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.
Can you both desire to lose weight and be body positive?
Options
Replies
-
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Science does not prove things with evidence. Science is the a philosophy about how to conduct unbiased observations of the material world married to people drawing conclusions and inferences about those observations (conclusions and inferences that suffer from the same biases and misconceptions as anything else). If scientists come up with an explanation for observations that then fits additional observations not previously made and then that explanatory framework allows for predictions about what we should observe if we do X and when we do X sure enough that is what we observe then we build confidence in that explanation, that conclusion. The more observations fit that explanation, the more predictions are validated, the more confidence we have in that explanatory model. That requires a lot more than one study. The removal of bias requires an averaging of many opinions over many observations fitting a predictive model developed over years of study.
There is no proof. Proof is a concept for mathematics, not science.
Things can be proven wrong.0 -
eliciaobrien1 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Science does not prove things with evidence. Science is the a philosophy about how to conduct unbiased observations of the material world married to people drawing conclusions and inferences about those observations (conclusions and inferences that suffer from the same biases and misconceptions as anything else). If scientists come up with an explanation for observations that then fits additional observations not previously made and then that explanatory framework allows for predictions about what we should observe if we do X and when we do X sure enough that is what we observe then we build confidence in that explanation, that conclusion. The more observations fit that explanation, the more predictions are validated, the more confidence we have in that explanatory model. That requires a lot more than one study. The removal of bias requires an averaging of many opinions over many observations fitting a predictive model developed over years of study.
There is no proof. Proof is a concept for mathematics, not science.
Things can be proven wrong.
Indeed. Like the theory that being overweight invariably means one is unhealthy.
HTH HAND 5 -
stanmann571 wrote: »eliciaobrien1 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Science does not prove things with evidence. Science is the a philosophy about how to conduct unbiased observations of the material world married to people drawing conclusions and inferences about those observations (conclusions and inferences that suffer from the same biases and misconceptions as anything else). If scientists come up with an explanation for observations that then fits additional observations not previously made and then that explanatory framework allows for predictions about what we should observe if we do X and when we do X sure enough that is what we observe then we build confidence in that explanation, that conclusion. The more observations fit that explanation, the more predictions are validated, the more confidence we have in that explanatory model. That requires a lot more than one study. The removal of bias requires an averaging of many opinions over many observations fitting a predictive model developed over years of study.
There is no proof. Proof is a concept for mathematics, not science.
Things can be proven wrong.
Indeed. Like the theory that being overweight invariably means one is unhealthy. HTH HAND
Was it proven wrong?0 -
eliciaobrien1 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »eliciaobrien1 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Science does not prove things with evidence. Science is the a philosophy about how to conduct unbiased observations of the material world married to people drawing conclusions and inferences about those observations (conclusions and inferences that suffer from the same biases and misconceptions as anything else). If scientists come up with an explanation for observations that then fits additional observations not previously made and then that explanatory framework allows for predictions about what we should observe if we do X and when we do X sure enough that is what we observe then we build confidence in that explanation, that conclusion. The more observations fit that explanation, the more predictions are validated, the more confidence we have in that explanatory model. That requires a lot more than one study. The removal of bias requires an averaging of many opinions over many observations fitting a predictive model developed over years of study.
There is no proof. Proof is a concept for mathematics, not science.
Things can be proven wrong.
Indeed. Like the theory that being overweight invariably means one is unhealthy. HTH HAND
Was it proven wrong?
There's tens of thousands of examples falsifying the claim. so YES!!
Is it generally true that overweight/obese groups tend to be less healthy, yes. But is it an immutable law, No.
HAND
3 -
stanmann571 wrote: »eliciaobrien1 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »eliciaobrien1 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Science does not prove things with evidence. Science is the a philosophy about how to conduct unbiased observations of the material world married to people drawing conclusions and inferences about those observations (conclusions and inferences that suffer from the same biases and misconceptions as anything else). If scientists come up with an explanation for observations that then fits additional observations not previously made and then that explanatory framework allows for predictions about what we should observe if we do X and when we do X sure enough that is what we observe then we build confidence in that explanation, that conclusion. The more observations fit that explanation, the more predictions are validated, the more confidence we have in that explanatory model. That requires a lot more than one study. The removal of bias requires an averaging of many opinions over many observations fitting a predictive model developed over years of study.
There is no proof. Proof is a concept for mathematics, not science.
Things can be proven wrong.
Indeed. Like the theory that being overweight invariably means one is unhealthy. HTH HAND
Was it proven wrong?
There's tens of thousands of examples falsifying the claim. so YES!!
Is it generally true that overweight/obese groups tend to be less healthy, yes. But is it an immutable law, No.
HAND
Sources?0 -
eliciaobrien1 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »eliciaobrien1 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »eliciaobrien1 wrote: »Oh stop kidding yourselves. Swimming cuts your weight significantly so it's literally less taxing on the body.
Being overweight is not in and of itself unhealthy. It can raise your risk of disease, but regular activity can decrease it.
No. Having more fat on your body raises your risk of disease, yes, which makes it unhealthy. Regular activity, unless you're burning fat, does not decrease it. Regular activity with no change in how much fat is on your body does not change how much fat is on your body. So it wouldn't change your risk of diseases.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/14/health/fat-but-fit-myth-heart-disease-study/index.html
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/may/17/obesity-health-no-such-thing-as-fat-but-fit-major-study
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/fat-but-fit-myth-diet-fitness-obesity-complications-inclusive-a7741126.html (this one might give you "fat but fit" but definitely not fat and healthy)
https://www.nhs.uk/news/lifestyle-and-exercise/fat-but-fit-still-at-higher-risk-of-heart-disease/
All 3 of those reference the same study... which didn't actually review anything about "fat but fit"
They literally all reviewed "fat but fit". Why would you need to do more than one study if one study proves "fat but fit" wrong?
The thing with science is that once it's proved with evidence you don't really need to look at it again.
Well I guess the sun is the center of the universe, atoms are the smallest thing, and eating dietary fat makes you fat.
If you thought one study was all you needed, why did you post it three times with different links?
Oh. My gahd. I already said I misspoke. Right now there is more evidence than none saying you cannot be healthy and overweight. Until that is proven wrong then that's all we have. There is no evidence at all saying you can be healthy and overweight. Being overweight is inherently unhealthy.
The problem with your statements is that you talk in absolutes when the evidence only supports probability.
You can be overweight and healthy. You will never disprove that to me since I was overweight and healthy for about 8 years. But the reason I lost the weight is that remaining overweight increased the probability of developing a health problem.5 -
eliciaobrien1 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »eliciaobrien1 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Science does not prove things with evidence. Science is the a philosophy about how to conduct unbiased observations of the material world married to people drawing conclusions and inferences about those observations (conclusions and inferences that suffer from the same biases and misconceptions as anything else). If scientists come up with an explanation for observations that then fits additional observations not previously made and then that explanatory framework allows for predictions about what we should observe if we do X and when we do X sure enough that is what we observe then we build confidence in that explanation, that conclusion. The more observations fit that explanation, the more predictions are validated, the more confidence we have in that explanatory model. That requires a lot more than one study. The removal of bias requires an averaging of many opinions over many observations fitting a predictive model developed over years of study.
There is no proof. Proof is a concept for mathematics, not science.
Things can be proven wrong.
Indeed. Like the theory that being overweight invariably means one is unhealthy. HTH HAND
Was it proven wrong?
Being overweight increases the risks associated with health; however it does not directly impact health.
The closest causative factor would be hormone imbalance. Being overweight causes glands to work harder to produce the needed hormones. This causes stress on those glands and increases the risk of injury/illness.4 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »eliciaobrien1 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »eliciaobrien1 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »eliciaobrien1 wrote: »Oh stop kidding yourselves. Swimming cuts your weight significantly so it's literally less taxing on the body.
Being overweight is not in and of itself unhealthy. It can raise your risk of disease, but regular activity can decrease it.
No. Having more fat on your body raises your risk of disease, yes, which makes it unhealthy. Regular activity, unless you're burning fat, does not decrease it. Regular activity with no change in how much fat is on your body does not change how much fat is on your body. So it wouldn't change your risk of diseases.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/14/health/fat-but-fit-myth-heart-disease-study/index.html
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/may/17/obesity-health-no-such-thing-as-fat-but-fit-major-study
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/fat-but-fit-myth-diet-fitness-obesity-complications-inclusive-a7741126.html (this one might give you "fat but fit" but definitely not fat and healthy)
https://www.nhs.uk/news/lifestyle-and-exercise/fat-but-fit-still-at-higher-risk-of-heart-disease/
All 3 of those reference the same study... which didn't actually review anything about "fat but fit"
They literally all reviewed "fat but fit". Why would you need to do more than one study if one study proves "fat but fit" wrong?
The thing with science is that once it's proved with evidence you don't really need to look at it again.
Well I guess the sun is the center of the universe, atoms are the smallest thing, and eating dietary fat makes you fat.
If you thought one study was all you needed, why did you post it three times with different links?
Oh. My gahd. I already said I misspoke. Right now there is more evidence than none saying you cannot be healthy and overweight. Until that is proven wrong then that's all we have. There is no evidence at all saying you can be healthy and overweight. Being overweight is inherently unhealthy.
The problem with your statements is that you talk in absolutes when the evidence only supports probability.
You can be overweight and healthy. You will never disprove that to me since I was overweight and healthy for about 8 years. But the reason I lost the weight is that remaining overweight increased the probability of developing a health problem.
I am obese and healthy.
I will still be obese when I hit my goal weight.
I will not be particularly more healthy.1 -
eliciaobrien1 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Science does not prove things with evidence. Science is the a philosophy about how to conduct unbiased observations of the material world married to people drawing conclusions and inferences about those observations (conclusions and inferences that suffer from the same biases and misconceptions as anything else). If scientists come up with an explanation for observations that then fits additional observations not previously made and then that explanatory framework allows for predictions about what we should observe if we do X and when we do X sure enough that is what we observe then we build confidence in that explanation, that conclusion. The more observations fit that explanation, the more predictions are validated, the more confidence we have in that explanatory model. That requires a lot more than one study. The removal of bias requires an averaging of many opinions over many observations fitting a predictive model developed over years of study.
There is no proof. Proof is a concept for mathematics, not science.
Things can be proven wrong.
Things can be shown to be very unlikely to be true. Things can be shown to be untrue in specific circumstances. But no, things cannot be "proven" wrong in anything other than math.
An observation is a coin flip. The more observations you make the more statistically speaking you can become confident in what the result is going to be. But there is always the possibility that the next observation will not be what you anticipated and your confidence can never be 100%.
Colloquially the word "proven" is just used to mean that something is very likely to be true. That isn't how science uses that word though. This causes trouble when scientists interact with the public. Scientists will tend to sound unsure or unconfident because of the way they speak. Something a scientist is confident in will come across as not being sure when they say things like "well under these circumstances we will most likely observe X which implies that X is the likely cause" (that is strong language for a scientist) while the members of the public come across as confident in comparison as they speak of proof and truth and say things like "X is always there and is the cause". Unfortunately the reality is the scientists have much more reason to be confident in their beliefs than the public does as they are aware of the observations and evidence supportive of current models in their field but they just known enough to know that its not 100% and that it is a belief based on a model based on observations made by people.
People tend to misuse science as being some God that is all knowing. It isn't, its a construct of people doing their best to remove bias from observation. It is the best system we have for making progress in our knowledge base but it isn't magical.7 -
stanmann571 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »eliciaobrien1 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »eliciaobrien1 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »eliciaobrien1 wrote: »Oh stop kidding yourselves. Swimming cuts your weight significantly so it's literally less taxing on the body.
Being overweight is not in and of itself unhealthy. It can raise your risk of disease, but regular activity can decrease it.
No. Having more fat on your body raises your risk of disease, yes, which makes it unhealthy. Regular activity, unless you're burning fat, does not decrease it. Regular activity with no change in how much fat is on your body does not change how much fat is on your body. So it wouldn't change your risk of diseases.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/14/health/fat-but-fit-myth-heart-disease-study/index.html
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/may/17/obesity-health-no-such-thing-as-fat-but-fit-major-study
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/fat-but-fit-myth-diet-fitness-obesity-complications-inclusive-a7741126.html (this one might give you "fat but fit" but definitely not fat and healthy)
https://www.nhs.uk/news/lifestyle-and-exercise/fat-but-fit-still-at-higher-risk-of-heart-disease/
All 3 of those reference the same study... which didn't actually review anything about "fat but fit"
They literally all reviewed "fat but fit". Why would you need to do more than one study if one study proves "fat but fit" wrong?
The thing with science is that once it's proved with evidence you don't really need to look at it again.
Well I guess the sun is the center of the universe, atoms are the smallest thing, and eating dietary fat makes you fat.
If you thought one study was all you needed, why did you post it three times with different links?
Oh. My gahd. I already said I misspoke. Right now there is more evidence than none saying you cannot be healthy and overweight. Until that is proven wrong then that's all we have. There is no evidence at all saying you can be healthy and overweight. Being overweight is inherently unhealthy.
The problem with your statements is that you talk in absolutes when the evidence only supports probability.
You can be overweight and healthy. You will never disprove that to me since I was overweight and healthy for about 8 years. But the reason I lost the weight is that remaining overweight increased the probability of developing a health problem.
I am obese and healthy.
I will still be obese when I hit my goal weight.
I will not be particularly more healthy.
By having less fat on your body you will be more healthy then you were. Where are your tens of thousands of examples falsifying this claim?0 -
eliciaobrien1 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »eliciaobrien1 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »eliciaobrien1 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Science does not prove things with evidence. Science is the a philosophy about how to conduct unbiased observations of the material world married to people drawing conclusions and inferences about those observations (conclusions and inferences that suffer from the same biases and misconceptions as anything else). If scientists come up with an explanation for observations that then fits additional observations not previously made and then that explanatory framework allows for predictions about what we should observe if we do X and when we do X sure enough that is what we observe then we build confidence in that explanation, that conclusion. The more observations fit that explanation, the more predictions are validated, the more confidence we have in that explanatory model. That requires a lot more than one study. The removal of bias requires an averaging of many opinions over many observations fitting a predictive model developed over years of study.
There is no proof. Proof is a concept for mathematics, not science.
Things can be proven wrong.
Indeed. Like the theory that being overweight invariably means one is unhealthy. HTH HAND
Was it proven wrong?
There's tens of thousands of examples falsifying the claim. so YES!!
Is it generally true that overweight/obese groups tend to be less healthy, yes. But is it an immutable law, No.
HAND
Sources?
I can prove it wrong. (see post above). I was overweight and overfat. I had regular checkups with my doctor and had zero health problems according to all medical tests (which at my age are many).
To say that you can't be overweight and healthy is akin to saying you can't be old and healthy or have a family history of disease and be healthy or be of certain race/ethnicity and be healthy, because age, family history, race/ethnicity are all risk factor for diseases.
Surely you can see the difference between risk of disease and actually having a disease.4 -
eliciaobrien1 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »eliciaobrien1 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »eliciaobrien1 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »eliciaobrien1 wrote: »Oh stop kidding yourselves. Swimming cuts your weight significantly so it's literally less taxing on the body.
Being overweight is not in and of itself unhealthy. It can raise your risk of disease, but regular activity can decrease it.
No. Having more fat on your body raises your risk of disease, yes, which makes it unhealthy. Regular activity, unless you're burning fat, does not decrease it. Regular activity with no change in how much fat is on your body does not change how much fat is on your body. So it wouldn't change your risk of diseases.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/14/health/fat-but-fit-myth-heart-disease-study/index.html
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/may/17/obesity-health-no-such-thing-as-fat-but-fit-major-study
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/fat-but-fit-myth-diet-fitness-obesity-complications-inclusive-a7741126.html (this one might give you "fat but fit" but definitely not fat and healthy)
https://www.nhs.uk/news/lifestyle-and-exercise/fat-but-fit-still-at-higher-risk-of-heart-disease/
All 3 of those reference the same study... which didn't actually review anything about "fat but fit"
They literally all reviewed "fat but fit". Why would you need to do more than one study if one study proves "fat but fit" wrong?
The thing with science is that once it's proved with evidence you don't really need to look at it again.
Well I guess the sun is the center of the universe, atoms are the smallest thing, and eating dietary fat makes you fat.
If you thought one study was all you needed, why did you post it three times with different links?
Oh. My gahd. I already said I misspoke. Right now there is more evidence than none saying you cannot be healthy and overweight. Until that is proven wrong then that's all we have. There is no evidence at all saying you can be healthy and overweight. Being overweight is inherently unhealthy.
The problem with your statements is that you talk in absolutes when the evidence only supports probability.
You can be overweight and healthy. You will never disprove that to me since I was overweight and healthy for about 8 years. But the reason I lost the weight is that remaining overweight increased the probability of developing a health problem.
I am obese and healthy.
I will still be obese when I hit my goal weight.
I will not be particularly more healthy.
By having less fat on your body you will be more healthy then you were. Where are your tens of thousands of examples falsifying this claim?
How does one be more healthy than healthy?1 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »eliciaobrien1 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »eliciaobrien1 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »eliciaobrien1 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »eliciaobrien1 wrote: »Oh stop kidding yourselves. Swimming cuts your weight significantly so it's literally less taxing on the body.
Being overweight is not in and of itself unhealthy. It can raise your risk of disease, but regular activity can decrease it.
No. Having more fat on your body raises your risk of disease, yes, which makes it unhealthy. Regular activity, unless you're burning fat, does not decrease it. Regular activity with no change in how much fat is on your body does not change how much fat is on your body. So it wouldn't change your risk of diseases.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/14/health/fat-but-fit-myth-heart-disease-study/index.html
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/may/17/obesity-health-no-such-thing-as-fat-but-fit-major-study
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/fat-but-fit-myth-diet-fitness-obesity-complications-inclusive-a7741126.html (this one might give you "fat but fit" but definitely not fat and healthy)
https://www.nhs.uk/news/lifestyle-and-exercise/fat-but-fit-still-at-higher-risk-of-heart-disease/
All 3 of those reference the same study... which didn't actually review anything about "fat but fit"
They literally all reviewed "fat but fit". Why would you need to do more than one study if one study proves "fat but fit" wrong?
The thing with science is that once it's proved with evidence you don't really need to look at it again.
Well I guess the sun is the center of the universe, atoms are the smallest thing, and eating dietary fat makes you fat.
If you thought one study was all you needed, why did you post it three times with different links?
Oh. My gahd. I already said I misspoke. Right now there is more evidence than none saying you cannot be healthy and overweight. Until that is proven wrong then that's all we have. There is no evidence at all saying you can be healthy and overweight. Being overweight is inherently unhealthy.
The problem with your statements is that you talk in absolutes when the evidence only supports probability.
You can be overweight and healthy. You will never disprove that to me since I was overweight and healthy for about 8 years. But the reason I lost the weight is that remaining overweight increased the probability of developing a health problem.
I am obese and healthy.
I will still be obese when I hit my goal weight.
I will not be particularly more healthy.
By having less fat on your body you will be more healthy then you were. Where are your tens of thousands of examples falsifying this claim?
How does one be more healthy than healthy?
Less health risks.2 -
eliciaobrien1 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »eliciaobrien1 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »eliciaobrien1 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »eliciaobrien1 wrote: »Oh stop kidding yourselves. Swimming cuts your weight significantly so it's literally less taxing on the body.
Being overweight is not in and of itself unhealthy. It can raise your risk of disease, but regular activity can decrease it.
No. Having more fat on your body raises your risk of disease, yes, which makes it unhealthy. Regular activity, unless you're burning fat, does not decrease it. Regular activity with no change in how much fat is on your body does not change how much fat is on your body. So it wouldn't change your risk of diseases.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/14/health/fat-but-fit-myth-heart-disease-study/index.html
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/may/17/obesity-health-no-such-thing-as-fat-but-fit-major-study
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/fat-but-fit-myth-diet-fitness-obesity-complications-inclusive-a7741126.html (this one might give you "fat but fit" but definitely not fat and healthy)
https://www.nhs.uk/news/lifestyle-and-exercise/fat-but-fit-still-at-higher-risk-of-heart-disease/
All 3 of those reference the same study... which didn't actually review anything about "fat but fit"
They literally all reviewed "fat but fit". Why would you need to do more than one study if one study proves "fat but fit" wrong?
The thing with science is that once it's proved with evidence you don't really need to look at it again.
Well I guess the sun is the center of the universe, atoms are the smallest thing, and eating dietary fat makes you fat.
If you thought one study was all you needed, why did you post it three times with different links?
Oh. My gahd. I already said I misspoke. Right now there is more evidence than none saying you cannot be healthy and overweight. Until that is proven wrong then that's all we have. There is no evidence at all saying you can be healthy and overweight. Being overweight is inherently unhealthy.
The problem with your statements is that you talk in absolutes when the evidence only supports probability.
You can be overweight and healthy. You will never disprove that to me since I was overweight and healthy for about 8 years. But the reason I lost the weight is that remaining overweight increased the probability of developing a health problem.
I am obese and healthy.
I will still be obese when I hit my goal weight.
I will not be particularly more healthy.
By having less fat on your body you will be more healthy then you were. Where are your tens of thousands of examples falsifying this claim?
NO, I won't. I may have a reduced risk for future health impacts. But I won't be "more healthy".3 -
eliciaobrien1 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »eliciaobrien1 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »eliciaobrien1 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »eliciaobrien1 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »eliciaobrien1 wrote: »Oh stop kidding yourselves. Swimming cuts your weight significantly so it's literally less taxing on the body.
Being overweight is not in and of itself unhealthy. It can raise your risk of disease, but regular activity can decrease it.
No. Having more fat on your body raises your risk of disease, yes, which makes it unhealthy. Regular activity, unless you're burning fat, does not decrease it. Regular activity with no change in how much fat is on your body does not change how much fat is on your body. So it wouldn't change your risk of diseases.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/14/health/fat-but-fit-myth-heart-disease-study/index.html
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/may/17/obesity-health-no-such-thing-as-fat-but-fit-major-study
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/fat-but-fit-myth-diet-fitness-obesity-complications-inclusive-a7741126.html (this one might give you "fat but fit" but definitely not fat and healthy)
https://www.nhs.uk/news/lifestyle-and-exercise/fat-but-fit-still-at-higher-risk-of-heart-disease/
All 3 of those reference the same study... which didn't actually review anything about "fat but fit"
They literally all reviewed "fat but fit". Why would you need to do more than one study if one study proves "fat but fit" wrong?
The thing with science is that once it's proved with evidence you don't really need to look at it again.
Well I guess the sun is the center of the universe, atoms are the smallest thing, and eating dietary fat makes you fat.
If you thought one study was all you needed, why did you post it three times with different links?
Oh. My gahd. I already said I misspoke. Right now there is more evidence than none saying you cannot be healthy and overweight. Until that is proven wrong then that's all we have. There is no evidence at all saying you can be healthy and overweight. Being overweight is inherently unhealthy.
The problem with your statements is that you talk in absolutes when the evidence only supports probability.
You can be overweight and healthy. You will never disprove that to me since I was overweight and healthy for about 8 years. But the reason I lost the weight is that remaining overweight increased the probability of developing a health problem.
I am obese and healthy.
I will still be obese when I hit my goal weight.
I will not be particularly more healthy.
By having less fat on your body you will be more healthy then you were. Where are your tens of thousands of examples falsifying this claim?
How does one be more healthy than healthy?
Less health risks.
Yes, but how does that make me more healthy right now?
You don't seem to understand how statistics work.4 -
stanmann571 wrote: »eliciaobrien1 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »eliciaobrien1 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »eliciaobrien1 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »eliciaobrien1 wrote: »Oh stop kidding yourselves. Swimming cuts your weight significantly so it's literally less taxing on the body.
Being overweight is not in and of itself unhealthy. It can raise your risk of disease, but regular activity can decrease it.
No. Having more fat on your body raises your risk of disease, yes, which makes it unhealthy. Regular activity, unless you're burning fat, does not decrease it. Regular activity with no change in how much fat is on your body does not change how much fat is on your body. So it wouldn't change your risk of diseases.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/14/health/fat-but-fit-myth-heart-disease-study/index.html
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/may/17/obesity-health-no-such-thing-as-fat-but-fit-major-study
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/fat-but-fit-myth-diet-fitness-obesity-complications-inclusive-a7741126.html (this one might give you "fat but fit" but definitely not fat and healthy)
https://www.nhs.uk/news/lifestyle-and-exercise/fat-but-fit-still-at-higher-risk-of-heart-disease/
All 3 of those reference the same study... which didn't actually review anything about "fat but fit"
They literally all reviewed "fat but fit". Why would you need to do more than one study if one study proves "fat but fit" wrong?
The thing with science is that once it's proved with evidence you don't really need to look at it again.
Well I guess the sun is the center of the universe, atoms are the smallest thing, and eating dietary fat makes you fat.
If you thought one study was all you needed, why did you post it three times with different links?
Oh. My gahd. I already said I misspoke. Right now there is more evidence than none saying you cannot be healthy and overweight. Until that is proven wrong then that's all we have. There is no evidence at all saying you can be healthy and overweight. Being overweight is inherently unhealthy.
The problem with your statements is that you talk in absolutes when the evidence only supports probability.
You can be overweight and healthy. You will never disprove that to me since I was overweight and healthy for about 8 years. But the reason I lost the weight is that remaining overweight increased the probability of developing a health problem.
I am obese and healthy.
I will still be obese when I hit my goal weight.
I will not be particularly more healthy.
By having less fat on your body you will be more healthy then you were. Where are your tens of thousands of examples falsifying this claim?
NO, I won't. I may have a reduced risk for future health impacts. But I won't be "more healthy".
If someone is underweight can they be healthy?0 -
eliciaobrien1 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »eliciaobrien1 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »eliciaobrien1 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »eliciaobrien1 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »eliciaobrien1 wrote: »Oh stop kidding yourselves. Swimming cuts your weight significantly so it's literally less taxing on the body.
Being overweight is not in and of itself unhealthy. It can raise your risk of disease, but regular activity can decrease it.
No. Having more fat on your body raises your risk of disease, yes, which makes it unhealthy. Regular activity, unless you're burning fat, does not decrease it. Regular activity with no change in how much fat is on your body does not change how much fat is on your body. So it wouldn't change your risk of diseases.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/14/health/fat-but-fit-myth-heart-disease-study/index.html
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/may/17/obesity-health-no-such-thing-as-fat-but-fit-major-study
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/fat-but-fit-myth-diet-fitness-obesity-complications-inclusive-a7741126.html (this one might give you "fat but fit" but definitely not fat and healthy)
https://www.nhs.uk/news/lifestyle-and-exercise/fat-but-fit-still-at-higher-risk-of-heart-disease/
All 3 of those reference the same study... which didn't actually review anything about "fat but fit"
They literally all reviewed "fat but fit". Why would you need to do more than one study if one study proves "fat but fit" wrong?
The thing with science is that once it's proved with evidence you don't really need to look at it again.
Well I guess the sun is the center of the universe, atoms are the smallest thing, and eating dietary fat makes you fat.
If you thought one study was all you needed, why did you post it three times with different links?
Oh. My gahd. I already said I misspoke. Right now there is more evidence than none saying you cannot be healthy and overweight. Until that is proven wrong then that's all we have. There is no evidence at all saying you can be healthy and overweight. Being overweight is inherently unhealthy.
The problem with your statements is that you talk in absolutes when the evidence only supports probability.
You can be overweight and healthy. You will never disprove that to me since I was overweight and healthy for about 8 years. But the reason I lost the weight is that remaining overweight increased the probability of developing a health problem.
I am obese and healthy.
I will still be obese when I hit my goal weight.
I will not be particularly more healthy.
By having less fat on your body you will be more healthy then you were. Where are your tens of thousands of examples falsifying this claim?
NO, I won't. I may have a reduced risk for future health impacts. But I won't be "more healthy".
If someone is underweight can they be healthy?
Yes, of course.2 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »eliciaobrien1 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »eliciaobrien1 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »eliciaobrien1 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »eliciaobrien1 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »eliciaobrien1 wrote: »Oh stop kidding yourselves. Swimming cuts your weight significantly so it's literally less taxing on the body.
Being overweight is not in and of itself unhealthy. It can raise your risk of disease, but regular activity can decrease it.
No. Having more fat on your body raises your risk of disease, yes, which makes it unhealthy. Regular activity, unless you're burning fat, does not decrease it. Regular activity with no change in how much fat is on your body does not change how much fat is on your body. So it wouldn't change your risk of diseases.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/14/health/fat-but-fit-myth-heart-disease-study/index.html
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/may/17/obesity-health-no-such-thing-as-fat-but-fit-major-study
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/fat-but-fit-myth-diet-fitness-obesity-complications-inclusive-a7741126.html (this one might give you "fat but fit" but definitely not fat and healthy)
https://www.nhs.uk/news/lifestyle-and-exercise/fat-but-fit-still-at-higher-risk-of-heart-disease/
All 3 of those reference the same study... which didn't actually review anything about "fat but fit"
They literally all reviewed "fat but fit". Why would you need to do more than one study if one study proves "fat but fit" wrong?
The thing with science is that once it's proved with evidence you don't really need to look at it again.
Well I guess the sun is the center of the universe, atoms are the smallest thing, and eating dietary fat makes you fat.
If you thought one study was all you needed, why did you post it three times with different links?
Oh. My gahd. I already said I misspoke. Right now there is more evidence than none saying you cannot be healthy and overweight. Until that is proven wrong then that's all we have. There is no evidence at all saying you can be healthy and overweight. Being overweight is inherently unhealthy.
The problem with your statements is that you talk in absolutes when the evidence only supports probability.
You can be overweight and healthy. You will never disprove that to me since I was overweight and healthy for about 8 years. But the reason I lost the weight is that remaining overweight increased the probability of developing a health problem.
I am obese and healthy.
I will still be obese when I hit my goal weight.
I will not be particularly more healthy.
By having less fat on your body you will be more healthy then you were. Where are your tens of thousands of examples falsifying this claim?
NO, I won't. I may have a reduced risk for future health impacts. But I won't be "more healthy".
If someone is underweight can they be healthy?
Yes, of course.
But if they were in a normal weight range would they be more healthy?0 -
eliciaobrien1 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »eliciaobrien1 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »eliciaobrien1 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »eliciaobrien1 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »eliciaobrien1 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »eliciaobrien1 wrote: »Oh stop kidding yourselves. Swimming cuts your weight significantly so it's literally less taxing on the body.
Being overweight is not in and of itself unhealthy. It can raise your risk of disease, but regular activity can decrease it.
No. Having more fat on your body raises your risk of disease, yes, which makes it unhealthy. Regular activity, unless you're burning fat, does not decrease it. Regular activity with no change in how much fat is on your body does not change how much fat is on your body. So it wouldn't change your risk of diseases.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/14/health/fat-but-fit-myth-heart-disease-study/index.html
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/may/17/obesity-health-no-such-thing-as-fat-but-fit-major-study
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/fat-but-fit-myth-diet-fitness-obesity-complications-inclusive-a7741126.html (this one might give you "fat but fit" but definitely not fat and healthy)
https://www.nhs.uk/news/lifestyle-and-exercise/fat-but-fit-still-at-higher-risk-of-heart-disease/
All 3 of those reference the same study... which didn't actually review anything about "fat but fit"
They literally all reviewed "fat but fit". Why would you need to do more than one study if one study proves "fat but fit" wrong?
The thing with science is that once it's proved with evidence you don't really need to look at it again.
Well I guess the sun is the center of the universe, atoms are the smallest thing, and eating dietary fat makes you fat.
If you thought one study was all you needed, why did you post it three times with different links?
Oh. My gahd. I already said I misspoke. Right now there is more evidence than none saying you cannot be healthy and overweight. Until that is proven wrong then that's all we have. There is no evidence at all saying you can be healthy and overweight. Being overweight is inherently unhealthy.
The problem with your statements is that you talk in absolutes when the evidence only supports probability.
You can be overweight and healthy. You will never disprove that to me since I was overweight and healthy for about 8 years. But the reason I lost the weight is that remaining overweight increased the probability of developing a health problem.
I am obese and healthy.
I will still be obese when I hit my goal weight.
I will not be particularly more healthy.
By having less fat on your body you will be more healthy then you were. Where are your tens of thousands of examples falsifying this claim?
NO, I won't. I may have a reduced risk for future health impacts. But I won't be "more healthy".
If someone is underweight can they be healthy?
Yes, of course.
But if they were in a normal weight range would they be more healthy?
Unknown. Let's turn this around to see if it makes more sense to you. Is everyone in the healthy weight range healthy?1 -
eliciaobrien1 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »eliciaobrien1 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »eliciaobrien1 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »eliciaobrien1 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »eliciaobrien1 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »eliciaobrien1 wrote: »Oh stop kidding yourselves. Swimming cuts your weight significantly so it's literally less taxing on the body.
Being overweight is not in and of itself unhealthy. It can raise your risk of disease, but regular activity can decrease it.
No. Having more fat on your body raises your risk of disease, yes, which makes it unhealthy. Regular activity, unless you're burning fat, does not decrease it. Regular activity with no change in how much fat is on your body does not change how much fat is on your body. So it wouldn't change your risk of diseases.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/14/health/fat-but-fit-myth-heart-disease-study/index.html
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/may/17/obesity-health-no-such-thing-as-fat-but-fit-major-study
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/fat-but-fit-myth-diet-fitness-obesity-complications-inclusive-a7741126.html (this one might give you "fat but fit" but definitely not fat and healthy)
https://www.nhs.uk/news/lifestyle-and-exercise/fat-but-fit-still-at-higher-risk-of-heart-disease/
All 3 of those reference the same study... which didn't actually review anything about "fat but fit"
They literally all reviewed "fat but fit". Why would you need to do more than one study if one study proves "fat but fit" wrong?
The thing with science is that once it's proved with evidence you don't really need to look at it again.
Well I guess the sun is the center of the universe, atoms are the smallest thing, and eating dietary fat makes you fat.
If you thought one study was all you needed, why did you post it three times with different links?
Oh. My gahd. I already said I misspoke. Right now there is more evidence than none saying you cannot be healthy and overweight. Until that is proven wrong then that's all we have. There is no evidence at all saying you can be healthy and overweight. Being overweight is inherently unhealthy.
The problem with your statements is that you talk in absolutes when the evidence only supports probability.
You can be overweight and healthy. You will never disprove that to me since I was overweight and healthy for about 8 years. But the reason I lost the weight is that remaining overweight increased the probability of developing a health problem.
I am obese and healthy.
I will still be obese when I hit my goal weight.
I will not be particularly more healthy.
By having less fat on your body you will be more healthy then you were. Where are your tens of thousands of examples falsifying this claim?
NO, I won't. I may have a reduced risk for future health impacts. But I won't be "more healthy".
If someone is underweight can they be healthy?
Yes, of course.
But if they were in a normal weight range would they be more healthy?
how could they be more healthy...and don't say less health risks because those are not absolutes...they are "educated guesses"
5
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 911 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions