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.
Can you both desire to lose weight and be body positive?
Replies
-
Aaron_K123 wrote: »clicketykeys wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »IIf you want to change your appearance then you, by definition, don't like your current appeareance.
Ehhh. There are other reasons. Variety. Other peoples influence.
I think there are people who tie their personal self-worth to their appearance and I think those people likely project onto others that if those other people don't like their appearance they must have self-esteem issues. I'd argue that the ones who associate their self-worth with their appearance are the ones with self-esteem issues that need to be addressed...even if they are currently happy with their appearance at the moment.
Correct. And these are the people who are the primary targets/beneficiaries of structured body-positivity work. That’s not an embrace of an unhealthy body or lifestyle. In fact the people I went through this with sat at all ranges on the weight/health spectrum. But regardless of weight/health/appearance, we tied our view of our body to personal worth and value (or lack thereof). I realize there isn’t a solid definition of “body positivity” we’re working with, but I see it as working to get to the place where you already are. (“You” meaning someone who can make those observations without internalizing them or hating yourself).
0 -
clicketykeys wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »IIf you want to change your appearance then you, by definition, don't like your current appeareance.
Ehhh. There are other reasons. Variety. Other peoples influence.
Also you could think something could be BETTER without disliking it's current state.
I could be a better person -- nicer, more patient, more understanding, so on. I work on many things that I think will make me a better person, to come closer to how I think would be the right way to be, to be as good a person as I think I should be. That does not mean I think I'm a bad person or don't like myself now. Thinking you could improve does not mean you don't like yourself (whether talking about body or some other aspect).4 -
Duck_Puddle wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »clicketykeys wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »IIf you want to change your appearance then you, by definition, don't like your current appeareance.
Ehhh. There are other reasons. Variety. Other peoples influence.
I think there are people who tie their personal self-worth to their appearance and I think those people likely project onto others that if those other people don't like their appearance they must have self-esteem issues. I'd argue that the ones who associate their self-worth with their appearance are the ones with self-esteem issues that need to be addressed...even if they are currently happy with their appearance at the moment.
Correct. And these are the people who are the primary targets/beneficiaries of structured body-positivity work. That’s not an embrace of an unhealthy body or lifestyle. In fact the people I went through this with sat at all ranges on the weight/health spectrum. But regardless of weight/health/appearance, we tied our view of our body to personal worth and value (or lack thereof). I realize there isn’t a solid definition of “body positivity” we’re working with, but I see it as working to get to the place where you already are. (“You” meaning someone who can make those observations without internalizing them or hating yourself).
I mean I say this fully acknowledging I am no psychiatrist but seems to me like if you wrongly associate your self-worth with your appearance than people trying to help you bolster your body image through "body positivity" is not addressing the actual problem (the misapplication of value to something as shallow and fleeting as appearance) and instead trying to just brace it up with some rather shallow B.S. about how everyone is beautiful. No, not everyone is beautiful...but that is okay, beauty isn't everything. Wouldn't that be the more appropriate lesson?1 -
I really don't think "body positivity" should (or does) mean you are judging by appearance and so pretending to yourself that you are ideal according to some appearance-based rubric. If you are assuming that's what people saying that body positivity can be good must think, I think that's a misunderstanding.0
-
eliciaobrien1 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »eliciaobrien1 wrote: »Oh stop kidding yourselves. Swimming cuts your weight significantly so it's literally less taxing on the body.
Being overweight is not in and of itself unhealthy. It can raise your risk of disease, but regular activity can decrease it.
No. Having more fat on your body raises your risk of disease, yes, which makes it unhealthy. Regular activity, unless you're burning fat, does not decrease it. Regular activity with no change in how much fat is on your body does not change how much fat is on your body. So it wouldn't change your risk of diseases.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/14/health/fat-but-fit-myth-heart-disease-study/index.html
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/may/17/obesity-health-no-such-thing-as-fat-but-fit-major-study
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/fat-but-fit-myth-diet-fitness-obesity-complications-inclusive-a7741126.html (this one might give you "fat but fit" but definitely not fat and healthy)
https://www.nhs.uk/news/lifestyle-and-exercise/fat-but-fit-still-at-higher-risk-of-heart-disease/
All 3 of those reference the same study... which didn't actually review anything about "fat but fit"
They literally all reviewed "fat but fit". Why would you need to do more than one study if one study proves "fat but fit" wrong?
The thing with science is that once it's proved with evidence you don't really need to look at it again.
That’s NOT how science works.
One study is never enough to prove something definitively.
Science works by reproducing results, doing experiment after experiment to see if the results are consistent.
When a single study seems to support a conclusion, thats precisely when you DO need to look at it again to see if further studies support the same conclusion.13 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »eliciaobrien1 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »eliciaobrien1 wrote: »Oh stop kidding yourselves. Swimming cuts your weight significantly so it's literally less taxing on the body.
Being overweight is not in and of itself unhealthy. It can raise your risk of disease, but regular activity can decrease it.
No. Having more fat on your body raises your risk of disease, yes, which makes it unhealthy. Regular activity, unless you're burning fat, does not decrease it. Regular activity with no change in how much fat is on your body does not change how much fat is on your body. So it wouldn't change your risk of diseases.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/14/health/fat-but-fit-myth-heart-disease-study/index.html
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/may/17/obesity-health-no-such-thing-as-fat-but-fit-major-study
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/fat-but-fit-myth-diet-fitness-obesity-complications-inclusive-a7741126.html (this one might give you "fat but fit" but definitely not fat and healthy)
https://www.nhs.uk/news/lifestyle-and-exercise/fat-but-fit-still-at-higher-risk-of-heart-disease/
All 3 of those reference the same study... which didn't actually review anything about "fat but fit"
They literally all reviewed "fat but fit". Why would you need to do more than one study if one study proves "fat but fit" wrong?
The thing with science is that once it's proved with evidence you don't really need to look at it again.
That’s NOT how science works.
One study is never enough to prove something definitively.
Science works by reproducing results, doing experiment after experiment to see if the results are consistent.
When a single study seems to support a conclusion, thats precisely when you DO need to look at it again to see if further studies support the same conclusion.
Okay I misspoke. This study was done over 30 years. So we're going to be waiting a while for it to be replicated.
There is definitely more evidence than none saying you cannot be healthy and fat. This study was peer-reviewed and published into the International Journal of Epidemiology.2 -
eliciaobrien1 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »eliciaobrien1 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »eliciaobrien1 wrote: »Oh stop kidding yourselves. Swimming cuts your weight significantly so it's literally less taxing on the body.
Being overweight is not in and of itself unhealthy. It can raise your risk of disease, but regular activity can decrease it.
No. Having more fat on your body raises your risk of disease, yes, which makes it unhealthy. Regular activity, unless you're burning fat, does not decrease it. Regular activity with no change in how much fat is on your body does not change how much fat is on your body. So it wouldn't change your risk of diseases.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/14/health/fat-but-fit-myth-heart-disease-study/index.html
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/may/17/obesity-health-no-such-thing-as-fat-but-fit-major-study
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/fat-but-fit-myth-diet-fitness-obesity-complications-inclusive-a7741126.html (this one might give you "fat but fit" but definitely not fat and healthy)
https://www.nhs.uk/news/lifestyle-and-exercise/fat-but-fit-still-at-higher-risk-of-heart-disease/
All 3 of those reference the same study... which didn't actually review anything about "fat but fit"
They literally all reviewed "fat but fit". Why would you need to do more than one study if one study proves "fat but fit" wrong?
The thing with science is that once it's proved with evidence you don't really need to look at it again.
That’s NOT how science works.
One study is never enough to prove something definitively.
Science works by reproducing results, doing experiment after experiment to see if the results are consistent.
When a single study seems to support a conclusion, thats precisely when you DO need to look at it again to see if further studies support the same conclusion.
Okay I misspoke. This study was done over 30 years. So we're going to be waiting a while for it to be replicated.
There is definitely more evidence than none saying you cannot be healthy and fat. This study was peer-reviewed and published into the International Journal of Epidemiology.
Yes, the study looked at a group of 18 year olds BMI, and then evaluated their health 30 years later.... without reassessing BMI.
So the only concrete conclusion is that your BMI at 18 will impact your health at 50.
4 -
A lot of people lose weight BECAUSE they love themselves and want to be healthy. They love their body and don't want to hurt it with extra weight. It's all about the mindset during weight loss, and it can be a good one!2
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »clicketykeys wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »IIf you want to change your appearance then you, by definition, don't like your current appeareance.
Ehhh. There are other reasons. Variety. Other peoples influence.
Also you could think something could be BETTER without disliking it's current state.
I could be a better person -- nicer, more patient, more understanding, so on. I work on many things that I think will make me a better person, to come closer to how I think would be the right way to be, to be as good a person as I think I should be. That does not mean I think I'm a bad person or don't like myself now. Thinking you could improve does not mean you don't like yourself (whether talking about body or some other aspect).
Absolutely! I was thinking more along the lines of, "you know, I've never had a pixie cut (or whatever) and it looks cute on a lot of people. wonder if it'd work for me."
But yeah, you can like yourself and still want to be better. It's like having a wonderful meal, and then ALSO having dessert ^.^
Both is good!
1 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Duck_Puddle wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »clicketykeys wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »IIf you want to change your appearance then you, by definition, don't like your current appeareance.
Ehhh. There are other reasons. Variety. Other peoples influence.
I think there are people who tie their personal self-worth to their appearance and I think those people likely project onto others that if those other people don't like their appearance they must have self-esteem issues. I'd argue that the ones who associate their self-worth with their appearance are the ones with self-esteem issues that need to be addressed...even if they are currently happy with their appearance at the moment.
Correct. And these are the people who are the primary targets/beneficiaries of structured body-positivity work. That’s not an embrace of an unhealthy body or lifestyle. In fact the people I went through this with sat at all ranges on the weight/health spectrum. But regardless of weight/health/appearance, we tied our view of our body to personal worth and value (or lack thereof). I realize there isn’t a solid definition of “body positivity” we’re working with, but I see it as working to get to the place where you already are. (“You” meaning someone who can make those observations without internalizing them or hating yourself).
I mean I say this fully acknowledging I am no psychiatrist but seems to me like if you wrongly associate your self-worth with your appearance than people trying to help you bolster your body image through "body positivity" is not addressing the actual problem (the misapplication of value to something as shallow and fleeting as appearance) and instead trying to just brace it up with some rather shallow B.S. about how everyone is beautiful. No, not everyone is beautiful...but that is okay, beauty isn't everything. Wouldn't that be the more appropriate lesson?
But that’s not what body positivity means (in my definition/experience). It’s not about convincing yourself that you’re beautiful. It’s about learning you’re more than your body and the state of your body doesn’t determine your value. If anything, it removes the idea of “beauty” altogether. That’s kind of the point. You’re just as valuable a person regardless of your weight, appearance, etc.lemurcat12 wrote: »I really don't think "body positivity" should (or does) mean you are judging by appearance and so pretending to yourself that you are ideal according to some appearance-based rubric. If you are assuming that's what people saying that body positivity can be good must think, I think that's a misunderstanding.
Pretty much this.
It’s difficult to discuss something that doesn’t have a firm definition though. But the notion that body positivity means “lying to yourself about your honest reality” is just false. That’s not the idea. At least not the type of thing that I’ve experienced.0 -
Absolutely. I believe being body positive is appreciating yourself in this very moment- no matter what. Aka no down talking yourself, etc. I don't think being body positive and wanting to better yourself as a human being have anything to do with each other really.
2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »cbohling1987 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »eliciaobrien1 wrote: »Oh stop kidding yourselves. Swimming cuts your weight significantly so it's literally less taxing on the body.
Being overweight is not in and of itself unhealthy. It can raise your risk of disease, but regular activity can decrease it.
No. Having more fat on your body raises your risk of disease, yes, which makes it unhealthy. Regular activity, unless you're burning fat, does not decrease it. Regular activity with no change in how much fat is on your body does not change how much fat is on your body. So it wouldn't change your risk of diseases.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/14/health/fat-but-fit-myth-heart-disease-study/index.html
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/may/17/obesity-health-no-such-thing-as-fat-but-fit-major-study
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/fat-but-fit-myth-diet-fitness-obesity-complications-inclusive-a7741126.html (this one might give you "fat but fit" but definitely not fat and healthy)
https://www.nhs.uk/news/lifestyle-and-exercise/fat-but-fit-still-at-higher-risk-of-heart-disease/
this is a quote from the last link above:Most of the coverage repeated the line that it is not possible to be overweight and healthy, which is not what the study found.
The study results showed obese people were at an increased risk of certain diseases, but that doesn't mean they will all get these diseases.
It would seem you are going with the media spin, rather than the actual study results.
That just points to the fact that "healthy" is a vague term (just like "body positivity" and "fat acceptance.") Where the precise line between "healthy" and "unhealthy" is isn't always clear.
Instead of categorizing things (and activities and people) as "healthy" or "unhealthy" we should be looking at "more healthy" vs. "less healthy." An overweight person may already have a reasonable level of health, but they could certainly become more healthy by losing weight. A non-overweight person may also already have a reasonable level of health, but they could also become more healthy by exercising more and increasing their stamina.
But similarly if one is fat and sedentary and wants to get healthier one could focus on getting more fit through exercise vs. dieting. I don't think it's going to prohibit later focusing on weight loss and it's a positive change.
Sure, those were just examples, not proscriptions.0 -
Duck_Puddle wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Duck_Puddle wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »clicketykeys wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »IIf you want to change your appearance then you, by definition, don't like your current appeareance.
Ehhh. There are other reasons. Variety. Other peoples influence.
I think there are people who tie their personal self-worth to their appearance and I think those people likely project onto others that if those other people don't like their appearance they must have self-esteem issues. I'd argue that the ones who associate their self-worth with their appearance are the ones with self-esteem issues that need to be addressed...even if they are currently happy with their appearance at the moment.
Correct. And these are the people who are the primary targets/beneficiaries of structured body-positivity work. That’s not an embrace of an unhealthy body or lifestyle. In fact the people I went through this with sat at all ranges on the weight/health spectrum. But regardless of weight/health/appearance, we tied our view of our body to personal worth and value (or lack thereof). I realize there isn’t a solid definition of “body positivity” we’re working with, but I see it as working to get to the place where you already are. (“You” meaning someone who can make those observations without internalizing them or hating yourself).
I mean I say this fully acknowledging I am no psychiatrist but seems to me like if you wrongly associate your self-worth with your appearance than people trying to help you bolster your body image through "body positivity" is not addressing the actual problem (the misapplication of value to something as shallow and fleeting as appearance) and instead trying to just brace it up with some rather shallow B.S. about how everyone is beautiful. No, not everyone is beautiful...but that is okay, beauty isn't everything. Wouldn't that be the more appropriate lesson?
But that’s not what body positivity means (in my definition/experience). It’s not about convincing yourself that you’re beautiful. It’s about learning you’re more than your body and the state of your body doesn’t determine your value. If anything, it removes the idea of “beauty” altogether. That’s kind of the point. You’re just as valuable a person regardless of your weight, appearance, etc.lemurcat12 wrote: »I really don't think "body positivity" should (or does) mean you are judging by appearance and so pretending to yourself that you are ideal according to some appearance-based rubric. If you are assuming that's what people saying that body positivity can be good must think, I think that's a misunderstanding.
Pretty much this.
It’s difficult to discuss something that doesn’t have a firm definition though. But the notion that body positivity means “lying to yourself about your honest reality” is just false. That’s not the idea. At least not the type of thing that I’ve experienced.
If that is true that it is about recognizing that your "self" is not defined by your body it is weird to refer to that as being "body positive" thus putting emphasis on your body again. I sort of assumed being "body positive" was being positive about your body, just from the name. If that isn't what it is then they should consider a name change.1 -
Duck_Puddle wrote: »But that’s not what body positivity means (in my definition/experience). It’s not about convincing yourself that you’re beautiful. It’s about learning you’re more than your body and the state of your body doesn’t determine your value. If anything, it removes the idea of “beauty” altogether. That’s kind of the point. You’re just as valuable a person regardless of your weight, appearance, etc.
If this is true then why call it "body positive". Is "self worth" considered too old fashioned?0 -
As with many things where flawed thinking is involved, the path to resolution is not always a straight line. Unlearning self-loathing, body and self hatred and shame involves learning to think in positive terms. The body positivity exercises we did involved identifying ways to find positives about our body (not about weight/size/appearance) and ourselves (not about our body at all). An example might be to write in detail about the last time your body did something you didn’t think it could do (or you felt strong, or some other positive, healthy attribute). Or identify three things that make your body great (not weight/appearance related).
This was part of eating disorder treatment so addressing body image was a large part of the battle (not just self-esteem/self-worth although that was the eventual destination and there were other things involved-but failure to address the body image issues would not have gotten to that point). At no point were we ever involved in anything to designate ourselves as beautiful (except in the hokey sense that we are all “beautiful” as humans), healthy regardless of body size/shape/lifestyle, or anything other than learning to find some self-esteem, value and worth in ourselves regardless of the size/shape/state of our bodies.5 -
eliciaobrien1 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »eliciaobrien1 wrote: »Oh stop kidding yourselves. Swimming cuts your weight significantly so it's literally less taxing on the body.
Being overweight is not in and of itself unhealthy. It can raise your risk of disease, but regular activity can decrease it.
No. Having more fat on your body raises your risk of disease, yes, which makes it unhealthy. Regular activity, unless you're burning fat, does not decrease it. Regular activity with no change in how much fat is on your body does not change how much fat is on your body. So it wouldn't change your risk of diseases.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/14/health/fat-but-fit-myth-heart-disease-study/index.html
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/may/17/obesity-health-no-such-thing-as-fat-but-fit-major-study
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/fat-but-fit-myth-diet-fitness-obesity-complications-inclusive-a7741126.html (this one might give you "fat but fit" but definitely not fat and healthy)
https://www.nhs.uk/news/lifestyle-and-exercise/fat-but-fit-still-at-higher-risk-of-heart-disease/
All 3 of those reference the same study... which didn't actually review anything about "fat but fit"
They literally all reviewed "fat but fit". Why would you need to do more than one study if one study proves "fat but fit" wrong?
The thing with science is that once it's proved with evidence you don't really need to look at it again.
Well I guess the sun is the center of the universe, atoms are the smallest thing, and eating dietary fat makes you fat.
If you thought one study was all you needed, why did you post it three times with different links?1 -
NorthCascades wrote: »eliciaobrien1 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »eliciaobrien1 wrote: »Oh stop kidding yourselves. Swimming cuts your weight significantly so it's literally less taxing on the body.
Being overweight is not in and of itself unhealthy. It can raise your risk of disease, but regular activity can decrease it.
No. Having more fat on your body raises your risk of disease, yes, which makes it unhealthy. Regular activity, unless you're burning fat, does not decrease it. Regular activity with no change in how much fat is on your body does not change how much fat is on your body. So it wouldn't change your risk of diseases.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/14/health/fat-but-fit-myth-heart-disease-study/index.html
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/may/17/obesity-health-no-such-thing-as-fat-but-fit-major-study
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/fat-but-fit-myth-diet-fitness-obesity-complications-inclusive-a7741126.html (this one might give you "fat but fit" but definitely not fat and healthy)
https://www.nhs.uk/news/lifestyle-and-exercise/fat-but-fit-still-at-higher-risk-of-heart-disease/
All 3 of those reference the same study... which didn't actually review anything about "fat but fit"
They literally all reviewed "fat but fit". Why would you need to do more than one study if one study proves "fat but fit" wrong?
The thing with science is that once it's proved with evidence you don't really need to look at it again.
Well I guess the sun is the center of the universe, atoms are the smallest thing, and eating dietary fat makes you fat.
If you thought one study was all you needed, why did you post it three times with different links?
Oh. My gahd. I already said I misspoke. Right now there is more evidence than none saying you cannot be healthy and overweight. Until that is proven wrong then that's all we have. There is no evidence at all saying you can be healthy and overweight. Being overweight is inherently unhealthy.3 -
Science does not prove things with evidence. Science is the a philosophy about how to conduct unbiased observations of the material world married to people drawing conclusions and inferences about those observations (conclusions and inferences that suffer from the same biases and misconceptions as anything else). If scientists come up with an explanation for observations that then fits additional observations not previously made and then that explanatory framework allows for predictions about what we should observe if we do X and when we do X sure enough that is what we observe then we build confidence in that explanation, that conclusion. The more observations fit that explanation, the more predictions are validated, the more confidence we have in that explanatory model. That requires a lot more than one study. The removal of bias requires an averaging of many opinions over many observations fitting a predictive model developed over years of study.
There is no proof. Proof is a concept for mathematics, not science.5 -
eliciaobrien1 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »eliciaobrien1 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »eliciaobrien1 wrote: »Oh stop kidding yourselves. Swimming cuts your weight significantly so it's literally less taxing on the body.
Being overweight is not in and of itself unhealthy. It can raise your risk of disease, but regular activity can decrease it.
No. Having more fat on your body raises your risk of disease, yes, which makes it unhealthy. Regular activity, unless you're burning fat, does not decrease it. Regular activity with no change in how much fat is on your body does not change how much fat is on your body. So it wouldn't change your risk of diseases.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/14/health/fat-but-fit-myth-heart-disease-study/index.html
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/may/17/obesity-health-no-such-thing-as-fat-but-fit-major-study
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/fat-but-fit-myth-diet-fitness-obesity-complications-inclusive-a7741126.html (this one might give you "fat but fit" but definitely not fat and healthy)
https://www.nhs.uk/news/lifestyle-and-exercise/fat-but-fit-still-at-higher-risk-of-heart-disease/
All 3 of those reference the same study... which didn't actually review anything about "fat but fit"
They literally all reviewed "fat but fit". Why would you need to do more than one study if one study proves "fat but fit" wrong?
The thing with science is that once it's proved with evidence you don't really need to look at it again.
Well I guess the sun is the center of the universe, atoms are the smallest thing, and eating dietary fat makes you fat.
If you thought one study was all you needed, why did you post it three times with different links?
Oh. My gahd. I already said I misspoke. Right now there is more evidence than none saying you cannot be healthy and overweight. Until that is proven wrong then that's all we have. There is no evidence at all saying you can be healthy and overweight. Being overweight is inherently unhealthy.
It totally depends on which definition of healthy you are using.
healthy
healthier; healthiest
1 :free from disease or pain :enjoying health and vigor of body, mind, or spirit :well
2 :showing physical, mental, or emotional well-being :evincing health
3 :beneficial to one's physical, mental, or emotional state :conducive to health
4 a :prosperous, flourishing
b :not small or feeble :considerable
The only one of these that being overweight couldn't meet is #31 -
eliciaobrien1 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »eliciaobrien1 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »eliciaobrien1 wrote: »Oh stop kidding yourselves. Swimming cuts your weight significantly so it's literally less taxing on the body.
Being overweight is not in and of itself unhealthy. It can raise your risk of disease, but regular activity can decrease it.
No. Having more fat on your body raises your risk of disease, yes, which makes it unhealthy. Regular activity, unless you're burning fat, does not decrease it. Regular activity with no change in how much fat is on your body does not change how much fat is on your body. So it wouldn't change your risk of diseases.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/14/health/fat-but-fit-myth-heart-disease-study/index.html
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/may/17/obesity-health-no-such-thing-as-fat-but-fit-major-study
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/fat-but-fit-myth-diet-fitness-obesity-complications-inclusive-a7741126.html (this one might give you "fat but fit" but definitely not fat and healthy)
https://www.nhs.uk/news/lifestyle-and-exercise/fat-but-fit-still-at-higher-risk-of-heart-disease/
All 3 of those reference the same study... which didn't actually review anything about "fat but fit"
They literally all reviewed "fat but fit". Why would you need to do more than one study if one study proves "fat but fit" wrong?
The thing with science is that once it's proved with evidence you don't really need to look at it again.
Well I guess the sun is the center of the universe, atoms are the smallest thing, and eating dietary fat makes you fat.
If you thought one study was all you needed, why did you post it three times with different links?
Oh. My gahd. I already said I misspoke. Right now there is more evidence than none saying you cannot be healthy and overweight. Until that is proven wrong then that's all we have. There is no evidence at all saying you can be healthy and overweight. Being overweight is inherently unhealthy.
The one study you pointed to does not say this.
I'm NOT saying overweight is not a risk factor and that it's not healthier to lose weight, but that doesn't mean that someone who is overweight cannot be (or even remain, if he or she is super luck) healthy. Someone who smokes can be healthy too, even though he or she is not (in that respect) living a healthy lifestyle and is taking a risk that is much more likely to result in several different health conditions than someone who does not.
That doesn't mean that someone who smokes should just not bother losing weight, since a person who smokes cannot be healthy. Similarly, that obesity is a risk factor does not mean that someone who is fat cannot improve their risks (and perhaps overall health) by eating better or becoming active (or stopping smoking if he or she smokes).3 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Science does not prove things with evidence. Science is the a philosophy about how to conduct unbiased observations of the material world married to people drawing conclusions and inferences about those observations (conclusions and inferences that suffer from the same biases and misconceptions as anything else). If scientists come up with an explanation for observations that then fits additional observations not previously made and then that explanatory framework allows for predictions about what we should observe if we do X and when we do X sure enough that is what we observe then we build confidence in that explanation, that conclusion. The more observations fit that explanation, the more predictions are validated, the more confidence we have in that explanatory model. That requires a lot more than one study. The removal of bias requires an averaging of many opinions over many observations fitting a predictive model developed over years of study.
There is no proof. Proof is a concept for mathematics, not science.
Things can be proven wrong.0 -
eliciaobrien1 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Science does not prove things with evidence. Science is the a philosophy about how to conduct unbiased observations of the material world married to people drawing conclusions and inferences about those observations (conclusions and inferences that suffer from the same biases and misconceptions as anything else). If scientists come up with an explanation for observations that then fits additional observations not previously made and then that explanatory framework allows for predictions about what we should observe if we do X and when we do X sure enough that is what we observe then we build confidence in that explanation, that conclusion. The more observations fit that explanation, the more predictions are validated, the more confidence we have in that explanatory model. That requires a lot more than one study. The removal of bias requires an averaging of many opinions over many observations fitting a predictive model developed over years of study.
There is no proof. Proof is a concept for mathematics, not science.
Things can be proven wrong.
Indeed. Like the theory that being overweight invariably means one is unhealthy. HTH HAND 5 -
stanmann571 wrote: »eliciaobrien1 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Science does not prove things with evidence. Science is the a philosophy about how to conduct unbiased observations of the material world married to people drawing conclusions and inferences about those observations (conclusions and inferences that suffer from the same biases and misconceptions as anything else). If scientists come up with an explanation for observations that then fits additional observations not previously made and then that explanatory framework allows for predictions about what we should observe if we do X and when we do X sure enough that is what we observe then we build confidence in that explanation, that conclusion. The more observations fit that explanation, the more predictions are validated, the more confidence we have in that explanatory model. That requires a lot more than one study. The removal of bias requires an averaging of many opinions over many observations fitting a predictive model developed over years of study.
There is no proof. Proof is a concept for mathematics, not science.
Things can be proven wrong.
Indeed. Like the theory that being overweight invariably means one is unhealthy. HTH HAND
Was it proven wrong?0 -
eliciaobrien1 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »eliciaobrien1 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Science does not prove things with evidence. Science is the a philosophy about how to conduct unbiased observations of the material world married to people drawing conclusions and inferences about those observations (conclusions and inferences that suffer from the same biases and misconceptions as anything else). If scientists come up with an explanation for observations that then fits additional observations not previously made and then that explanatory framework allows for predictions about what we should observe if we do X and when we do X sure enough that is what we observe then we build confidence in that explanation, that conclusion. The more observations fit that explanation, the more predictions are validated, the more confidence we have in that explanatory model. That requires a lot more than one study. The removal of bias requires an averaging of many opinions over many observations fitting a predictive model developed over years of study.
There is no proof. Proof is a concept for mathematics, not science.
Things can be proven wrong.
Indeed. Like the theory that being overweight invariably means one is unhealthy. HTH HAND
Was it proven wrong?
There's tens of thousands of examples falsifying the claim. so YES!!
Is it generally true that overweight/obese groups tend to be less healthy, yes. But is it an immutable law, No.
HAND
3 -
stanmann571 wrote: »eliciaobrien1 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »eliciaobrien1 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Science does not prove things with evidence. Science is the a philosophy about how to conduct unbiased observations of the material world married to people drawing conclusions and inferences about those observations (conclusions and inferences that suffer from the same biases and misconceptions as anything else). If scientists come up with an explanation for observations that then fits additional observations not previously made and then that explanatory framework allows for predictions about what we should observe if we do X and when we do X sure enough that is what we observe then we build confidence in that explanation, that conclusion. The more observations fit that explanation, the more predictions are validated, the more confidence we have in that explanatory model. That requires a lot more than one study. The removal of bias requires an averaging of many opinions over many observations fitting a predictive model developed over years of study.
There is no proof. Proof is a concept for mathematics, not science.
Things can be proven wrong.
Indeed. Like the theory that being overweight invariably means one is unhealthy. HTH HAND
Was it proven wrong?
There's tens of thousands of examples falsifying the claim. so YES!!
Is it generally true that overweight/obese groups tend to be less healthy, yes. But is it an immutable law, No.
HAND
Sources?0 -
eliciaobrien1 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »eliciaobrien1 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »eliciaobrien1 wrote: »Oh stop kidding yourselves. Swimming cuts your weight significantly so it's literally less taxing on the body.
Being overweight is not in and of itself unhealthy. It can raise your risk of disease, but regular activity can decrease it.
No. Having more fat on your body raises your risk of disease, yes, which makes it unhealthy. Regular activity, unless you're burning fat, does not decrease it. Regular activity with no change in how much fat is on your body does not change how much fat is on your body. So it wouldn't change your risk of diseases.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/14/health/fat-but-fit-myth-heart-disease-study/index.html
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/may/17/obesity-health-no-such-thing-as-fat-but-fit-major-study
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/fat-but-fit-myth-diet-fitness-obesity-complications-inclusive-a7741126.html (this one might give you "fat but fit" but definitely not fat and healthy)
https://www.nhs.uk/news/lifestyle-and-exercise/fat-but-fit-still-at-higher-risk-of-heart-disease/
All 3 of those reference the same study... which didn't actually review anything about "fat but fit"
They literally all reviewed "fat but fit". Why would you need to do more than one study if one study proves "fat but fit" wrong?
The thing with science is that once it's proved with evidence you don't really need to look at it again.
Well I guess the sun is the center of the universe, atoms are the smallest thing, and eating dietary fat makes you fat.
If you thought one study was all you needed, why did you post it three times with different links?
Oh. My gahd. I already said I misspoke. Right now there is more evidence than none saying you cannot be healthy and overweight. Until that is proven wrong then that's all we have. There is no evidence at all saying you can be healthy and overweight. Being overweight is inherently unhealthy.
The problem with your statements is that you talk in absolutes when the evidence only supports probability.
You can be overweight and healthy. You will never disprove that to me since I was overweight and healthy for about 8 years. But the reason I lost the weight is that remaining overweight increased the probability of developing a health problem.5 -
eliciaobrien1 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »eliciaobrien1 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Science does not prove things with evidence. Science is the a philosophy about how to conduct unbiased observations of the material world married to people drawing conclusions and inferences about those observations (conclusions and inferences that suffer from the same biases and misconceptions as anything else). If scientists come up with an explanation for observations that then fits additional observations not previously made and then that explanatory framework allows for predictions about what we should observe if we do X and when we do X sure enough that is what we observe then we build confidence in that explanation, that conclusion. The more observations fit that explanation, the more predictions are validated, the more confidence we have in that explanatory model. That requires a lot more than one study. The removal of bias requires an averaging of many opinions over many observations fitting a predictive model developed over years of study.
There is no proof. Proof is a concept for mathematics, not science.
Things can be proven wrong.
Indeed. Like the theory that being overweight invariably means one is unhealthy. HTH HAND
Was it proven wrong?
Being overweight increases the risks associated with health; however it does not directly impact health.
The closest causative factor would be hormone imbalance. Being overweight causes glands to work harder to produce the needed hormones. This causes stress on those glands and increases the risk of injury/illness.4 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »eliciaobrien1 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »eliciaobrien1 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »eliciaobrien1 wrote: »Oh stop kidding yourselves. Swimming cuts your weight significantly so it's literally less taxing on the body.
Being overweight is not in and of itself unhealthy. It can raise your risk of disease, but regular activity can decrease it.
No. Having more fat on your body raises your risk of disease, yes, which makes it unhealthy. Regular activity, unless you're burning fat, does not decrease it. Regular activity with no change in how much fat is on your body does not change how much fat is on your body. So it wouldn't change your risk of diseases.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/14/health/fat-but-fit-myth-heart-disease-study/index.html
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/may/17/obesity-health-no-such-thing-as-fat-but-fit-major-study
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/fat-but-fit-myth-diet-fitness-obesity-complications-inclusive-a7741126.html (this one might give you "fat but fit" but definitely not fat and healthy)
https://www.nhs.uk/news/lifestyle-and-exercise/fat-but-fit-still-at-higher-risk-of-heart-disease/
All 3 of those reference the same study... which didn't actually review anything about "fat but fit"
They literally all reviewed "fat but fit". Why would you need to do more than one study if one study proves "fat but fit" wrong?
The thing with science is that once it's proved with evidence you don't really need to look at it again.
Well I guess the sun is the center of the universe, atoms are the smallest thing, and eating dietary fat makes you fat.
If you thought one study was all you needed, why did you post it three times with different links?
Oh. My gahd. I already said I misspoke. Right now there is more evidence than none saying you cannot be healthy and overweight. Until that is proven wrong then that's all we have. There is no evidence at all saying you can be healthy and overweight. Being overweight is inherently unhealthy.
The problem with your statements is that you talk in absolutes when the evidence only supports probability.
You can be overweight and healthy. You will never disprove that to me since I was overweight and healthy for about 8 years. But the reason I lost the weight is that remaining overweight increased the probability of developing a health problem.
I am obese and healthy.
I will still be obese when I hit my goal weight.
I will not be particularly more healthy.1 -
eliciaobrien1 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Science does not prove things with evidence. Science is the a philosophy about how to conduct unbiased observations of the material world married to people drawing conclusions and inferences about those observations (conclusions and inferences that suffer from the same biases and misconceptions as anything else). If scientists come up with an explanation for observations that then fits additional observations not previously made and then that explanatory framework allows for predictions about what we should observe if we do X and when we do X sure enough that is what we observe then we build confidence in that explanation, that conclusion. The more observations fit that explanation, the more predictions are validated, the more confidence we have in that explanatory model. That requires a lot more than one study. The removal of bias requires an averaging of many opinions over many observations fitting a predictive model developed over years of study.
There is no proof. Proof is a concept for mathematics, not science.
Things can be proven wrong.
Things can be shown to be very unlikely to be true. Things can be shown to be untrue in specific circumstances. But no, things cannot be "proven" wrong in anything other than math.
An observation is a coin flip. The more observations you make the more statistically speaking you can become confident in what the result is going to be. But there is always the possibility that the next observation will not be what you anticipated and your confidence can never be 100%.
Colloquially the word "proven" is just used to mean that something is very likely to be true. That isn't how science uses that word though. This causes trouble when scientists interact with the public. Scientists will tend to sound unsure or unconfident because of the way they speak. Something a scientist is confident in will come across as not being sure when they say things like "well under these circumstances we will most likely observe X which implies that X is the likely cause" (that is strong language for a scientist) while the members of the public come across as confident in comparison as they speak of proof and truth and say things like "X is always there and is the cause". Unfortunately the reality is the scientists have much more reason to be confident in their beliefs than the public does as they are aware of the observations and evidence supportive of current models in their field but they just known enough to know that its not 100% and that it is a belief based on a model based on observations made by people.
People tend to misuse science as being some God that is all knowing. It isn't, its a construct of people doing their best to remove bias from observation. It is the best system we have for making progress in our knowledge base but it isn't magical.7 -
stanmann571 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »eliciaobrien1 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »eliciaobrien1 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »eliciaobrien1 wrote: »Oh stop kidding yourselves. Swimming cuts your weight significantly so it's literally less taxing on the body.
Being overweight is not in and of itself unhealthy. It can raise your risk of disease, but regular activity can decrease it.
No. Having more fat on your body raises your risk of disease, yes, which makes it unhealthy. Regular activity, unless you're burning fat, does not decrease it. Regular activity with no change in how much fat is on your body does not change how much fat is on your body. So it wouldn't change your risk of diseases.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/14/health/fat-but-fit-myth-heart-disease-study/index.html
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/may/17/obesity-health-no-such-thing-as-fat-but-fit-major-study
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/fat-but-fit-myth-diet-fitness-obesity-complications-inclusive-a7741126.html (this one might give you "fat but fit" but definitely not fat and healthy)
https://www.nhs.uk/news/lifestyle-and-exercise/fat-but-fit-still-at-higher-risk-of-heart-disease/
All 3 of those reference the same study... which didn't actually review anything about "fat but fit"
They literally all reviewed "fat but fit". Why would you need to do more than one study if one study proves "fat but fit" wrong?
The thing with science is that once it's proved with evidence you don't really need to look at it again.
Well I guess the sun is the center of the universe, atoms are the smallest thing, and eating dietary fat makes you fat.
If you thought one study was all you needed, why did you post it three times with different links?
Oh. My gahd. I already said I misspoke. Right now there is more evidence than none saying you cannot be healthy and overweight. Until that is proven wrong then that's all we have. There is no evidence at all saying you can be healthy and overweight. Being overweight is inherently unhealthy.
The problem with your statements is that you talk in absolutes when the evidence only supports probability.
You can be overweight and healthy. You will never disprove that to me since I was overweight and healthy for about 8 years. But the reason I lost the weight is that remaining overweight increased the probability of developing a health problem.
I am obese and healthy.
I will still be obese when I hit my goal weight.
I will not be particularly more healthy.
By having less fat on your body you will be more healthy then you were. Where are your tens of thousands of examples falsifying this claim?0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions