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.

why do people think you can be healthy at every size?

Options
245

Replies

  • aokoye
    aokoye Posts: 3,495 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    But in order to get significantly overweight, it would be hard to eat right and be active enough. Most people do not get overweight by eating right and exercising regularly.

    If by "right," you mean eating the appropriate number of calories for your activity level, then you're right. But you can eat a healthful diet that simply has too many calories and you'll still gain weight. Being overweight doesn't mean one is eating the "wrong" things.

    And, just for completeness: Eating the "wrong" things won't necessarily make you fat.

    Example: My great nephew, a young man in his mid 20s, has literally the worst diet I've ever seen in an adult (who didn't have a medical reason to eat in a super-limited way). He eats the following: White spaghetti with shaker-can parmesan, cheese pizza, cheese bread, chocolate chip cookies, some other chocolates, I think some salty simple snack foods (chip type stuff) and maybe french fries, I think will drink pop . . . and I believe that's it (for sure, it's close). Really. No veggies (other than tomato sauce on pizza). No fruit. No meat.

    He's very slim, but I suspect not technically underweight (has to be close). He has a physical job, and a good energy level (I have no idea how), and so far seems healthy (I'm not expecting long-term good results).

    He's eaten like this since he was tiny. One Thanksgiving when he was middle-school age, his grandparents said they'd buy him the latest super-duper game console if he'd eat one bite of turkey. He couldn't do it. At holiday dinners with the family, he makes his own white spaghetti with parmesan shaker cheese, while the rest of us eat food.

    Healthy at every size? Hmmmm . . . . size isn't the whole story, either.

    I wish there was a sad button. Not in a judgmental way, but in a, "it sucks that someone's diet is so exceedingly limited for no apparent physiological reason" way and that it's been that way for more or less their entire life.
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    aokoye wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    But in order to get significantly overweight, it would be hard to eat right and be active enough. Most people do not get overweight by eating right and exercising regularly.

    If by "right," you mean eating the appropriate number of calories for your activity level, then you're right. But you can eat a healthful diet that simply has too many calories and you'll still gain weight. Being overweight doesn't mean one is eating the "wrong" things.

    And, just for completeness: Eating the "wrong" things won't necessarily make you fat.

    Example: My great nephew, a young man in his mid 20s, has literally the worst diet I've ever seen in an adult (who didn't have a medical reason to eat in a super-limited way). He eats the following: White spaghetti with shaker-can parmesan, cheese pizza, cheese bread, chocolate chip cookies, some other chocolates, I think some salty simple snack foods (chip type stuff) and maybe french fries, I think will drink pop . . . and I believe that's it (for sure, it's close). Really. No veggies (other than tomato sauce on pizza). No fruit. No meat.

    He's very slim, but I suspect not technically underweight (has to be close). He has a physical job, and a good energy level (I have no idea how), and so far seems healthy (I'm not expecting long-term good results).

    He's eaten like this since he was tiny. One Thanksgiving when he was middle-school age, his grandparents said they'd buy him the latest super-duper game console if he'd eat one bite of turkey. He couldn't do it. At holiday dinners with the family, he makes his own white spaghetti with parmesan shaker cheese, while the rest of us eat food.

    Healthy at every size? Hmmmm . . . . size isn't the whole story, either.

    I wish there was a sad button. Not in a judgmental way, but in a, "it sucks that someone's diet is so exceedingly limited for no apparent physiological reason" way and that it's been that way for more or less their entire life.

    With a diet that limited and such an aversion to trying a relatively normal and non-offensive food (turkey), it sounds like a potential case of ARFID (avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder). It's like an ED, but instead of restricting calories people will restrict to a small group of "safe" foods.
  • aokoye
    aokoye Posts: 3,495 Member
    aokoye wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    But in order to get significantly overweight, it would be hard to eat right and be active enough. Most people do not get overweight by eating right and exercising regularly.

    If by "right," you mean eating the appropriate number of calories for your activity level, then you're right. But you can eat a healthful diet that simply has too many calories and you'll still gain weight. Being overweight doesn't mean one is eating the "wrong" things.

    And, just for completeness: Eating the "wrong" things won't necessarily make you fat.

    Example: My great nephew, a young man in his mid 20s, has literally the worst diet I've ever seen in an adult (who didn't have a medical reason to eat in a super-limited way). He eats the following: White spaghetti with shaker-can parmesan, cheese pizza, cheese bread, chocolate chip cookies, some other chocolates, I think some salty simple snack foods (chip type stuff) and maybe french fries, I think will drink pop . . . and I believe that's it (for sure, it's close). Really. No veggies (other than tomato sauce on pizza). No fruit. No meat.

    He's very slim, but I suspect not technically underweight (has to be close). He has a physical job, and a good energy level (I have no idea how), and so far seems healthy (I'm not expecting long-term good results).

    He's eaten like this since he was tiny. One Thanksgiving when he was middle-school age, his grandparents said they'd buy him the latest super-duper game console if he'd eat one bite of turkey. He couldn't do it. At holiday dinners with the family, he makes his own white spaghetti with parmesan shaker cheese, while the rest of us eat food.

    Healthy at every size? Hmmmm . . . . size isn't the whole story, either.

    I wish there was a sad button. Not in a judgmental way, but in a, "it sucks that someone's diet is so exceedingly limited for no apparent physiological reason" way and that it's been that way for more or less their entire life.

    With a diet that limited and such an aversion to trying a relatively normal and non-offensive food (turkey), it sounds like a potential case of ARFID (avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder). It's like an ED, but instead of restricting calories people will restrict to a small group of "safe" foods.

    That's more or less what I was thinking as well actually, assuming there isn't any underlying physiological reason why he has restricted his diet so severely.
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    edited February 2019
    andysport1 wrote: »
    trulyhealy wrote: »
    that can’t really be true if you’re fat/obese/underweight bc being bc if you were healthy you wouldn’t get fat

    I think, firstly define healthy.

    I see many things people eating unhealthy foods, I'd guess their insides are horrible but from the outside they look healthy.

    Then what about the big guy who eats really healthy food, doesn't drink, rides 250km a week runs 90km a week and has a physical job.
    Is he healthy?
    If he is overweight due to quantity does this make him then unhealthy?

    What is unhealthy?
    I'd suggest 95% of the population are unhealthy to some degree.

    What is the basis for the claim that only 5% of the population is healthy? Is this global or based on the specific country you're in?
  • paperpudding
    paperpudding Posts: 9,524 Member
    i think there's a big difference between being a bmi of 26 and being a bmi of 45. same way i think there's a difference between being a bmi of 18 vs a bmi of 10.

    Well, yes, obviously.

    Surely nobody is disputing that.
  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,887 Member
    edited February 2019
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    That objective evidence said I was healthy when I was obese. I don't think being obese is healthy, as it's an unnecessary risk factor, but the idea that everyone overweight or obese has bad test results is wrong.

    Anyway, once again it's the idea that one can do things to improve health/risk factors, whatever weight one is.

    IMO, youth can cover up a bunch of health sins. Look at the over 60 or so population that is obese. I'm pretty sure you will find about as many good test results as snowcone vendors in Antarctica.

    I wasn't that young (44), and I agree that it's a risk factor and likely to lead to problems as one ages, which is what I said. What I was rebutting was the claim that anyone fat must have bad test results automatically (the converse of which would be that if you don't have bad test results you must have not really been too fat -- I certainly was too fat).

    I think some lose weight because they get bad test results and are told they need to reverse them, and good for them for doing that, but then often overgeneralize and assume such bad tests are automatic -- some of us realized we needed to lose and did so yet never had those bad results (although I think it's quite likely they would have developed later, and if not some other problem).

    Some issues, like cholesterol, aren't uncommon among thinner people. My dad's always been fit and normal weight, yet is prone to bad cholesterol if he eats too much sat fat. That started in his 40s.
This discussion has been closed.