Calorie Counter

You are currently viewing the message boards in:

Body Positive Movement - For or against?

191011121315»

Replies

  • PWHFPWHF Posts: 213Member, Premium Member Posts: 213Member, Premium Member
    NovusDies wrote: »
    wmd1979 wrote: »
    NovusDies wrote: »
    I work at an Eating Disorder Clinic, I personally see it as good and bad. Good because people are embracing their own bodies. However there seems to be more bad than good, the pressure on outward appearance is higher and inattention to maintain a healthy lifestyle.

    But that has nothing to do with the BP movement. Obesity is caused by willfully (or in some cases disordered) eating more than we should which often results in moving less than we need. There is an undercurrent of "obese people should just lose weight" in this thread like the solution is that easy. Many people want and try to lose weight but fail to do so in a manner that is sustainable. Unfortunately the real problem is the diet industry makes billions off of schemes that people can't follow and the education that is also out there doesn't get the spotlight because it is not sexy or new. I have chosen to lose weight many times. The willingness was never the problem. The execution was the problem.

    I think you are taking the bolded out of context because I haven't really seen that at all in this thread. For health reasons, it would be ideal for obese people to lose weight, but I haven't seen anyone just flippantly suggesting that it is easy. I also think blaming the diet industry is pointing the finger in the wrong direction. There always have been, and always will be fad diets, but if someone is dedicated to losing weight, then it is up to them to do the research and put in the work to make it happen. I think a lot of the reason people fail repeatedly is because they don't set proper expectations for themselves and they simply don't have the patience to stick with a plan long term. This is why fad diets are so popular: they promise quick results when the truth is, sustained weight loss is a slow process. I think the BP movement is important, because people should feel self worth and nobody should be made to feel like less of a person because of their appearance. I also think it is easier for people to achieve their goals when they feel good about themselves as opposed to feeling like they have to lose weight out of shame.

    If it was flippant I would probably not have chosen to use 'undercurrent' in my post.

    I am not sure what the relevance of historical fad diets are. The reality is there are neon signs saying hey come lose weight quick and there is a disheveled professor sitting quietly in the corner waiting for someone to ask him how to really lose weight. The diet industry exists because people want shortcuts and fancy explanations so it exists because obese people want it to exist. In a perfect world people would not try to exploit others for money even when they are begging to be exploited but this is not a perfect world so I am not issuing blame.

    The reasons for failure definitely includes patience and managed expectations but even when you have licked those it doesn't mean you are on your way. Understanding yourself so you can understand how to manage yourself through a potentially very long weight loss period is also key.

    I have been very curious as to what helps a person be ready to lose weight so I have been paying closer attention to the obese people around me. These are people who are amazed at my progress and have asked for my explanation for weight loss. I have given it to all of them. Not my plan just the mechanics. I have helped them realize some of what they believed was a myth. One of the more common things I see happening and it definitely was a factor in my life too at times is that some of them just cannot handle anything more right now. One gentleman I know has just gone through two children getting married, has another in college, a business that is failing, a new business that is being started, and is in the process of building a house. He looks visibly older than he did a year ago. He feels like he is doing well not gaining weight at the moment... he is probably right. He was so disappointed when he found out ketosis pills were not going to help him.

    So then you circle back around. Even people who are are very much not lazy want a lazy solution to lose weight because they would like to lose weight now but do not feel they have the mental resources to be pulled in another direction at the moment. I have certainly felt that way when I was working 18 hour days building my own business. I tried all kinds of ideas to lose weight that were simple to implement. Slimfast was one of them. You can't get much more simple but despite trying it several times it was never going to work for me.

    I agree with all of this. I think the diet industry is so successful for the same reason as the get rich quick industry. People want shortcuts and when you tell them what's involved they tend to glaze over and say 'ummm ok'... I get this all the time at work and it's not necessarily obese/overweight people but more the out of shape ones who want to look good on the beach. They aren't ready to give up their daily afternoon snickers bar but will in January for a few weeks.

    It's a big undertaking to tackle long term habit and lifestyle change, you have to really want it more than that snickers bar and it takes time. The diet industry exists because of the demand for it.
  • DiscipleOfChrist29DiscipleOfChrist29 Posts: 83Member Member Posts: 83Member Member
    aokoye wrote: »
    Verdenal wrote: »
    I'm in favour of it. ....

    But a lot of body positive activists claim that you can be healthy at any size and that being overweight/obese doesn’t actually cause negative health outcomes...

    That’s one of the main problems I have with it.

    That's a different position and that's like dismissing all of Christianity as a religion just because some streams of Christianity are crazy, crackpot extremists. And I say that as an atheist.

    Yet that is a position that frequently is associated with supporters of the Body Positive movement.

    Can you flesh that out more becuase I'm not sure what you're saying. Is it also fair to assume that by "body positive movement" you mean the healthy at any size "movement"? So people who are focused on just weight as opposed to the multitude of other things that fall into body positivity.

    From what I understand that there is a difference between Body Positivity, Fat Acceptance, and Health At Every Size. They are three different movements that can overlap. The second two seems to be the extreme versions of the Body Positive that cause people to reject Body Positive altogether. This is just my opinion. And usually the loudest proponents of the body positive movement are also a part of the other two as well. Again my example of Tess Holliday.
    edited October 24
  • magnusthenerdmagnusthenerd Posts: 867Member Member Posts: 867Member Member
    So I've recently been listening to some reactions to on Fat Acceptance person, and I have to say, she's beyond the pale for me.
    https://quillette.com/2019/04/26/the-sad-truth-about-fat-acceptance/
    Sonalee Rashatwar gave a campus talk (I have not listened to her actual talk but might to confirm) that includes her saying things like putting a child on a diet goes against their consent like the way sex with a minor violates consent. She also compares modern dietary / nutrition science about health and obesity as being driven by Naziesque ideals of genetic purity, and that the standards flow from white supremacy.
    Like I said, I haven't listened to the lecture, but I have listened to her on a podcast in looking her up and on the podcast, she did talk about it being a kind of abuse or neglect that her family didn't keep calorie dense foods she'd like in the house and instead had a home stocked only with ingredients to make Indian food, and fruits and vegetables.

    In contrast, I've heard HAES advocate that seem reasonable people like Fiona Willer's discussion on this podcast: https://sigmanutrition.com/episode267/
    Willer's position seemed to be that for some people just focusing on health is more important than measuring everything with the bathroom scale.
  • mbaker566mbaker566 Posts: 10,226Member Member Posts: 10,226Member Member
    i was going to say that HAES and body positive have overlaps. you don't need to be an "ideal" weight to be healthy. i think it is kinda of like nsv where you don't have to be at your goal weight to celebrate little victories
  • aokoyeaokoye Posts: 3,255Member Member Posts: 3,255Member Member
    aokoye wrote: »
    Verdenal wrote: »
    I'm in favour of it. ....

    But a lot of body positive activists claim that you can be healthy at any size and that being overweight/obese doesn’t actually cause negative health outcomes...

    That’s one of the main problems I have with it.

    That's a different position and that's like dismissing all of Christianity as a religion just because some streams of Christianity are crazy, crackpot extremists. And I say that as an atheist.

    Yet that is a position that frequently is associated with supporters of the Body Positive movement.

    Can you flesh that out more becuase I'm not sure what you're saying. Is it also fair to assume that by "body positive movement" you mean the healthy at any size "movement"? So people who are focused on just weight as opposed to the multitude of other things that fall into body positivity.

    From what I understand that there is a difference between Body Positivity, Fat Acceptance, and Health At Every Size. They are three different movements that can overlap. The second two seems to be the extreme versions of the Body Positive that cause people to reject Body Positive altogether. This is just my opinion. And usually the loudest proponents of the body positive movement are also a part of the other two as well. Again my example of Tess Holliday.

    I can easily recognize the differences between body positivity, fat acceptance, and health at any size. What I'm curious about is this set of quotes:
    That's a different position and that's like dismissing all of Christianity as a religion just because some streams of Christianity are crazy, crackpot extremists. And I say that as an atheist.
    ...
    Yet that is a position that frequently is associated with supporters of the Body Positive movement.
    I'm assuming the bit in bold is pointing to the idea that people people don't like body positivity becuase they assume that it has everything to do with health at any size (or cours ignoring that weight is only a small portion of what body positivity is about).

    Sorry in advance if the quotes are confusing, MFP doesn't make it easy.
    edited October 25
  • DiscipleOfChrist29DiscipleOfChrist29 Posts: 83Member Member Posts: 83Member Member
    aokoye wrote: »
    aokoye wrote: »
    Verdenal wrote: »
    I'm in favour of it. ....

    But a lot of body positive activists claim that you can be healthy at any size and that being overweight/obese doesn’t actually cause negative health outcomes...

    That’s one of the main problems I have with it.

    That's a different position and that's like dismissing all of Christianity as a religion just because some streams of Christianity are crazy, crackpot extremists. And I say that as an atheist.

    Yet that is a position that frequently is associated with supporters of the Body Positive movement.

    Can you flesh that out more becuase I'm not sure what you're saying. Is it also fair to assume that by "body positive movement" you mean the healthy at any size "movement"? So people who are focused on just weight as opposed to the multitude of other things that fall into body positivity.

    From what I understand that there is a difference between Body Positivity, Fat Acceptance, and Health At Every Size. They are three different movements that can overlap. The second two seems to be the extreme versions of the Body Positive that cause people to reject Body Positive altogether. This is just my opinion. And usually the loudest proponents of the body positive movement are also a part of the other two as well. Again my example of Tess Holliday.

    I can easily recognize the differences between body positivity, fat acceptance, and health at any size. What I'm curious about is this set of quotes:
    That's a different position and that's like dismissing all of Christianity as a religion just because some streams of Christianity are crazy, crackpot extremists. And I say that as an atheist.
    ...
    Yet that is a position that frequently is associated with supporters of the Body Positive movement.
    I'm assuming the bit in bold is pointing to the idea that people people don't like body positivity becuase they assume that it has everything to do with health at any size (or cours ignoring that weight is only a small portion of what body positivity is about).

    Sorry in advance if the quotes are confusing, MFP doesn't make it easy.

    I think your assumption is right.
  • soofa93soofa93 Posts: 5Member Member Posts: 5Member Member
    I’m against fat shaming and bullying but I’m also against glorifying bad habits and laziness, I believe that if we truly love ourselves we should be the best version of it and work hard to get there, as I’m doing right now, It’s a tough journey but the outcome will surely be amazing 🎉
  • magnusthenerdmagnusthenerd Posts: 867Member Member Posts: 867Member Member
    aokoye wrote: »
    aokoye wrote: »
    Verdenal wrote: »
    I'm in favour of it. ....

    But a lot of body positive activists claim that you can be healthy at any size and that being overweight/obese doesn’t actually cause negative health outcomes...

    That’s one of the main problems I have with it.

    That's a different position and that's like dismissing all of Christianity as a religion just because some streams of Christianity are crazy, crackpot extremists. And I say that as an atheist.

    Yet that is a position that frequently is associated with supporters of the Body Positive movement.

    Can you flesh that out more becuase I'm not sure what you're saying. Is it also fair to assume that by "body positive movement" you mean the healthy at any size "movement"? So people who are focused on just weight as opposed to the multitude of other things that fall into body positivity.

    From what I understand that there is a difference between Body Positivity, Fat Acceptance, and Health At Every Size. They are three different movements that can overlap. The second two seems to be the extreme versions of the Body Positive that cause people to reject Body Positive altogether. This is just my opinion. And usually the loudest proponents of the body positive movement are also a part of the other two as well. Again my example of Tess Holliday.

    I can easily recognize the differences between body positivity, fat acceptance, and health at any size.
    What I'm curious about is this set of quotes:
    That's a different position and that's like dismissing all of Christianity as a religion just because some streams of Christianity are crazy, crackpot extremists. And I say that as an atheist.
    ...
    Yet that is a position that frequently is associated with supporters of the Body Positive movement.
    I'm assuming the bit in bold is pointing to the idea that people people don't like body positivity becuase they assume that it has everything to do with health at any size (or cours ignoring that weight is only a small portion of what body positivity is about).

    Sorry in advance if the quotes are confusing, MFP doesn't make it easy.

    When it comes just to practitioners / advocates, I can't tell the difference between Healthy at Every Size and Healthy at Every Size. I've heard one or two that seemed very reasonable; they want to focus on health through other aspects than just measuring the scale, though they don't deny the scale measures something about health. These people generally would like to see people's weight go down.
    On the other end, a lot of HAES that I've heard say weight doesn't matter, that it is just stigma that causes health problems in the obese. Some believe that stopping eating when you feel uncomfortably full is a message people get from diet culture, not natural biology instinct.

    Both say sets full under HAES, but I wouldn't know that without both of them saying so.
  • ceiswynceiswyn Posts: 2,152Member Member Posts: 2,152Member Member
    aokoye wrote: »
    aokoye wrote: »
    Verdenal wrote: »
    I'm in favour of it. ....

    But a lot of body positive activists claim that you can be healthy at any size and that being overweight/obese doesn’t actually cause negative health outcomes...

    That’s one of the main problems I have with it.

    That's a different position and that's like dismissing all of Christianity as a religion just because some streams of Christianity are crazy, crackpot extremists. And I say that as an atheist.

    Yet that is a position that frequently is associated with supporters of the Body Positive movement.

    Can you flesh that out more becuase I'm not sure what you're saying. Is it also fair to assume that by "body positive movement" you mean the healthy at any size "movement"? So people who are focused on just weight as opposed to the multitude of other things that fall into body positivity.

    From what I understand that there is a difference between Body Positivity, Fat Acceptance, and Health At Every Size. They are three different movements that can overlap. The second two seems to be the extreme versions of the Body Positive that cause people to reject Body Positive altogether. This is just my opinion. And usually the loudest proponents of the body positive movement are also a part of the other two as well. Again my example of Tess Holliday.

    I can easily recognize the differences between body positivity, fat acceptance, and health at any size.
    What I'm curious about is this set of quotes:
    That's a different position and that's like dismissing all of Christianity as a religion just because some streams of Christianity are crazy, crackpot extremists. And I say that as an atheist.
    ...
    Yet that is a position that frequently is associated with supporters of the Body Positive movement.
    I'm assuming the bit in bold is pointing to the idea that people people don't like body positivity becuase they assume that it has everything to do with health at any size (or cours ignoring that weight is only a small portion of what body positivity is about).

    Sorry in advance if the quotes are confusing, MFP doesn't make it easy.

    When it comes just to practitioners / advocates, I can't tell the difference between Healthy at Every Size and Healthy at Every Size. I've heard one or two that seemed very reasonable; they want to focus on health through other aspects than just measuring the scale, though they don't deny the scale measures something about health. These people generally would like to see people's weight go down.
    On the other end, a lot of HAES that I've heard say weight doesn't matter, that it is just stigma that causes health problems in the obese. Some believe that stopping eating when you feel uncomfortably full is a message people get from diet culture, not natural biology instinct.

    Both say sets full under HAES, but I wouldn't know that without both of them saying so.

    Uh... should one of those 'Healthy at Every Size' have been something else?
  • glassyoglassyo Posts: 4,056Member Member Posts: 4,056Member Member
    I think...as annoying as some people and ideas can be...if someone wants to be fat, wtf business is it of yours. and dont even try to reply with "waaahhh but their health!" you don't care that MUCH about the health of strangers, you just want to feel superior.

    I wouldn't agree that people (at least not all) want to feel superior but I do agree it's really no one else's business if an adult is ok with their weight and/or not ready or feeling the need to do anything about it.
  • amusedmonkeyamusedmonkey Posts: 9,684Member Member Posts: 9,684Member Member
    I think...as annoying as some people and ideas can be...if someone wants to be fat, wtf business is it of yours. and dont even try to reply with "waaahhh but their health!" you don't care that MUCH about the health of strangers, you just want to feel superior.

    I do agree to an extent. People generally don't care about strangers. They are capable of feeling empathy, but empathy is not the same as caring. I think part of it, and many would disagree, is wanting to say something about it because they're uncomfortable with the existence of fat people (which is evolutionally understandable) and disguising it as concern makes them sound (and feel) like less of an *kitten*. Feeling superior is part of it, whether they are aware of that or not.
  • NovusDiesNovusDies Posts: 5,995Member, Premium Member Posts: 5,995Member, Premium Member
    I think...as annoying as some people and ideas can be...if someone wants to be fat, wtf business is it of yours. and dont even try to reply with "waaahhh but their health!" you don't care that MUCH about the health of strangers, you just want to feel superior.

    I think it is unwise to make these types of generalizations. You are passing judgment on the motives of others based solely on your opinion.

    It does happen. It just does not happen often, or at least it has not happened often to me. People will hide behind health to give you a dose of "help" that is little more than fat shaming. More often though the people that have done it to my face were either straight up cruel, tactless, or very young.

    Health is too subjective for that to be my primary concern when dealing with others. Does a good report from a doctor mean you are healthy or does it also require your ability to complete certain tasks? Perhaps a personal definition is also involved.

    Unless someone has a diagnosis that can be lessened or reversed through weight loss I leave matters of health to professionals and the patient. I care more if a person is at a level of obesity that hinders their quality of life. Sometimes I can't know if that is the case in a stranger and sometimes it is unfortunately obvious. I wouldn't say anything either way. It is not my business unless someone makes it my business. If it is obvious I just mentally hope that if they have not found their answer yet that they soon will.
    edited October 28
  • magnusthenerdmagnusthenerd Posts: 867Member Member Posts: 867Member Member
    ceiswyn wrote: »
    aokoye wrote: »
    aokoye wrote: »
    Verdenal wrote: »
    I'm in favour of it. ....

    But a lot of body positive activists claim that you can be healthy at any size and that being overweight/obese doesn’t actually cause negative health outcomes...

    That’s one of the main problems I have with it.

    That's a different position and that's like dismissing all of Christianity as a religion just because some streams of Christianity are crazy, crackpot extremists. And I say that as an atheist.

    Yet that is a position that frequently is associated with supporters of the Body Positive movement.

    Can you flesh that out more becuase I'm not sure what you're saying. Is it also fair to assume that by "body positive movement" you mean the healthy at any size "movement"? So people who are focused on just weight as opposed to the multitude of other things that fall into body positivity.

    From what I understand that there is a difference between Body Positivity, Fat Acceptance, and Health At Every Size. They are three different movements that can overlap. The second two seems to be the extreme versions of the Body Positive that cause people to reject Body Positive altogether. This is just my opinion. And usually the loudest proponents of the body positive movement are also a part of the other two as well. Again my example of Tess Holliday.

    I can easily recognize the differences between body positivity, fat acceptance, and health at any size.
    What I'm curious about is this set of quotes:
    That's a different position and that's like dismissing all of Christianity as a religion just because some streams of Christianity are crazy, crackpot extremists. And I say that as an atheist.
    ...
    Yet that is a position that frequently is associated with supporters of the Body Positive movement.
    I'm assuming the bit in bold is pointing to the idea that people people don't like body positivity becuase they assume that it has everything to do with health at any size (or cours ignoring that weight is only a small portion of what body positivity is about).

    Sorry in advance if the quotes are confusing, MFP doesn't make it easy.

    When it comes just to practitioners / advocates, I can't tell the difference between Healthy at Every Size and Healthy at Every Size. I've heard one or two that seemed very reasonable; they want to focus on health through other aspects than just measuring the scale, though they don't deny the scale measures something about health. These people generally would like to see people's weight go down.
    On the other end, a lot of HAES that I've heard say weight doesn't matter, that it is just stigma that causes health problems in the obese. Some believe that stopping eating when you feel uncomfortably full is a message people get from diet culture, not natural biology instinct.

    Both say sets full under HAES, but I wouldn't know that without both of them saying so.

    Uh... should one of those 'Healthy at Every Size' have been something else?

    No, that they both refers to themselves as Healthy at Every Size is the point. Two people can claim to be advocates for Healthy at Every Size, but they both are different. So I don't know how to know which is actually Healthy at Every Size.
    If I can't tell which practisioners belong, I'm not sure how you tell philosophies apart.
  • DiscipleOfChrist29DiscipleOfChrist29 Posts: 83Member Member Posts: 83Member Member
    The most interesting take I’ve heard is universal healthcare and affordable healthcare with less wait times really relies on the general population buying into personal healthcare. It was a economic view of health of society. Very interesting to think of it from a social perspective especially when taxes are involved which means the lifestyle of strangers directly effects your take home pay. Heart disease, diabetes, stroke, kidney disease, and even some cancers are reduced by lifestyle. What say you all? I found this argument compelling.

    We often see herd immunity as necessary for a healthy society. We even shame those as “anti-vaxxers” who are cautious with vaccines. Not all but some do with support from the government in some places. How would a physically healthy individual also help with overall health of society? Getting more Orwellian but it’d make a good dystopian movie or book 😂.
  • lemurcat2lemurcat2 Posts: 3,579Member Member Posts: 3,579Member Member
    It already does through workplace insurance pools and Medicare.

    I think it's already recognized that there is a social interest in reducing obesity. "Shaming" is not, IMO, a likely effective way to address the obesity problem in the US, however. And focusing on things other than just weight loss and the number (such as healthful eating, cooking, increasing activity, making it easier to walk places -- both in terms of structure and in terms of direct encouragement of those things) can be a positive approach.

    I will say again that although I wanted to and did lose weight, it was enormously helpful to me that my focus was not just on the number on the scale, and that I believed I should be as fit as possible whatever the number on the scale, when I started. Focusing on things I could directly and immediately control, like what I ate, what activity I did, and not the scale (and certainly not hating my body or myself for my past choices) helped me mentally.
    edited October 31
  • lynn_glenmontlynn_glenmont Posts: 7,237Member Member Posts: 7,237Member Member
    The most interesting take I’ve heard is universal healthcare and affordable healthcare with less wait times really relies on the general population buying into personal healthcare. It was a economic view of health of society. Very interesting to think of it from a social perspective especially when taxes are involved which means the lifestyle of strangers directly effects your take home pay. Heart disease, diabetes, stroke, kidney disease, and even some cancers are reduced by lifestyle. What say you all? I found this argument compelling.

    We often see herd immunity as necessary for a healthy society. We even shame those as “anti-vaxxers” who are cautious with vaccines. Not all but some do with support from the government in some places. How would a physically healthy individual also help with overall health of society? Getting more Orwellian but it’d make a good dystopian movie or book 😂.

    There's a whole other economic argument for a single-payer universal healthcare system, which is that it would eliminate the massive inefficiencies of having employers constantly comparison shopping for insurance policies to offer their employees; having employers pay HR specialists, accountants, and lawyers for compliance and tax compliance obligations related to providing health insurance to employees; having individuals waste hours every year researching and selecting from among their insurance alternatives; erecting barriers to entrepreneurship for people who don't have a spouse with employer-sponsored health insurance; having every healthcare provider need to pay billing specialists to deal with getting reimbursements from scores of different insurance providers; having individuals have to worry about making sure that all the health care providers they encounter during complex emergency medical events are "in-network"; having large numbers of people face medical-related bankruptcies ...

    I'm probably missing a few.
Sign In or Register to comment.