Obesity. Are you just lazy and dumb?
Replies
-
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »You make a lot of good points.
I hope you're not saying it's impossible for Margarets to lose weight. It's not. Apologies if you think you'd made that obvious.
I'm sure as a PT you take a different approach to Margaret as to Chad.
Likewise as MFP Community posters, we need to reply to each poster differently depending on the individual's circumstances. A lot of tips and tricks are more appropriate for Margaret than they are for Chad and vice versa.
I feel I must also point out that in my innumerable hours spent in this forum, I can't recall an outright instance of fat-shaming.
I'm not at all saying it's impossible for Margaret or anyone else to succeed.
I'm also not removing the importance of personal responsibility.
Fat shaming doesn't happen often at all on these forums which is quite fortunate and if it did I trust the moderators would handle it as they're pretty good overall here.
Your sides may be steel but you are a big softy man. You care and that shows and that is going to work for a lot of people, but not for everyone. For some its just going to help reinforce their belief that outside forces are to blame for their condition rather than taking steps towards taking ownership and responsibility. I also care, but I don't think I could call myself a softy...I'm rather blunt and I will call someone out for not taking responsibility for their actions. For some that might shut them down and make them feel like withdrawing, for others it may be a wake up call. Is that "fat shaming" if I do so to an obese person who is putting a lot of energy into blaming external factors for their condition but not a lot into doing anything to change that condition? I guess that judgement rests in others but I'd like to think not. I think fat shaming is done by people who want to feel better about themselves not those who want to help. Different people are going to take different approaches to helping and different people are going to respond to different approaches. Your a softy, I'm not. Oh and as a side-note I don't mean "softy" as an insult, please don't read it that way.
Dammit, where were people like you when I was a 13 year old fatty? No, I had to wait until I was 26, and have someone on the internet tell me how disgusting I was before I got the point.
Seriously, the enabling and reaffirmation that I saw when I was a kid, in retrospect, should probably be treated as abuse. Some call it being nice, polite, PC, or what the *kitten* ever. I call it destructive coddling *kitten*, flat out.
Where was I when you were a 13 year old fatty? I was in college, discovering alcohol and being a 19 year old fatty.
lol
Hey...we all have our daemons, that is why we are here right? Mine is a complete and utter inability to multitask. I pick something to prioritize and I kill it while I do so. Then I pick something else. My issue has never been weight loss or strength gains its been maintenance.
Jesus Christ...it's like I'm reading my own posts.0 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Wickglamgirl wrote: »Simply Amazing Post. My old trainer used to say to me if "fat women" cared as much about their bodies as they do about their false nails and manicures, they wouldn't be fat any longer. I informed him that having their nails done - whether you like fake nails or not - was something that they could control. And it made them feel good.
This post really was fabulous - thank-you so much! - Big Hug from Toronto!
They can also control their weight, if they bothered to try. Your point made no sense.
so if they try, they will succeed?
Do you truly believe this?
I believe if anyone prioritizes their health, puts in the time to calorically restrict and exercise then they can lose weight, gain strength and become a healthier version of themselves yes. I don't believe in the special snowflake who can accurately calorie restrict and exercise hard and still not gain strength or lose weight. This isn't a negative viewpoint, its an optimistic one.
What I DON'T do is think that someone who has prioritized something other than their health is automatically wrong. Some people have other things in their life they may deem more important and that is their call.
Correct me if I'm wrong but you are ALSO inherently assuming the ability to adhere to the caloric restriction?
If the person isn't flawed then yes, if they are flawed then they need to address that. Like I said once you say someone IS prioritizing their health and isn't being successful then they are innefectual for some reason and at that point one kind of does have to be critical of them. Being critical isn't the same thing as being mean. At somepoint you need to say to them, hey...you are *kitten* something up...lets look into it and try to figure out what it is.2 -
My apologies if this has been covered already (I read most of the thread, but not terribly carefully)...I think one of the most important takeaways is that you need to consider return on investment when you're talking about introducing health-related changes, and that individual circumstances impact the size of the investment and also the expected return.
Would both Margaret and Chad benefit from incorporating fresh vegetables from a farmer's market? Likely yes. But the investment required to make that change is different for each of them. For Margaret, we're talking about a larger financial and time investment (transportation costs, time away from her kids or childcare, or just the hassle of herding children around a busy place), whereas those costs are probably nominal for Chad. Margaret just isn't going to see the same net positive ROI from implementing that change, so it probably shouldn't be the first thing she implements. For her, she's likely going to see a more significant positive impact from doing things like looking for lower-sodium processed foods, or switching from canned veg to frozen. Similarly with exercise...joining a gym could be a huge investment in money and time for Margaret, whereas taking her kids for a walk is lower-impact and also has some additional positive effects.
Without the additional context surrounding someone's life, there's no way to know which lifestyle changes are going to be too "expensive" for the person to stick with, and there's a danger of creating the impression that health is outside of some people's "budgets."8 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »I think you are a really good guy steel and your smart and your effective and you know your stuff, your clients are lucky to have you. I think your approach is a good one and one that will appeal to a lot of people. I would just disagree with the idea (not even necessarily stated by you) that there is one correct approach and then a bunch of wrong approaches. That you have to stroke people's egos and tell them they are doing great to reach them or you are somehow doing it wrong. Telling someone if they want to accomplish X they need to take responsibility for that and prioritize it by deprioritizing other things in their life is a totally legitimate way to reach some people. Sometimes taking the hardline works.
Agree1 -
You know what a lot of people are missing? The original post was a critique of moral condemnation levied upon overweight individuals.
By getting sidetracked into a discussion of the logistics of weight loss and maintenance, people are accepting assigning negative character and value traits to overweight people based solely on their weight.
I find that pretty appalling, personally.14 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Wickglamgirl wrote: »Simply Amazing Post. My old trainer used to say to me if "fat women" cared as much about their bodies as they do about their false nails and manicures, they wouldn't be fat any longer. I informed him that having their nails done - whether you like fake nails or not - was something that they could control. And it made them feel good.
This post really was fabulous - thank-you so much! - Big Hug from Toronto!
They can also control their weight, if they bothered to try. Your point made no sense.
so if they try, they will succeed?
Do you truly believe this?
I believe if anyone prioritizes their health, puts in the time to calorically restrict and exercise then they can lose weight, gain strength and become a healthier version of themselves yes. I don't believe in the special snowflake who can accurately calorie restrict and exercise hard and still not gain strength or lose weight. This isn't a negative viewpoint, its an optimistic one.
What I DON'T do is think that someone who has prioritized something other than their health is automatically wrong. Some people have other things in their life they may deem more important and that is their call.
Correct me if I'm wrong but you are ALSO inherently assuming the ability to adhere to the caloric restriction?
If the person isn't flawed then yes, if they are flawed then they need to address that. Like I said once you say someone IS prioritizing their health and isn't being successful then they are innefectual for some reason and at that point one kind of does have to be critical of them. Being critical isn't the same thing as being mean. At somepoint you need to say to them, hey...you are *kitten* something up...lets look into it and try to figure out what it is.
I see it quite a bit differently.
If someone is struggling with diet adherence, you need to address a variety of factors many of which have nothing to do with character flaws.
It has to do with dietary methodology, food environment, stress management, and of course obvious things like food selection habits and making adjustments or manipulations to calorie and macronutrient intake.
Now I will say that there probably are many cases where it's some sort of emotional issue or character defect but I tend to think that it's about matching a sustainable methodology to the individual.
And I know that some people will think that I am just being overly sensitive and that's fine especially with what I'm about to say here:
You seem to be assuming that it is a character flaw if someone cannot adhere, and I think that's another oversimplification that asserts that the person must just be incompetent.
2 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Wickglamgirl wrote: »Simply Amazing Post. My old trainer used to say to me if "fat women" cared as much about their bodies as they do about their false nails and manicures, they wouldn't be fat any longer. I informed him that having their nails done - whether you like fake nails or not - was something that they could control. And it made them feel good.
This post really was fabulous - thank-you so much! - Big Hug from Toronto!
They can also control their weight, if they bothered to try. Your point made no sense.
so if they try, they will succeed?
Do you truly believe this?
I believe if anyone prioritizes their health, puts in the time to calorically restrict and exercise then they can lose weight, gain strength and become a healthier version of themselves yes. I don't believe in the special snowflake who can accurately calorie restrict and exercise hard and still not gain strength or lose weight. This isn't a negative viewpoint, its an optimistic one.
What I DON'T do is think that someone who has prioritized something other than their health is automatically wrong. Some people have other things in their life they may deem more important and that is their call.
Correct me if I'm wrong but you are ALSO inherently assuming the ability to adhere to the caloric restriction?
If the person isn't flawed then yes, if they are flawed then they need to address that. Like I said once you say someone IS prioritizing their health and isn't being successful then they are innefectual for some reason and at that point one kind of does have to be critical of them. Being critical isn't the same thing as being mean. At somepoint you need to say to them, hey...you are *kitten* something up...lets look into it and try to figure out what it is.
I see it quite a bit differently.
If someone is struggling with diet adherence, you need to address a variety of factors many of which have nothing to do with character flaws.
It has to do with dietary methodology, food environment, stress management, and of course obvious things like food selection habits and making adjustments or manipulations to calorie and macronutrient intake.
Now I will say that there probably are many cases where it's some sort of emotional issue or character defect but I tend to think that it's about matching a sustainable methodology to the individual.
And I know that some people will think that I am just being overly sensitive and that's fine especially with what I'm about to say here:
You seem to be assuming that it is a character flaw if someone cannot adhere.
I would say that it only dips into character flaw territory if the prescribed protocol is an absurdly easy one, and that can't even be managed. You can only make things but so easy before there would never be any progress at all, and you're just wasting both parties time.0 -
You know what a lot of people are missing? The original post was a critique of moral condemnation levied upon overweight individuals.
By getting sidetracked into a discussion of the logistics of weight loss and maintenance, people are accepting assigning negative character and value traits to overweight people based solely on their weight.
I find that pretty appalling, personally.
Who is doing that? I'm not seeing that at all from my perspective at least. With my own posts saying that people who are habitually overweight aren't prioritizing their health is not a moral condemnation based on negative character traits at all. Its just saying they've decided to allocate their time elsewhere for whatever reason.2 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Wickglamgirl wrote: »Simply Amazing Post. My old trainer used to say to me if "fat women" cared as much about their bodies as they do about their false nails and manicures, they wouldn't be fat any longer. I informed him that having their nails done - whether you like fake nails or not - was something that they could control. And it made them feel good.
This post really was fabulous - thank-you so much! - Big Hug from Toronto!
They can also control their weight, if they bothered to try. Your point made no sense.
so if they try, they will succeed?
Do you truly believe this?
I believe if anyone prioritizes their health, puts in the time to calorically restrict and exercise then they can lose weight, gain strength and become a healthier version of themselves yes. I don't believe in the special snowflake who can accurately calorie restrict and exercise hard and still not gain strength or lose weight. This isn't a negative viewpoint, its an optimistic one.
What I DON'T do is think that someone who has prioritized something other than their health is automatically wrong. Some people have other things in their life they may deem more important and that is their call.
Correct me if I'm wrong but you are ALSO inherently assuming the ability to adhere to the caloric restriction?
If the person isn't flawed then yes, if they are flawed then they need to address that. Like I said once you say someone IS prioritizing their health and isn't being successful then they are innefectual for some reason and at that point one kind of does have to be critical of them. Being critical isn't the same thing as being mean. At somepoint you need to say to them, hey...you are *kitten* something up...lets look into it and try to figure out what it is.
I see it quite a bit differently.
If someone is struggling with diet adherence, you need to address a variety of factors many of which have nothing to do with character flaws.
It has to do with dietary methodology, food environment, stress management, and of course obvious things like food selection habits and making adjustments or manipulations to calorie and macronutrient intake.
Now I will say that there probably are many cases where it's some sort of emotional issue or character defect but I tend to think that it's about matching a sustainable methodology to the individual.
And I know that some people will think that I am just being overly sensitive and that's fine especially with what I'm about to say here:
You seem to be assuming that it is a character flaw if someone cannot adhere.
I would say that it only dips into character flaw territory if the prescribed protocol is an absurdly easy one, and that can't even be managed. You can only make things but so easy before there would never be any progress at all, and you're just wasting both parties time.
For the overwhelming majority of people, weight loss and maintaining that loss is quite challenging.
Weight control registry data confirms this.
And so I don't think you can come up with any diets that are absurdly easy to stick to for the majority of people.0 -
So I'm just getting caught up on this thread. Holy crap.
I may just be a simple guy but when I read the OP, are you just saying it's harder for some people? That doesn't make Margaret lazy. She just has to work harder than Chad at other things? Her hard is a different hard than Chads even though she may be putting in more effort than Chad in "life".
Is that a correct interpretation?5 -
So I'm just getting caught up on this thread. Holy crap.
I may just be a simple guy but when I read the OP, are you just saying it's harder for some people? That doesn't make Margaret lazy. She just has to work harder than Chad at other things? Her hard is a different hard than Chads even though she may be putting in more effort than Chad in "life".
Is that a correct interpretation?
Yes but I'm also illustrating that many of these differences are supported by evidence, and some of these differences are not a function of choice.
Additionally I'm attempting to stress the importance of acknowledging these differences especially if you're helping others.4 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Wickglamgirl wrote: »Simply Amazing Post. My old trainer used to say to me if "fat women" cared as much about their bodies as they do about their false nails and manicures, they wouldn't be fat any longer. I informed him that having their nails done - whether you like fake nails or not - was something that they could control. And it made them feel good.
This post really was fabulous - thank-you so much! - Big Hug from Toronto!
They can also control their weight, if they bothered to try. Your point made no sense.
so if they try, they will succeed?
Do you truly believe this?
I believe if anyone prioritizes their health, puts in the time to calorically restrict and exercise then they can lose weight, gain strength and become a healthier version of themselves yes. I don't believe in the special snowflake who can accurately calorie restrict and exercise hard and still not gain strength or lose weight. This isn't a negative viewpoint, its an optimistic one.
What I DON'T do is think that someone who has prioritized something other than their health is automatically wrong. Some people have other things in their life they may deem more important and that is their call.
Correct me if I'm wrong but you are ALSO inherently assuming the ability to adhere to the caloric restriction?
If the person isn't flawed then yes, if they are flawed then they need to address that. Like I said once you say someone IS prioritizing their health and isn't being successful then they are innefectual for some reason and at that point one kind of does have to be critical of them. Being critical isn't the same thing as being mean. At somepoint you need to say to them, hey...you are *kitten* something up...lets look into it and try to figure out what it is.
I see it quite a bit differently.
If someone is struggling with diet adherence, you need to address a variety of factors many of which have nothing to do with character flaws.
It has to do with dietary methodology, food environment, stress management, and of course obvious things like food selection habits and making adjustments or manipulations to calorie and macronutrient intake.
Now I will say that there probably are many cases where it's some sort of emotional issue or character defect but I tend to think that it's about matching a sustainable methodology to the individual.
And I know that some people will think that I am just being overly sensitive and that's fine especially with what I'm about to say here:
You seem to be assuming that it is a character flaw if someone cannot adhere, and I think that's another oversimplification that asserts that the person must just be incompetent.
I actually never said charecter flaw and I never said incompetent, I said inneffectual. Someone can be inneffectual because they are applying the wrong method. Someone might be inneffectual at moving a heavy object because they haven't been introduced to the concept of a dolly or a lever. That just means they are ignorant of the appropriate approach. Is ignorance a character flaw? I suppose thats debatable but I wouldn't consider it such, its a flaw though that does need to be addressed.6 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Wickglamgirl wrote: »Simply Amazing Post. My old trainer used to say to me if "fat women" cared as much about their bodies as they do about their false nails and manicures, they wouldn't be fat any longer. I informed him that having their nails done - whether you like fake nails or not - was something that they could control. And it made them feel good.
This post really was fabulous - thank-you so much! - Big Hug from Toronto!
They can also control their weight, if they bothered to try. Your point made no sense.
so if they try, they will succeed?
Do you truly believe this?
I believe if anyone prioritizes their health, puts in the time to calorically restrict and exercise then they can lose weight, gain strength and become a healthier version of themselves yes. I don't believe in the special snowflake who can accurately calorie restrict and exercise hard and still not gain strength or lose weight. This isn't a negative viewpoint, its an optimistic one.
What I DON'T do is think that someone who has prioritized something other than their health is automatically wrong. Some people have other things in their life they may deem more important and that is their call.
Correct me if I'm wrong but you are ALSO inherently assuming the ability to adhere to the caloric restriction?
If the person isn't flawed then yes, if they are flawed then they need to address that. Like I said once you say someone IS prioritizing their health and isn't being successful then they are innefectual for some reason and at that point one kind of does have to be critical of them. Being critical isn't the same thing as being mean. At somepoint you need to say to them, hey...you are *kitten* something up...lets look into it and try to figure out what it is.
I see it quite a bit differently.
If someone is struggling with diet adherence, you need to address a variety of factors many of which have nothing to do with character flaws.
It has to do with dietary methodology, food environment, stress management, and of course obvious things like food selection habits and making adjustments or manipulations to calorie and macronutrient intake.
Now I will say that there probably are many cases where it's some sort of emotional issue or character defect but I tend to think that it's about matching a sustainable methodology to the individual.
And I know that some people will think that I am just being overly sensitive and that's fine especially with what I'm about to say here:
You seem to be assuming that it is a character flaw if someone cannot adhere.
I would say that it only dips into character flaw territory if the prescribed protocol is an absurdly easy one, and that can't even be managed. You can only make things but so easy before there would never be any progress at all, and you're just wasting both parties time.
For the overwhelming majority of people, weight loss and maintaining that loss is quite challenging.
Weight control registry data confirms this.
And so I don't think you can come up with any diets that are absurdly easy to stick to for the majority of people.
I'd agree that maintenance is exceedingly annoying. Again, that's just because loss and gain play to my strength in extremes. Middle ground just bores and annoys me.
As for the diets: yeah no, absolutely not. Yes, calories rule the equation, but the dietary outlay has to inspire adherence, and that's going to be an extremely individual thing.
Personally, CKDs in any form (which RFL essentially is for Cat 2s) work very well for me, both when bulking and cutting. It's just my thing. I don't like many carb based foods, other than greens, so the thought of eating potatoes and bagels more than once per week makes me queasy. However, I can easily manage to shove down a good amount in that once per week, especially given that I know my lifts the next day will be monstrous compared to the day before the refeed.
For many in the LC community, the idea of eating two pounds of potatoes and 2/3 of a bag of Lenders in five hours is enough to make them want to jump off of a roof. I get it, for certain.
For others still (the group that baffles me) they want to eat that kind of *kitten* every day. More power to them, but yeah, hells nah.0 -
Side you started this thread with a hypothetical to illustrate, perhaps I will try the same.
Bob is a scientist. Bob feels that his work is extremely important as he feels he is close to discovering a cure for an otherwise untreatable form of cancer. Bob puts his social life and health aside and focuses on his work, choosing to eat often to keep up his ability to focus and when he eats he doesn't want to waste time so he never cooks and orders lots of takeout. Bob has no time for exercise as his work is more important. As a result Bob is very obese and unfit and it is starting to negatively affect his health. Bob is aware of this but still chooses to prioritize his work.
Chad, a fit bro, bumps into Bob filling his plate in the cafeteria. Chad sneers and judges Bob for being clearly a lazy *kitten* because he is so unfit and overweight. Chad prioritizes his health so Chad views people who are visibly unhealthy as lazy because there is an assumption that everyone cares enough about their health that they act on it and therefore anyone who doesn't is just lazy or dumb. Chad is a bit of a myopic *kitten*. Bob may also be a myopic *kitten*, Bob (who prioritizes his career) might look at Chad as a waste of space who spends all his time flexing in front of mirrors and kissing his own biceps while accomplishing absolutely nothing for society.
If Chad bothered to talk to Bob he'd find out Bob is anything but lazy, Bob is about as hard working as it comes sacrificing everything including his health for what he himself has chosen to proritize. If asked about his health Bob might acknowledge its a problem but say its simply not his focus at this point in his life. Similarly if Bob talked to Chad he might find positive things about Chad as well.
This by the way is why I choose not to judge people solely on their appearance. That said...if I see someone who is visibly unhealthy due to morbid obesity and then they express to me how they do prioritize their health and they try and try and nothing seems to work and its because they are just surrounded by fast food and other temptations and their friends sabatoge them by sending them cookies and treats and yada yada then yeah, I do start to judge them a bit at that point. Big difference between someone not prioritizing their health and realizing they aren't (like Bob) and someone who is either not actually prioritizing their health but claims to be or someone who does put a lot of time into their health but in the wrong way or through weak willpower ends up taking two steps back for each step they take forward.
I happen to seek those people out, not because I like gloating over screw-ups but because chances are there is just some little aspect of health or weightloss they aren't understanding and its possible I might actually be able to legitimately help them through a few conversations online. I'm not going to help Bob lose weight, but I might help the person who "prioritizes" their health but ineffectually.10 -
@aaron_K123 No, I want addressing you specifically. Or even generally, because your approach to everything is really logical rather than emotional.
But there are many, many posts on this thread that completely miss the point, devolving into a debate about "excuses", throwing around "lazy" and even condemning the fictitious woman for not having a crystal ball that life would be harder than she anticipated (seriously, people, a BS in mathematics is no mean accomplishment and 20 years ago reasonably would be expected to provide a good measure of employability. Even today the schools are telling kids it's a very responsible choice to make). These are all conversations that accept at face value that overweight people are inferior people who make bad choices all around. And no, formerly overweight people are not immune to this type of bigoted thinking. It's a danger of extrapolating personal experience to others, when we have complete knowledge of our own situation but only partial insight into others.
7 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »You know what a lot of people are missing? The original post was a critique of moral condemnation levied upon overweight individuals.
By getting sidetracked into a discussion of the logistics of weight loss and maintenance, people are accepting assigning negative character and value traits to overweight people based solely on their weight.
I find that pretty appalling, personally.
Who is doing that? I'm not seeing that at all from my perspective at least. With my own posts saying that people who are habitually overweight aren't prioritizing their health is not a moral condemnation based on negative character traits at all. Its just saying they've decided to allocate their time elsewhere for whatever reason.
I think the fact that this thread at least partially devolved into "if a fat person is fat it's his/her fault" indicates moral condemnation. As a parent and a manager I repeatedly find that solving a problem is often not a matter of focusing on who is at fault but rather is a matter of focusing on how we can work to avoid the problem from happening again. The focus is less on "you are faulty" and more on "let's tweak the process". It's more of a nuanced approach than "you aren't trying hard enough."7 -
First, I wanted to say thank you for the excellent post.
Much of what you say reminds me of my experience with my older daughter. She is on the autism spectrum, albeit high functioning. Many people don't even realize it unless they spend a lot of time around her, which leads to a bunch of false beliefs about her and her character, as well as our parenting skills, which is always amusing.
She doesn't get a choice with autism, but she does get choices as to what she can do to deal with it. We are fortunate to have access to resources that can help, but she still struggles. She's not stupid. She's not lazy. She works harder than most neurotypical kids in her class, because even after a full day of school she then heads into hours of therapy just to get where they are. She is just as capable as every other child in that class and is just as able to be successful at anything she tries. But the road for her to get there is usually a lot longer and a lot more difficult. Once she has it down, she's good to go, but figuring out how to help her get there is a challenge for her, and us, and her therapists.
I often think about her when I am reading someone's posts here on the forums. I can't get mad at my daughter when she struggles, and I don't blame her when she feels like something is overwhelming or it's all just too much. I just focus on what can be accomplished, even it's something as minuscule as finally getting a pencil from a drawer after 2 hours of tantrums. So I try not to dismiss the struggles of others, even if the solution seems really easy to me, and just remember that results are not always an indicator of the level of effort.
Poignant and deeply relevant analogy. Life isn't fair and some people have a higher hill to climb. That doesn't mean they can't. Many do. Nor does it mean those born on top can't fail. Many of those do, too. It does mean assumptions or condemnation based on appearance can be misguided (trying for a nicer word than ignorant.)2 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »You know what a lot of people are missing? The original post was a critique of moral condemnation levied upon overweight individuals.
By getting sidetracked into a discussion of the logistics of weight loss and maintenance, people are accepting assigning negative character and value traits to overweight people based solely on their weight.
I find that pretty appalling, personally.
Who is doing that? I'm not seeing that at all from my perspective at least. With my own posts saying that people who are habitually overweight aren't prioritizing their health is not a moral condemnation based on negative character traits at all. Its just saying they've decided to allocate their time elsewhere for whatever reason.
I think the fact that this thread at least partially devolved into "if a fat person is fat it's his/her fault" indicates moral condemnation. As a parent and a manager I repeatedly find that solving a problem is often not a matter of focusing on who is at fault but rather is a matter of focusing on how we can work to avoid the problem from happening again. The focus is less on "you are faulty" and more on "let's tweak the process". It's more of a nuanced approach than "you aren't trying hard enough."
Absolutely, and in my experience, this is a distinctly western thing. Everyone I know who has spent time in the Far East has told me that their primary focus is problem solving, instead of blame shifting and finger pointing.
Seems pretty odd coming from the land of Seppuku, but yeah, that appears to be the direction they've gone. It would certainly explain their tech advances compared to ours.1 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »You know what a lot of people are missing? The original post was a critique of moral condemnation levied upon overweight individuals.
By getting sidetracked into a discussion of the logistics of weight loss and maintenance, people are accepting assigning negative character and value traits to overweight people based solely on their weight.
I find that pretty appalling, personally.
Who is doing that? I'm not seeing that at all from my perspective at least. With my own posts saying that people who are habitually overweight aren't prioritizing their health is not a moral condemnation based on negative character traits at all. Its just saying they've decided to allocate their time elsewhere for whatever reason.
I think the fact that this thread at least partially devolved into "if a fat person is fat it's his/her fault" indicates moral condemnation. As a parent and a manager I repeatedly find that solving a problem is often not a matter of focusing on who is at fault but rather is a matter of focusing on how we can work to avoid the problem from happening again. The focus is less on "you are faulty" and more on "let's tweak the process". It's more of a nuanced approach than "you aren't trying hard enough."
I'll admit I haven't read every post on here I've focused mainly on what Side and Gallow have been saying so quite possible I just missed that.0 -
So I'm just getting caught up on this thread. Holy crap.
I may just be a simple guy but when I read the OP, are you just saying it's harder for some people? That doesn't make Margaret lazy. She just has to work harder than Chad at other things? Her hard is a different hard than Chads even though she may be putting in more effort than Chad in "life".
Is that a correct interpretation?
Yes but I'm also illustrating that many of these differences are supported by evidence, and some of these differences are not a function of choice.
Additionally I'm attempting to stress the importance of acknowledging these differences especially if you're helping others.
I get ya, and I agree. I mean, when it really comes down to it, generally lower income people have a harder time at everything. Being healthy would be no exception. The debate is really where you stand on that spectrum of "blame". I tend to lean towards your thinking as the human body and brain can only handle so much "stuff". If you are an emotional or stress eater, it would be damned near impossible to keep in a energy balance if you are constantly stressed.
2 -
AWESOME. I love this. So so true. Iv only been on here 5 weeks and I've seen so many people on this board branding other as ""not trying hard enough" or saying "if you really want it you'll lose weigh5". I know from personal experience it's not just about wanting iit. I have wanted it so badly I've cried myself to sleep every night but still failed. It's about a number of factors aligning....and that figuring out how to change your life...to make weight loss possible......and wanting it!
Well done for making this point.
1 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »cross2bear wrote: »mysteps2beauty wrote: »My take....don't have kids unless you absolutely can care for them by yourself, and have great life insurance in case.
#1 reason why women are poor, usually overweight with no time for themselves is because they have a kid or two, or three. If I could get into the face of as many high school females as I could this is what I would share. Margaret has a degree in Mathematics, but since the degree wasn't a doctorate, and had no clue the sperm donor would vacate and leave her nothing, she couldn't save her from her situation because she had kids to care for by herself.
And look at Chad....if he had kids, he's not getting fat cause he didn't physically have them, nor is at home with the kids. He is out building a business, networking, socializing, probably without the ball and chain and the rug rats.
I love kids, I have one, and I love her and sacrificed so much for her. But I knew if I did not make a great income beforehand, our lives could have been much like Margaret. I still put on weight cause after work and homework and dinner, there's an exhausted Mom who has to start over again the next day, get kid ready, drop kid off at childcare/school, then get to work by 9:00 so that you can leave by 5:00 to get the kid before the 6:00p deadline (or you're paying $5 each minute you're late.
Unless you're a single dad, most men have not a clue. They are being Chad.
I find this post really offensive - maybe Margaret did have a partner at one time, but he's dead. And didnt have insurance. Now she is an economically disadvantaged single mother. She stayed home to look after the kids while her husband was alive, and now her skills are stale.
It could also have been a single father in the same situation, staying home because his wife had a better paying job.
It is so smug to think that single mothers are simply breeders. You cannot know the many circumstances that leave women particularly in these situations. Have a little compassion.
Yes, it is possible she didn't plan ahead. The point is she should have planned ahead. However, it is too late now and she has an enormous hole to dig out of.It is so smug to think that single mothers are simply breeders.
They are breeders. So are married mothers. Anyone who has kids is a breeder, by definition. It isn't some "smug" viewpoint, it is a fact.
The greater point is that Margaret failed to think about what it would take to have kids and plan ahead. I see this quite often myself - neighbors and even relatives. Usually, they are all excited to have a kid and think life will be great, but don't think about the details of what it will take to properly care for the kid and themselves as well. That part totally slips their mind. Societal pressure to breed doesn't help. If there was more talk about the challenges of kids rather than primarily the discussion of the joy of children, then Margaret might have considered this and planned better. So yes, Margaret really screwed up and the situation she is in is her own fault, though there were external contributions.
Having said that, it still does no good to bring up to Margaret about how she contributed to her own challenges over-coming obesity. She can't go back in time and have a re-do. Empathizing with the challenges she is now facing is still important. She still faces significantly more challenges than Chad and her solution is not as clear.
You must be a man. You can pronounce on things about which you will never experience. You will mansplain till you are blue in the face but you just dont get it. How is it HER problem to plan? How do you plan for every disaster that can possibly happen, that would affect your decision to have children? The human race would be long gone if we all did that.
And no, all women are NOT breeders, because you are using the term pejoritively - dont even try to be disingenuous and say thats not what you meant.
Your attitudes do nothing to build bridges between people - You appear to lack empathy and understanding of broader social issues.13 -
You know what a lot of people are missing? The original post was a critique of moral condemnation levied upon overweight individuals.
By getting sidetracked into a discussion of the logistics of weight loss and maintenance, people are accepting assigning negative character and value traits to overweight people based solely on their weight.
I find that pretty appalling, personally.
Love it!0 -
I liked how you named him Chad.4
-
cross2bear wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »cross2bear wrote: »mysteps2beauty wrote: »My take....don't have kids unless you absolutely can care for them by yourself, and have great life insurance in case.
#1 reason why women are poor, usually overweight with no time for themselves is because they have a kid or two, or three. If I could get into the face of as many high school females as I could this is what I would share. Margaret has a degree in Mathematics, but since the degree wasn't a doctorate, and had no clue the sperm donor would vacate and leave her nothing, she couldn't save her from her situation because she had kids to care for by herself.
And look at Chad....if he had kids, he's not getting fat cause he didn't physically have them, nor is at home with the kids. He is out building a business, networking, socializing, probably without the ball and chain and the rug rats.
I love kids, I have one, and I love her and sacrificed so much for her. But I knew if I did not make a great income beforehand, our lives could have been much like Margaret. I still put on weight cause after work and homework and dinner, there's an exhausted Mom who has to start over again the next day, get kid ready, drop kid off at childcare/school, then get to work by 9:00 so that you can leave by 5:00 to get the kid before the 6:00p deadline (or you're paying $5 each minute you're late.
Unless you're a single dad, most men have not a clue. They are being Chad.
I find this post really offensive - maybe Margaret did have a partner at one time, but he's dead. And didnt have insurance. Now she is an economically disadvantaged single mother. She stayed home to look after the kids while her husband was alive, and now her skills are stale.
It could also have been a single father in the same situation, staying home because his wife had a better paying job.
It is so smug to think that single mothers are simply breeders. You cannot know the many circumstances that leave women particularly in these situations. Have a little compassion.
Yes, it is possible she didn't plan ahead. The point is she should have planned ahead. However, it is too late now and she has an enormous hole to dig out of.It is so smug to think that single mothers are simply breeders.
They are breeders. So are married mothers. Anyone who has kids is a breeder, by definition. It isn't some "smug" viewpoint, it is a fact.
The greater point is that Margaret failed to think about what it would take to have kids and plan ahead. I see this quite often myself - neighbors and even relatives. Usually, they are all excited to have a kid and think life will be great, but don't think about the details of what it will take to properly care for the kid and themselves as well. That part totally slips their mind. Societal pressure to breed doesn't help. If there was more talk about the challenges of kids rather than primarily the discussion of the joy of children, then Margaret might have considered this and planned better. So yes, Margaret really screwed up and the situation she is in is her own fault, though there were external contributions.
Having said that, it still does no good to bring up to Margaret about how she contributed to her own challenges over-coming obesity. She can't go back in time and have a re-do. Empathizing with the challenges she is now facing is still important. She still faces significantly more challenges than Chad and her solution is not as clear.
You must be a man. You can pronounce on things about which you will never experience. You will mansplain till you are blue in the face but you just dont get it. How is it HER problem to plan? How do you plan for every disaster that can possibly happen, that would affect your decision to have children? The human race would be long gone if we all did that.
And no, all women are NOT breeders, because you are using the term pejoritively - dont even try to be disingenuous and say thats not what you meant.
Your attitudes do nothing to build bridges between people - You appear to lack empathy and understanding of broader social issues.
@midwesterner85 has been around for quite awhile. I've read many of his comments and do not agree with your leap to stating "you are using the term pejoritively - dont even try to be disingenuous and say thats not what you meant." If a person has reproduced, he/she is, by definition, a breeder. The fact that you have an emotional response to the term doesn't mean that everybody does. Some people deal more in logic than in emotion.
I am so tired of people throwing around the term "mansplaining."13 -
cross2bear wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »cross2bear wrote: »mysteps2beauty wrote: »My take....don't have kids unless you absolutely can care for them by yourself, and have great life insurance in case.
#1 reason why women are poor, usually overweight with no time for themselves is because they have a kid or two, or three. If I could get into the face of as many high school females as I could this is what I would share. Margaret has a degree in Mathematics, but since the degree wasn't a doctorate, and had no clue the sperm donor would vacate and leave her nothing, she couldn't save her from her situation because she had kids to care for by herself.
And look at Chad....if he had kids, he's not getting fat cause he didn't physically have them, nor is at home with the kids. He is out building a business, networking, socializing, probably without the ball and chain and the rug rats.
I love kids, I have one, and I love her and sacrificed so much for her. But I knew if I did not make a great income beforehand, our lives could have been much like Margaret. I still put on weight cause after work and homework and dinner, there's an exhausted Mom who has to start over again the next day, get kid ready, drop kid off at childcare/school, then get to work by 9:00 so that you can leave by 5:00 to get the kid before the 6:00p deadline (or you're paying $5 each minute you're late.
Unless you're a single dad, most men have not a clue. They are being Chad.
I find this post really offensive - maybe Margaret did have a partner at one time, but he's dead. And didnt have insurance. Now she is an economically disadvantaged single mother. She stayed home to look after the kids while her husband was alive, and now her skills are stale.
It could also have been a single father in the same situation, staying home because his wife had a better paying job.
It is so smug to think that single mothers are simply breeders. You cannot know the many circumstances that leave women particularly in these situations. Have a little compassion.
Yes, it is possible she didn't plan ahead. The point is she should have planned ahead. However, it is too late now and she has an enormous hole to dig out of.It is so smug to think that single mothers are simply breeders.
They are breeders. So are married mothers. Anyone who has kids is a breeder, by definition. It isn't some "smug" viewpoint, it is a fact.
The greater point is that Margaret failed to think about what it would take to have kids and plan ahead. I see this quite often myself - neighbors and even relatives. Usually, they are all excited to have a kid and think life will be great, but don't think about the details of what it will take to properly care for the kid and themselves as well. That part totally slips their mind. Societal pressure to breed doesn't help. If there was more talk about the challenges of kids rather than primarily the discussion of the joy of children, then Margaret might have considered this and planned better. So yes, Margaret really screwed up and the situation she is in is her own fault, though there were external contributions.
Having said that, it still does no good to bring up to Margaret about how she contributed to her own challenges over-coming obesity. She can't go back in time and have a re-do. Empathizing with the challenges she is now facing is still important. She still faces significantly more challenges than Chad and her solution is not as clear.
You must be a man. You can pronounce on things about which you will never experience. You will mansplain till you are blue in the face but you just dont get it. How is it HER problem to plan? How do you plan for every disaster that can possibly happen, that would affect your decision to have children? The human race would be long gone if we all did that.
And no, all women are NOT breeders, because you are using the term pejoritively - dont even try to be disingenuous and say thats not what you meant.
Your attitudes do nothing to build bridges between people - You appear to lack empathy and understanding of broader social issues.
1. Yes, I am a man, as evident by my profile.
2. Correct -It isn't HER problem to plan, it is THEIR problem to plan. SHE needs to be part of THEIR. And since we don't know who HE is and we are not talking about HIM, but HER, I'm going to obviously be talking about HER contribution.
3. Also correct - not all women are breeders. Not all men are breeders either. I honestly have not a clue how you understood that to be my point. My point is that all who have kids are breeders, by definition, whether single or not. Yes, that includes men. As a childfree (meaning I neither have nor ever plan to have kids) man, I am very active in childfree groups that include both men and women... I know very well that there are women who are not breeders. I also know very well that there are significant societal pressures on those women to become breeders (which I mentioned previously).
You are reading a whole lot of things that I didn't say.1 -
cross2bear wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »cross2bear wrote: »mysteps2beauty wrote: »My take....don't have kids unless you absolutely can care for them by yourself, and have great life insurance in case.
#1 reason why women are poor, usually overweight with no time for themselves is because they have a kid or two, or three. If I could get into the face of as many high school females as I could this is what I would share. Margaret has a degree in Mathematics, but since the degree wasn't a doctorate, and had no clue the sperm donor would vacate and leave her nothing, she couldn't save her from her situation because she had kids to care for by herself.
And look at Chad....if he had kids, he's not getting fat cause he didn't physically have them, nor is at home with the kids. He is out building a business, networking, socializing, probably without the ball and chain and the rug rats.
I love kids, I have one, and I love her and sacrificed so much for her. But I knew if I did not make a great income beforehand, our lives could have been much like Margaret. I still put on weight cause after work and homework and dinner, there's an exhausted Mom who has to start over again the next day, get kid ready, drop kid off at childcare/school, then get to work by 9:00 so that you can leave by 5:00 to get the kid before the 6:00p deadline (or you're paying $5 each minute you're late.
Unless you're a single dad, most men have not a clue. They are being Chad.
I find this post really offensive - maybe Margaret did have a partner at one time, but he's dead. And didnt have insurance. Now she is an economically disadvantaged single mother. She stayed home to look after the kids while her husband was alive, and now her skills are stale.
It could also have been a single father in the same situation, staying home because his wife had a better paying job.
It is so smug to think that single mothers are simply breeders. You cannot know the many circumstances that leave women particularly in these situations. Have a little compassion.
Yes, it is possible she didn't plan ahead. The point is she should have planned ahead. However, it is too late now and she has an enormous hole to dig out of.It is so smug to think that single mothers are simply breeders.
They are breeders. So are married mothers. Anyone who has kids is a breeder, by definition. It isn't some "smug" viewpoint, it is a fact.
The greater point is that Margaret failed to think about what it would take to have kids and plan ahead. I see this quite often myself - neighbors and even relatives. Usually, they are all excited to have a kid and think life will be great, but don't think about the details of what it will take to properly care for the kid and themselves as well. That part totally slips their mind. Societal pressure to breed doesn't help. If there was more talk about the challenges of kids rather than primarily the discussion of the joy of children, then Margaret might have considered this and planned better. So yes, Margaret really screwed up and the situation she is in is her own fault, though there were external contributions.
Having said that, it still does no good to bring up to Margaret about how she contributed to her own challenges over-coming obesity. She can't go back in time and have a re-do. Empathizing with the challenges she is now facing is still important. She still faces significantly more challenges than Chad and her solution is not as clear.
You must be a man. You can pronounce on things about which you will never experience. You will mansplain till you are blue in the face but you just dont get it. How is it HER problem to plan? How do you plan for every disaster that can possibly happen, that would affect your decision to have children? The human race would be long gone if we all did that.
And no, all women are NOT breeders, because you are using the term pejoritively - dont even try to be disingenuous and say thats not what you meant.
Your attitudes do nothing to build bridges between people - You appear to lack empathy and understanding of broader social issues.
@midwesterner85 has been around for quite awhile. I've read many of his comments and do not agree with your leap to stating "you are using the term pejoritively - dont even try to be disingenuous and say thats not what you meant." If a person has reproduced, he/she is, by definition, a breeder. The fact that you have an emotional response to the term doesn't mean that everybody does. Some people deal more in logic than in emotion.
I am so tired of people throwing around the term "mansplaining."
You've clearly just been brainwashed by the patriarchy. Where's your outrage abloobloobloo!?!?3 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »cross2bear wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »cross2bear wrote: »mysteps2beauty wrote: »My take....don't have kids unless you absolutely can care for them by yourself, and have great life insurance in case.
#1 reason why women are poor, usually overweight with no time for themselves is because they have a kid or two, or three. If I could get into the face of as many high school females as I could this is what I would share. Margaret has a degree in Mathematics, but since the degree wasn't a doctorate, and had no clue the sperm donor would vacate and leave her nothing, she couldn't save her from her situation because she had kids to care for by herself.
And look at Chad....if he had kids, he's not getting fat cause he didn't physically have them, nor is at home with the kids. He is out building a business, networking, socializing, probably without the ball and chain and the rug rats.
I love kids, I have one, and I love her and sacrificed so much for her. But I knew if I did not make a great income beforehand, our lives could have been much like Margaret. I still put on weight cause after work and homework and dinner, there's an exhausted Mom who has to start over again the next day, get kid ready, drop kid off at childcare/school, then get to work by 9:00 so that you can leave by 5:00 to get the kid before the 6:00p deadline (or you're paying $5 each minute you're late.
Unless you're a single dad, most men have not a clue. They are being Chad.
I find this post really offensive - maybe Margaret did have a partner at one time, but he's dead. And didnt have insurance. Now she is an economically disadvantaged single mother. She stayed home to look after the kids while her husband was alive, and now her skills are stale.
It could also have been a single father in the same situation, staying home because his wife had a better paying job.
It is so smug to think that single mothers are simply breeders. You cannot know the many circumstances that leave women particularly in these situations. Have a little compassion.
Yes, it is possible she didn't plan ahead. The point is she should have planned ahead. However, it is too late now and she has an enormous hole to dig out of.It is so smug to think that single mothers are simply breeders.
They are breeders. So are married mothers. Anyone who has kids is a breeder, by definition. It isn't some "smug" viewpoint, it is a fact.
The greater point is that Margaret failed to think about what it would take to have kids and plan ahead. I see this quite often myself - neighbors and even relatives. Usually, they are all excited to have a kid and think life will be great, but don't think about the details of what it will take to properly care for the kid and themselves as well. That part totally slips their mind. Societal pressure to breed doesn't help. If there was more talk about the challenges of kids rather than primarily the discussion of the joy of children, then Margaret might have considered this and planned better. So yes, Margaret really screwed up and the situation she is in is her own fault, though there were external contributions.
Having said that, it still does no good to bring up to Margaret about how she contributed to her own challenges over-coming obesity. She can't go back in time and have a re-do. Empathizing with the challenges she is now facing is still important. She still faces significantly more challenges than Chad and her solution is not as clear.
You must be a man. You can pronounce on things about which you will never experience. You will mansplain till you are blue in the face but you just dont get it. How is it HER problem to plan? How do you plan for every disaster that can possibly happen, that would affect your decision to have children? The human race would be long gone if we all did that.
And no, all women are NOT breeders, because you are using the term pejoritively - dont even try to be disingenuous and say thats not what you meant.
Your attitudes do nothing to build bridges between people - You appear to lack empathy and understanding of broader social issues.
@midwesterner85 has been around for quite awhile. I've read many of his comments and do not agree with your leap to stating "you are using the term pejoritively - dont even try to be disingenuous and say thats not what you meant." If a person has reproduced, he/she is, by definition, a breeder. The fact that you have an emotional response to the term doesn't mean that everybody does. Some people deal more in logic than in emotion.
I am so tired of people throwing around the term "mansplaining."
You've clearly just been brainwashed by the patriarchy. Where's your outrage abloobloobloo!?!?
My preteen daughter's constant attempts at kidsplaining have exhausted my supply of outrage.
*cue eyeroll and dramatic sigh* Actually, motherrrrrr...8 -
Wow...thank you...0
-
Well said @Sued0nim.Life isn't a level playing field. So what? My success stories got that. My failures didn't generally.
Several of the kids I went to school with are dead or in prison.
I grew up in the "bad neighborhood" and should have been a statistic by all accounts.
I heard the welfare case workers frequently mentioning the odds of things like that when I was a kid.
Yes, life is hard. Yes, it is not fair. Yes, it is much harder for some than others.
But you still make your own choices. I did and others can do it also.
What matters to me is what people do once you try to help them make better choices.1
This discussion has been closed.
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