Fat Acceptance (HAES)
Replies
-
I am confused by fat acceptance. they are so busy trying not to be concerned with appearance that they end up being concerned with appearance. same with some feminists, too. I've said this before but it still baffles me so I'll repeat it here.
You mean the whole "We want women to have a choice, but only what we agree with." thing?
I love this line, it's a perfect summary of what's wrong with them.
edit: No obese people deserve to be bullied, but neither does anyone deserve it when they decide to lose weight, which happens by many people who profess "fat acceptance" to people who try to change their weight. Rinse, wash, repeat for feminists who attack women for being attractive or display any desire to enjoy their sexuality in ways that disturb them.0 -
I disagree. Self esteem, loving one's self has come to a point where people (as shown by this tumblr thing) tilt towards narcissistic. It' is movements like these that prove, to me, that perhaps There's too MUCH acceptance. Too MUCH coddling. Too MUCH inability to accept the responsibility AND consequences of one's own actions.
Too often I see "self-esteem" as a clumsy salve covering for unwillingness to change, to be BETTER. People often confuse unwillingness with inability .0 -
I see it as a double-edged sword. On one hand, it's trying to promote tolerance. However, on the other hand, it's not tackling the problems that accompany obesity, like portion control and nutrition.0
-
I am confused by fat acceptance. they are so busy trying not to be concerned with appearance that they end up being concerned with appearance. same with some feminists, too. I've said this before but it still baffles me so I'll repeat it here.
You mean the whole "We want women to have a choice, but only what we agree with." thing?
The whole 'we want to be treated as equals' but 'WE ARE SO MUCH BETTER THAN YOU MALE SCUM!' Thing
I don't consider those individuals feminists. They distort the whole thing.0 -
I am confused by fat acceptance. they are so busy trying not to be concerned with appearance that they end up being concerned with appearance. same with some feminists, too. I've said this before but it still baffles me so I'll repeat it here.
You mean the whole "We want women to have a choice, but only what we agree with." thing?
The whole 'we want to be treated as equals' but 'WE ARE SO MUCH BETTER THAN YOU MALE SCUM!' Thing
I don't consider those individuals feminists. They distort the whole thing.
the thing is, the whole idea gets confused when people imagine that criticizing *patriarchy* = criticizing individual men0 -
I don't consider those individuals feminists. They distort the whole thing.
Like it or not, the radfems are still feminists. Not a line of thought I agree with for the most part, but a spade is a spade.0 -
also i forgot to mention, i wonder whether it's even possible for people who consistently, over a lifetime, follow generally accepted exercise recommendations for health (30-60 mins 3-5x/wk, with some resistance, some cardio) and even general nutrition recommendations for health (whatever - fibre, folate, vit c - the freaking health pyramid even) to be obese. overweight by bmi standards or even mirror standards, sure, but idk about obese.
(but whether those particular recommendations are likely to *actually* lead to health, in every (or most) case(s), idk either. idk lots of things.)
what does exercise and nutrition have to do with being fat?
you can exercise and get proper nutrition and still be fat simply by eating more calories than you burn (on average) over a long period of time.
it's simple physics.
there are cardiovascularly fit and very strong football players who are still considered overweight or obese by BMI standards. even by body fat standards, these guys would still be considered overweight. take a look at all those 300+lb offensive and defensive linemen.0 -
also i forgot to mention, i wonder whether it's even possible for people who consistently, over a lifetime, follow generally accepted exercise recommendations for health (30-60 mins 3-5x/wk, with some resistance, some cardio) and even general nutrition recommendations for health (whatever - fibre, folate, vit c - the freaking health pyramid even) to be obese. overweight by bmi standards or even mirror standards, sure, but idk about obese.
(but whether those particular recommendations are likely to *actually* lead to health, in every (or most) case(s), idk either. idk lots of things.)
what does exercise and nutrition have to do with being fat?
you can exercise and get proper nutrition and still be fat simply by eating more calories than you burn (on average) over a long period of time.
it's simple physics.
there are cardiovascularly fit and very strong football players who are still considered overweight or obese by BMI standards. even by body fat standards, these guys would still be considered overweight. take a look at all those 300+lb offensive and defensive linemen.
oooooh you want to be scientific about it. and also, compare regular people to professional linebackers... well ok.
look man, you can't convince me that IF
= people hit macro and micronutrients*, which, practically speaking, very roughly equates to some veg and fruit and proteins and prob some grains (ooooh i'm being controversial now) .....but yes holy jeez of course occasionally have ice cream within reasonable portions/cal limits
AND
- MOVE (get in their NEAT and targeted exercise as well) some
THEN
people are likely to stay obese. btw i did say OVERWEIGHT would be within expectation; not obese. and please do not suggest i'm an idiot to imagine a linebacker is like somebody's aunt martha. i am talking about aunt marthas.
*even the bar set by dieticians, vs bodybuilders
i lost ***20 POUNDS*** once by moving to a city that had more sidewalks than highways without changing a damn other thing.0 -
also i forgot to mention, i wonder whether it's even possible for people who consistently, over a lifetime, follow generally accepted exercise recommendations for health (30-60 mins 3-5x/wk, with some resistance, some cardio) and even general nutrition recommendations for health (whatever - fibre, folate, vit c - the freaking health pyramid even) to be obese. overweight by bmi standards or even mirror standards, sure, but idk about obese.
(but whether those particular recommendations are likely to *actually* lead to health, in every (or most) case(s), idk either. idk lots of things.)
what does exercise and nutrition have to do with being fat?
you can exercise and get proper nutrition and still be fat simply by eating more calories than you burn (on average) over a long period of time.
it's simple physics.
there are cardiovascularly fit and very strong football players who are still considered overweight or obese by BMI standards. even by body fat standards, these guys would still be considered overweight. take a look at all those 300+lb offensive and defensive linemen.
oooooh you want to be scientific about it. and also, compare regular people to professional linebackers... well ok.
look man, you can't convince me that IF
= people hit macro and micronutrients*, which, practically speaking, very roughly equates to some veg and fruit and proteins and prob some grains (ooooh i'm being controversial now) .....but yes holy jeez of course occasionally have ice cream within reasonable portions/cal limits
AND
- MOVE (get in their NEAT and targeted exercise as well) some
THEN
people are likely to stay obese. btw i did say OVERWEIGHT would be within expectation; not obese. and please do not suggest i'm an idiot to imagine a linebacker is like somebody's aunt martha. i am talking about aunt marthas.
*even the bar set by dieticians, vs bodybuilders
i lost ***20 POUNDS*** once by moving to a city that had more sidewalks than highways without changing a damn other thing.
why are you so angry?
i didn't call anyone an idiot. please don't put words in my mouth.0 -
I believe in learning to love yourself at any size because there's no reason to even want to be healthier if you don't love yourself. It took me awhile, but I learned to love myself at 360 pounds. I love myself now that I've lost 68 pounds, and I anticipate loving myself as I continue to lose weight because I genuinely believe that I can't do this if I don't love and accept myself.
I wasn't healthy at 360 pounds. I might not have been on death's door, but the situation was far from ideal. I didn't realize how unhealthy I was until I started to lose weight and feel so much better, and I think that people who are trying to fool themselves into thinking that they can be healthy at such weights are going to pay for it later.0 -
also i forgot to mention, i wonder whether it's even possible for people who consistently, over a lifetime, follow generally accepted exercise recommendations for health (30-60 mins 3-5x/wk, with some resistance, some cardio) and even general nutrition recommendations for health (whatever - fibre, folate, vit c - the freaking health pyramid even) to be obese. overweight by bmi standards or even mirror standards, sure, but idk about obese.
(but whether those particular recommendations are likely to *actually* lead to health, in every (or most) case(s), idk either. idk lots of things.)
what does exercise and nutrition have to do with being fat?
you can exercise and get proper nutrition and still be fat simply by eating more calories than you burn (on average) over a long period of time.
it's simple physics.
there are cardiovascularly fit and very strong football players who are still considered overweight or obese by BMI standards. even by body fat standards, these guys would still be considered overweight. take a look at all those 300+lb offensive and defensive linemen.
oooooh you want to be scientific about it. and also, compare regular people to professional linebackers... well ok.
look man, you can't convince me that IF
= people hit macro and micronutrients*, which, practically speaking, very roughly equates to some veg and fruit and proteins and prob some grains (ooooh i'm being controversial now) .....but yes holy jeez of course occasionally have ice cream within reasonable portions/cal limits
AND
- MOVE (get in their NEAT and targeted exercise as well) some
THEN
people are likely to stay obese. btw i did say OVERWEIGHT would be within expectation; not obese. and please do not suggest i'm an idiot to imagine a linebacker is like somebody's aunt martha. i am talking about aunt marthas.
*even the bar set by dieticians, vs bodybuilders
i lost ***20 POUNDS*** once by moving to a city that had more sidewalks than highways without changing a damn other thing.
why are you so angry?
i didn't call anyone an idiot. please don't put words in my mouth.
true, you didn't, sorry. & yes by 'general recommendations' i meant a ~2000cal diet (the one that's recommended in the food pyramid), which with regular recommended activity should equal something close to a net balance or at least minimal incremental gain & *for most people* should get them more or less near some kind of reasonable (for the average person) metrics.
this part ("what does exercise and nutrition have to do with being fat?") seems to me to be an example of making things perverse for the sake of it. of course exercise and nutrition have everything to do with being fat (or not)...0 -
I think that there should be Acceptance..period.
I loved my DH when he weighed 280 and when he's 180. But, I feel better about his health when he's lighter and he feels more energetic and active when he is.0 -
Have a read through this:
http://thisisthinprivilege.tumblr.com/
I do not advocate being fat as a lifestyle but as someone who spent my entire life being fat I can't say that everything on that site comes out as crazy. Some of it makes a lot of sense. You are treated very differently as a fat person. It took me over 15 years to wrap my mind around the fact that you do not need to hate yourself because you're fat and it's only with that realization that I was able to make a lasting lifestyle change.0 -
this part ("what does exercise and nutrition have to do with being fat?") seems to me to be an example of making things perverse for the sake of it. of course exercise and nutrition have everything to do with being fat (or not)...
...and this is where you are mistaken.
weight has NOTHING to do with exercise or nutrition. weight gain/loss/maintenance is simply about the energy balance equation. that's scientific fact. it's not open to dispute.
of course nutrition and exercise are important, but you are conflating those separate issues with energy input/output.0 -
this part ("what does exercise and nutrition have to do with being fat?") seems to me to be an example of making things perverse for the sake of it. of course exercise and nutrition have everything to do with being fat (or not)...
...and this is where you are mistaken.
weight has NOTHING to do with exercise or nutrition. weight gain/loss/maintenance is simply about the energy balance equation. that's scientific fact. it's not open to dispute.
of course nutrition and exercise are important, but you are conflating those separate issues with energy input/output.
well that seemed obvious, and was implied, but you're right, i did fail to mention the 2000 cal recommendation i thought was evident when mentioning the food pyramid guidelines
tell me, please, how calorie balance (or imbalance) occurs outside of the context of food being consumed...0 -
this part ("what does exercise and nutrition have to do with being fat?") seems to me to be an example of making things perverse for the sake of it. of course exercise and nutrition have everything to do with being fat (or not)...
...and this is where you are mistaken.
weight has NOTHING to do with exercise or nutrition. weight gain/loss/maintenance is simply about the energy balance equation. that's scientific fact. it's not open to dispute.
of course nutrition and exercise are important, but you are conflating those separate issues with energy input/output.
well that seemed obvious, and was implied, but you're right, i did fail to mention the 2000 cal recommendation i thought was evident when mentioning the food pyramid guidelines
tell me, please, how calorie balance (or imbalance) occurs outside of the context of food being consumed...
aren't you trying to make the argument that quantity is the same as quality?
weight gain/loss/maintenance is ultimately about energy quantity.
exercise is part of the equation for energy balance, but it's only one of the variables and its effect can be easily compensated for by increasing calorie consumption. so even though exercise can improve your cardiovascular systems and muscle performance, the calorie burn from it doesn't necessarily imply weight loss.
nutrition is about energy quality.
quantity =/= quality
therefore, one does not automatically follow the other.0 -
They look gross, so no0
-
This movement is such a crock.
Just like making the word fat politically incorrect.
Sorry, truth hurts. If you don't want to hear it, change.0 -
this part ("what does exercise and nutrition have to do with being fat?") seems to me to be an example of making things perverse for the sake of it. of course exercise and nutrition have everything to do with being fat (or not)...
...and this is where you are mistaken.
weight has NOTHING to do with exercise or nutrition. weight gain/loss/maintenance is simply about the energy balance equation. that's scientific fact. it's not open to dispute.
of course nutrition and exercise are important, but you are conflating those separate issues with energy input/output.
well that seemed obvious, and was implied, but you're right, i did fail to mention the 2000 cal recommendation i thought was evident when mentioning the food pyramid guidelines
tell me, please, how calorie balance (or imbalance) occurs outside of the context of food being consumed...
aren't you trying to make the argument that quantity is the same as quality?
weight gain/loss/maintenance is ultimately about energy quantity.
exercise is part of the equation for energy balance, but it's only one of the variables and its effect can be easily compensated for by increasing calorie consumption. so even though exercise can improve your cardiovascular systems and muscle performance, the calorie burn from it doesn't necessarily imply weight loss.
nutrition is about energy quality.
quantity =/= quality
therefore, one does not automatically follow the other.
no, that was not really my intention. although on the whole, iifym more or less, practically speaking, does imply eating something close to the content suggested by most sensible dieticians/nutritionists. *technically* yes a person could lose weight on the twinkie diet, that is really not what i was trying to get at.
the OP is about "can an obese person be healthy", "are fat acceptance people deluding themselves", etc.
i was trying to say that if a person followed *recommendations generally made by the consensus medical community* for *health* (not weight loss),
i.e.,
- followed that food pyramid (5 fruit/veg a day, 2000 cal diet, however many servings of meats grains etc) and
- exercised the amount suggested by the ASCM or your average doctor (3-5x a week) - ie regularly hitting their cardiovascular, neuromotor, resistance targets
ie did the things that are generally thought to promote *health* (and i later qualified this by saying i am not sure to what degree they actually do)
then they would probably not find themselves obese/overfat etc (but maybe yes still 'overweight').0 -
This content has been removed.
-
That tumblr site... I can relate to it in many ways. You most definitely get treated differently in a negative way when you're fat... But jeeze, calling it thin privilege? That's just as awful in my opinion. As if thin people don't have problems? I think you shoudl love your self no matter what. But that doesn't mean blaming someone else for you being fat or using it as an excuse to hate other people.
I digress. I think a lot of this tumblr page is people being pissy and using their obesity as an excuse for a hundred different things and blaming other people for forcing them to feel the way they do and hating on thin people.
That's not the way it should be. The page actually makes me kind of mad.
The viewpoints on there... Are ridiculous. I am fat. I've dealt with most of those issues! But I don't consider it "thin privilege"... I consider it me being lazy and not working towards getting healthier.
One of them "thin privilege is not having to switch between 5 different desks so I can find the one that doesn't pinch too much."
Been there. But dooo something about it.... /rant0 -
Mmm yeah it'd definately be easier to lose weight with better labelling. For example, the Subway Roast beef sub is advertised as 1090kj for a 6-inch, when in reality its almost double if you have anything BUT roast beef on it.
Bread, meat, and veggies is what the calorie count is for. Adding cheese and condiments changes that. If you know this, what is the issue?
I had thought that was the average for condiments/ cheese as well lol0 -
MY PERSONAL OPINION would be no one can be healthy at EVERY size. There is a possibility that someone can be healthy at a normal weight or even a bit overweight, but when you start mentioning people who are obese, morbidly obese, or even under weight then those can present some issues.0
-
What a load of bollocks :laugh:0
-
I'd have to read the whole idea. If it emphasizes cardiovascular health, improved musculoskeletal function, normal lab values, and long term cognitive maintenance at any size then hell yeah I'm all for it. If it doesnt emphasize any true physiological health then I wouldnt support.0
-
HAES stands for "Health At Every Size". It is an approach to health that does not pursue the goal of a particular body weight, but rather concentrates on what health benefits and improvements can practically be achieved for individuals. Typically, following HAES includes size acceptance, listening to internal body signals and taking care of the body with nutritious varied eating and enjoyable exercise.
Please note that HAES is not a guarantee, but an approach. It does not assert that everyone is healthy at any size (a popular misconception), but supports the goal of health, for bodies for all sizes.
HAES has gained popularity in the last few years within the size acceptance movement as an alternative to dieting for larger people. It is promoted by a wide variety of people (including researchers and health care professionals) who have looked at the scientific literature and seen how the evidence supports a body-size-neutral approach to health. HAES is an approach that anyone can take, regardless of their size. Society's relentless promotion of an "ideal" body shape affects everyone, and thus everyone can benefit from an approach to health that is size-accepting.
This is from their website. It doesn't appear to maintain that we should embrace/ encourage being fat. Seems more like they are encouraging people to not rely solely on BMI & so forth. They also run work shops fronted by nutritionalists.
Thank you. The movement is more about accepting the limits of yourself and who you are RIGHT now, rather than starving yourself to be like the girls/boys on the magazines. It's about loving yourself.
if this is the movement then i support0 -
The "Thin Priviledge" really rustles my jimmies. I'm thin, very thin, and yet I'm still waiting for the world to revolve around me. Brad Pitt has yet to ask me on a date, the President has yet to dedicate a national holiday to my petite figure, and my sponsoring manager has yet to hand me his job. *sigh* The struggle is real.0
-
I accept the fact that I have fat. I don't particularly care about other peoples fat. Or lack thereof.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K 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
- 423 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