Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Fat Acceptance Movement
Replies
-
jofjltncb6 wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »ArmyofAdrian wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »ArmyofAdrian wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »ArmyofAdrian wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »ArmyofAdrian wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »ArmyofAdrian wrote: »ArmyofAdrian wrote: »ArmyofAdrian wrote: »ArmyofAdrian wrote: »ArmyofAdrian wrote: »I don't know what definition of obesity you are using, but we're going to have to agree to disagree. I'm going with the CDC's definition of obesity: "Weight that is higher than what is considered as a healthy weight for a given height is described as overweight or obese. " A weight that is higher than what is healthy would be unhealthy.
Also, the AMA, The World Health Organization, Food and Drug Administration (FDA), National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists each recognize obesity as a disease. A disease is included in the set of things that are unhealthy.
Of course, the line between healthy and unhealthy is uniform for a height regardless of any other factors? That seems very, very arbitrary to me. The BMI definition of obesity is population-statistical. It's uninformative for any individual.
How can it be arbitrary when it's based on statistical analysis? Anyway, quibbling over the diagnostic criteria doesn't change the plain fact that obesity is unhealthy.
For several reasons. One, BMI does not include sufficient variables to adequately be more than an estimation for an individual. Two, BMI does not adequately cover sufficient populations to really develop an all-inclusive model with the variables it does include (i.e. the model doesn't fit well for Asians as an example). It also does not fit the very short or the very tall. Three, how exactly were cut-offs picked? They have some basis in risk analysis, but what level of risk is considered unacceptable is basically arbitrary.
Basing a criterion on its statistical significance using huge data sets is not at all "arbitrary".
Deciding that a 20.1% risk* is unacceptable whereas a 20% risk* is acceptable is arbitrary. There is no standard for when health risk crosses from 'acceptable' to not.
Also, when dealing with global population and physiological diversity, I'd hardly consider the sampling used to generate the BMI model as 'huge'.
*Not actual numbers, used only as an example.
You arbitrarily pull numbers out of the air then pretend those arbitrary numbers somehow refute the actual statistical analysis??
Totally missed the point, didn't you?
Okay Rob, I'll ignore the AMA, CDC, NIH, and WHO since they didn't clear their statistical methods with you first and because they can't guarantee absolute 100% predictably of outcomes based on risk factors.
Which of these organizations compell you to hold overweight people in contempt?
I need direct quotes on this one.
The funny thing is I don't disagree that obesity increases health risks. But that isn't really what's being debated here.
it is though, isn't it? I mean, no one here is arguing that obese people should be shamed, held in contempt, mocked, etc. The argument is about the inherent increased risks of obesity (and in my opinion, is best contrasted with the same person if they were not obese).
Read all the posts for the person towards which my response was directed.
If the argument was about the inherent risks of obesity the argument would be over.
There are plenty of people on this thread downplaying or outright denying that obesity is unhealthy. Heck that's the entire point of "fat acceptance" and "healthy at any size"; they're trying to sugar coat the issue and ignore the elephant in the room.
I don't believe so. The argument you were responding to was that a cutoff of 25 BMI (or some such) as the line between "healthy" and not is rather arbitrary on an individual basis.
I tend to think that most of the disagreement in this thread is due to people reading things into terms that others don't mean by them. Almost unanimously people have said that denying that obesity is unhealthy is a mistake, and denying that weight loss is a positive goal when one is obese is a bad thing -- those corners of HAES and fat acceptance that say otherwise haven't gotten any support that I've seen.
I don't see the "entire point" of fat acceptance or HAES as saying obesity is not unhealthy. As I (and others) stated above, accepting ourselves while still fat (working on the self-hatred issues) helped us take control and lose weight. And I see a positive element of HAES that even while you are fat you can improve healthfulness by getting out there and getting active. And again, for me, focusing on what I was doing as about "getting fit and being as healthy as I could" was less scary than the idea of trying to lose weight and failing, as I knew I could control what I ate and my exercise choices. And, of course, I also lost weight -- typically focusing on getting fit and healthy will result in weight loss.
Please look up the word "arbitrary", then look at the statistical analysis behind the diagnostic criteria used to diagnose obesity. The criteria is anything but "arbitrary". The fact that it cannot single-handedly predict outcomes with absolute certainty does not make it "arbitrary".
These attempts to "spin" obesity guidelines as arbitrary is another example of the denial you claim isn't happening.
If people truly acknowledge that obesity is unhealthy then accepting their own obesity seems bizarre. If they are trying to lose weight, then they can't accurately say they've accepted being fat. They can't have their cake and eat it too.
For individuals, BMI is arbitrary. BMI is used to assess populations on a large scale. You can't use BMI to determine if an individual is healthy, or even if an individual is overfat.
I have always been a "normal" BMI, but at my highest weight, I had a high enough body fat % to be considered obese. According to your argument, I was healthy. Reality is that, had I not lost weight, I would have stayed at higher risk for obesity-related health problems. On the flip side, there's tall or muscular people who get classified as overweight because BMI goes off height and weight alone, not accounting for fat %. Fat % is a much more accurate way of establishing risk in individuals, but according to your BMI-is-not-arbitrary stance, these lean-but-heavy individuals are unhealthy.
ETA: Definition of arbitrary
MATHEMATICS
(of a constant or other quantity) of unspecified value.
The reason people keep calling BMI arbitrary is that while, yes, BMI has specified values, not everyone who falls into those categories actually ARE what the value specifies. A person with a BMI of 25 will not, by other quantifiable standards such as body fat %, be overweight (overfat and therefore unhealthy) every single time.
Spin spin spin.
I could have lived in denial about the status of my health by saying I was at a healthy BMI and therefore healthy. Or I could use a tool more applicable for individuals instead of mass population, realize my body fat % was too high, and fix it. Yep, all spin there.
BMI is not the best tool for assessing risk on an individual scale. That does not mean obesity is a good state for people to be in, or that anyone here is encouraging people to be obese. That does not mean that the morbidly obese people trying to throw BMI out the window by claiming they're "big-boned" are in any way justified. It just means BMI is not always going to be an accurate indicator of a person's health or body composition. And there are probably a lot more people out there thinking they're healthy when they're actually at risk, especially if that's compounded with other lifestyle risk factors.
BMI guidelines are just that: Guidelines. No one anywhere claimed BMI guidelines are the sole tool necessary to make a determination about overall health. That's a straw-man argument. None of this makes BMI guidelines "arbitrary".
No, but many insurance companies in the US are talking about using BMI as a way to regulate how much your premiums are (if you're overweight or obese, you'll have higher premiums because you are associated with a higher burden of cost for health care expenses). As can be expected, a lot of people have problems with that.
My insurance company warned us that in a year we'd be screened for 5 metrics. And then at 6 months allowed us to take a test run. And then at that one year mark, screened everyone. Those who failed on two or more metrics paid higher premiums. As I recall, the metrics included smoking, waist size, blood pressure, and two others that elude me.
The point being that insurance should be for the unexpected, i.e. those things outside our control. We, the consumer, the insured, should be responsible for those things within our control. And if we're not willing to be, then we ought to pay some price, i.e. have some skin in the game, instead of wantonly pawning off our foreseeable costs on someone else.
Um, fine?
But BMI is not accurate FOR SOME. In general, most people fall under the bell curve for which it is applicable, but when you make it a hard and fast rule for defining coverage, then it does become a problem for those few outliers.
BMI is in fact pretty generous. Most Americans are not Greeks God and Goddesses or Olympic class athletes and it is *not* muscle mass that drives them towards the higher ends of the scale.
Where there are real exceptions, provisions are in place to accommodate them. This is a false argument.
Knowledge of BMI is not enough to be making judgments about a specific individual. It's a very simplistic calculation and while its fine to use for a population because one can assume a normalized distribution, it shouldn't be used for insurance calculations. I've already had one friend who was forced to lose 20 pounds of muscle mass so he could save money on his life insurance premiums. I'm not looking forward to the possiblity of being rated myself for health insurance.
The creator of the concept of BMI said that it was ONLY useful to measure population trends and was NOT an acceptable measure to diagnose individuals.
And the creators of Viagra originally said it was only to treat HBP and angina.
Except its use for ED was found to be appropriate whereas using BMI for health insurance will punish individuals for building lean muscle mass.
Which is why these programs keep adding exceptions to their (originally flawed) application of it...(something I've experienced as an "overweight" individual with BF% in the teens. /humblebrag)
But we digress. The question is, is someone who is obese healthier than that same person if they were not obese (all else being equal)?
Agree with you on your first paragraph.
As for your second paragraph. BMI treats muscle mass and fat the same, therefore the answer is "it depends." But, lean and muscular "obese" people aren't all that common, are not representative of the types of people that carry the risks of "obesity," or what Fat Acceptance is about. This conversation on insurance is a bit of a tangent.3 -
ReaderGirl3 wrote: »My husband is 6ft tall and around 190lbs, so just above the normal bmi range. His dad is thin and also has high cholesterol and high bp. Husband's grandfather on his father's side was thin and had heart disease/bypass surgery. My husband did lose a few pounds when this first rolled out (the fines for bmi/blood work then got postponed-they ended up targeting the smokers first). When my husband lost the weight his cholesterol numbers didn't improve (his bmi score did though). So when the next phase starts we'll be penalized for having a medical conditions outside of my husband's control. It sucks but I understand why they're doing it.
As an aside, I had EXACTLY the same experience as your husband. I lost a lot of weight (1/3rd body mass) but my cholesterol went up.
I found that in my case it wasn't how much I was eating, but what I was eating which made the difference. Some folks have great success with LCHF, but I went the other way to whole-food plant-based and had great success, after realizing that I was eating quite a lot of animal fat. My LDL went from 202 to 115. I did it as an experiment for a month to see what would happen to my numbers, but clearly after such an outcome, I still eat this way.
Anyway, back on topic... Sorry for the disruption but couldn't just leave it.3 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Yeah BMI is pretty much useless. I'm at the lower end of over weight according to BMI and I am 6'0", 33 inch waist, and washboard abs.
It is not a good indicator for someone in your situation. For around 85-90% of the population that doesn't know what a weight looks like it's pretty decent.
It is a decent "screener". But it sometimes misses on both sides. It incorrectly identifies some people as obese and overweight; and it misses people who have more body fat than their BMI suggests. In a recent study looking at people >=30 BMI. 95% were obese according to body fat measures. The bigger problem was that there was a large % of people below 30 BMI who were obese by the other measure.0 -
Many people who are young and obese and claim to be healthy don't understand that the risks posed by obesity compound over time. Someone who is 20 years old can probably get by being obese without major health problems, but that same person who has maintained or increased their body weight over their mid to late adult life is at significantly higher risk for cardiovascular disease, some forms of cancer, diabetes, and a multitude of other potentially fatal health problems than someone who has maintained a healthy weight and lifestyle for many years. This is a very well studied fact, one that can't be discounted because one or two individuals are "perfectly healthy" at a high BMI.4
-
dopeysmelly wrote: »ReaderGirl3 wrote: »My husband is 6ft tall and around 190lbs, so just above the normal bmi range. His dad is thin and also has high cholesterol and high bp. Husband's grandfather on his father's side was thin and had heart disease/bypass surgery. My husband did lose a few pounds when this first rolled out (the fines for bmi/blood work then got postponed-they ended up targeting the smokers first). When my husband lost the weight his cholesterol numbers didn't improve (his bmi score did though). So when the next phase starts we'll be penalized for having a medical conditions outside of my husband's control. It sucks but I understand why they're doing it.
As an aside, I had EXACTLY the same experience as your husband. I lost a lot of weight (1/3rd body mass) but my cholesterol went up.
I found that in my case it wasn't how much I was eating, but what I was eating which made the difference. Some folks have great success with LCHF, but I went the other way to whole-food plant-based and had great success, after realizing that I was eating quite a lot of animal fat. My LDL went from 202 to 115. I did it as an experiment for a month to see what would happen to my numbers, but clearly after such an outcome, I still eat this way.
Anyway, back on topic... Sorry for the disruption but couldn't just leave it.
I appreciate the response and pm
1 -
ArmyofAdrian wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »ArmyofAdrian wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »ArmyofAdrian wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »ArmyofAdrian wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »ArmyofAdrian wrote: »ArmyofAdrian wrote: »ArmyofAdrian wrote: »ArmyofAdrian wrote: »ArmyofAdrian wrote: »I don't know what definition of obesity you are using, but we're going to have to agree to disagree. I'm going with the CDC's definition of obesity: "Weight that is higher than what is considered as a healthy weight for a given height is described as overweight or obese. " A weight that is higher than what is healthy would be unhealthy.
Also, the AMA, The World Health Organization, Food and Drug Administration (FDA), National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists each recognize obesity as a disease. A disease is included in the set of things that are unhealthy.
Of course, the line between healthy and unhealthy is uniform for a height regardless of any other factors? That seems very, very arbitrary to me. The BMI definition of obesity is population-statistical. It's uninformative for any individual.
How can it be arbitrary when it's based on statistical analysis? Anyway, quibbling over the diagnostic criteria doesn't change the plain fact that obesity is unhealthy.
For several reasons. One, BMI does not include sufficient variables to adequately be more than an estimation for an individual. Two, BMI does not adequately cover sufficient populations to really develop an all-inclusive model with the variables it does include (i.e. the model doesn't fit well for Asians as an example). It also does not fit the very short or the very tall. Three, how exactly were cut-offs picked? They have some basis in risk analysis, but what level of risk is considered unacceptable is basically arbitrary.
Basing a criterion on its statistical significance using huge data sets is not at all "arbitrary".
Deciding that a 20.1% risk* is unacceptable whereas a 20% risk* is acceptable is arbitrary. There is no standard for when health risk crosses from 'acceptable' to not.
Also, when dealing with global population and physiological diversity, I'd hardly consider the sampling used to generate the BMI model as 'huge'.
*Not actual numbers, used only as an example.
You arbitrarily pull numbers out of the air then pretend those arbitrary numbers somehow refute the actual statistical analysis??
Totally missed the point, didn't you?
Okay Rob, I'll ignore the AMA, CDC, NIH, and WHO since they didn't clear their statistical methods with you first and because they can't guarantee absolute 100% predictably of outcomes based on risk factors.
Which of these organizations compell you to hold overweight people in contempt?
I need direct quotes on this one.
The funny thing is I don't disagree that obesity increases health risks. But that isn't really what's being debated here.
it is though, isn't it? I mean, no one here is arguing that obese people should be shamed, held in contempt, mocked, etc. The argument is about the inherent increased risks of obesity (and in my opinion, is best contrasted with the same person if they were not obese).
Read all the posts for the person towards which my response was directed.
If the argument was about the inherent risks of obesity the argument would be over.
There are plenty of people on this thread downplaying or outright denying that obesity is unhealthy. Heck that's the entire point of "fat acceptance" and "healthy at any size"; they're trying to sugar coat the issue and ignore the elephant in the room.
I don't believe so. The argument you were responding to was that a cutoff of 25 BMI (or some such) as the line between "healthy" and not is rather arbitrary on an individual basis.
I tend to think that most of the disagreement in this thread is due to people reading things into terms that others don't mean by them. Almost unanimously people have said that denying that obesity is unhealthy is a mistake, and denying that weight loss is a positive goal when one is obese is a bad thing -- those corners of HAES and fat acceptance that say otherwise haven't gotten any support that I've seen.
I don't see the "entire point" of fat acceptance or HAES as saying obesity is not unhealthy. As I (and others) stated above, accepting ourselves while still fat (working on the self-hatred issues) helped us take control and lose weight. And I see a positive element of HAES that even while you are fat you can improve healthfulness by getting out there and getting active. And again, for me, focusing on what I was doing as about "getting fit and being as healthy as I could" was less scary than the idea of trying to lose weight and failing, as I knew I could control what I ate and my exercise choices. And, of course, I also lost weight -- typically focusing on getting fit and healthy will result in weight loss.
Please look up the word "arbitrary", then look at the statistical analysis behind the diagnostic criteria used to diagnose obesity. The criteria is anything but "arbitrary". The fact that it cannot single-handedly predict outcomes with absolute certainty does not make it "arbitrary".
These attempts to "spin" obesity guidelines as arbitrary is another example of the denial you claim isn't happening.
If people truly acknowledge that obesity is unhealthy then accepting their own obesity seems bizarre. If they are trying to lose weight, then they can't accurately say they've accepted being fat. They can't have their cake and eat it too.
For individuals, BMI is arbitrary. BMI is used to assess populations on a large scale. You can't use BMI to determine if an individual is healthy, or even if an individual is overfat.
I have always been a "normal" BMI, but at my highest weight, I had a high enough body fat % to be considered obese. According to your argument, I was healthy. Reality is that, had I not lost weight, I would have stayed at higher risk for obesity-related health problems. On the flip side, there's tall or muscular people who get classified as overweight because BMI goes off height and weight alone, not accounting for fat %. Fat % is a much more accurate way of establishing risk in individuals, but according to your BMI-is-not-arbitrary stance, these lean-but-heavy individuals are unhealthy.
ETA: Definition of arbitrary
MATHEMATICS
(of a constant or other quantity) of unspecified value.
The reason people keep calling BMI arbitrary is that while, yes, BMI has specified values, not everyone who falls into those categories actually ARE what the value specifies. A person with a BMI of 25 will not, by other quantifiable standards such as body fat %, be overweight (overfat and therefore unhealthy) every single time.
Spin spin spin.
I could have lived in denial about the status of my health by saying I was at a healthy BMI and therefore healthy. Or I could use a tool more applicable for individuals instead of mass population, realize my body fat % was too high, and fix it. Yep, all spin there.
BMI is not the best tool for assessing risk on an individual scale. That does not mean obesity is a good state for people to be in, or that anyone here is encouraging people to be obese. That does not mean that the morbidly obese people trying to throw BMI out the window by claiming they're "big-boned" are in any way justified. It just means BMI is not always going to be an accurate indicator of a person's health or body composition. And there are probably a lot more people out there thinking they're healthy when they're actually at risk, especially if that's compounded with other lifestyle risk factors.
BMI guidelines are just that: Guidelines. No one anywhere claimed BMI guidelines are the sole tool necessary to make a determination about overall health. That's a straw-man argument. None of this makes BMI guidelines "arbitrary".
No, but many insurance companies in the US are talking about using BMI as a way to regulate how much your premiums are (if you're overweight or obese, you'll have higher premiums because you are associated with a higher burden of cost for health care expenses). As can be expected, a lot of people have problems with that.
Insurance companies should use the BMI in order to quantify risk, as that is exactly what the tool was designed to do. The reason why people have problems with it is the same reason why smokers were galled at seeing their premiums increase if they continued smoking.8 -
SapiensPisces wrote: »Many people who are young and obese and claim to be healthy don't understand that the risks posed by obesity compound over time.
I find it hard to believe that anyone is really ignorant of this. It's extremely well-known and talked about constantly. I never had any health issues related to being obese -- good tests and all that (I also wasn't obese all that long and was reasonably active at least part of the time). Despite that, of course I knew it was a health risk, and that was one of the reasons I wanted to lose weight (although not my primary motivator).0 -
You know, if people just minded their own damn business, there would be no need for these types of groups.5
-
I see this the way I see the pro-smokers' movement (yes, they exist).
I don't shame my loved ones who smoke, don't mind if they smoke around me but that doesn't mean I condone the lifestyle. Similarly, they know how bad smoking is but they don't try to promote it positively and create a culture around it.4 -
You can't be Healthy At Every Size. Both ends of the spectrum are terrible for the body and mind.
I am so very glad that BS wasn't around when I was younger. I was a fat kid (70's fat kid, not today's fat kid) and was shamed for it. As an adult, I am very happy that I was fat shamed. I would have totally fallen for some fat acceptance crap telling me being fat was okay.
There are worse things than being fat, but for the most part how much excess fat we carry is totally under our control. There is something very liberating about this knowledge. I control my fat, it does not control me.
Well I think while fat shaming works for some people but it certainly didn't work for me. I was put down badly by family members and school mates when I was a kid to a point where my self steam was non existent. I grew up hating myself for being "fat" because being fat was "ugly" and no one could love a fat woman. And it only created an eating disorder that got me gaining even more weight. In a effort to lose the weight I would starve myself all day and just eat one unhealthy meal at night and then when I got tired of doing that I would stuffed my face with everything I could find and then I would feel guilty and start over starving myself again... that lasted all of my teens until I was 23 looked at a picture and accepted myself for who I was and realized that I needed to make a change.
I still struggle with self image sometimes, I also gained the weight I had lost but working towards losing it again. But I've learned that accepting and loving ourselves the way we are is the first step to changing in the right direction.4 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »SapiensPisces wrote: »Many people who are young and obese and claim to be healthy don't understand that the risks posed by obesity compound over time.
I find it hard to believe that anyone is really ignorant of this. It's extremely well-known and talked about constantly. I never had any health issues related to being obese -- good tests and all that (I also wasn't obese all that long and was reasonably active at least part of the time). Despite that, of course I knew it was a health risk, and that was one of the reasons I wanted to lose weight (although not my primary motivator).
I've seen that argument presented many times by proponents of HAAS movement. It's not that uncommon, even though, I think, many people acknowledge, as you did, that long-term obesity does pose significant risk. Most of the those arguing that they are "perfectly healthy" being obese use "normal" blood panel tests to justify it.1 -
rankinsect wrote: »Well, I think some level of fat acceptance is necessary, in that if you are mired in depression and self-loathing, weight loss is far, far harder, because a key feature of depression is to lack the ability to imagine how things could be different. Depression itself is the worst kind of sabotage to any self-improvement.
That said, of course it's better to lose the weight - but for many of us, loving ourselves as we are goes hand in hand with being able to lose the weight; I don't see the two ideas in opposition. I was never successful at losing weight before I stopped hating myself for being obese.
Absolutely agree with you. I was in the same place as well. I had to love myself, truly love myself before I could see what I needed to do.3 -
As an adult, I am very happy that I was fat shamed. I would have totally fallen for some fat acceptance crap telling me being fat was okay.
While this worked well for you, it does the exact opposite for a majority of "fat" people. The consensus is that fat shaming tends to make people feel hopeless and just give up instead of inspiring them to change.
I'm glad that you got healthy though! It's a tremendous accomplishment.
3 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »SapiensPisces wrote: »Many people who are young and obese and claim to be healthy don't understand that the risks posed by obesity compound over time.
I find it hard to believe that anyone is really ignorant of this. It's extremely well-known and talked about constantly. I never had any health issues related to being obese -- good tests and all that (I also wasn't obese all that long and was reasonably active at least part of the time). Despite that, of course I knew it was a health risk, and that was one of the reasons I wanted to lose weight (although not my primary motivator).
I don't think it's ignorance. It's more that some young people don't or can't see the future. They feel invincible. Sort of like how some kids take crazy risks. They think nothing bad will ever happen to them.
When I was younger and dieted, it was directly related to how I looked. I didn't consider healthy vs unhealthy. It was all vanity. While I do want to look better now, I am much more concerned about the health factors related to being overweight.
When I was younger, I felt fine no matter what I weighed. I definitely feel the physical effects of being overweight now. I think that's because I am older.4 -
ReaderGirl3 wrote: »My husband is 6ft tall and around 190lbs, so just above the normal bmi range. His dad is thin and also has high cholesterol and high bp. Husband's grandfather on his father's side was thin and had heart disease/bypass surgery. My husband did lose a few pounds when this first rolled out (the fines for bmi/blood work then got postponed-they ended up targeting the smokers first). When my husband lost the weight his cholesterol numbers didn't improve (his bmi score did though). So when the next phase starts we'll be penalized for having a medical conditions outside of my husband's control. It sucks but I understand why they're doing it.
From what I understand, and please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but some people are predisposed to high cholesterol and/or high blood pressure genetically, and that effect doesn't seem to correlate with weight for those individuals.1 -
SapiensPisces wrote: »ReaderGirl3 wrote: »My husband is 6ft tall and around 190lbs, so just above the normal bmi range. His dad is thin and also has high cholesterol and high bp. Husband's grandfather on his father's side was thin and had heart disease/bypass surgery. My husband did lose a few pounds when this first rolled out (the fines for bmi/blood work then got postponed-they ended up targeting the smokers first). When my husband lost the weight his cholesterol numbers didn't improve (his bmi score did though). So when the next phase starts we'll be penalized for having a medical conditions outside of my husband's control. It sucks but I understand why they're doing it.
From what I understand, and please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but some people are predisposed to high cholesterol and/or high blood pressure genetically, and that effect doesn't seem to correlate with weight for those individuals.
Yeah. That was me, but I fixed it through diet. So weight had no effect, but diet did. In my case.2 -
SapiensPisces wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »SapiensPisces wrote: »Many people who are young and obese and claim to be healthy don't understand that the risks posed by obesity compound over time.
I find it hard to believe that anyone is really ignorant of this. It's extremely well-known and talked about constantly. I never had any health issues related to being obese -- good tests and all that (I also wasn't obese all that long and was reasonably active at least part of the time). Despite that, of course I knew it was a health risk, and that was one of the reasons I wanted to lose weight (although not my primary motivator).
I've seen that argument presented many times by proponents of HAAS movement. It's not that uncommon, even though, I think, many people acknowledge, as you did, that long-term obesity does pose significant risk. Most of the those arguing that they are "perfectly healthy" being obese use "normal" blood panel tests to justify it.
Maybe it can be broken up into groups.
The general public knows obesity is unhealthy -- it's conventional wisdom and talked about a lot, as I said.
Some activists are trying to challenge that conventional wisdom (I would include HAES people in that, although I think they are a lot more marginal in their influence than is sometimes assumed on MFP -- I doubt most people I know have heard of them, and I didn't pre MFP). In addition to HAES, there are others, like Paul Campos (who I did read sometimes pre MFP, although I disagree with him on this (especially about the Let's Move campaign) and his arguments always seemed to attract much more opposition than support (see, e.g., http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2009/07/americas-moral-panic-over-obesity/22397/ and http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2011/03/helpful-oppressors).
As I said above, I really disagree with certain aspects of HAES/FA, in particular the way a portion of the moment seems to think people should not try to lose weight and also what I see as the defeatist idea that it's not possible. That said, I think it's a bit more nuanced than sometimes presented here.
Good things I see about HAES (including their website, which I just looked at for the first time): weight loss can be hard and if you are struggling with it turning attention from weight to other ways to improve your health (like getting active and eating better) are ways to take positive steps and minimize the damage from being fat. (Personally, I think this is more true if someone is only overweight or slightly obese vs. morbidly obese, but I also think anyone who honestly makes these changes when morbidly obese will of course lose weight and that for many people who get to be morbidly obese weight loss is very hard and not necessarily possible in the moment because there are mental issues wrapped up in it. Taking the focus from weight and self hatred to improving health through some positive choices could help. Obviously some other more negative aspects of the movement probably do not, but I don't think those have any cultural influence on the general public.
Assertions made by HAES that I don't agree with but that I don't think are necessarily negative include:
The idea that intuitive eating is something we should aspire to and could do if we weren't messed up about food due to years of worrying about weight/dieting.
The idea that you will naturally lose weight when less focused on dieting.
The idea that societal obsession with weight led to the obesity issue.
These may well have played a role for individuals, but I doubt they are significant in why the US is so fat (and they played no role for me). But for individuals they could help.
Okay, my overthinking of this is over for the moment! ;-)2 -
SapiensPisces wrote: »ReaderGirl3 wrote: »My husband is 6ft tall and around 190lbs, so just above the normal bmi range. His dad is thin and also has high cholesterol and high bp. Husband's grandfather on his father's side was thin and had heart disease/bypass surgery. My husband did lose a few pounds when this first rolled out (the fines for bmi/blood work then got postponed-they ended up targeting the smokers first). When my husband lost the weight his cholesterol numbers didn't improve (his bmi score did though). So when the next phase starts we'll be penalized for having a medical conditions outside of my husband's control. It sucks but I understand why they're doing it.
From what I understand, and please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but some people are predisposed to high cholesterol and/or high blood pressure genetically, and that effect doesn't seem to correlate with weight for those individuals.
This is the internet; everything everyone says is wrong including the statement I'm making right now. 5 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »SapiensPisces wrote: »Many people who are young and obese and claim to be healthy don't understand that the risks posed by obesity compound over time.
I find it hard to believe that anyone is really ignorant of this. It's extremely well-known and talked about constantly. I never had any health issues related to being obese -- good tests and all that (I also wasn't obese all that long and was reasonably active at least part of the time). Despite that, of course I knew it was a health risk, and that was one of the reasons I wanted to lose weight (although not my primary motivator).
I don't think it's ignorance. It's more that some young people don't or can't see the future. They feel invincible. Sort of like how some kids take crazy risks. They think nothing bad will ever happen to them.
When I was younger and dieted, it was directly related to how I looked. I didn't consider healthy vs unhealthy. It was all vanity. While I do want to look better now, I am much more concerned about the health factors related to being overweight.
When I was younger, I felt fine no matter what I weighed. I definitely feel the physical effects of being overweight now. I think that's because I am older.
Oh, I totally agree with this, but I don't think it has anything to do with not getting that obesity is risky (any more than they take other risks because they don't see them as risky -- I did tons of stupid things as a young person even though I knew they were objectively risks). I think it has to do--as you say--with feeling invincible or just not thinking through how it applies to you or feeling like there's always going to be more time.
All I'm arguing is that I don't think we have to worry that people won't understand that there are health costs to being fat. They may not act accordingly (just as people choose to make other choices not great for their health), but not because they are misled by HAES or the like into thinking that obesity is good for us.
IMO, anyone who buys into the HAES line on that (which I think is more nuanced in reality, as I explained above) is seeking a justification. The societal message seems pretty clear to me that obesity is unhealthy (and undesirable in numerous ways). Maybe I just live in vastly different social circles, but I don't understand this fear that people will think it's not better to be normal weight/thin than fat. I cannot imagine anyone getting that message (and mostly not because of health, although that's part of it).1 -
delete0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »All I'm arguing is that I don't think we have to worry that people won't understand that there are health costs to being fat. They may not act accordingly (just as people choose to make other choices not great for their health), but not because they are misled by HAES or the like into thinking that obesity is good for us.
IMO, anyone who buys into the HAES line on that (which I think is more nuanced in reality, as I explained above) is seeking a justification. The societal message seems pretty clear to me that obesity is unhealthy (and undesirable in numerous ways). Maybe I just live in vastly different social circles, but I don't understand this fear that people will think it's not better to be normal weight/thin than fat. I cannot imagine anyone getting that message (and mostly not because of health, although that's part of it).
I agree that it's a delusional idea, but there are many people who do not understand or grasp the concept of long-term versus short-term risk, and it's not limited to just weight issues. That was my only point. I never claimed that it was a majority of people in the HAES movement who believed this, just that those people exist.
1 -
ArmyofAdrian wrote: »SapiensPisces wrote: »ReaderGirl3 wrote: »My husband is 6ft tall and around 190lbs, so just above the normal bmi range. His dad is thin and also has high cholesterol and high bp. Husband's grandfather on his father's side was thin and had heart disease/bypass surgery. My husband did lose a few pounds when this first rolled out (the fines for bmi/blood work then got postponed-they ended up targeting the smokers first). When my husband lost the weight his cholesterol numbers didn't improve (his bmi score did though). So when the next phase starts we'll be penalized for having a medical conditions outside of my husband's control. It sucks but I understand why they're doing it.
From what I understand, and please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but some people are predisposed to high cholesterol and/or high blood pressure genetically, and that effect doesn't seem to correlate with weight for those individuals.
This is the internet; everything everyone says is wrong including the statement I'm making right now.
Sincerest apologies for snarky initial reply. I misread this post, which proves your point entirely
2 -
[/quote]
No, but many insurance companies in the US are talking about using BMI as a way to regulate how much your premiums are (if you're overweight or obese, you'll have higher premiums because you are associated with a higher burden of cost for health care expenses). As can be expected, a lot of people have problems with that. [/quote]
Insurance companies should use the BMI in order to quantify risk, as that is exactly what the tool was designed to do. The reason why people have problems with it is the same reason why smokers were galled at seeing their premiums increase if they continued smoking.[/quote]
I wanted to commit on this first then hope to make an on topic commit about FA. I work for a Hospital and next year they are going to base our premiums by health risk. The problem I have with them using BMI is - I lift weights and have an above average muscle mass. So at my goal weight of 180 and 12% BF, I will be considered "overweight" using the BMI scale. That's not fair to people like me. I think BF% would be a more accurate measurement to use. - my $.02
On the FA - (I wrote a book and just deleted it)
after typing it all out it didn't matter. Love yourself and be realistic about your health - don't shame those that are skinnier or fatter than you. 2 -
SapiensPisces wrote: »ArmyofAdrian wrote: »SapiensPisces wrote: »ReaderGirl3 wrote: »My husband is 6ft tall and around 190lbs, so just above the normal bmi range. His dad is thin and also has high cholesterol and high bp. Husband's grandfather on his father's side was thin and had heart disease/bypass surgery. My husband did lose a few pounds when this first rolled out (the fines for bmi/blood work then got postponed-they ended up targeting the smokers first). When my husband lost the weight his cholesterol numbers didn't improve (his bmi score did though). So when the next phase starts we'll be penalized for having a medical conditions outside of my husband's control. It sucks but I understand why they're doing it.
From what I understand, and please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but some people are predisposed to high cholesterol and/or high blood pressure genetically, and that effect doesn't seem to correlate with weight for those individuals.
This is the internet; everything everyone says is wrong including the statement I'm making right now.
Sincerest apologies for snarky initial reply. I misread this post, which proves your point entirely
No worries I didn't even see it.1 -
ArmyofAdrian wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »ArmyofAdrian wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »ArmyofAdrian wrote: »ArmyofAdrian wrote: »ArmyofAdrian wrote: »ArmyofAdrian wrote: »ArmyofAdrian wrote: »I don't know what definition of obesity you are using, but we're going to have to agree to disagree. I'm going with the CDC's definition of obesity: "Weight that is higher than what is considered as a healthy weight for a given height is described as overweight or obese. " A weight that is higher than what is healthy would be unhealthy.
Also, the AMA, The World Health Organization, Food and Drug Administration (FDA), National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists each recognize obesity as a disease. A disease is included in the set of things that are unhealthy.
Of course, the line between healthy and unhealthy is uniform for a height regardless of any other factors? That seems very, very arbitrary to me. The BMI definition of obesity is population-statistical. It's uninformative for any individual.
How can it be arbitrary when it's based on statistical analysis? Anyway, quibbling over the diagnostic criteria doesn't change the plain fact that obesity is unhealthy.
For several reasons. One, BMI does not include sufficient variables to adequately be more than an estimation for an individual. Two, BMI does not adequately cover sufficient populations to really develop an all-inclusive model with the variables it does include (i.e. the model doesn't fit well for Asians as an example). It also does not fit the very short or the very tall. Three, how exactly were cut-offs picked? They have some basis in risk analysis, but what level of risk is considered unacceptable is basically arbitrary.
Basing a criterion on its statistical significance using huge data sets is not at all "arbitrary".
Deciding that a 20.1% risk* is unacceptable whereas a 20% risk* is acceptable is arbitrary. There is no standard for when health risk crosses from 'acceptable' to not.
Also, when dealing with global population and physiological diversity, I'd hardly consider the sampling used to generate the BMI model as 'huge'.
*Not actual numbers, used only as an example.
You arbitrarily pull numbers out of the air then pretend those arbitrary numbers somehow refute the actual statistical analysis??
Totally missed the point, didn't you?
Okay Rob, I'll ignore the AMA, CDC, NIH, and WHO since they didn't clear their statistical methods with you first and because they can't guarantee absolute 100% predictably of outcomes based on risk factors.
Which of these organizations compell you to hold overweight people in contempt?
I need direct quotes on this one.
The funny thing is I don't disagree that obesity increases health risks. But that isn't really what's being debated here.
it is though, isn't it? I mean, no one here is arguing that obese people should be shamed, held in contempt, mocked, etc. The argument is about the inherent increased risks of obesity (and in my opinion, is best contrasted with the same person if they were not obese).
Read all the posts for the person towards which my response was directed.
If the argument was about the inherent risks of obesity the argument would be over.
There are plenty of people on this thread downplaying or outright denying that obesity is unhealthy. Heck that's the entire point of "fat acceptance" and "healthy at any size"; they're trying to sugar coat the issue and ignore the elephant in the room.
I don't believe so. The argument you were responding to was that a cutoff of 25 BMI (or some such) as the line between "healthy" and not is rather arbitrary on an individual basis.
I tend to think that most of the disagreement in this thread is due to people reading things into terms that others don't mean by them. Almost unanimously people have said that denying that obesity is unhealthy is a mistake, and denying that weight loss is a positive goal when one is obese is a bad thing -- those corners of HAES and fat acceptance that say otherwise haven't gotten any support that I've seen.
I don't see the "entire point" of fat acceptance or HAES as saying obesity is not unhealthy. As I (and others) stated above, accepting ourselves while still fat (working on the self-hatred issues) helped us take control and lose weight. And I see a positive element of HAES that even while you are fat you can improve healthfulness by getting out there and getting active. And again, for me, focusing on what I was doing as about "getting fit and being as healthy as I could" was less scary than the idea of trying to lose weight and failing, as I knew I could control what I ate and my exercise choices. And, of course, I also lost weight -- typically focusing on getting fit and healthy will result in weight loss.
Please look up the word "arbitrary", then look at the statistical analysis behind the diagnostic criteria used to diagnose obesity. The criteria is anything but "arbitrary". The fact that it cannot single-handedly predict outcomes with absolute certainty does not make it "arbitrary".
These attempts to spin obesity guidelines as "arbitrary" is another example of the denial you claim isn't happening.
If people truly acknowledge that obesity is unhealthy then accepting their own obesity seems bizarre. If they are trying to lose weight, then they can't accurately say they've accepted being fat. They can't have their cake and eat it too.
Sorry for the long absence, had some fun emergencies at work.
That was not my point.
The statistical analysis determined risk factors at each BMI. The statistics did not set the thresholds. A committee did, based on what seemed reasonable. Arbitrary, since they have no rationale for X% vs (X + 1)% vs (X - 1)%. The only way that kind of decision is not arbitrary is to pick points which already have the rationale built-in: 0% and 100%
Had there been something like a cost-benefit analysis for health care like an insurance company might do in order to determine how to set their policy costs for individuals, then it would not have been arbitrary (may not have been any more useful, either). But there was no such analysis.
There have been analyses with the goal of determining the proper placement of those thresholds since then, but those results are not official policy and not what is being discussed.
ETA: Saying the guidelines are arbitrary isn't denying that obesity is a problem, or that the farther above normal weight one is, the more likely they are to have health problems. It is saying that the current guidelines aren't the end-all, be-all definition.
In my case, the overweight and obese guidelines probably should be lower. I'm short enough that they are are likely artificially high.1 -
No, but many insurance companies in the US are talking about using BMI as a way to regulate how much your premiums are (if you're overweight or obese, you'll have higher premiums because you are associated with a higher burden of cost for health care expenses). As can be expected, a lot of people have problems with that. [/quote]one1fast68 wrote: »
Insurance companies should use the BMI in order to quantify risk, as that is exactly what the tool was designed to do. The reason why people have problems with it is the same reason why smokers were galled at seeing their premiums increase if they continued smoking.[/quote]
I wanted to commit on this first then hope to make an on topic commit about FA. I work for a Hospital and next year they are going to base our premiums by health risk. The problem I have with them using BMI is - I lift weights and have an above average muscle mass. So at my goal weight of 180 and 12% BF, I will be considered "overweight" using the BMI scale. That's not fair to people like me. I think BF% would be a more accurate measurement to use. - my $.02
On the FA - (I wrote a book and just deleted it) after typing it all out it didn't matter. Love yourself and be realistic about your health - don't shame those that are skinnier or fatter than you. [/quote]
Yep. I'm actually fat and have an overweight BMI, but I have a large frame and will be quite thin to get to a normal BMI. If I add much muscle at all, I'm right back into the overweight category.0 -
SapiensPisces wrote: »ReaderGirl3 wrote: »My husband is 6ft tall and around 190lbs, so just above the normal bmi range. His dad is thin and also has high cholesterol and high bp. Husband's grandfather on his father's side was thin and had heart disease/bypass surgery. My husband did lose a few pounds when this first rolled out (the fines for bmi/blood work then got postponed-they ended up targeting the smokers first). When my husband lost the weight his cholesterol numbers didn't improve (his bmi score did though). So when the next phase starts we'll be penalized for having a medical conditions outside of my husband's control. It sucks but I understand why they're doing it.
From what I understand, and please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but some people are predisposed to high cholesterol and/or high blood pressure genetically, and that effect doesn't seem to correlate with weight for those individuals.
Yes, husband's doctor thinks it's a genetic issue. I forgot to mention in my other post that his mom also has higher cholesterol numbers, and she's the healthiest person I know! We had lunch together yesterday and she had just come from the doctor. Her bmi is 19, she exercises daily, she eats a mostly whole foods diet (we ate at Applebee's and she had a plain chicken breast, side of broccoli and drank tea. This is a normal meal for her). But her total cholesterol was something like 250 and LDL/HDL ratios weren't good. Her mom (husband's grandma ), is 80 pounds soaking wet, active and also eats a very 'clean' diet, and she's a prediabetic, has had several strokes, gone through surgery for blocked arteries, has crazy swings in blood pressure and she also has an aneurysm that they can't operate on because of her age /other health issues. Pretty much my husband is screwed genetically
And while it sucks to have to pay higher premiums for him, due to his blood work, I understand why. He's at a higher risk for accruing medical costs than someone who has normal blood panels.
eta: I know my mother-in-law's bmi because we actually ran her numbers through the calculator while we were at Applebee's lol. She had all her doctor paperwork with her and we were going through it all 3 -
lrichardson2360 wrote: »You know, if people just minded their own damn business, there would be no need for these types of groups.
Unfortunately this isn't the old west where when someone got sick they just went out in the field and died. We now have a structure where the costs of obesity aren't totally paid by the individual.9 -
one1fast68 wrote: »coreyreichle wrote: »No, but many insurance companies in the US are talking about using BMI as a way to regulate how much your premiums are (if you're overweight or obese, you'll have higher premiums because you are associated with a higher burden of cost for health care expenses). As can be expected, a lot of people have problems with that.
Insurance companies should use the BMI in order to quantify risk, as that is exactly what the tool was designed to do. The reason why people have problems with it is the same reason why smokers were galled at seeing their premiums increase if they continued smoking.
I wanted to commit on this first then hope to make an on topic commit about FA. I work for a Hospital and next year they are going to base our premiums by health risk. The problem I have with them using BMI is - I lift weights and have an above average muscle mass. So at my goal weight of 180 and 12% BF, I will be considered "overweight" using the BMI scale. That's not fair to people like me. I think BF% would be a more accurate measurement to use. - my $.02
Right, and there should be some sort of appeal process, such as providing your BF%.
1 -
kshama2001 wrote: »No, but many insurance companies in the US are talking about using BMI as a way to regulate how much your premiums are (if you're overweight or obese, you'll have higher premiums because you are associated with a higher burden of cost for health care expenses). As can be expected, a lot of people have problems with that.
Insurance companies should use the BMI in order to quantify risk, as that is exactly what the tool was designed to do. The reason why people have problems with it is the same reason why smokers were galled at seeing their premiums increase if they continued smoking.one1fast68 wrote: »I wanted to commit on this first then hope to make an on topic commit about FA. I work for a Hospital and next year they are going to base our premiums by health risk. The problem I have with them using BMI is - I lift weights and have an above average muscle mass. So at my goal weight of 180 and 12% BF, I will be considered "overweight" using the BMI scale. That's not fair to people like me. I think BF% would be a more accurate measurement to use. - my $.02
Right, and there should be some sort of appeal process, such as providing your BF%.
Agreed.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K 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
- 426 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