The 'Fat Acceptance' Movement

ANd let me guess,all the "real" science is hidden, bought up, or the scientists who do it are suspiciously murdered, right?

The real answer, the TRUTH, that you know is out there, is real. Any scientific evidence to the contrary is simply bought research, squelching, or falsified research.

I guess that makes sense.

I never purported the truth or said I "know" the "real" truth, I simply questioned YOU.... And you didn't deliver. Sounds like your problem, not mine.
[/quote]

What am I supposed to "Deliver"? The thousands of studies that have been done showing that being significantly overweight carries very real and distinct health hazards?

Why bother.. clearly anything that shows that is the result of flawed science, or corrupt scientists, or "big diet" influencing how science is done.

It's utterly pointless to try and prove something to anyone who is already convinced they know "The truth" and will discount anything out of hand that doesn't fit their perception.

Getting in an automobile is inherantly dangerous. There's no way to argue that it is not. This does not mean that every person who gets in a car will die, or be seriously injured. It means that your statistical chance of those things happening goes up sharply the moment you do.

Being moderately to severely overweight is inherantly dangerous. Not everyone who is will suffer health effects, but many more will, and documentable, predictable health effects, than those who are not moderately to severely overweight.

You can disagree all you want, and you are entitled to your wrong opinion. But that doesn't change science, and fact, one bit.

"every size" includes people who weigh 800lb or more.... it isn't possible to be healthy at that size. So, "healthy at every size" is not possible. I'm not claiming to know at exactly what body fat percentage it's not longer possible to be healthy. Maybe there are people who are 40% body fat and still healthy, maybe there aren't, haven't seen any specific studies on the exact cut-off point for this.... but "healthy at every size" means, every size. Not just people who are somewhat obese.

Well that's just an appeal to the extreme. We can assume for this discussion we aren't talking about the minute percentage of people over 800lbs.

that's neither here nor there, because of the meaning of the word "every"

it says "health at EVERY size" not "health at a lot of sizes, not including extremes"

the rest of your argument is irrelevant to that point. It's not possible to be healthy at EVERY size. At some point, there's a cut off between body fat percentages where it's possible to be healthy, and those where it's not.

My whole criticism against the phrase "healthy at every size" is based on semantics and the meanings of words.... so yes the precise meaning of the word "every" matters. And semantics absolutely does matter when you're giving a name to a movement, because if you name it badly, people misunderstand the entire movement, and this is totally what's happening with the "fat acceptance"/"healthy at every size" movement. Most of the posts in this thread are testimony to just how few people understand it the way it's been explained by the people here who know the most about the movement. It's not that different to how I keep telling "paleo" dieters that the diet wouldn't get half the flack it does if it was called something else. It's not really about trying to "eat like a caveman" and it totally and utterly fails at that, but it's a good diet for people with specific food allergies and intolerances, so the "food allergy/intolerance avoidant diet" would be a better name.

"Body shaming isn't right, but telling someone that they have too much body fat and it's putting them at risk of health problems isn't body shaming. Fact is, body fat levels above a certain amount is not healthy. "

"I don't think people should just accept unhealthy body composition"

But neither of us (or anyone in this thread) knows what BF% is the cut off point for health...so how could you tell someone they have too much body fat? Unless of course they were...800lbs.

And the reality is - maybe body composition isn't the end all and be all. If someone with an "unhealthy body composition" exhibits no risk factors besides that - they are potentially healthy.

---

That all said - we agree muuuuuch more than we disagree in this thread. This is just a topic i have recently become interested in and found some of the info I posted in above post eye opening.

yes and I stand by those comments. Unhealthy body composition (as I've explained earlier in the thread) isn't limited to people who are fat. It also includes people who are underweight (for their frame size, not necessarily according to BMI charts) and those who have normal weight obesity (i.e. underweight in terms of bone density and lean mass, but obese in terms of body fat percentage, and they're in the "healthy" BMI range) - body composition isn't limited to body fat either. It includes bone density, lean muscle mass, blood composition and everything else.

Yes these things absolutely do impact health, and they probably also make a difference to how much body fat would be too much (e.g. someone who's underweight in terms of bone density and muscle mass probably can't tolerate as much excess body fat as someone who's built like an ox underneath the excess body fat)................ but just because someone can''t pinpoint exact body fat percentages where the risk is so great it's impossible to be healthy, compared to those where some people may be healthy but many are probably not, does not negate the fact that all these things have a huge impact on health. That's been shown in many studies, and on each thing separately.

Most of the points I've been making throughout this thread is there's too much focus on body fat only without the other factors, including those listed plus blood lipids etc............ all of these are different individual factors that affect an individual's health. To ignore them for the sake of being politically correct would be foolish. But I do agree very much that over-focus on fat people while ignoring the health problems from thin people with bad body composition is also foolish, and that's exactly what's going on at the current time. Better health is something that everyone should strive for, and those in excellent health should strive to stay that way (because trust me health deteriorates quickly when you go from athletic and active to sedentary and eating too much... because I've been there myself!!!). This is a very inclusive philosophy and "healthy body composition" is not a euphemism for "not carrying too much body fat" - it means what it says, healthy body composition. That means strong bones and strong muscles and healthy blood lipids and a bunch of other stuff too.

I agree that we probably do agree on most things, but right now the "fat acceptance"/"healthy at every size" is greatly misunderstood as lots of people thinks it means something totally different to what it actually means, including many people who say they support this movement.... I think a major reason for that is what it calls itself. And yes that does mean being pedantic about the precise meaning of words like "every" - because most people will interpret words by their plain and literal meaning.

The thing that bothers me about the Fat Acceptance movement, is that it has been stretched beyond what is reasonable by certain followers.

For example, sometimes I contribute articles to a feminist website. I discussed losing 39lb through MFP over the course of a year, and explained that I'd gained the weight by taking Seroxat/Paxil. That I've been maintaining for the past 9 months, by keeping a food diary, despite starting lithium (an appetite increasing medication) and having PCOS. I feel that it's important to discuss maintaining physical health while on these drugs, not only because of the increased health risks, but because the prospect of weight gain often puts people off taking them.

Within the space of 24 hours, I had 170 comments - half of which were from people ranting that by mentioning my weight loss, I'd made them feel bad about being over weight. Many were obnoxious and told me that I was "bragging." I wish that instead of replying sympathetically to every comment, I'd just told them to take some responsibility for their own feelings and lifestyle. Rather than getting hope from seeing others lose weight, some of them chose to feel offended and cling harder to their excuses.

Another problem is that within some spheres of feminist blogging, obese women are 'brave' for posing in their underwear. Celebrities or slim women are, on the other hand, 'being exploited by patriarchy.' - that's discriminatory.

I would almost feel like those are people who don't really "get" the whole point of the movement or maybe aren't as comfortable with their own body as they should be striving to be.

Though I think "fat acceptance" and "body positivity" have a significant amount of overlap and then some on the fringe.

If you want to talk about your weight loss, that is absolutely fine! If you talk about it while saying "what's your excuse?", that can certainly be construed as shaming... but I think putting things out there neutrally is pretty harmless for the most part.

At the end of the day, I need the body positivity/fat positive movement because it is COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE for a stranger to approach me as I rifle through a sales rack and say "oh honey, you know none of those are even going to fit, so why bother?". This legit happened to me. I was also burned by a person's cigarette and told "hey biggie" on the streets of London as I walked by (note I had not even engaged the person who did this to me). That I have the right to exist in whatever manifestation of my body that I choose without anyone else having the right to make unsolicited commentary - negative OR positive.

From the very original post, it's clear why fat acceptance movements exist. Many people truly believe that fat people are not being shamed, but rather, told what they need to know and do - that they need to lose weight because they're unhealthy. The fat acceptance movement exists to push back against the kind of "one size fits all" model of weight and health and to help empower people to stand up for themselves, have a positive body image, and take care of themselves, despite all the pressure to feel bad and all the looks and comments when they do healthy things. In this thread you can see how many different views there are on weight and health, but the fat acceptance movement is there to clarify that weight is only one determinant of health and that people can be healthy at any size. The idea of "health at every size" is one that's a whole lot more positive than this thread because it encourages people to think of themselves as equal and worthy human beings who are worth the effort and time it takes to care for themselves. It's a fundamentally different view than typical American culture that sees nothing but fat and someone's weight and overly focuses on people's bodies.

When people complain that doctors talk about their weight it is usually because health professions are focusing more on their weight than on their health and bringing it up at inappropriate times. Fat people are often fat shamed and that doesn't end just because they're at a doctor's office. People are often made to feel inferior because of their weight and like they can never really be healthy unless they are skinny. That's a huge problem because it doesn't help change what someone's doing to improve their health, and it assumes that they are unhealthy just because of what they weigh - it completely neglects what they do to take care of themselves to focus on a number. It absolutely harms someone if their doctor focuses on their weight instead of an illness that they need care for. It doesn't inherently harm someone to be fat.

Fat acceptance is not about promoting being fat, it's about treating people with equality and respect and not assuming you know more about their body and habits than they do.

^^^ this. So very this.

I agree that we probably do agree on most things, but right now the "fat acceptance"/"healthy at every size" is greatly misunderstood as lots of people thinks it means something totally different to what it actually means, including many people who say they support this movement.... I think a major reason for that is what it calls itself. And yes that does mean being pedantic about the precise meaning of words like "every" - because most people will interpret words by their plain and literal meaning.

You are right actually - I wasn't completely understanding your posts because I took one out of context. And you are also right about the "every" thing.

Every does mean all encompassing, you didn't choose to use that word - the movement did and it isn't a good message. I def agree that there has to be a point where a size is simply not healthy. :flowerforyou:

These are two completely separate issues. The first is an inalienable human right. The second is a necessary campaign to encourage people to strive for better health in our society, as the health consequences of a sedentary lifestyle in a society where most people can easily obtain an excess of food is something that urgently needs to be addressed, and it needs to be addressed in thin people too. Obesity may be a risk factor but it's one of many, and the others apply to countless thin people out there who do no exercise and eat an unbalanced diet (albeit one that doesn't put them in calorie surplus).

"healthy at every size" is a poor choice of name for a movement as it's not possible to be healthy at every size.

Just to play Devils Advocate....is that last point necessarily true?

I qualify this by saying I am actively losing weight and getting fit - so this is not some built in excuse for me. But I have seen you mention the inability to be healthy at a large size and that is what I am questioning. And keep in mind I am merely questioning, I am not sure myself - a lot of conflicting research out there.

1. Fat =/= Sedentary all the time. I know active fat people. They have physically demanding jobs, and play sports regularly.

2. Can one not be fat (even obese) and be healthy?

I think the second point is worth delving into - because many people assume no. I myself assumed no. Then I started looking into it...

Apparently, 10-20% of obese people are "metabolically healthy"

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15671927
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20937689
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20570822

Now the question is - does that matter?

From the second study:

"metabolically healthy obese individuals are less common than previously thought and do not show increased all-cause, cancer, and CVD mortality risks in a 15-year follow-up study"

There is also this interesting paper:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21844111

The EOSS (Edmonton Obesity Staging System)

This paper examined long term mortality risk amongst overweight and obese individuals. It rated people on a scale of 0 - 5 according to the health risk factors they exhibit:

==================
Stage 0: No apparent risk factors (e.g., blood pressure, serum lipid and fasting
glucose levels within normal range), physical symptoms, psychopathology,
functional limitations and/or impairment of well-being related to obesity.

Stage 1: Presence of obesity-related subclinical risk factors (e.g., borderline
hypertension, impaired fasting glucose levels, elevated levels of liver
enzymes), mild physical symptoms (e.g. dyspnea on moderate exertion,
occasional aches and pains, fatigue), mild psychopathology, mild
functional limitations and/or mild impairment of well-being.

Stage 2: Presence of established obesity-related chronic disease (e.g.,
hypertension, type 2 diabetes, sleep apnea, osteoarthritis), moderate
limitations in activities of daily living and/or well-being.

Stage 3: Established end-organ damage such as myocardial infarction, heart
failure, stroke, significant psychopathology, significant functional
limitations and/or impairment of well-being.

Stage 4: Severe (potentially end-stage) disabilities from obesity-related chronic
diseases, severe disabling psychopathology, severe functional limitations
and/or severe impairment of well-being.
==================

For the obese/overweight individuals that fell into Stage 0 - their mortality rate was similar to lean people (and better than lean people who are "metabolically obese").

There have been conflicting studies, but the writer of the above paper criticizes them because they allowed individuals in teh study to exhibit risk factors.

Even one risk factor is enough to mean someone isn't metabolically healthy.

* Most of the above info taken form: http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.ca/2013/12/does-metabolically-healthy-obesity-exist.html A researcher 100x smarter than me :laugh:

Now all that said - if someone is obese or fat, then they will need to exhibit ZERO risk factors in order to claim to be healthy.

I like that you brought this up. I'm familiar with the study you're referring to in the latter part of your comment, and a followup was done a while ago that showed that obese metabolically healthy individuals have a high probability of progression into metabolically obese categories over 10-15 year period.

The study was summarized fairly nicely here: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/09/the-healthy-obese-and-their-healthy-fat-cells/?smid=tw-share


I think the point that a lot of people miss is that obesity is a long-term risk factor. Being obese in your 20's is likely not to be an issue for otherwise healthy people. Being obese for 40 years of your life is another story.

Mention you don't like to wear CRocs, and people will come out of the woodwork claiming you are somehow criticizing them for their choice in footwear.

Crocs are not footwear and wearers should be criticised. Yuck.

STAAAAHP OPRESSSING MEEEEEEEE!

No, if you wear crocs you deserve to be oppressed.:devil:

Mention you don't like to wear CRocs, and people will come out of the woodwork claiming you are somehow criticizing them for their choice in footwear.

Crocs are not footwear and wearers should be criticised. Yuck.

STAAAAHP OPRESSSING MEEEEEEEE!

No, if you wear crocs you deserve to be oppressed.:devil:

I wear the sandals. WIth socks. Big argyle knee highs. I'm secure.

That's not how it works. If you are going to state that the science is flawed, it's on you to prove it.

People that say you can be just as healthy while being obese or overweight are completely wrong. Simply being overweight puts stress on your body that causes inflammation in the blood vessels which leads to plaque build up. Plaque build up can lead to many heart issues, many of which could result in death.