Eff Your Beauty Standards....?

RaggedyPond

Love this show!

RaggedyPond

Some people who are obese can be healthy.

The favored line of the obesity promoters. Healthy for a year or two, yes. There is NO avoiding long term damage from obesity. period. Just think of the extra strain on the heart. This is unavoidable.

Go to any given obesity acceptance site. There will be hundreds of people claiming they are healthy and use some absurd rationale. Would be interesting to check back with them in 20 years and see the result of the behavior. I doubt it'd be pretty.

But embracing mediocrity is easy. Much harder to make a change.

I have a friend who is very short and weighed about 200 lbs. She has a permanently enlarged heart because of being so overweight even after she lost the weight. It is a known fact that overweight animals have a shorter life span so why would that not also apply to humans.

hsygh

Tl;dr - I won't wear a bikini at my size and I don't think other obese women should either.

If you don't want to wear something "at your size" that's your prerogative. But I'm pretty sure obese people don't care about what you think they should and shouldn't be wearing.

PS: You're not their doctor or their loved one, so please cut the "it's so unhealthy" malarky like you care about their health. Just be honest and say you're uncomfortable with obesity and obese people. At least that way you're biased but honest about it.

trojan_bb

I mean really - who gives a damn? I dont really care for what others do with their lives or their bodies. If they want to be obese and think its okay - fine! Thats natural selection at its finest. As long as I am healthy and I set a good example for my children (if I had any), nothing anyone else does that has absolutely no direct impact on me, I could not care less for.

Except obesity and obesity-related health problems are a huge drain on healthcare and fuel consumption.

So are smoking, drinking and getting old. Seriously?

I just want to know how we got to fuel consumption, did I miss something?

An extra 200 lbs on a 1000 mi flight amounts to somewhere around $30-$45 (iirc). So you're looking at many many millions spent per year due to overweight passengers. All of which are reflected in ticket prices in such a low profit margin industry.

Just sayin. The healthcare cost increase is many times higher, and much higher than the costs of drinking and smoking. Although I suppose keynesian economists would say this increases aggregate demand and is a net positive (yeah right)

ComradeTovarich

I mean really - who gives a damn? I dont really care for what others do with their lives or their bodies. If they want to be obese and think its okay - fine! Thats natural selection at its finest. As long as I am healthy and I set a good example for my children (if I had any), nothing anyone else does that has absolutely no direct impact on me, I could not care less for.

Except obesity and obesity-related health problems are a huge drain on healthcare and fuel consumption.

So are smoking, drinking and getting old. Seriously?

Getting old is unavoidable, the rest aren't. That said, by your logic we shouldn't be trying to curb obesity in this country just because there are other ways people ruin their bodies and put a strain on healthcare in this country. I'm not saying that the others aren't tremendous problems, but to ignore the growing numbers of obesity in this country and the effect it has is foolish.

As for fuel consumption:

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1075904_the-cost-of-obesity-to-fuel-use-one-billion-gallons-a-year

There are also a few studies on the matter, including one by a Sheldon H. Jacobson if you'd like to look that up.

amwbox

There is a differences between curves and fat. If a woman is shaped like a woman, as opposed to a ten year old boy, she gets called fat. That is a totally different issue than calling an overweight woman "curvy" as a euphemism as opposed to an accurate descriptor.

SoLongAndThanksForAllTheFish

Some people who are obese can be healthy.

Please explain this...

My mother 5'2, 200 pounds. She's obese, she has been for 30 years. Her blood work is perfect, is on no medication. She works a very physically demanding job and keeps up just fine with people half her age -- the woman barely gets head colds. She is totally healthy.

Is she at a higher risk for disease? Yes. But that doesn't make one "unhealthy". If that were true, people with a higher genetic predisposition for say breast cancer, were less healthy than those with a lower generic risk. Health is a complex concept.

So by that reasoning, the obese person with good blood markers is only ever "unhealthy" during the few seconds of their heart attack. The previous 50 years of their life were adequately "healthy".

Right.

Heart disease, diabetes, various cancers --- all have early symptoms/stages and follow a path -- you don't just wake up and have them -- unless you are ignoring your health and not regularly seeing a physician. Which happens to fat and thin people alike.

If an obese person regularly sees the doctor and doesn't have any symptoms and no indicators (from tests/blood work) of disease, they are healthy. They are at a higher risk of developing disease -- just like anyone else with higher risk from things like genetics or lifestyle (smoking etc). The higher risk doesn't automatically mean one is currently unhealthy -- it means they have a higher risk of being unhealthy in the future.

No, you are wrong, they are not just like any non-obese with clear tests and you are confusing future risks into this. Clear tests in an obese patient only means we cannot detect any problems with the tests we used on that visit. It does not mean that there is not more wear and tear on the bones, joints, liver, heart, pancreas and kidneys in an obese person going on continually from day to day vs a non obese person, just that at this point in time, their body is dealing with the increased stresses in a manner that hasn't developed into a disease yet...as best we can tell from the limited tests performed. Yes, it does mean the risks are higher in the future, but that does not mean you do not have non-detected increased wear going on already in that "healthy" testing obese individual.

And you'll still have a few 90yo obese "healthy people" just like you have a few 100 yo smokers that are more resilient than the vast majority of people and this doesn't invalidate the fact that obesity and smoking are not good for your body! It also doesn't mean it didn't affect the 90yo obese and 100 yo smoker, maybe they'd live to 115 instead of 110, or not gotten bedridden in the last years of life without being obese and smoking.

Cheechos

As a med student and Biologist, I think fat acceptance is the worst thing to ever come out of the internet. Its toxic and actively kills people. Not to mention the misinformation it spreads around like wildfire.
There is no such thing as a healthy obese person. Obesity itself is a disease. Its like advocating for lung cancer acceptance. Its not about "beauty", its about health.
Bloodwork and vitals are a shot in time, they they you nothing about a patients overall health. You get ICU patients on ventilators with PERFECT CBCs who maintain BPs in the 110/70 without vasopressin - would you call them healthy? This type of logic is flawed and kills every single day.
Fat is not just fat, its endocrine tissue, metabolic tissue, it produces hormones, it messes with every single marker of inflammation in your body, down to every single cell. Want to wake up to DVTs at age 20, diabetes at 30, bypasses at 40? That isn't natural, shouldn't exist and did not - its a young, recent and horrible phenomenon, unobserved until three, four decades ago. Just look at our young.

As for beauty "standards", aesthetics exist for a reason, biological imperative being one. Another being philosophical. There's a golden rule, there's symmetry. Read Kant, read the Greeks, but also try to understand natural Evolution and Fertility markers. Humans are animals and attraction is much hardwired. If everything and anything is "beautiful", then nothing by definition is. Standards are important for genetic improval as well. There is a reason I'm not fertile, I carry a trait for a blood disorder that would not benefit offspring. Obesity is a visual marker of I'll health - we are hard wired to reject on the premise of selection.

Sorry if this all came out rude in any way.

People have been fighting against weight discrimination since before the Internet became widely used. It is not a newly born thing.

As for health vs aesthetics, the vast majority of things people in the fat acceptance movement struggle with is aesthetic stigma that often masquerades as concern for health. People can and do use health as an excuse to be cruel and to push fat people out of spaces where they should be treated equally. It is very easy to say, "I'm just worried about health," even if the issue has nothing at all to do with health and everything to do with personal preferences for looks (i.e. - OP's thoroughly-trampled bikini comment).

Keeping in line with the subject of looks, implying that fat people need to be ugly in order to maintain the significance of beauty is asinine. What is attractive changes with time, and seems to be much more connected to what the group at large prefers than what is likely to be "hardwired" in us as a species. For example, plumper women were often portrayed in art that was meant to display what was considered to be beautiful in the past, and that trend has been changing over the years. Saying that fat people are supposed to be collectively unattractive because of our biological wiring ignores the complexity that conventional attractiveness gains from sociocultural influence.

Of course, the biggest thing that needs to be pointed out is that fat acceptance, at its core, is about giving fat people the respect they deserve as human beings. If anyone can agree with treating a fat person cruelly because of either health OR looks then they are a person who, in my opinion, does not have a rational voice in the discussion.

stephe1987

I think we as a global community need to start encouraging each other to be healthier and get our lives on track. But it needs to be done in a positive/encouraging way.

ComradeTovarich

As a med student and Biologist, I think fat acceptance is the worst thing to ever come out of the internet. Its toxic and actively kills people. Not to mention the misinformation it spreads around like wildfire.
There is no such thing as a healthy obese person. Obesity itself is a disease. Its like advocating for lung cancer acceptance. Its not about "beauty", its about health.
Bloodwork and vitals are a shot in time, they they you nothing about a patients overall health. You get ICU patients on ventilators with PERFECT CBCs who maintain BPs in the 110/70 without vasopressin - would you call them healthy? This type of logic is flawed and kills every single day.
Fat is not just fat, its endocrine tissue, metabolic tissue, it produces hormones, it messes with every single marker of inflammation in your body, down to every single cell. Want to wake up to DVTs at age 20, diabetes at 30, bypasses at 40? That isn't natural, shouldn't exist and did not - its a young, recent and horrible phenomenon, unobserved until three, four decades ago. Just look at our young.

As for beauty "standards", aesthetics exist for a reason, biological imperative being one. Another being philosophical. There's a golden rule, there's symmetry. Read Kant, read the Greeks, but also try to understand natural Evolution and Fertility markers. Humans are animals and attraction is much hardwired. If everything and anything is "beautiful", then nothing by definition is. Standards are important for genetic improval as well. There is a reason I'm not fertile, I carry a trait for a blood disorder that would not benefit offspring. Obesity is a visual marker of I'll health - we are hard wired to reject on the premise of selection.

Sorry if this all came out rude in any way.

People have been fighting against weight discrimination since before the Internet became widely used. It is not a newly born thing.

As for health vs aesthetics, the vast majority of things people in the fat acceptance movement struggle with is aesthetic stigma that often masquerades as concern for health. People can and do use health as an excuse to be cruel and to push fat people out of spaces where they should be treated equally. It is very easy to say, "I'm just worried about health," even if the issue has nothing at all to do with health and everything to do with personal preferences for looks (i.e. - OP's thoroughly-trampled bikini comment).

Keeping in line with the subject of looks, implying that fat people need to be ugly in order to maintain the significance of beauty is asinine. What is attractive changes with time, and seems to be much more connected to what the group at large prefers than what is likely to be "hardwired" in us as a species. For example, plumper women were often portrayed in art that was meant to display what was considered to be beautiful in the past, and that trend has been changing over the years. Saying that fat people are supposed to be collectively unattractive because of our biological wiring ignores the complexity that conventional attractiveness gains from sociocultural influence.

Of course, the biggest thing that needs to be pointed out is that fat acceptance, at its core, is about giving fat people the respect they deserve as human beings. If anyone can agree with treating a fat person cruelly because of either health OR looks then they are a person who, in my opinion, does not have a rational voice in the discussion.

Do you have a source for the art thing?

TheVirgoddess

These threads always wind up with the "but fat people cost ME money" thing. I'm really curious if anyone has a number - even a loose estimate of what it costs the average American a year.

Slacker16

Do you have a source for the art thing?

I think this is pretty much the biggest that was ever considered mainstream-attractive (at least in Europe). Specific artists sometimes had personal preferences, cf Rubens.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:François_Boucher_-_Brown_Odalisque_(L'Odalisque_Brune)_-_WGA2879.jpg

Not embedding because of nudity. For the record, I would totally give her the 3.5 seconds of her life.

The whole "people used to like bigger girls" line has some truth to it, the aesthetic ideals have fluctuated somewhat and there was a time during the 16th-18th centuries during which the preference was plumper but, aside from the prehistoric Venuses and individual artists, obesity has never been seen as attractive.

detox_pixie

If everyone were a normal weight would a lot of people be unemployed?

No, we would other way to kill ourselves off

Maybe I should rephrase my question: aren't there a heck of a lot of people who currently benefit off of the obesity epidemic?

Absolutely, but the medical profession made tons off the prior generation for their issues.

I wouldn't want to fault the medical profession for doing its job. It more the food and drug industry that I find suspect. Isn't it so very easy to find fault with the increasingly brain dead consumer for making bad choices instead of blaming the pushers of unhealthy choices on a very large population of people who have little to no choice and/or education about what's actually good for them?

Rose6300

Those of you who are defending FA bloggers should really go take a look at Ragen Chastain's blog, "Dances with Fat". She encourages young women to stay fat and discount medical advice. She claims any medical evidence that obesity is unhealthy is correlative, not causative. Or try "This Is Thin Privilege" on tumblr. They are even worse. The movement includes plenty of these nutjobs.

Cheechos

Do you have a source for the art thing?

I think this is pretty much the biggest that was ever considered mainstream-attractive (at least in Europe). Specific artists sometimes had personal preferences, cf Rubens.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:François_Boucher_-_Brown_Odalisque_(L'Odalisque_Brune)_-_WGA2879.jpg

Not embedding because of nudity. For the record, I would totally give her the 3.5 seconds of her life.

The whole "people used to like bigger girls" line has some truth to it, the aesthetic ideals have fluctuated somewhat and there was a time during the 16th-18th centuries during which the preference was plumper but, aside from the prehistoric Venuses and individual artists, obesity has never been seen as attractive.

It was an easy example to grab of the fact that aesthetic preferences change over time and are always going to be changing. Also, I'm going to assume you mean that obesity has never been seen as attractive by mainstream culture, as there are people who currently exist (and who undoubtedly existed in the past) that do find it to be very attractive.

Edit: I totally missed the clarification on it being for individual people. Disregard my assumption at the end, haha.

russkiballerina

As a med student and Biologist, I think fat acceptance is the worst thing to ever come out of the internet. Its toxic and actively kills people. Not to mention the misinformation it spreads around like wildfire.
There is no such thing as a healthy obese person. Obesity itself is a disease. Its like advocating for lung cancer acceptance. Its not about "beauty", its about health.
Bloodwork and vitals are a shot in time, they they you nothing about a patients overall health. You get ICU patients on ventilators with PERFECT CBCs who maintain BPs in the 110/70 without vasopressin - would you call them healthy? This type of logic is flawed and kills every single day.
Fat is not just fat, its endocrine tissue, metabolic tissue, it produces hormones, it messes with every single marker of inflammation in your body, down to every single cell. Want to wake up to DVTs at age 20, diabetes at 30, bypasses at 40? That isn't natural, shouldn't exist and did not - its a young, recent and horrible phenomenon, unobserved until three, four decades ago. Just look at our young.

As for beauty "standards", aesthetics exist for a reason, biological imperative being one. Another being philosophical. There's a golden rule, there's symmetry. Read Kant, read the Greeks, but also try to understand natural Evolution and Fertility markers. Humans are animals and attraction is much hardwired. If everything and anything is "beautiful", then nothing by definition is. Standards are important for genetic improval as well. There is a reason I'm not fertile, I carry a trait for a blood disorder that would not benefit offspring. Obesity is a visual marker of I'll health - we are hard wired to reject on the premise of selection.

Sorry if this all came out rude in any way.

People have been fighting against weight discrimination since before the Internet became widely used. It is not a newly born thing.

As for health vs aesthetics, the vast majority of things people in the fat acceptance movement struggle with is aesthetic stigma that often masquerades as concern for health. People can and do use health as an excuse to be cruel and to push fat people out of spaces where they should be treated equally. It is very easy to say, "I'm just worried about health," even if the issue has nothing at all to do with health and everything to do with personal preferences for looks (i.e. - OP's thoroughly-trampled bikini comment).

Keeping in line with the subject of looks, implying that fat people need to be ugly in order to maintain the significance of beauty is asinine. What is attractive changes with time, and seems to be much more connected to what the group at large prefers than what is likely to be "hardwired" in us as a species. For example, plumper women were often portrayed in art that was meant to display what was considered to be beautiful in the past, and that trend has been changing over the years. Saying that fat people are supposed to be collectively unattractive because of our biological wiring ignores the complexity that conventional attractiveness gains from sociocultural influence.

Of course, the biggest thing that needs to be pointed out is that fat acceptance, at its core, is about giving fat people the respect they deserve as human beings. If anyone can agree with treating a fat person cruelly because of either health OR looks then they are a person who, in my opinion, does not have a rational voice in the discussion.

then its a great thing I never said a thing about treating anyone cruelly at all.

Depictions of art have historical contexts, it is ludicrous to imply that "in the past" obese people were seen as a pinnacle of beauty, that is false. Plump bodies were an indication of wealth because the world dealt with disease and famine, and to be able to indulge (excess fat was associated with greed, access to money, luxury, etc) was a status symbol. That said, the pictures, if translated to today's bf% would still depict healthy bodies, FAR from obesity. Unless you are talking about Reubens, who himself was an anomaly amongst his peers. Take proportions amongst other artists and you will notice what I mean. Take the Venus the Milo and try and tell me she was obese. Fertility goddesses depictions from pre-history don't count for obvious reasons.
100 ago your average obese category III was a medical novelty, an anomaly.


This is scientific fact and consensus, not cruelty. No one is asking people to abide by Spartan standards or join the Hitler Youth and make fitness and the Aristotelean model the epitome of beauty and treat others lime crap - what is being asked is for people to take personal responsibility and reverse this trend of glorifying unhealthiness and making it okay to slowly kill their own bodies, it affects everyone in the community.

I don't think anyone has an issue with the body acceptance or fat acceptance movement when it comes to treating everyone with respect, kindness and dignity. People have issues when it comes to the Science denialism that borders on anti vaxxers, like the people who go after Michelle Obama for Lets Move because they think it's"genocide" (really, I've read that)

It costs the country, the citizens, the health care providers (EMS workers, nurses, CPTs, students, techs, firemen, etc...the extra equipment, the injuries some of my colleagues have suffered... ), the taxpayer, the children who are being brought up on a culture that's feeding them horribly and placating them and making them addiction prone (and not only to food), and its just irresponsible.

I think honestly the best and most kind and ethical thing anyone, especially a healthcare provider can do, is to be 100% honest and frank with obese people. They deserve treatment, respect and compassion, yes. But more than anything, they deserve a shot at health, life and quality of life and happiness.

ComradeTovarich

Those of you who are defending FA bloggers should really go take a look at Ragen Chastain's blog, "Dances with Fat". She encourages young women to stay fat and discount medical advice. She claims any medical evidence that obesity is unhealthy is correlative, not causative. Or try "This Is Thin Privilege" on tumblr. They are even worse. The movement includes plenty of these nutjobs.

I can attest to these people being devoid of sanity.

TheVirgoddess

Those of you who are defending FA bloggers should really go take a look at Ragen Chastain's blog, "Dances with Fat". She encourages young women to stay fat and discount medical advice. She claims any medical evidence that obesity is unhealthy is correlative, not causative. Or try "This Is Thin Privilege" on tumblr. They are even worse. The movement includes plenty of these nutjobs.

That's like saying "If you want to understand what being a Republican is about, check out the Tea Party".

russkiballerina

Some people who are obese can be healthy.

Please explain this...

My mother 5'2, 200 pounds. She's obese, she has been for 30 years. Her blood work is perfect, is on no medication. She works a very physically demanding job and keeps up just fine with people half her age -- the woman barely gets head colds. She is totally healthy.

Is she at a higher risk for disease? Yes. But that doesn't make one "unhealthy". If that were true, people with a higher genetic predisposition for say breast cancer, were less healthy than those with a lower generic risk. Health is a complex concept.

So by that reasoning, the obese person with good blood markers is only ever "unhealthy" during the few seconds of their heart attack. The previous 50 years of their life were adequately "healthy".

Right.

Heart disease, diabetes, various cancers --- all have early symptoms/stages and follow a path -- you don't just wake up and have them -- unless you are ignoring your health and not regularly seeing a physician. Which happens to fat and thin people alike.

If an obese person regularly sees the doctor and doesn't have any symptoms and no indicators (from tests/blood work) of disease, they are healthy. They are at a higher risk of developing disease -- just like anyone else with higher risk from things like genetics or lifestyle (smoking etc). The higher risk doesn't automatically mean one is currently unhealthy -- it means they have a higher risk of being unhealthy in the future.

No, you are wrong, they are not just like any non-obese with clear tests and you are confusing future risks into this. Clear tests in an obese patient only means we cannot detect any problems with the tests we used on that visit. It does not mean that there is not more wear and tear on the bones, joints, liver, heart, pancreas and kidneys in an obese person going on continually from day to day vs a non obese person, just that at this point in time, their body is dealing with the increased stresses in a manner that hasn't developed into a disease yet...as best we can tell from the limited tests performed. Yes, it does mean the risks are higher in the future, but that does not mean you do not have non-detected increased wear going on already in that "healthy" testing obese individual.

And you'll still have a few 90yo obese "healthy people" just like you have a few 100 yo smokers that are more resilient than the vast majority of people and this doesn't invalidate the fact that obesity and smoking are not good for your body! It also doesn't mean it didn't affect the 90yo obese and 100 yo smoker, maybe they'd live to 115 instead of 110, or not gotten bedridden in the last years of life without being obese and smoking.

THIS

A CBC is like a picture. Vitals tell you how you are doing that visit. The best BP is an average of BPs during 72hrs. No one diagnoses diabetes from one stick, no one diagnoses leukemia from one CBC. Its ludicrous to spew "my tests at my GP were ok, therefore I'm healthy"
I was in the ICU with adrenal crisis until last Tuesday and am getting out of Telemetry today - I take steroids, blood thinners, the works, was medically underweight most of my life, still, my CBC, if you look at it today, except for the pesky hg of 8, is "perfectly healthy". My bp is always a "perfect" 90/50, even though that's because I don't produce cortisol. Numbers alone mean nothing - especially to the layperson who's seeing a snapshot in time.
At 20, 30 yrs old, most patients will present a small clot to the lung with minor tachycardia, normal labs, slight drop in pulse ox, if that, and if it wasn't for d-dimers and other specific markers you only get in ERs, you'd get mortality way higher because presentation in the young is generally "healthy".
Sometimes you can't track heart attacks until troponin rises. Sometimes someone will be actively there with a quasi normal EKG. Until they code. Out of nowhere, despite all the "healthy" blood work.

"health markers" are useful, yes. After a certain age, when you know exactly what you're testing for, taking risk factor in consideration. That's why its called EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE.

Cheechos

then its a great thing I never said a thing about treating anyone cruelly at all.

Depictions of art have historical contexts, it is ludicrous to imply that "in the past" obese people were seen as a pinnacle of beauty, that is false. Plump bodies were an indication of wealth because the world dealt with disease and famine, and to be able to indulge (excess fat was associated with greed, access to money, luxury, etc) was a status symbol. That said, the pictures, if translated to today's bf% would still depict healthy bodies, FAR from obesity. Unless you are talking about Reubens, who himself was an anomaly amongst his peers. Take proportions amongst other artists and you will notice what I mean. Take the Venus the Milo and try and tell me she was obese. Fertility goddesses depictions from pre-history don't count for obvious reasons.
100 ago your average obese category III was a medical novelty, an anomaly.


This is scientific fact and consensus, not cruelty. No one is asking people to abide by Spartan standards or join the Hitler Youth and make fitness and the Aristotelean model the epitome of beauty and treat others lime crap - what is being asked is for people to take personal responsibility and reverse this trend of glorifying unhealthiness and making it okay to slowly kill their own bodies, it affects everyone in the community.

I don't think anyone has an issue with the body acceptance or fat acceptance movement when it comes to treating everyone with respect, kindness and dignity. People have issues when it comes to the Science denialism that borders on anti vaxxers, like the people who go after Michelle Obama for Lets Move because they think it's"genocide" (really, I've read that)

It costs the country, the citizens, the health care providers (EMS workers, nurses, CPTs, students, techs, firemen, etc...the extra equipment, the injuries some of my colleagues have suffered... ), the taxpayer, the children who are being brought up on a culture that's feeding them horribly and placating them and making them addiction prone (and not only to food), and its just irresponsible.

I think honestly the best and most kind and ethical thing anyone, especially a healthcare provider can do, is to be 100% honest and frank with obese people. They deserve treatment, respect and compassion, yes. But more than anything, they deserve a shot at health, life and quality of life and happiness.

It is a great thing, and I'm glad that you didn't.

As I clarified a little earlier, I used the example I did because it was a relatively easy one to grasp from memory of how aesthetic preferences change over time. I did not claim that obese people were the pinnacle of beauty in the past. I simply used bigger women as an example of something that used to be considered conventionally attractive. Also, I think it's safe to say that translating the body shape in a painting to a body fat percentage would be a little difficult, since that can be tricky even for real life people.

When did I conflate obesity being an anomaly in the past with cruelty? I'm sorry, but the way that sentence is set up confuses me. I can't really connect it to anything I said in my response to you. I never claimed that asking people to be health conscious was cruelty, either. The bulk of my post was about social cruelty involving physical attractiveness that is disguised as concern for health. I guess we are misunderstanding each other somewhere.

Either way, I agree with calling out misinformation and pushing for health improvements across the board. There is a reason that I focused on the aesthetics portion of your initial post.