned!!! bs..
My nutritionist said I was big boned!! No lie, she measured my wrist bones and said it's a thing and that I'm big boned!! But she did say it doesn't affect your weight as much as people want it to LOL
I would get a new nutritionist.
Yes, I did when she insisted I not pay for my last session, and told me to find a different type of nutritionist because "you're doing everything right from what I can tell, I can't do anything else, I don't know what to do!" She came from my endocrinologists network, the endo who told me I'm destined to be overweight because that's what my body wants, and that its okay to be 100lbs overweight since I'm active....I fired that endo.
So, was your new nutritionist to prescribe a 500 calories diet (usually in the form of a sandwich)?
1 -
I speak from experience, I always made excuses such as eating healthy is too expensive, I have no willpower, I don’t like exercise, Why bother? I’m just going to gain it back.0
-
@stevencloser there's a lot of support in the medical, anatomy, and statistics fields for modification of the BMI scale. This really isn't the point of the thread, or my posting it. I wanted to point out that blanket assertions that there's no "real" or "significant" difference in frame sizes are just flat out wrong.
Well I would like to know how significant you're talking here. Cause I know "significant" in everyday use is different from "significant" in terms of study results.1 -
I would imagine a good number of people lose some weight and realize they are 'just' going to be a smaller version of themselves, so they stop because they figure out they're not going to look as good as they wanted to - so why bother. I'd think this is especially true of people who try losing with really restrictive diets.
Most don't think of turning to resistance exercise to improve their composition, and some have issues that can't be fixed without surgery (loose skin, stretch marks, etc).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
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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