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.

Is promoting weight loss dangerous?

Options
13»

Replies

  • blue_killen
    blue_killen Posts: 26 Member
    im not talking about promoting weight loss to anorexics. but weight loss in people who are overweight can even be dangerous if not done right. i think its important to promote weight loss to an extent but there needs to be more out there on how to do it healthily
  • Suzeli55
    Suzeli55 Posts: 11 Member
    edited June 2020
    We probably should think of it as fat loss, not weight loss.
  • magnusthenerd
    magnusthenerd Posts: 1,207 Member
    SuzanMunro wrote: »
    We probably should think of it as fat loss, not weight loss.

    Not sure if that really changes much of the potential problems for underweight individuals, particularly not for women. There are levels of too little body fat for women which will cause amenorrhea, along with other hormonal issues, and that tends to lead to bone density loss.

    In men, prolonged low body fat is generally going to cause low hormones too, though if not caused by rapid loss, it is probably less likely to induce sarcopenia, which would be the eventual bad weight loss.
  • robinhager3998
    robinhager3998 Posts: 44 Member
    I'm no expert, but I believe some of the statements would be true if caloric intake would be drastically cut. I believe no one should ever eat less than 1500 calories even if it means weighing a little bit more. Some people tend to cut down too much, and I can see where that would do something to you mentally. I'm sure this statement won't be popular, but you can be fat and healthy. Genetics determine your weight more than anything else. This is a proven fact. That being said, I think it would be dangerous if you were extremely obese 300+ lbs or so. Just a 500 calorie a day reduction can make a big difference in your weight over time. This isn't drastic and I think anyone could live with that.
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    I'm no expert, but I believe some of the statements would be true if caloric intake would be drastically cut. I believe no one should ever eat less than 1500 calories even if it means weighing a little bit more. Some people tend to cut down too much, and I can see where that would do something to you mentally. I'm sure this statement won't be popular, but you can be fat and healthy. Genetics determine your weight more than anything else. This is a proven fact. That being said, I think it would be dangerous if you were extremely obese 300+ lbs or so. Just a 500 calorie a day reduction can make a big difference in your weight over time. This isn't drastic and I think anyone could live with that.

    As a sedentary person, I would need 1,460 calories a day to maintain my current weight.

    Now as it happens, I'm not sedentary, so I eat more than that. But let's say something happened and I became sedentary. What harm do you think would come to me if I ate 1,460 a day and maintained my current body weight?
  • ritzvin
    ritzvin Posts: 2,862 Member
    edited June 2020
    I'm no expert, but I believe some of the statements would be true if caloric intake would be drastically cut. I believe no one should ever eat less than 1500 calories even if it means weighing a little bit more. Some people tend to cut down too much, and I can see where that would do something to you mentally. I'm sure this statement won't be popular, but you can be fat and healthy. Genetics determine your weight more than anything else. This is a proven fact. That being said, I think it would be dangerous if you were extremely obese 300+ lbs or so. Just a 500 calorie a day reduction can make a big difference in your weight over time. This isn't drastic and I think anyone could live with that.

    FYI- For someone on the short side, that isn't currently fat, and isn't moderately active → that's higher than maintenance.
    (edit: typo)
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    ritzvin wrote: »
    I'm no expert, but I believe some of the statements would be true if caloric intake would be drastically cut. I believe no one should ever eat less than 1500 calories even if it means weighing a little bit more. Some people tend to cut down too much, and I can see where that would do something to you mentally. I'm sure this statement won't be popular, but you can be fat and healthy. Genetics determine your weight more than anything else. This is a proven fact. That being said, I think it would be dangerous if you were extremely obese 300+ lbs or so. Just a 500 calorie a day reduction can make a big difference in your weight over time. This isn't drastic and I think anyone could live with that.

    FYI- For someone on the short side, that isn't currently fat, and isn't moderately active → that's higher than maintenance.
    (edit: typo)

    Yep, as a not-overweight person, if I was sedentary I'd need 1,460 a day to maintain. I don't think this would be harmful for me as I've been netting that for a few years now (that is, I eat back my exercise calories so that I net what I need to maintain).
  • LoveyChar
    LoveyChar Posts: 4,336 Member
    I don't think promoting weight loss is dangerous and yes, I'd agree that our ideals of what was fat generations ago has changed in societal norms today (not for all but for many). I remember years ago when Kim Kardashian said she weighed 117 pounds and her sister felt like that was "too skinny." I disagreed. Whose business is it to judge anyway as long as she felt confident and healthy?! Generations ago, if Kim Kardashian had said she weighed 99 pounds, which would have been more typical for the times then, then the sister may have complained at that time too that her sister was "too skinny."

    I have attributed genetics to being smaller. All females in my family, immediate and extended, are small with tallest being 5"2' and everyone hovers around 110 pounds. My grandmother was small. Her mother was small. I'm small. My aunts are small. Then I look at my husband's family and most of them are humongous, absolutely humongous. So do genetics play a role, maybe...but I definitely don't think genetics should be used as an excuse not to lose weight...

    Joints and long term...if I gain 2 or 3 pounds, I can feel the struggle in a run. My speed decreases and it's difficult to power through it with even just a little bit of weight extra. I try to maintain my weight around 105 but it's more for performance and health as opposed to vanity and how cute I'll look in a sundress.

    Calories: 1,500 calories per day would be way too many for my height.
  • LukesGreenMilk
    LukesGreenMilk Posts: 56 Member
    I'm no expert, but I believe some of the statements would be true if caloric intake would be drastically cut. I believe no one should ever eat less than 1500 calories even if it means weighing a little bit more. Some people tend to cut down too much, and I can see where that would do something to you mentally. I'm sure this statement won't be popular, but you can be fat and healthy. Genetics determine your weight more than anything else. This is a proven fact. That being said, I think it would be dangerous if you were extremely obese 300+ lbs or so. Just a 500 calorie a day reduction can make a big difference in your weight over time. This isn't drastic and I think anyone could live with that.

    Genetics determine nothing, ever. That probably sounds excessively absolute, but it is true. All genes are dependent on environment for expression - I don't care what your genes say, if you're stepping in lava, your weight is going to 0 pretty fast, just to use the most extreme example.
    Somewhat more realistic, if you somehow had some incredible kind of mitochondria with DNA that allowed them to produce 200 ATP per molecule of glucose (probably not chemically possible, but still), it wouldn't matter much if you lived in tundra with less than 1% of your calorie intake being carbohydrate.
    We don't tend to see any obese and or even overweight BMI's in people living in pre-agricultural lifestyles - it seems most calories in that environment are too hard and unappetizing to be worth pursuing. In the modern environment, there's probably are a variety of genes that influence appetite and preference that trend towards various levels of weight. Such people can still be actively managed by altering the environments one spends a lot of time in. It generally takes something pretty severe like defects of leptin production or something like Prater-Willy to be what could be fairly called a genetic reason for being obese.
    Very wise of you to say that genes are dependent on environment for expression. Most people will go through life never understanding what that statement means or its implications.

  • spyro88
    spyro88 Posts: 472 Member
    edited August 2020
    I'm no expert, but I believe some of the statements would be true if caloric intake would be drastically cut. I believe no one should ever eat less than 1500 calories even if it means weighing a little bit more. Some people tend to cut down too much, and I can see where that would do something to you mentally. I'm sure this statement won't be popular, but you can be fat and healthy. Genetics determine your weight more than anything else. This is a proven fact. That being said, I think it would be dangerous if you were extremely obese 300+ lbs or so. Just a 500 calorie a day reduction can make a big difference in your weight over time. This isn't drastic and I think anyone could live with that.
    What is your source for this?

    Growing up, my entire family was slim. I was a very skinny kid and a slim adult.

    So, if genetics played a big role, I would expect to have a difficult time gaining weight. Yet in my late 50's, I had no trouble whatsoever blossoming myself right into the obese category. It was ridiculously easy. Too many calories, not enough activity. :D

    Tl;dr: Genetics aren't a factor. How many calories you shove in your pie hole daily absolutely is. ;)

    However, genetics can contribute to how many calories you shove in your pie hole.

    https://www.cdc.gov/genomics/resources/diseases/obesity/index.htm
  • Maesneuadd
    Maesneuadd Posts: 60 Member
    Consider this:

    -People can die from obesity related causes.

    Consider this:

    -The younger generation today will have shorter lives than their parents (on average) because of obesity related illness.

    This has already started in teh US and UK. For the first time the life expectancy of the younger groups has fallen by 2 years or so
  • AliciaHollywood
    AliciaHollywood Posts: 102 Member
    I know for me if I focus too much on losing weight, it can easily lead to a temporary eating disorder. BUT if I focus on health and nutrition and eating FOR health, it’s so much better. It also depends on someone’s original weight. If someone is dangerously overweight then weight loss is absolutely necessary. But losing those extra vanity pounds can lead down a slippery slope unless you’re careful and focus on nutrition. I have gone through periods of (unnecessary) extreme calorie restriction but what I did eat was so nutritious I never had a problem. I’m lucky that as soon as I get to a weight/body I’m happy with, my “eating disorder” quickly ends. But I can see how when you become obsessed with every little calorie, measuring spinach leaves, it could turn into an eating disorder especially if prone to OCD.
  • zamphir66
    zamphir66 Posts: 582 Member
    you can be fat and healthy
    In the same way that you can smoke and be healthy, or share needles and be healthy. They're major risk factors though which will lead to all manner of debilitating conditions and diseases. So while it's true you can be fat and (relatively) healthy, you're not very likely to remain that way. The piper always gets paid.

    One of my friends has a heart attack at 42, and it was just about completely out of the blue. His numbers were fine otherwise. His cardiologist told him that bloodwork numbers are often lagging indicators of something being wrong inside.
  • IronIsMyTherapy
    IronIsMyTherapy Posts: 482 Member
    I'm kinda mindblown at the fact that someone could have that viewpoint. "Next up, the hidden benefits of smoking, stay tuned."
  • 7rainbow
    7rainbow Posts: 161 Member
    Depends on who is doing the promoting and who they are promoting it to. Some people really need to lose weight, and some people need to gain weight. If your doctor is telling you to lose weight, then this promotion is useful. Excess weight can increase risk to cancers, diabetes, joint pain, and other health problems. If it is the fad diet industry, then this can range between dangerous to simply useless weight loss advice. Overall I'll say it is typically for the better. As someone who struggled with an eating disorder like you mentioned above, it wasn't ads telling me to lose weight that made me this way, but rather the unhealthy ideal model image I learned from the media. Promoting weight loss can hurt some, but I feel like it can help many too.
This discussion has been closed.