Yet Another Cycling Forum
General Category => The Knowledge => Health & Fitness => Topic started by: GruB on 14 August, 2010, 09:05:16 am
-
Mrs G is watching BBC News and Madame Coupe is talking ( she appears American ) about + size clothes that are now required on the High Street for all the larger women out there.
There are lots of reasons why women are getting larger she said.....
Looking at the size of her neck she certainly needs a larger collar size than me. All those chins.
But really, it would seem that the 'I'm fat and proud' movement is gaining momentum ( pardon the pun ) and the health benefits of not getting to this size are being ignored.
-
I am a fat bugger. There's plenty of clothes out there that fit me.
But what I would desparately like is more manufacturers to make different sleeve lengths. Those of us who have a resemblance to the orangutan face great difficulty in finding sleeves long enough. >:(
-
It's because you're undertall ;)
-
It's because you're undertall ;)
I'm 6'...
-
Sorry it was meant as a light hearted quip, the reference is from Garfield :-*
AllPosters.de – Der größte Poster- und Print-Shop der Welt! (http://www.allposters.com/-sp/Garfield-Undertall-Posters_i3444464_.htm)
-
With all due respect Grub, I would respond "there speaks someone who hasn't a weight problem".
I'm big/heavy/fat. I got bigger/heavier/fatter once I stopped racing on the bike - ther's evidence (mainly from Australia as it happens) that people who previously battered their bodies with training put weight on very easily once they slow down.
My point is; those of us of the larger sizes get fed up with shopping for clothes and having little or no choice. Why shouldn't larger women have choice? Maybe, if they feel better, they might feel more inclined to starve (diet?) to achieve societies required shape?
Apologies if this sounds like invective, but I'm starting to feel that the fatter people are becoming the new smokers - it's all our fault and we deserve to die etc.
-
I don't think the health benefits of being slimmer are ignored in general, this is just marketing: see a gap in the market, produce what the customer wants and make money from them. And larger ladies would like to dress as well as the smaller ladies, so why not. Someone selling clothes in larger sizes ain't going to say "Buy our lovely clothes that will flatter your shape, but you really ought to lose weight." That wouldn't get the punters through the door.
-
With all due respect Grub, I would respond "there speaks someone who hasn't a weight problem".
I'm big/heavy/fat. I got bigger/heavier/fatter once I stopped racing on the bike - ther's evidence (mainly from Australia as it happens) that people who previously battered their bodies with training put weight on very easily once they slow down.
My point is; those of us of the larger sizes get fed up with shopping for clothes and having little or no choice. Why shouldn't larger women have choice? Maybe, if they feel better, they might feel more inclined to starve (diet?) to achieve societies required shape?
Apologies if this sounds like invective, but I'm starting to feel that the fatter people are becoming the new smokers - it's all our fault and we deserve to die etc.
GP,
Ha, welcome to my world. I am made to feel fat as I am surrounded by skinny buggers. Mrs G has 'no body fat' and both my sons are like her. They all have various numbered packs for stomachs from the slightest amount of swimming training. Both boys eat like there is no tomorrow and eat total crap a lot of the time.
Well, I have never had a visible pack of any number on my stomach, I look at food and put on weight and I have to seriously watch what I eat due to my diabetes ( that I reckon I've had since birth but it was not picked up until I came here in 1995 when it was starting to cause weight gain ).
So I am not really fat, it is just that I am not as thin as those I constantly see around me.
I suspect therefore that I have become a 'fatist' in my views due to my conditioning by those that I love, especially my boys, joking about my gut and lack of six pack. :-\
-
Being Fat - The F-Word (http://www.thefword.org.uk/blog/2010/08/being_fat)
Rejecting the notion of the flattering outfit | definatalie.com (http://www.definatalie.com/2010/07/17/rejecting-the-notion-of-the-flattering-outfit/)
Just for some extra reading...
Fat people need clothes too. Even if they're trying to lose weight, they still need clothes while they're fat. Believe me, you don't want to see us fat birds walking about naked.
-
Those of us who have a resemblance to the orangutan face
A veil might be a better solution ;)
(sorry)
-
Those who have met me will know I'm not H-Y-O-O-G-E.
I'm borderline overweight (BMI 25-26) on a medium to large frame.
Most women's 'extra-large' cycling is too small for my hips. I really don't think it's asking too much to want clothes to fit.
Nelly-The-Elephant,
Edgware
-
For the first time in ages last night I treated us to a take away from the new Indian place that has opened in town. I was careful to order only things that I could eat and checked to ensure they were not over loaded with sugar like some establishments I have visited in my past. As I waited for my order to be brought out the lass before me, no more than 19 years of age left the shop with her order. She had to turn sideways to walk out the door as she was too wide to walk out normally. I expect she would enjoy a new range of clothing too as what she had painted on did seem all a bit tight.
But, are we not just masking the issue here?
That professor bloke that is studying the kids says there is no such thing as big bones.
-
Those who have met me will know I'm not H-Y-O-O-G-E.
I'm borderline overweight (BMI 25-26) on a medium to large frame.
Most women's 'extra-large' cycling is too small for my hips. I really don't think it's askig to much to want clothes to fit.
Nelly-The-Elephant,
Edgware
Women's cycling clothes are tiny, really tiny. XL comes in at around a standard 14. My waterproof jacket is a man's.
For the first time in ages last night I treated us to a take away from the new Indian place that has opened in town. I was careful to order only things that I could eat and checked to ensure they were not over loaded with sugar like some establishments I have visited in my past. As I waited for my order to be brought out the lass before me, no more than 19 years of age left the shop with her order. She had to turn sideways to walk out the door as she was too wide to walk out normally. I expect she would enjoy a new range of clothing too as what she had painted on did seem all a bit tight.
But, are we not just masking the issue here?
That professor bloke that is studying the kids says there is no such thing as big bones.
Well, some people do have larger bones, larger frames than others, but when large bones are covered in a foot-deep layer of fat, it's not the bones that are the problem.
But what issue are we masking? That women are getting fatter? They still need clothes. I don't think it's reasonable to expect them to live wrapped in a burlap sack until they reach a BMI of 25 or under. And what about the men? Is it ok for men to be obese but not women? Should men's clothing shops stop selling fat bloater sizes?
-
No, both fat men and women need clothes, that is a no brainer.
It is not right to limit them to just the black smock range either.
The pull it over your head size and cover all type of thing.
They should have the choice of something more fitting if they like.
But one minute we hear about concerns about childhood obesity and how sizes are being made bigger to cater for them and what is this going to do to our future prosperity and well being, and the next minute we are now calling for a range of clothing to be made for the larger person to make them feel more comfortable.
So gradually we are accepting that people are getting fatter and are making changes to help them feel more comfortable and acceptable.
My eldest is nearly 6 feet tall but his waist is only 30 inches. He cannot fit into the age clothing that is now on offer as aside from the trousers being too short the waist is too big, still. So we have to get him the next or the next next age up and he wears a belt to gather it all in.
I am not pointing the finger at the fat people and laughing or feeling sorry for them as such, I am just having a discussion on where I think the world is going re: sizes and wonder what everyone else thinks.
I enjoy discussions like this.
-
Methinks RZ would find getting a minimum order from Owayo very difficult if only sizes S & M were on offer...
-
Cycle clothing does appear to be on a shelf by itself when it comes to sizing though.
I think they chose the smallest skinniest Italian when they decided upon the size guides.
I am an XL in some things. :P
-
Thing is, what the fashion world calls 'plus size' is anything but. Marc Jacobs, the fashion designer who is doing a 'plus size' range is using a size 14 model. Size 14 is NOT overweight on an average height woman. Indeed size 14 works out at within the healthy weight range for the average height woman.
As someone who has battled with weight issues most of my adult life, to put it bluntly, it p*$$3s me off no-end that if you're overweight you're the new social pariahs, undoubtedly low on intelligence and lacking in self-control, etc. etc. I've had abuse shouted at me in the streets from total strangers just because I'm fat. I eat uber-healthily, I keep a food diary, I portion control everything, no added salt, skimmed milk only, very, very low-fat, no alcohol, no added sugar, no sugary drinks... and I am still obese. Unless I'm doing a mimimum of 200 miles a week on the bike and eating uber-healthily I put weight on. Consider that due to chronic knee injuries I'm off the bike long-term and right now, life for me is sh*t in the weight department. It is a constant battle and I cannot let my guard down at all. Even MrWC has remarked about how damned unfair it is that I have such a healthy lifestyle, do not eat cr@p and yet am significantly overweight.
And yes, fat people need clothes too. And why shouldn't I take some pride in my appearance just because I'm fat? I constantly battle to keep my weight under some semblance of control and it's damn difficult. Psychologically it's even more difficult when all there is on offer to wear in the shops is the equivalent of a paper bag over the head, blinds for the windows and locks for the doors so that no member of the public need be subjected to the horrific sight of you: a fat person, something less than worthy of human poltie contact.
Weight issues are complex - especially for women - as there are all sorts of *wrong* and *dangerous* messages sent out to us right from being kids to being older. There are health problems with being underweight, and underweight is the big message sent out in the media to females, espeecially young females. There's a lot of young women who are likely to have serious osteoporosis problems at increasingly early ages due to the fixation on dieting and retaining the figure of a child, even when an adult. It is NOT natural for a *woman* to look like a child with breasts.
As regards obesity, there's all sorts of complex issues around that., linked in to our societal rituals surrounding food, the industrialisation of food production and preparation, working lifestyles of women including long hours of employment, what goes into cheap food, and then there are medivcal issues to take into account too. Even Professor Robert Winston has acknowledged that medicine is only just beggining to scratch the surface of what is going on as regards obesity; that it is far more complex than calories in and calories out, but includes how the body deals with the calories in.
-
Being Fat - The F-Word (http://www.thefword.org.uk/blog/2010/08/being_fat)
Rejecting the notion of the flattering outfit | definatalie.com (http://www.definatalie.com/2010/07/17/rejecting-the-notion-of-the-flattering-outfit/)
Just for some extra reading...
Fat people need clothes too. Even if they're trying to lose weight, they still need clothes while they're fat. Believe me, you don't want to see us fat birds walking about naked.
The first one appeared to just be about anorexia - unless I didn't get it.
The second one is thought provoking.
-
I am aware the 'big bones' business can be used as a smokescreen/excuse for FAT.
No amount of dieting will get my size 41 feet into size 37 shoes however and my hips are wide, even when unpadded.
-
Waffles,
Just what I was after. Well thought provoking, thank you :-*
-
But one minute we hear about concerns about childhood obesity and how sizes are being made bigger to cater for them and what is this going to do to our future prosperity and well being, and the next minute we are now calling for a range of clothing to be made for the larger person to make them feel more comfortable.
So gradually we are accepting that people are getting fatter and are making changes to help them feel more comfortable and acceptable.
I think the two things are different though. It would be lovely if everyone was a healthy size and weight, didn't smoke, took regular exercise, drank enough water, ate eight or nine portions of fruit and veg a day, had regular smear tests, had safe sex and all the rest of it. It would be great if everyone looked after themselves properly so that they did as much as they could to ensure they stayed fit and well (as much as can be within our own control at least) and able to work for the prosperity of this great nation.
But until that happy day comes, shouldn't fat people be able to wear things they like?
-
Kirst,
Yep, as I said above, the fat people should be able to wear what they want. I was not really arguing against that point but I was trying to figure out the reason for my angst that was linked to it.
I pay an arm and a leg for a fruit box to be delivered on Fridays. We live in rural Wiltshire and although we have supermarkets in Marlborough and nearby Pewsey, the 'fresh' food is not as 'fresh' as that that comes in the fruit box. It is also a local business and I support that and it saves on driving to the supermarket etc. But the point I am making is this is over and above to try and make a difference.
It costs an arm and a leg to pay for swimming club sessions and to drive them there etc.
In this society of ours, it is much easier and cheaper to be fat I reckon. Fat food is also not just cheaper it also quite often tastes better than healthy food.
-
One other thing that is interesting - that blog you linked to - by Natalie.
She has a lovely picture displayed on the right.
In that blog she says just wear what you want and be proud to be fat.
She now has her own range of t-shirt with a snazzy font saying 'fat' on the front.
And some stickers out saying "Does my fat arse look fat in this?"
But although she says it is cruel to force fat people to wear clothes to hide body imperfections, and it is wrong by the fat person to feel that way, she has not updated her photo as above to show what she looks like now.
Nope, she has not lost weight.
-
Examples of the conflicting messages sent out to females..
America's Next Top Model star whose waist can be held in man's hand | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1302689/Americas-Next-Top-Model-star-waist-held-mans-hand.html)
Botox boom as U.S teenagers receive 12,000 jabs in a year
| Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1302519/Botox-boom-U-S-teenagers-receive-12-000-jabs-year.html)
Rihanna continues to shock with raunchy moves in front of young fans | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1302822/Rihanna-continues-shock-raunchy-moves-young-fans.html)
The larger woman: A quarter of women are size 18 or bigger | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1302673/The-larger-woman-A-quarter-women-size-18-bigger.html) (in this one, it refers to using size 12 models... for plus-size clothing.. no wonder we're screwed up about size/weight)
Jordan mania hits Plymouth as hundreds queue to meet Katie Price at book signing | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1302976/Jordan-mania-hits-Plymouth-hundreds-queue-meet-Katie-Price-book-signing.html)
'Nuff sed. Jordan. Body of a child with breasts of an unmilked fresian...
No wonder we females get mentally and physically screwed up about body image (actual and perceived)
-
Spot on waffles.
Fat isn't a feminist issue, being properly overweight is a medical issue and those arguing that we should just accept it are wrong. The reasons why people get like that in the first place are a political and feminist issue. The two things need separating.
-
That depends upon what you mean by 'accept it'
I am fat, I accept it, I don't like it, but it is a constant battle to maintain a lesser level of obesity rather than end up even more huge. I have to watch what I eat for my entire life.
The problem is that by not accepting it, for too many this means that it's seen as ok to riducle and abuse people for being fat and that is unacceptable in my book.
Being fat is NOT 'wrong' it is a complex issue.
-
I think that it just reflects the sedentary modern lifestyle we have and how good the food industry is at marketing cheap crap.
If you have to walk or cycle to work, your mind come to the conclusion that going to work is difficult.
If you have to go to the gym or cycle to control your weight, your mind come to the conclusion that staying slim is difficult
If you need to save pennies to eat meat.... etc
-
This is also prompting quite a lot of discussion in my household.
Mrs G is often highly annoyed by the sizing that is available.
She goes into a shop and cannot find a size 8 anywhere - and all the racks are occupied by size 16 to 22 etc.
So how big are plus sizes going to need to be?
In my other thread about L-Cartinine I read from Wikipedia - as copied below.
This amino acid helps move fat into the mitochondria where it can be used as fuel.
Panoramix has hit upon a great side subject - the modern diet.
Product Quantity Carnitine
Beef steak 100 g 95 mg
Ground beef 100 g 94 mg
Pork 100 g 27.7 mg
Bacon 100 g 23.3 mg
Tempeh 100 g 19.5 mg
Cod fish 100 g 5.6 mg
Chicken breast 100 g 3.9 mg
-
So gradually we are accepting that people are getting fatter and are making changes to help them feel more comfortable and acceptable.
I don't want to be patronising to overweight people, but I see having clothing ranges for larger people as a good thing.
Many fat people are very self concious about their size. If the only clothes they can get are basically sacks, then that's going to hammer self confidence even more. And what are they going to do then? Eat.
Give larger people clothes they feel confident in and they'll feel happier and more positive. And when you're happy and positive, you're more likely to take action. ie Lose weight.
So I think it's a good thing rather than acceptance that people are generally getting larger....
-
This is also prompting quite a lot of discussion in my household.
Mrs G is often highly annoyed by the sizing that is available.
She goes into a shop and cannot find a size 8 anywhere - and all the racks are occupied by size 16 to 22 etc.
I'd like to know what these shops are, as the vast majority of places I find, unless specifically for plus sizes (Evans, Yours) rarely have anything above a size 18 in any sort of quantity or range that can resemble anything that gives a real choice.
-
It is complex why one person is fatter than another when the number of calories consumed and exersise done is the same, but there is the simple truth that if you reduce the calories consumed (and do more exersise when you can) then you loose weight. I'm not saying it's easy, but it is possible for everyone. And eating "healthy" food is only helpful when you don't eat too much of it.
Meanwhile of course no one should riducled or abused for being fat (or skinny), and good clothing should be available for everyone. I think it's dodgy though to publically celebrate and defend gross obesity as if there's absolutely nothing wrong with it, as some celebrities have done.
-
M&S seemed to have a lot in larger sizes when I last visited.
They have revised their sizes though, meaning I really struggle to get a size 16 over my hips but can't wear a size 18 cos it's ENORMOUS the waist and tummy.
-
It is complex why one person is fatter than another when the number of calories consumed and exersise done is the same, but there is the simple truth that if you reduce the calories consumed (and do more exersise when you can) then you loose weight. I'm not saying it's easy, but it is possible for everyone. And eating "healthy" food is only helpful when you don't eat too much of it.
Meanwhile of course no one should riducled or abused for being fat (or skinny), and good clothing should be available for everyone. I think it's dodgy though to publically celebrate and defend gross obesity as if there's absolutely nothing wrong with it, as some celebrities have done.
Actually it's not possible for everyone. There's a number of medical conditions that adversely affect weight.
And er, thanks for pointing out I eat too much, even though everything I eat is weighed, portion controlled and written up in a food diary which is supervised by a third party ::-)
Just another example of the sort of patronising attitude the fat have to put up with. We're oh so lacking in self-control... if only we ate less...
Yes, a major cause of obesity is people eating too much but the full picture is far, far more complex.
-
This is also prompting quite a lot of discussion in my household.
Mrs G is often highly annoyed by the sizing that is available.
She goes into a shop and cannot find a size 8 anywhere - and all the racks are occupied by size 16 to 22 etc.
I'd like to know what these shops are, as the vast majority of places I find, unless specifically for plus sizes (Evans, Yours) rarely have anything above a size 18 in any sort of quantity or range that can resemble anything that gives a real choice.
It's the same places. Most shops stock 10 12 and 14, with few things at either end of the scale and even the size 10s are made for girls that have no waist or hips. Having been both ends of the scale - size 16+ are no easier to get than size 8, especially in cycling or walking clothes and vice versa. :-\
-
Yup Mrs Pcolbeck is a size 8 and ends up having to shop in TopShop and the like to get stuff to fit. Is OK but can be hard to get something that she thinks is age appropriate. She doesn't want to look like a 16 year old (well I guess she wouldn't mind but you know what I mean). She finds it much easier in France.
-
I know there are medical conditions that adversely affect weight, but you still loose weight if you reduce the number of calories, don't you? I know it's immensely difficult for many people, but it's not impossible, is it?
-
Methinks RZ would find getting a minimum order very difficult if only S & M were on offer...
Oh, I'm not so sure. ;D
-
I know there are medical conditions that adversely affect weight, but you still loose weight if you reduce the number of calories, don't you? I know it's immensely difficult for many people, but it's not impossible, is it?
The simple answer is yes and often the simple answer is wrong. The real answer is no, sometimes, yes, maybe all at the same time. Let me put this as plainly as I can. The issue of weight is NOT simple. It is complex. We may be biological machines but we are all a bit different from each other, so we don't all deal with calories in in the same way/extent/call it what you will. Weight loss is NOT a steady thing. You can be on a calorie restricted diet and NOT lose weight at an expected rate. You can 'plateau' for weeks/months/long term. Then there's the effect of age and how the body deals with food as we get older. We change. Then there's gender - men's bodies are different to women's bodies in terms of how they handle food (example - on weight loss regimes men get to eat more than a woman with the same amount of weight to lose and with the same activity level)
Having kept a food diary of what I eat, when I eat it, the amount I eat, the exercise I do.. if I want to lose weight, keep it off long term to be in the upper end of the healthy BMI range then I have to exist on effectviely a starvation diet and that puts me on lack of essential nutrients which is, of itself, unhealthy. And no, I'm not fooling myself by eating chocolate, chips, downing the alcohol etc and trying to fool myself. And I have to do a LOT of exercise (minimum 200 miles a week on the bike).
The body is complex, not a simple machine. And quite frankly, the attitude of 'if only you eat less' is patronising at best and can be utterly wrong. It is way too simplistic.
-
And quite frankly, the attitude of 'if only you eat less' is patronising at best and can be utterly wrong. It is way too simplistic.
+1
I can get my weight right down to skinny, with a deal of effort, but I'm usually, frankly, just a little bit podgy and that's where my body's weight "thermostat" sits. My brother is a fat chap, always has been, though his diet is much like mine. Our sister is skinny as.
I understand pretty well all the various metabolic and physiological mechanisms involved and Wafflycat's summary is - to me - pretty good.
-
Kirst,
Yep, as I said above, the fat people should be able to wear what they want. I was not really arguing against that point but I was trying to figure out the reason for my angst that was linked to it.
I pay an arm and a leg for a fruit box to be delivered on Fridays. We live in rural Wiltshire and although we have supermarkets in Marlborough and nearby Pewsey, the 'fresh' food is not as 'fresh' as that that comes in the fruit box. It is also a local business and I support that and it saves on driving to the supermarket etc. But the point I am making is this is over and above to try and make a difference.
It costs an arm and a leg to pay for swimming club sessions and to drive them there etc.
In this society of ours, it is much easier and cheaper to be fat I reckon. Fat food is also not just cheaper it also quite often tastes better than healthy food.
Ok, I see what you're saying, but you were posting about clothes without explaining all your other thoughts, so it seemed to me that you were questioning if fat people should have clothes.
It used to be that poor people were thin and fat people were rich. Now it seems that poor people seem more likely to be fat - and at the same time, malnourished.
Fat/thin isn't just a medical issue though. You can look at it in terms of medical consequences fairly easily, but the attitudes to weight and size and shape come from much more complex contributing factors.
And people find it very difficult to talk about. Look at the way the media use "curvy" to describe a celeb who's getting fatter than they used to be. Curvy isn't a volume, it's a shape. I was curvy when I was thin - because I'll always have hips and tits - and I'm curvy when I'm fat. Other people are more straight up and down, whether they're fat or thin. Look at the fuss about Christina Hendricks who plays Joan in Mad Men - she's not fat, she's the epitome of curvy, but because she's not stick thin, in Hollywood terms she's fat. And a few years ago when there was all that fuss about Jennifer Lopez's arse I read an article which said that she was 5'6" and 8 stone - if that article was true, then technically she was underweight, but people were going on about her as if she was a heifer.
Meanwhile of course no one should riducled or abused for being fat (or skinny), and good clothing should be available for everyone. I think it's dodgy though to publically celebrate and defend gross obesity as if there's absolutely nothing wrong with it, as some celebrities have done.
Think of it as people reacting to the decades of abuse and criticism they've suffered. I know people who have been verbally abused and in some cases physically assaulted by strangers in the street because of their size. Well, not because of their size, that's victim blaming, but because some people think it's ok to abuse and assault people if they're fat. If you've spent years of your life reading magazines or watching telly or films or overhearing conversations which make it very clear that your size and shape are not socially acceptable, or being bullied at school, or laughed at by your colleagues, or turned down for jobs you can do, then you might want to say a big "fuck you world, I'm fat, get over it."
-
Thermodynamically, it is about the Calorie/Exercise balance.
But that is wholly masked by individual effects of DNA, perceptions, pills and potions, upbringing, fashion, and god knows what else.
I used to think it was just about the calorie balance. But there's so much more to it than that.
This spin-off warrants a whole thread of its own in Health & Efficiency Fitness.
-
I used to think it was just about the calorie balance. But there's so much more to it than that.
absolutely. On both counts.
-
Whatever it is down to it is the new smoking for visits to the doctor. (At least in Holland)
BBC News - Obese visit GP more often than smokers, researchers say (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-10963427)
Who knows, maybe there will be a link found between some kind of behaviour and weight control issues. There are suggestions it is down to a virus. I put on 2 stone over the winter down to lack of exercise, drinking too much and eating comfort snacks; any virus I had was one in my mind. I've dealt with it and now I am eating less, drinking virtually nothing and exercising more. The 2 stone will go.
-
There are suggestions that for *some* people, weight gain can be the result of a viral infection. It's thought one or more of the adenoviruses may be implicated in weight gain in some people. Indeed there has been one case publicised where a set of identical twins were studied. Although identical twins, one was slim and one was considerably fatter. The fatter one tested positive for exposure to a particular adenovirus thought to be implicated in weight gain.
-
I know it's a highly complex subject as a whole, but still the simple fact remains that if you consume *enough* fewer calories then you will loose weight. I am not saying it's not complex to manage that and to know how many fewer calolories that are needed at any one time, etc, etc. Especially I appreciate that it can be difficult to be healthly while consuming vastly fewer calories. After all, you're guaranteed to loose weight if you stop eating altogether, but being dead is not healthy.
I'm sorry that I upset you Wafflycat. I don't mean to criticise you or any indivdual. I just wanted to discuss the idea in general that it's physically impossible for everyone to loose weight because I'm concerned that too many people believe it is. I accept that it's *practically* impossible for a few people, but not for the majority.
Being overweight is not a problem I have personally, but is for some loved ones of mine, including one with a medical condition that makes them put on weight easily - so I care about the subject.
Personally I've had the opposite problem of being underweight. My worst point was after not eating for over three weeks becuase of major stomach problems. Perhaps this clear experience of loosing weight through lack of calories colours my judgement.
-
Thermodynamically, it is about the Calorie/Exercise balance.
But that is wholly masked by individual effects of DNA, perceptions, pills and potions, upbringing, fashion, and god knows what else.
I used to think it was just about the calorie balance. But there's so much more to it than that.
It is purley down to calorie/exercise balance. Eat less calories than you burn and you will get thinner eat more and you put on weight. That's it full stop,
You can't generate body mass from sun;light alone.
The problem is the psychology behind achieving that balance. Some people are lucky and seem to stay thin though they eat the same as someone who eats the same and puts on weight but when you look at them in detail they are more active. Mrs Pcolbeck is one of those. Doesn't actually do any "exercise" but never sits still, has a kind of nervous energy foot always tapping when at the computer etc. Me I put on weight easily because I am very slothful. Medication can suppress your desire to do anything or increase your appetite and so on. It gets complicated but in the end its calories in versus calories burned.
-
There are suggestions that for *some* people, weight gain can be the result of a viral infection. It's thought one or more of the adenoviruses may be implicated in weight gain in some people. Indeed there has been one case publicised where a set of identical twins were studied. Although identical twins, one was slim and one was considerably fatter. The fatter one tested positive for exposure to a particular adenovirus thought to be implicated in weight gain.
The only way it could cause her to gain weight was causing an increase in appetite or a decrease in exercise. As I said a couple of post ago not all exercise is what we think of as exercise some people just use more calories standing around or even sitting as they don't really sit or stand still. The only other thing it could possibly do is increase the efficiency of the metabolism to extract calories from food as it passed through teh body. In which case she just needs to eat less food.
-
Ah yes, all we weak-willed, out-of-control fat people. If only we could simply admit that we have the lack of willpower to eat less.
Excuse me - I'm off to generate flab via photosynthesis, I mean I must be deluded into thinking that's how I'm fat.. We fatties must just love being in denial about being fat...
::-)
-
Not having a go at you or anyone else. Took me two years to loose two stones and I have put one back on again in the last year. I also smoke so I am not having a go at anyone's will power. You cant argue with the first law of thermodynamics though.
-
There are suggestions that for *some* people, weight gain can be the result of a viral infection. It's thought one or more of the adenoviruses may be implicated in weight gain in some people. Indeed there has been one case publicised where a set of identical twins were studied. Although identical twins, one was slim and one was considerably fatter. The fatter one tested positive for exposure to a particular adenovirus thought to be implicated in weight gain.
The only way it could cause her to gain weight was causing an increase in appetite or a decrease in exercise. As I said a couple of post ago not all exercise is what we think of as exercise some people just use more calories standing around or even sitting as they don't really sit or stand still. The only other thing it could possibly do is increase the efficiency of the metabolism to extract calories from food as it passed through teh body. In which case she just needs to eat less food.
And to change the body's preferred calorie source in terms of the balance between fat and carbohydrate being used? Which could presumably alter the body shape while not affecting total calorie use. It's not beyond the realms of possibility, surely, that a virus could affect all three.
But someone mentioned the tendency of people who used to burn a lot of energy, such as professional sports people, to put on weight when they stop. It's also been found that those who have survived a famine tend to put on weight because their body has learnt to save every calorie it can as fat.
-
No-one is arguing with the physics. however, there seems to have a lack of willingness to understand that the human body is not a simple machine, it is complex and how one individual's body deals with 'calories in' is not exactly the same an a.n.other's.
-
Anyone who closely follows a diet plan is strong willed, and it can take virtually a supernatural amount of willpower to eat less than your mind is craving. That doesn't stop the fact that weight will be lost if fewer calories are consumed. Again I'm not saying it's simple to manage or that's it's the same for everyone.
-
Anyone who closely follows a diet plan is strong willed, and it can take virtually a supernatural amount of willpower to eat less than your mind is craving. That doesn't stop the fact that weight will be lost if fewer calories are consumed. Again I'm not saying it's simple to manage or that's it's the same for everyone.
Tell you what, why don't you come & check over what I eat & you can tell me what this simple-minded fatty is deluding herself about and could be doing better to lose weight & stay healthy whislt doing so. Because obviously, I, like so many of we fatties, obviously hasn't a clue.
-
Anyone who closely follows a diet plan is strong willed, and it can take virtually a supernatural amount of willpower to eat less than your mind is craving. That doesn't stop the fact that weight will be lost if fewer calories are consumed. Again I'm not saying it's simple to manage or that's it's the same for everyone.
No, for some people the diet-plan will work through sheer will power.
But, there are some people who may have a range of medical conditions which physically will prevent them from losing the weight, as there are for people who are desperate to put on weight. I think this is what wafflycat is trying to get across to you.
-
Interesting discussion here, and demonstrates also just how emotive this issue is to both ends of the spectrum of opinion.
I can't help feeling though that the 'clothes' issue here should not really be linked to the 'society view of obesity' issue. The manufacture, sales and marketing of clothing is all market-driven and profit-driven. When a business decides what sizing to adopt and what sizes to offer their clothing ranges in they are not thinking ' we must make sure we offer a fair range so that no one feels left out or discriminated against', they are thinking 'how can we sell the most garments/ make the most profit'. They are probably basing their size range choice on what in their experience has sold best for them in the past, and the quantities that the shops selling their stuff order. I have a feeling that the underlying reasons for the smallest and largest sizes being harder to find is simply that there are easier profits to be made selling large quantities of 'average' garments, with fewer unsold items left for the shops to get rid of at the end of the season. The shops are really not interested in providing us all with a 'service', they just want our money but without the increased costs and risk involved in stocking a wider range of sizes.
I was shopping for jeans for my 16 year old son yesterday, we came home empty handed because his favoured brand of jeans is 'Next' and they don't stock his 30 Long size in their stores because too few people buy it. I don 't think they have it in for skinny 6'2" 16 year olds, they just have found that the profit made from my once a year visit to buy him new jeans isn't enough to justify stocking them.
I guess my point (if I even have one!) is why there appear to be SO many people looking for the larger sizes, and yet the shops haven't cottoned onto this unfulfilled sector of their market. I hope the reason behind this isn't a sinister one ... such as the stocking of a garment in very large sizes damaging the profitable brand image for their average-size buyer who is their bread and butter. If that were true then it would indeed indicate some very messed up thinking about weight in our culture. :-\
-
We fatties must just love being in denial about being fat...
This is precisely the problem for some people. My boss, for example, is constantly moaning about how hard it is for him to lose weight. If you ask him, he eats healthily - ie he has a salad for lunch (plus a bag of crisps). And he does "regular" exercise (ie once a month).
(Note that I'm not saying this necessarily applies to you.)
-
We fatties must just love being in denial about being fat...
This is precisely the problem for some people. My boss, for example, is constantly moaning about how hard it is for him to lose weight. If you ask him, he eats healthily - ie he has a salad for lunch (plus a bag of crisps). And he does "regular" exercise (ie once a month).
(Note that I'm not saying this necessarily applies to you.)
Indeed. It is precisely the problem for some people. And it's precisely not the problem for some people :)
-
Anyone who closely follows a diet plan is strong willed, and it can take virtually a supernatural amount of willpower to eat less than your mind is craving. That doesn't stop the fact that weight will be lost if fewer calories are consumed. Again I'm not saying it's simple to manage or that's it's the same for everyone.
No, for some people the diet-plan will work through sheer will power.
But, there are some people who may have a range of medical conditions which physically will prevent them from losing the weight, as there are for people who are desperate to put on weight. I think this is what wafflycat is trying to get across to you.
That'll do quite nicely for now.
-
Anyone who closely follows a diet plan is strong willed, and it can take virtually a supernatural amount of willpower to eat less than your mind is craving. That doesn't stop the fact that weight will be lost if fewer calories are consumed. Again I'm not saying it's simple to manage or that's it's the same for everyone.
No, for some people the diet-plan will work through sheer will power.
But, there are some people who may have a range of medical conditions which physically will prevent them from losing the weight, as there are for people who are desperate to put on weight. I think this is what wafflycat is trying to get across to you.
No medical condition can prevent someone from loosing weight. It can however be difficult/impossible for some people to loose weight and yet consume the nutrients they need to be healthy. I already said as much in reply #44.
Again, I'm sorry I've upset you Wafflycat. Please accept I'm sincere about that. Again, I'm interested in discussing the subject in general rather than criticising individuals. I think it's fair to say the majority of overweight people could loose weight healthily if they want to and if they have some help. Isn't that fair?
It links to the original topic in that perhaps people can be encouraged to loose weight while being able to have good clothing, rather than being forced to loose weight to have it (by the larger sizes not being available).
-
Diet is difficult to control because there are so many social implications.
When I moved over to the UK I lost quite a lot of weight simply because I did not have appetite for the kind of stuff that was on sale at my local Tesco. It took me months to adapt despite not having the choice to do otherwise. That is purely cultural and made me suffer at the time but I see the opposite attitude from some of my daughter friends when they come at our place for supper and won't touch a vegetable or say "I don't like stuff which is green". My daughter also sometimes comes up with weird statements from school such as "Bread is unhealthy". Of course eating too much bread make you overweight but one still need calories and there is nothing wrong with eating bread.
The big food corporations will engineer their products so that people buy them again and again because it makes business sense to do so. They will also use as much as possible cheap stuff such as salt and water to maximise their profits. Bearing in mind how difficult it is to switch diet, understanding why so many people find it impossible to control their weight is easy.
However, laws of physics apply to the human body despite its complexity; some people can eat more than others because of their metabolism but whatever you do you can't put on weight unless you eat too much for your size/metabolism/physical exercise.
-
Anyone who closely follows a diet plan is strong willed, and it can take virtually a supernatural amount of willpower to eat less than your mind is craving. That doesn't stop the fact that weight will be lost if fewer calories are consumed. Again I'm not saying it's simple to manage or that's it's the same for everyone.
No, for some people the diet-plan will work through sheer will power.
But, there are some people who may have a range of medical conditions which physically will prevent them from losing the weight, as there are for people who are desperate to put on weight. I think this is what wafflycat is trying to get across to you.
No medical condition can prevent someone from loosing weight. It can however be difficult/impossible for some people to loose weight and yet consume the nutrients they need to be healthy. I already said as much in reply #44.
Again, I'm sorry I've upset you Wafflycat. Please accept I'm sincere about that. Again, I'm interested in discussing the subject in general rather than criticising individuals. I think it's fair to say the majority of overweight people could loose weight healthily if they want to and if they have some help. Isn't that fair?
It links to the original topic in that perhaps people can be encouraged to loose weight while being able to have good clothing, rather than being forced to loose weight to have it (by the larger sizes not being available).
Apology accepted. But you do have some misunderstandings about weight issues. Example: a neighbour's child put on a vast amount of weight whilst on steriods for a medical problem. The weight he put on really was a huge amount of weight. This was without eating any more. Amongst other things, he was retaining a lot of fluid which made him balloon up. Nothing whatsoever to do with overeating or simply needing to eat less. Came off the medications when his health issue was sorted and his weight returned to normal: without dieting.
The majority of overweight could lose weight healthily? Who knows? We really don't know for sure. If it was as simple as pure calorie reduction, then I doubt we'd have such a big weight problem. Just one of the complicating fatcors is that food is tied up in all sorts of social and cultural aspects of life that it isn't simple. A minor example is one I can give by direct experience. Try eating out at a social gathering when you have to watch every single thing you eat. At a restaurant with friends, I scoured the menu to find the healthiest option. I asked about ingredients, I asked for no sauces.. no oils.. no alcohol and made the best choice I could. Yet I was made to feel a social pariah by sticking to my guns about eating healthily and carefully. I was given the usual "Oh go on, one night won't do you any harm!" Well actually, it will, I've learnt the hard way that for me, one night will do me harm. Add into that the experessions of horror on the other guests when I was asking the waiter about stuff *for my choice*. I was not inflicting my healthy choice on any other peron in the group, yet I was made out to feel as if I was making a 'fuss' Yet if I had eaten unhealthily, I'd have got the 'you only have to eat less' thrown at me (it happens). perhaps we fatties aren't supposed to have a social life until we get to a socially acceptable size? Should we hide away out of sight as we're socially unacceptable? Try to do something about weight and in public we're making a fuss, "Oh go on... one won't harm" as the box of biscuits is passed around. Don't make the effort publicly and we get harangued about lack of control and not being able to eat less, or being unhealthy, a drain on NHS resources..
It used to be smokers, and now it's the overweight. What next? Could it be those exercise junkies who are so addicted to exercise that they go out and get injured, and that's a drain on the NHS... just saying that as an illustration as we all have health faults, we all have or do something that someone else considers a vice, a bad habit, a disgusting trait..
There are certainly adverse medical issues around being overweight. And there are adverse medical issues at the other end of the spectrum. What is seen as a 'healthy' weight is largely a cultural issue. Back in the past and even now around various parts of the globe, being what we think of as fat is seen as a sign of health and prosperity. Currently, in the west, in times of plenty, being *thin* is seen as healthy and desirable.
Ideal weight and proportions is as much cultural as medical.
-
Try eating out at a social gathering when you have to watch every single thing you eat. At a restaurant with friends, I scoured the menu to find the healthiest option. I asked about ingredients, I asked for no sauces.. no oils.. no alcohol and made the best choice I could. Yet I was made to feel a social pariah by sticking to my guns about eating healthily and carefully. I was given the usual "Oh go on, one night won't do you any harm!" Well actually, it will, I've learnt the hard way that for me, one night will do me harm. Add into that the experessions of horror on the other guests when I was asking the waiter about stuff *for my choice*. I was not inflicting my healthy choice on any other peron in the group, yet I was made out to feel as if I was making a 'fuss' Yet if I had eaten unhealthily, I'd have got the 'you only have to eat less' thrown at me (it happens).
In your case this was a justified "fuss" ie it wasn't really fuss at all, you had a valid reason. But the problem is that many people who do this are "making a fuss" and so all get tainted by the same brush. It's a bit like people seeing a few RLJers on bikes and then calling all cyclists "lycra louts".
-
It is not a simple matter of eat less and move more and weight will come off as any sufferer of hypothyroidism will testify. Neither careful calorie counting nor constant exercise will make the slightest difference. There are also numerous other metabolic conditions that prevent people from losing weight.
-
Getting back to the original topic, I wish things were made in the right shape or me, as well as size.
I'm not the first pear-shaped woman on the globe and it's supposedly healthy to have a low waist to hip ratio.
M&S has increased the waist size fitting for most women's sizes by nearly six inches (15cm) since the 1960s. (A size 16 in 1967 had a 28" waist and now is 84cm or 33.6".) This represents a huge amount of unhealthy intra-abdominal fat for much of the population and major fitting problems for me.
-
Apology accepted. But you do have some misunderstandings about weight issues. Example: a neighbour's child put on a vast amount of weight whilst on steriods for a medical problem. The weight he put on really was a huge amount of weight. This was without eating any more. Amongst other things, he was retaining a lot of fluid which made him balloon up. Nothing whatsoever to do with overeating or simply needing to eat less. Came off the medications when his health issue was sorted and his weight returned to normal: without dieting.
Similarly, some women put on a lot of weight when they take certain brands of contraception without changing anything about their diet or lifestyle, and lose it again once they come off it without changing anything else.
I know I'm fat because I eat too much and exercise too little. Right now I don't care enough to do anything about cutting down my food intake - I love food. I was going to BMF last year until about February this year and lost a stone, but then injured my Achilles and had to stop. It's still not better, I can't go back. If I thought about it a bit more deeply, I know there are psychological issues around my weight gain and lack of effort to lose weight which I'm not going to bore you with.
Some people might argue that excessive weight gain - and loss - is a form of self harm, in the same way that cutting is. It's a very complicated issue.
-
I know I'm just being pedantic now, but I can't resist.... No matter what medical condition you have, or what pills you're taking, consume vastly fewer calories and you will loose weight. Eating nothing at all is the clear illustration of that. Then you WILL get thinner, while you can live at all. In some cases people should eat less than they did before when they develop a condition that would mean weight gain if they continued with their usual diet.
But, as I've already accepted, it's not healthy for everyone to do that. I think the interesting question is what proportion of the population that applies to. I don't remember the figure, but I've heard medical experts say it's only a very small percentage of overweight people who can't safely loose weight for medical reasons.
Anyway, it's an interesting question about whether making large clothing sizes encourages people to stay large. As much as I want people to be discouraged from being overweight (when reasonably possible), it's going too far to not make larger sizes, IMO. That would be too mean, and, as well as to people with relevant medical conditions, it's unfair to people who are just big rather than fat!
-
I know I'm just being pedantic now, but I can't resist....
Then please do try to resist, or otherwise you may well find that you are read as being offensive even when you say you're not meaning to be.
-
Fashion fascism does not help.
If have met a depressing amount of women who are perfectly in proportion and attractive but say maybe a size 16+ and they have convinced themself they need to lose weight.
Some designers seem to think the ideal figure resembles a very slim young man in a dress...
-
I don't think the availability of larger clothing would have much effect on people's eating behaviour. Not being able to fit into size n might have some effect though.
Eating and weight loss issues are very complex.
If someone seriously wishes to lose a significant amount of weight, they need to commit to several months of undereating followed by lifelong food habit changes. This takes colossal motivation.
Initial weight loss can be relatively easy; dealing with The Hunger afterwards is IME another matter.
ICBA to try. My weight is basically rock steady (maybe 2kg more than in 1980). Trying to change it has never had any lasting effect. I don't want to balloon but I don't relish The Hunger. Keeping weight steady may be healthier than yo-yoing and being 10% over is unikely to cause major medical problems.
-
It is difficult to know how widespread the incidence of 'conditions' is in the population.
With the massive growth in car use in the 70s and 80s and the explosion of food types and quantities available 7 days a week, sometimes 24 hours a day, there has been a huge change in the Western human lifestyle. This has had implications for the number of calories burned and the availability of calories to consume. I would be astonished if this was not the major factor at work behind the growing of the population.
-
It is difficult to know how widespread the incidence of 'conditions' is in the population.
With the massive growth in car use in the 70s and 80s and the explosion of food types and quantities available 7 days a week, sometimes 24 hours a day, there has been a huge change in the Western human lifestyle. This has had implications for the number of calories burned and the availability of calories to consume. I would be astonished if this was not the major factor at work behind the growing of the population.
Look at second and third generation south east asians families in the US.
The lifestyle and diet changed to the US one and they got bigger/fatter.
-
It is difficult to know how widespread the incidence of 'conditions' is in the population.
With the massive growth in car use in the 70s and 80s and the explosion of food types and quantities available 7 days a week, sometimes 24 hours a day, there has been a huge change in the Western human lifestyle. This has had implications for the number of calories burned and the availability of calories to consume. I would be astonished if this was not the major factor at work behind the growing of the population.
I believe the motor car is probably responsible for the waistline inflation I referred to above. M&S make their clothes to fit their typical customers
-
I know I'm just being pedantic now, but I can't resist....
Then please do try to resist, or otherwise you may well find that you are read as being offensive even when you say you're not meaning to be.
No I can't always resist when people say things that aren't true.
If you read ALL of what I wrote, please, then hopefully you'll see that I'm trying to be fair.
-
There are suggestions that for *some* people, weight gain can be the result of a viral infection. It's thought one or more of the adenoviruses may be implicated in weight gain in some people. Indeed there has been one case publicised where a set of identical twins were studied. Although identical twins, one was slim and one was considerably fatter. The fatter one tested positive for exposure to a particular adenovirus thought to be implicated in weight gain.
There was a strain of thought quite recently that Type 2 diabetes might be triggered by a virus when very young.
-
I know I'm just being pedantic now, but I can't resist.... No matter what medical condition you have, or what pills you're taking, consume vastly fewer calories and you will loose weight. Eating nothing at all is the clear illustration of that. Then you WILL get thinner, while you can live at all.
This is indisputably true - like the old adage "there were no fat people in Belsen" that was used by a GP to one of my wifes friends. However they (the Belsen occupants) weren't particularly healthy either.
But I do agree with Pete - medical conditions (including the psychological) and pharmaceutical influences aside - there is no need or reason to be overweight. I am however. Why? Less than ideal diet and too little physical activity. All my own fault.
-
If have met a depressing amount of women who are perfectly in proportion and attractive but say maybe a size 16+ and they have convinced themself they need to lose weight.
Very true, I don't know a single who is happy about her weight!
-
there is no need or reason to be overweight. I am however. Why? Less than ideal diet and too little physical activity. All my own fault.
The "all my own fault" is probably harsh on yourself since modern society is designed to make us overweight ( car + crap food)
-
It's not just what society deems normal, but also the medical profession. Don't get me wrong, IANADr but yesterday at hospital I was told I was seriously under weight. That's just the way I am. And it's just the way many people who are "overweight" are. I was measured at 183 cm (which I understand in real money is 6') and I weighed 63 kg (which I believe is a few pounds under 10 st)
No matter what I eat, it won't change. (OK maybe up or down a bit, but nothing huge)
I am skinny. And some people are not.
I'm still alive. That's all I'm bothered about...
-
Bobb... At risk of sounding offensive, but without wanting to be, I will say this. You do drink a large amount of alcohol a large amount of the time. Though I don't know you I do know, just through living in a Polish village where it's the norm for most of the adult male population, a lot of people who are habitual drunkards (and many, even most, of them ride bikes!) and every single one of them is skinny. Skinny is not the norm for Polish villagers who do not drink all day every day (and double on Sundays). You may not be in the same condtion as them, but I don't think you'd want to head that way either.
-
Getting back to the original topic, I wish things were made in the right shape or me, as well as size.
I'm not the first pear-shaped woman on the globe and it's supposedly healthy to have a low waist to hip ratio.
M&S has increased the waist size fitting for most women's sizes by nearly six inches (15cm) since the 1960s. (A size 16 in 1967 had a 28" waist and now is 84cm or 33.6".) This represents a huge amount of unhealthy intra-abdominal fat for much of the population and major fitting problems for me.
AAArgh! Vanity sizing! If you're a size 8 and the mnufacturer increases the measurements, what do you do? There's often no smaller size available.
M&S used to use a size 12 fit model, the standard industry size. When they were bringing new ranges out, or when they wanted to check on their manufacturer's consistency (there used to be a 1.5cm allowance in leg lengths, for example) they would bring in models across the size range (8 to 22) to check for fit. Often they would use more than one model in each size - some people have a more sticky-out bum, but its the same 'size' (measurements) as someone who is the same dress size, but more consistently rounded. Garments need to be graded according to changing body peoportions as you go up and down the size scale. Anyway, they then changed their system overnight and decided to fit on only a size 14 (NOT the industry standard) and grade up & down accordingly. They still brought in some other size models, but would not use anyone over 5'6". Madness, utter madness.
You might have noticed that things that used to fit in M&S no longer did around about this time...
Ah yes, all we weak-willed, out-of-control fat people. If only we could simply admit that we have the lack of willpower to eat less.
Excuse me - I'm off to generate flab via photosynthesis, I mean I must be deluded into thinking that's how I'm fat.. We fatties must just love being in denial about being fat...
::-)
I've seen Wafflycat's food (and tasted it too! :) ) and it is NOT unhealthy. And it isn't served in vast quantities. In fact, Wafflycat eats far more healthily than I do. And yes, she can lose weight. Anyone can. But it isn't easy.
I think that's where the real problem lies. The media often portray weight loss & gain as being something that happens quickly and can be achieved without any real effort. Therefore, if you're not losing weight, you can't be trying, right? Well, no. If you're overweight and you're faced with a barrage of opinions stating that you're only x-size because you're not trying, a number of people are bound to become disillusioned and give up (not refering to W-C here).
I only have an opinion on someone's weight or size when it impinges on me. Watching a family member lose weight because of a medical condition has been terrifying. Having a severely overweight person occupying over 1/2 of my seat at the opera as well as her own was bloody annoying and I was squashed.
-
Cudzo, you should meet my Polish cleaning lady. She is skinny. She moves much and eats reasonably; skinny is just what she is.
Bobb, 10 stone is 63.5 kg skinny is what you are too. Your BMI is only a smidge under 19, so not dangerously low.
-
My concern for Bobb would be how you stand up to a serious off on the bike.
I MTB a bit and while myself and the other guys are slim we are not skinny, skinny gets dangerous as you break more easily without a light covering of toned muscle.
-
Nutkin,
Mrs G agrees with you totally. She 'used' to be a size 10 in M&S but now she has to find a size 8 ( nearly impossible ) to get a fit. She also agrees with the Mrs PColbeck approach and will not wear 'children's' clothes just so she can get a fitted garment.
-
Indeed, perhaps my post was a little extreme, and I'm not meaning to say "Bobb is skinny cos he drinks too much". But that does happen, and I couldn't help connecting it with Bobb.
And who knows, perhaps I have met your Polish cleaning lady! Tell me what part of Poland she's from and I'll tell you the likelihood!
-
But getting back onto topic, if we now look at what has been discussed and agree that nearly anyone can lose weight if they really want to, why does the +size women clothing range need to be introduced?
What also galled me about Madame Coupe on the BBC today was that she was not just fat, she was morbidly obese.
This is something else I have just found:
Large waist size linked to double the mortality rate:
BBC News - Large waist size linked to 'higher risk of death' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-10913898)
-
It needs to be intoduced to break the cycle of negative body image.
Trying to shame people through social exclusion is not going to improve the chances of them re-joining the world of people who are within a healthy/safe weight range.
-
I've seen Wafflycat's food (and tasted it too! :) ) and it is NOT unhealthy. And it isn't served in vast quantities. In fact, Wafflycat eats far more healthily than I do. And yes, she can lose weight. Anyone can. But it isn't easy.
Thank you, m'dear!
-
But getting back onto topic, if we now look at what has been discussed and agree that nearly anyone can lose weight if they really want to, why does the +size women clothing range need to be introduced?
Maybe some people just don't want to lose weight, or not enough to do it if it involves hard work.
-
From reading that other link it would appear they will not live as long if they do not.
-
And of course that nice, slim, healthy weight person may just walk under a bus tomorrow morning and end up dead a bit sooner than they thought they'd be.
-
From reading that other link it would appear they will not live as long if they do not.
That doesn't stop people driving instead of cycling, although cyclists tend to live longer.
-
If you want people to slim down and become more healthy you need both the carrot and the stick.
Let them dress well and that gives pride back, make them wear a sack for the rest of time and that is never going to happen.
All the way back in 1998 when I did my basic training the obese you g people we see today were just starting to filter their way into the forces.
Yes there was still that element of shouting and chasing them with a stick until they pulled their socks up and worked at it but that was combined with proper rehab and rebuilding of pride. It's about acceptance, accept them as what they are and help them by showing them that the acceptance means that people care about them and don't want to see them being over weight, struggling with parts of life/work and unhappy because of that.
-
Waffles, re: the bus and slim person:
Yes, but that is not their decision is it?
I don't know your particular circumstances but I expect it is not the commonest cause for over weight people.
I've got quite a high incentive to watch what I eat and to be strict with myself.
Limb amputation and or blindness is not something I really want to live with. But that is hopefully a long way away due to my 95% of the time control.
But Mr and Mrs Average in their size 20 clothes, where is the incentive for them to eat correctly and to exercise?
So in 5 years time, what was average will soon be increased to the new average as it slowly becomes more and more acceptable to be fat.
I read a file once when two fat people became upset when they were eating a kebab and people nearby made piggy noises and pulled faces by blowing out their cheeks at them. I am not suggesting we ridicule all fat people but we do seem to gradually be accepting that it is okay to be fatter.
-
Indeed, perhaps my post was a little extreme, and I'm not meaning to say "Bobb is skinny cos he drinks too much". But that does happen, and I couldn't help connecting it with Bobb.
And who knows, perhaps I have met your Polish cleaning lady! Tell me what part of Poland she's from and I'll tell you the likelihood!
I can't remember the exact location but it's in the east, towards Lithuania.
-
East is me, but I'm also more south, towards Ukraine. So I doubt if I've ever met her!
-
Waffles, re: the bus and slim person:
Yes, but that is not their decision is it?
It may well have been their decision to misjudge stepping out into the road...
I don't know your particular circumstances but I expect it is not the commonest cause for over weight people.
I've got quite a high incentive to watch what I eat and to be strict with myself.
Limb amputation and or blindness is not something I really want to live with. But that is hopefully a long way away due to my 95% of the time control.
But Mr and Mrs Average in their size 20 clothes, where is the incentive for them to eat correctly and to exercise?
So in 5 years time, what was average will soon be increased to the new average as it slowly becomes more and more acceptable to be fat.
So who are this Mr & Mrs Average? Acceptable to be fat? I can only assume you've not been on the end of the abuse you get from being fat.
I read a file once when two fat people became upset when they were eating a kebab and people nearby made piggy noises and pulled faces by blowing out their cheeks at them. I am not suggesting we ridicule all fat people but we do seem to gradually be accepting that it is okay to be fatter.
I'm not surprised they were upset. Are fat people never supposed to have a treat? It's assumed they eat kebabs all the time? I'd have been tempted to turn around and stick the kebab up the orifaces where the sun doesn't normally shine of the exceedingly rude people making such noises. That was appalling. Do you think otherwise?
I've had people suggest that I'd burn well as the fat would keep the flames going nicely... ah yes, being fat is gradually being accepted alright.. NOT.
-
This is something else I have just found:
Large waist size linked to double the mortality rate:
BBC News - Large waist size linked to 'higher risk of death' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-10913898)
This business of waist size 'apples and pears' has been known for a while and was to what I was referring in an earlier post. It does concern me how much waistlines have increased in Britain, even in 'slimmer' people.
-
I am not suggesting we ridicule all fat people but we do seem to gradually be accepting that it is okay to be fatter.
Shouldn't we be accepting that it's ok for people to be anything as long as they're not hurting someone else?
-
To look at Grub's original point, the reason plus size women want their own clothing range is simple. Vanity. We all have it. I wouldn't want to wear something that made me look horrendous, why should they? All women want to dress well, to flatter their shape, irrespective of what that shape is. This is something that all should be able to do. Whether you choose to do it or not is another matter. If the choice is removed from you beacuse someone has decided to stop a clothing range 4 inches below your hip measurement, I think you've every right to shout about it.
As to whether the demand is increasing due to acceptance of weight gain as the consequence of an unhealthy life-style (which I think is Grub's point), that may certainly be true. For every person who is plus-sized despite their attempts to lose weight, there's probably two or three who are that size as a consequence of poor diet and sedentary lifestyle. And they're not attempting to change things. I think we all agree that those who are attempting to control their weight (whether they are succeeding or not) are not the ones that Grub is thinking of.
The human population is changing. Generally we're taller than people 50 years ago, and better nutrition has meant that we have generally grown a bit all round. I love vintage clothes from the 50s, but often find that the body is too short. It's not that I have a peculiarly long body either, simply that at 5'7" (and a bit!) I'm considerably 'longer' than the average height of 5'2" on which garments were fitted then.
BUT...
The statistic of 47% of UK women are size 16 or over is often accompanied by the statement that Marily Monroe was a size 16. Yes, she was. A 1950s size sixteen. Quite different from a modern one. Her measurements are quoted as being 37-23-36 (Studio's Claim); 35-22-35 (Dressmaker's Claim). That BBC article about large waist sizes gives an M&S 16 as being 84cm, or 33". 10" larger than Marilyn's measurement. Yes, nearly a foot larger! A 23" waist measurement doesn't even make it onto their charts (on the M&S website (http://www.marksandspencer.com/General-Womenswear-Size-Guides-Product-Information-Help/b/47647031)) - a size 6 has a waist measurement of 24"!! The dressmaker's measurements would, at 89-56-89 make her an M&S 12 bust, 4 waist and 8 hips. The studio measurements make her 14-4-10. By no stretch of the imagination is that anywhere near a modern 16.
Our lifestyles are more sedentary than the 1950s - washing machines, hoovers, dishwashers and cars were luxury items for many people back then, and if you couldn't afford them you burned extra calories doing things the hard way. We don't like to admit we're lazier, and we don't like to admit we're larger. God forbid if anyone then suggested a link between the two!
Better to demand a change in clothing size measurements, than to look at whether we need to reassess our way of life.
-
Shouldn't we be accepting that it's ok for people to be anything as long as they're not hurting someone else?
+1
-
I think there are two trends here, and waffles may be at the intersection. One is a trend to increasing waists and weights, the other to increasing public abuse of random private persons. The first is medically unfortunate, but the second is nastiness.
-
Shouldn't we be accepting that it's ok for people to be anything as long as they're not hurting someone else?
+1
+2
Unfortunately 'size-bashing' seems to be socially acceptable at both ends of the scale.
-
I think there's quite a lot here to suggest that there should be a return to made-to-measure clothing instead of off-the-peg. There would be economic benefits - think of all the tailors required! And none of it offshoreable! - and stylish ones - everyone would be wearing something unique all the time.
-
I think there's quite a lot here to suggest that there should be a return to made-to-measure clothing instead of off-the-peg.
Until the explosion in popularity of 'disposable fashion' in the 1960s many people either made their own clothes or used a dressmaker. Prior to the early 1900s it was the only option.
And I bet they fitted!
-
Marilyn Monroe was a size 16 because her lovely, voluptuous bust was too big for a 36" top. She was slim-waisted, as were many of that era.
It was fairly common to make one's own clothes then, so accommodating variations in size and shape was possibly easier.
Made to measure clothing is very unusual nowadays, which may exacerbate the problem of dressing non-stock sized/shaped women.
-
Still see traditional tailors in Poland, though they're less popular than they used to be - probably because they can't compete on price with the cheapest mass-produced stuff, and because people don't want to wait - they're not going to disappear completely, especially for women's dresses. In fact, one of Mrs C's uncles was a tailor.
-
OOOooh look! Three of us posting the same thoughts simultaneously!
-
Marilyn Monroe was a size 16 because her lovely, voluptuous bust was too big for a 36" top.
According to my 1950s sewing patterns, 36" bust was a size 16. According to M&S, a 16 now is just under 40" bust.
-
OOOooh look! Three of us posting the same thoughts simultaneously!
So everyone's agreed that Marilyn Monroe had a lovely, voluptous bust? ;D
-
I am not suggesting we ridicule all fat people but we do seem to gradually be accepting that it is okay to be fatter.
Shouldn't we be accepting that it's ok for people to be anything as long as they're not hurting someone else?
Absolutely, but it does hurt loved ones when the person is not able to function as well, or live as long, as they would otherwise. Of course a fat person isn't necessarily unfit, just that there's an increased likelyhood if them being unfit. We are generalising here, after all.
I think there are two trends here, and waffles may be at the intersection. One is a trend to increasing waists and weights, the other to increasing public abuse of random private persons. The first is medically unfortunate, but the second is nastiness.
Is it increasing? Seems to me it's becoming more socially unacceptable. It's difficult to even discuss the subject of obesity without causing offence. Even the 'o' word sounds bad.
It's worse for skinny people in a way. It's more acceptable to make fun of them, yet it's just as offensive. And it's just as embarrassing to be skinny. Swimming would be really good for me, but I don't do it because I'm embarrassed about my body.
-
I sit corrected.
As a teenager, I had a small waist (23-24") but wore siize 14 to fit my hips.
It is ridiculous that nearly forty years on, I should be little more than an M&S 14 though I'm much fatter than the 7 stone teen of 1972.
-
[Quote from: Cudzoziemiec on Today at 10:47:50 PM]
I think there are two trends here, and waffles may be at the intersection. One is a trend to increasing waists and weights, the other to increasing public abuse of random private persons. The first is medically unfortunate, but the second is nastiness.
Is it increasing? Seems to me it's becoming more socially unacceptable. It's difficult to even discuss the subject of obesity without causing offence. Even the 'o' word sounds bad.
[/quote]
Is what increasing? I'm confused as to what you're asking about.
I was saying that the number of overweight people is generally increasing, and that abuse of strangers - for any reason - is also increasing. So, for instance, a couple of decades ago people might have had the same thoughts about the obese and made "fatty" jokes, but were unlikely to shout at them in the street. I don't say the two trends are connected, but that overweight people are simply another easy target.
-
It's worse for skinny people in a way. It's more acceptable to make fun of them, yet it's just as offensive. And it's just as embarrassing to be skinny. Swimming would be really good for me, but I don't do it because I'm embarrassed about my body.
Ah but it could be argued skinny people bring that on themselves just as much as larger people.
If they should just "calories in < calories out" then all a skinny person needs to do is calories in > calories out plus some weights and if they choose not to then that's their own choice (and so we chould feel just as free to mock skinny people too)! ::-)
P.S. I'm not having a go at you here Biggsy, just in general at the people that think mocking anyone is acceptable.
-
While I accept that one anecdote does not data make, I remember when I went to Woolworth's with my late grandmother and she used the scales.
I was six, she was sixty years older.
She weighed 14 stone but was a big lady - 5'9" on her passport.
My grandmother lived to 101 years.
Being plump may not shorten your life if you have no other health problem.
Morbid obesity is a different matter.
-
Shouldn't we be accepting that it's ok for people to be anything as long as they're not hurting someone else?
+1
+2
Unfortunately 'size-bashing' seems to be socially acceptable at both ends of the scale.
Aye.
-
While I accept that one anecdote does not data make, I remember when I went to Woolworth's with my late grandmother and she used the scales.
I was six, she was sixty years older.
She weighed 14 stone but was a big lady - 5'9" on her passport.
My grandmother lived to 101 years.
Being plump may not shorten your life if you have no other health problem.
Morbid obesity is a different matter.
Probably true, but your grandmother was (I guess) simply a large lady. That's different from the common kind of overweight now which is a result of unhealthy diet and sedentary lifestyle (and which in turn is different from overweight resulting from a metabolic problem or virus etc).
Put it another way - your grandmother may not have been overweight, just large.
-
As a teenager, I had a small waist (23-24") but wore siize 14 to fit my hips.
It is ridiculous that nearly forty years on, I should be little more than an M&S 14 though I'm much fatter than the 7 stone teen of 1972.
It is ridiculous. Barking mad in fact. I recently threw out a size 8 shirt that I bought a few years ago because it was too small. The replacement one is a size 6. ::-)
This (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/05/05/0_is_the_new_8/?p1=email_to_a_friend) article from 1996 discusses the issue of vanity sizing even then. American measurements, so it all sounds a bit alarming at first!
After a bit of googling, I then found this (http://money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/business2_archive/2006/06/01/8378500/index.htm) article. I'll admit I was somewhat concerned by the gentleman who decided that if the possibility of being booted off a flight because there weren't enough seatbelt extenders to go round was too embarrassing to endure, his solution was to carry his own seatbelt extender, rather than to address the fact he was too large for the standard seatbelt.
But I did like the sentiment at the end:
"Ninety percent of the folks here have tried everything to be thin," says one male customer who's come to the Butterfly after reading about it on the Web. "At some point you've just got to live."
-
14 stone is heavy, even for a tall lady. I think it would have given her a BMI of 29.
-
It is ridiculous. Barking mad in fact. I recently threw out a size 8 shirt that I bought a few years ago because it was too small. The replacement one is a size 6. ::-)
Then add in the utter lack of any correlation of sizing between brands...
-
It is ridiculous. Barking mad in fact. I recently threw out a size 8 shirt that I bought a few years ago because it was too small. The replacement one is a size 6. ::-)
Then add in the utter lack of any correlation of sizing between brands...
Quite! I have clothes from size 6 to 12. I'm fairly certain my body doesn't magically morph between shops...
-
It's not just adults. My son (age 6) is sleeping in a pyjama top labelled age 2-3, while some other clothes of his are age 8 or 9.
-
I think that if you aren't a fat woman, you might not appreciate how hard it is to buy clothes for a fat woman (I don't know if the same is true for men, as I'm not one!). Jeans, for example. Apparently most people go and try to buy a pair of jeans that they like. I'm a little unfamiliar with the concept myself - I go to Evans, I find the one pair of jeans that they have that fastens up and then I either get my mum to further shorten the shortest length ones or roll them up a bit. There is no choice involved.
Or take the example of swimming costumes. I'm quite an expert at buying fat bird cossies - at one point I used to swim/aquafit 8 or 9 times a week and bought a swimming costume roughly every 6 weeks.
All of the major brands of sports costumes (speedo, arena, TYR etc) stop at something around a size 16 - occasionally an 18 if you're really lucky. Zoggs sometimes do a bit better, I've had the odd 20-ish equivalent by them. Most sports shops will have at most one or two styles in a 16 and either the same or nothing at all in an 18. And there's an assumption that wider=taller, so even when I fitted width-wise into the occasional size 18 costume that I found they tended to be much too long in the body.
Some high street shops will sometimes have some size 20 or 22 costumes. I've managed to find the odd one at M&S, but have never found a cossie to fit in Debenhams for example.
The fat bird shops like Evans will usually have 2 or 3 styles of costume available for about 3 months of the year. They will probably have a very low V-neck, which is a bit dangerous if you like aquafit classes, and usually will be in neon colours, or glittery, or leapordskin, or covered in diamante. If you manage to find one that looks like you are actually meant to get it wet I would predict that it will wear out within a month or regular actual swimming - if not sooner. My record was about 6 swims - I made them give me my money back for that one.
There is, of course, the mail order option. In the last 8 years I've probably bought about a dozen swimming costumes via mail order, of which precisely one fitted well enough (once I'd tied big knots in the shoulder straps to shorten it) for me to wear in a pool. The others were all the wrong shape and I've given up on mail order.
Thanks heavens for BHS. They have cossies up to a size 22, sometimes a 24, and do them in two different lengths. They are reasonably CrinklyLion-shaped, so whatever i've been (from a 24 down to an 18 at my skinniest) they fit well enough to be useable. They usually have quite a wide range, but nearly every design is actually a lounging by the pool costume, rather than a swimming costume. For the last 3 or 4 years they haven't been producing the design in their 'sports' range that I really liked, so I've been buying the next best one. I greatly object to those cossies that have built-in padded foam 'boob' shaped bits - the 'fashion' ones nearly all do. They aren't boob shaped, they are weirdly triangular and I already have more than enough boobs of my own to fill the chest area of my swimming costume thank you very much, there just isn't space for 4 tits in there.
There is precisely one swimming costume in their range that is available in my size and doesn't have built-in boobs. They cost nearly as much as a 'proper' sports costume, and signifantly more than one from JJB etc. They wear out significantly quicker - when I was a bit thinner and could actually wear proper sports costumes I couldn't believe how long they lasted. If I'm very very very lucky I might have a choice of two colour schemes, one of which will undoubtably involve pink. And when they have them in I buy 3 at a time, because there's several months of the year that they will have no stock.
-
Jeans, for example. Apparently most people go and try to buy a pair of jeans that they like. I'm a little unfamiliar with the concept myself...
It's no easier if you're a size 10 with hips and a waist!
The majority of designers are gay men, and they proportion women's clothes accordingly. Apparently a 'curve' is an alien concept...
And you shouldn't have to make do with whatever you can get your paws on. You should have as much choice as someone who is a 12 or 14.
-
I am not suggesting we ridicule all fat people but we do seem to gradually be accepting that it is okay to be fatter.
Shouldn't we be accepting that it's ok for people to be anything as long as they're not hurting someone else?
I'd suggest that it's OK for people to be anything as long as they're not adversely affecting someone else.
Yes, there are people who have medical conditions which cause excess weight gain, or which make it particularly difficult to lose weight, but these are relatively few and far between. I'm afraid in the majority of cases it is the excess weight that causes the health problems, not the other way round, and the obesity is linked purely to excess calorie intake or a lack of exercise.
And I'm afraid that clinically obese people do adversely affect other people. Whilst it is nice to think that we should allow everyone to live their lives as they wish, we have to remember that 'no man is an island' and there is such a thing as society. Obesity and its related impacts cost the NHS and social services billions each year. Obesity and obesity related health issues will soon overtake smoking as the primary cause of disability and preventable deaths in the UK.
The extra demands on the NHS and social servies means that it adversely impacts upon the taxpayer - you and me. At least smokers pay into the Treasury much, much more than they eventually cost the NHS, etc.
I'm a fat bugger. I've really put on weight after spending several years on steroids - but I have to admit that the reason the weight is still on is that I eat too much, drink too much and don't get enough exercise.
I struggle to lose weight and know how soul-destroying it can be. So I empathise and sympathise with those who find it difficult. But I also get annoyed when people try to suggest that we should 'normalise' obesity - it doesn't do anyone any favours.
-
I reckon, but this is only a reckon, that men don't vary in shape so much as women, so it's more just a question of bigger or smaller, therefore with fewer variables to go wrong it's easier to fit most men.
-
I reckon, but this is only a reckon, that men don't vary in shape so much as women..
I reckon you are wrong. Why would there be a difference?
-
I am not suggesting we ridicule all fat people but we do seem to gradually be accepting that it is okay to be fatter.
Shouldn't we be accepting that it's ok for people to be anything as long as they're not hurting someone else?
I'd suggest that it's OK for people to be anything as long as they're not adversely affecting someone else.
Yes, there are people who have medical conditions which cause excess weight gain, or which make it particularly difficult to lose weight, but these are relatively few and far between. I'm afraid in the majority of cases it is the excess weight that causes the health problems, not the other way round, and the obesity is linked purely to excess calorie intake or a lack of exercise.
And I'm afraid that clinically obese people do adversely affect other people. Whilst it is nice to think that we should allow everyone to live their lives as they wish, we have to remember that 'no man is an island' and there is such a thing as society. Obesity and its related impacts cost the NHS and social services billions each year. Obesity and obesity related health issues will soon overtake smoking as the primary cause of disability and preventable deaths in the UK.
The extra demands on the NHS and social servies means that it adversely impacts upon the taxpayer - you and me. At least smokers pay into the Treasury much, much more than they eventually cost the NHS, etc.
I'm a fat bugger. I've really put on weight after spending several years on steroids - but I have to admit that the reason the weight is still on is that I eat too much, drink too much and don't get enough exercise.
I struggle to lose weight and know how soul-destroying it can be. So I empathise and sympathise with those who find it difficult. But I also get annoyed when people try to suggest that we should 'normalise' obesity - it doesn't do anyone any favours.
+1
-
I reckon, but this is only a reckon, that men don't vary in shape so much as women..
I reckon you are wrong. Why would there be a difference?
Men don't have so many curves to vary! No breasts, generally smaller bums, it's more a question of height and waist. With two variables there's bound to be less variation, surely? Note that I am talking about shape, not size.
-
Well said above, Regulator.
In addition to Reg's comments on the wider effects, I think one of the dangers of the normalisation of obesity is that it encourages people to fail to consider the effect of obesity at an individual level as they get older. My work is mainly in the area of cardiovascular disease. I meet people on a daily basis who are really suffering in their later years (and, increasingly, not much "later" at all) from the problems caused by obesity. Diabetes, coronary artery disease etc often alongside physical problems like knee, hip and spine problems that arise from the extra loads. Life as a slightly older overweight person is often not a happy one, with mobility problems making it extremely difficult to do day-to-day things never mind burn off fat.
-
It's worse for skinny people in a way. It's more acceptable to make fun of them, yet it's just as offensive. And it's just as embarrassing to be skinny. Swimming would be really good for me, but I don't do it because I'm embarrassed about my body.
Ah but it could be argued skinny people bring that on themselves just as much as larger people.
If they should just "calories in < calories out" then all a skinny person needs to do is calories in > calories out plus some weights and if they choose not to then that's their own choice (and so we chould feel just as free to mock skinny people too)! ::-)
P.S. I'm not having a go at you here Biggsy, just in general at the people that think mocking anyone is acceptable.
I'll have a go at myself then :)
I could put on weight with a more efficient diet, despite having an abnormal stomach. I shouldn't be mocked for that, but don't mind anyone pointing it out.
-
Bobb... At risk of sounding offensive, but without wanting to be, I will say this. You do drink a large amount of alcohol a large amount of the time. Though I don't know you I do know, just through living in a Polish village where it's the norm for most of the adult male population, a lot of people who are habitual drunkards (and many, even most, of them ride bikes!) and every single one of them is skinny. Skinny is not the norm for Polish villagers who do not drink all day every day (and double on Sundays). You may not be in the same condtion as them, but I don't think you'd want to head that way either.
To go back off topic....
Cudz, I'm not offended, but I would like to point out that I don't drink all day every day!
Also, my sister who is 40 and has had 2 children is still super skinny. And she hardly drinks at all and never has. It's in our genes. Or should that be (difficult to get decent fitting) jeans? :P
OK, as you were...
-
Picking up on Reg's comment about normalising obesity, it all came about during the 80's and 90's, when monster sized portions of everything: ice-cream, meals, chocolate bars, soft drinks etc became available. Noticed how small a Topic bar looks these days?
With that out went the notion of greed. It's funny, but I can't remember the last time I saw an overweight stuffing their face with a ridiculous amount of food and thought "my, you are greedy". It has become acceptable, and even normal. Even our notion of what constitutes overweight seems to have changed
I understand Kirsts point about leaving people be if they aren't affecting others, but I'm not sure it is so clear cut. I still find greed pretty repugnant.
-
Well said Regulator. I was going to try to post something similar but couldn't have done so as eloquently, or acceptably.
-
Talking of portion sizes; I remember the first time I went to the US of A, we went out for a meal and ordered. When my starter arrived it was main meal sized. By the time I'd nomed through it, I was absolutely stuffed! When my main course arrived I just picked at it as it was enough to feed the 5000. I didn't bother with dessert....
-
I reckon, but this is only a reckon, that men don't vary in shape so much as women..
I reckon you are wrong. Why would there be a difference?
Men mostly wear what women's fashion call 'separates'. There is no assumption that if you have, for example a 40 inch chest, you will have a 34" waist or 32" inner leg. You can buy a jumper to fit your chest and trousers to fit waist and legs. This is not usually a size n. Stock sizing and shaping is part of the problem.
The other part of the problem is 'curviness'. Some women have big breasts, some don't, all on the same sized thorax. And then there's the huge variation in hip size for a given waist size...
I thought amost everyone knew this...
-
I reckon, but this is only a reckon, that men don't vary in shape so much as women..
I reckon you are wrong. Why would there be a difference?
Men mostly wear what women's fashion call 'separates'. There is no assumption that if you have, for example a 40 inch chest, you will have a 34" waist or 32" inner leg. You can buy a jumper to fit your chest and trousers to fit waist and legs. This is not usually a size n. Stock sizing and shaping is part of the problem.
The other part of the problem is 'curviness'. Some women have big breasts, some don't, all on the same sized thorax. And then there's the huge variation in hip size for a given waist size...
I thought amost everyone knew this...
Yeah I've never understood the system. It also leads to everyting being recycled between loads of women whilst still, alledgedly, new. Mrs T's by no means indecisive or fussy, but I think she sends or takes back 50% of the clothes she buys.
-
Yes, there are people who have medical conditions which cause excess weight gain, or which make it particularly difficult to lose weight, but these are relatively few and far between. I'm afraid in the majority of cases it is the excess weight that causes the health problems, not the other way round, and the obesity is linked purely to excess calorie intake or a lack of exercise.
And I'm afraid that clinically obese people do adversely affect other people. Whilst it is nice to think that we should allow everyone to live their lives as they wish, we have to remember that 'no man is an island' and there is such a thing as society. Obesity and its related impacts cost the NHS and social services billions each year. Obesity and obesity related health issues will soon overtake smoking as the primary cause of disability and preventable deaths in the UK.
The extra demands on the NHS and social servies means that it adversely impacts upon the taxpayer - you and me. At least smokers pay into the Treasury much, much more than they eventually cost the NHS, etc.
What about fat smokers? Or motorists, or intravenous drug users, heavy drinkers, or rugby players who end up with spinal injuries? It's not good for people to be morbidly obese, and yes, it's dangerous to their health, but it's their business, not ours. I don't have the right to tell motorists to sell their car and get a bike because they're causing health problems for themselves and people breathing in their emissions, so what gives anyone else the right to tell a fat person to get jogging? People are judgemental about fat and fat people in a way they're generally not about other health hazards. People think they have the right to tell fat people to sort themselves out, in a way they wouldn't dream of in other circumstances.
Talking of portion sizes; I remember the first time I went to the US of A, we went out for a meal and ordered. When my starter arrived it was main meal sized. By the time I'd nomed through it, I was absolutely stuffed! When my main course arrived I just picked at it as it was enough to feed the 5000. I didn't bother with dessert....
Oh yes, American portion sizes are massive. Ridiculously big. It seems to be the norm there for restaurants to give you enough for two meals and people take half of it home. They don't seem to realise though, how big their portions are. I can't remember who was telling me about someone complaining she couldn't lose weight even though she'd been sticking to low fat this and low calorie that - but the yoghurt pot she was eating from was nearly a pint. But she thought that was ok because it was low fat.
-
Above thread somewhat I posted a story about 2 fat people eating kebabs and being ridiculed and abused by 3 people. It is not right, not fair and cruel. The 3 were prosecuted for Section 5 Disorderly Behaviour.
I agree with the prosecution.
-
, or rugby players who end up with spinal injuries?
Or cyclists who get knocked off..
-
The reason why being fat is not accepted is because it takes greediness to get there.
Rugby players get injured in the course of a valiant display of athletic prowess (even though, on a sub professional level, many of them are also fat)
;)
-
Yes, there are people who have medical conditions which cause excess weight gain, or which make it particularly difficult to lose weight, but these are relatively few and far between. I'm afraid in the majority of cases it is the excess weight that causes the health problems, not the other way round, and the obesity is linked purely to excess calorie intake or a lack of exercise.
And I'm afraid that clinically obese people do adversely affect other people. Whilst it is nice to think that we should allow everyone to live their lives as they wish, we have to remember that 'no man is an island' and there is such a thing as society. Obesity and its related impacts cost the NHS and social services billions each year. Obesity and obesity related health issues will soon overtake smoking as the primary cause of disability and preventable deaths in the UK.
The extra demands on the NHS and social servies means that it adversely impacts upon the taxpayer - you and me. At least smokers pay into the Treasury much, much more than they eventually cost the NHS, etc.
What about fat smokers? Or motorists, or intravenous drug users, heavy drinkers, or rugby players who end up with spinal injuries? It's not good for people to be morbidly obese, and yes, it's dangerous to their health, but it's their business, not ours. I don't have the right to tell motorists to sell their car and get a bike because they're causing health problems for themselves and people breathing in their emissions, so what gives anyone else the right to tell a fat person to get jogging? People are judgemental about fat and fat people in a way they're generally not about other health hazards. People think they have the right to tell fat people to sort themselves out, in a way they wouldn't dream of in other circumstances.
Sorry Kirst but that's complete tosh. If you can't understand that personal decisions impact on everyone then I'm sorry...
As it is, we are telling people to use their cars less and to cycle/walk more, we are telling people to drink less, and the main basis on which many drugs are banned is their deleterious effects on health.
And comparing an injury incurred in a sporting activity to overeating is just silly.
-
Whilst the medical-type folk have made good ponts about the health implications of being overweight (and these can't really be disputed) I don't think it is either right or fair to dictate what clothes are available to them. If the only thing you can buy is a shapeless pair of jogging bottoms (oh, the irony!) then you're hardly likely to want to be seen in them. So, instead, you sit at home, watching tv and eating...
As for Mrs PColbeck & Mrs Grub, sadly it seems that in many places the only way to get a well-fitting, appropriately styled garment in the smaller sizes is to head for the designer lines. The clothes may be lovely, but boys you may have to sacrifice the next n+1 to fund this!
-
And comparing an injury incurred in a sporting activity to overeating is just silly.
Although if you injure yourself through sport, you can at least have the excuse of "I'm getting some exercise". But have you ever been in A & E on a Sunday afternoon? It's full of local league footballers with busted ankles and stuff.
I've been to hospital many times and I've definitely been in for sporting injuries more times than pissed injuries. All at the cost of the good old tax payer....
-
And comparing an injury incurred in a sporting activity to overeating is just silly.
Although if you injure yourself through sport, you can at least have the excuse of "I'm getting some exercise". But have you ever been in A & E on a Sunday afternoon? It's full of local league footballers with busted ankles and stuff.
I've been to hospital many times and I've definitely been in for sporting injuries more times than pissed injuries. All at the cost of the good old tax payer....
You must be going to a very odd A&E then bobb... ;)
...as the statistics will tell you that the largest single reason for A&E attendance is over consumption of alcohol.
-
Anyhooooooo, I'm off to get some exercise
taming the jungle digging over the allotment.
-
Statistics, statistics. They're all made up ;)
I know, but surely your statistics must show sporting injuries to be fairly high on the list?
Edit: Don't put a fork through your foot!
-
Statistics, statistics. They're all made up ;)
I know, but surely your statistics must show sporting injuries to be fairly high on the list?
Sporting injuries are quite high on the list - but they also tend to be relatively easy (and cheap) to fix and few of them have lasting effects. Yes - people to get seriously injured, but devastating injuries are few and far between, even in games such as rugby.
The effects of obesity tend to be insidious and long term, requiring continuous treatment.
Anyhow, Mr R is tapping his foot impatiently so I must away...
-
Statistics, statistics. They're all made up ;)
I know, but surely your statistics must show sporting injuries to be fairly high on the list?
Edit: Don't put a fork through your foot!
A Sunday afternoon represents one forty-second of the week (4/168). Alcohol-related problems present all the time: day, night, weekday, weekend...
...and are often more complex problems than a simple twisted limb.
-
Sorry Kirst but that's complete tosh. If you can't understand that personal decisions impact on everyone then I'm sorry...
Of course I understand that personal decisions can affect other people. But my point is that people are judged far more harshly for obesity than for other behaviours which affect health. People seem to behave as if fat people don't know they're fat and as if they have the right to comment.
-
Denial? How can a fat person, one that is morbidly obese actually eat a kebab?
Is it because they are in denial of the effect it will have upon their already overweight body.
In for a penny and in for a pound.
Our society is also not designed for overly large people. Doors for instance are only so wide. Hospital trolleys. Seats in buses. Seats anywhere for that matter.
So aside from the clothing available we had better start redesigning our world if we are going to accept that people are getting bigger and that it is okay.
-
Fat people get hungry, just like thin people.
Hunger is a basic survival instinct and when eating, people may not think much of any obesity problem, just about addressing The Hunger.
-
People seem to behave as if fat people don't know they're fat and as if they have the right to comment.
This is also true for thin people.
Since I hit my thirties I've put on weight. Before that I used to regularly be accused of being anorexic. Can you imagine how much that hurt?
So aside from the clothing available we had better start redesigning our world if we are going to accept that people are getting bigger and that it is okay.
Somewhere upthread I posted a link to an article which gives examples of this happening - extra-wide seats in cars, for example.
-
Denial? How can a fat person, one that is morbidly obese actually eat a kebab?
Is it because they are in denial of the effect it will have upon their already overweight body.
Of course they can eat a kebab. It's exactly the same as an alcoholic thinking "I really must stop drinking", but they get all depressed about it. So what do they do to comfort them? Drink.
You may be very careful about your health, but many other people aren't. I smoke. I know it's bad for me, but I couldn't really give a shit....
-
Irrespective of what size an adult is, it is, in a large part their choice.
Which is why I found this (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10768803) piece so alarming.
As more and more children start primary school overweight, retailers are having to expand the waistlines on school uniforms.
Marks and Spencer is the latest to join in the growing trend. They have launched a 'Plus' range for super-sized pupils, starting from the age of just four.
One of the children interviewed said that they don't agree with plus-sized clothing because then they would have nothing to aim for.
-
I think that big kid understood the problem. Obviously, fat kids still have to go to school, can't go naked and will be easier to teach if their clothes aren't so tight they hurt.
I suppose we ought to be clothing big people now and addressing their diet and lifestyle long-term. The difficulty will be doing this helpfully and supportively without appearing patronising or nannying. We've not even managed to avoid that in this thread...
-
Even 40 years ago, school outfitters supplied 'stout' fittings. More schoolwear now comes from chain stores so they are now filling thiis need. The problem of obesity (both child and adult) is on the the rise though.
-
Irrespective of what size an adult is, it is, in a large part their choice.
Which is why I found this (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10768803) piece so alarming.
As more and more children start primary school overweight, retailers are having to expand the waistlines on school uniforms.
Marks and Spencer is the latest to join in the growing trend. They have launched a 'Plus' range for super-sized pupils, starting from the age of just four.
One of the children interviewed said that they don't agree with plus-sized clothing because then they would have nothing to aim for.
That young lad - the first one to do the piece to camera actually said something like "it is actually good that we have a range of clothes that we can just go in and find something to fit more easily, but on the other side it makes it more accepting and it gives them nothing to aspire to lose weight for".
NB: I appreciate that Nutkin included this above - but I thought it worthy to repeat as he actually said himself the words - making it more accepting.
-
I can aspire to lose weight because I look, feel and live better when I'm thinner.
In the meantime I'd quite like clothes shopping to not be a strange form of punishment, where I pay significantly more money for a very much smaller choice of generally lower quality clothing, for my terrible crime of inflicting my lardiness on the world.
-
What CrinklyLion said.
I'm appalled by some of the attitudes on this thread. I think some of you might like to look at this:
(http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g219/liz1848/fathatebingo1.jpg)
-
After a bit of googling, I then found this (http://money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/business2_archive/2006/06/01/8378500/index.htm) article.
Jeez, that is a scary read if we are following the trend America is.
It also says that fat people are loyal customers and they are prepared to pay more for their clothing if it fits than their thin counterparts.
-
I can aspire to lose weight because I look, feel and live better when I'm thinner.
In the meantime I'd quite like clothes shopping to not be a strange form of punishment, where I pay significantly more money for a very much smaller choice of generally lower quality clothing, for my terrible crime of inflicting my lardiness on the world.
:)
This seems very fair too me!
Though I am not sure that fairness comes naturally into the equation of economics! >:( To kick one of my preferred subject, may be "lardy" ladies should start a buyer cooperative to force what they need onto the market!
-
I seem to recall that we had this discussion back at the old place (and Grub, I seem to recall that you started that one too - why the obsession?)
Lots of people do lots of things that aren't good for them. One of the things that isn't good for people is obsessively curtain-twitching about other people's habits. I don't recall what I wrote at the last place but I know I said that collective nosiness was as bad for the nation's collective psyche as pork pie is for the nation's collective waistline, and I'm still very much of the same opinion.
You don't know when you see a fat person in the street whether s/he's actually lost six stone already and still going. You don't know if they've been a major exerciser who's had to give up their sport but carried on eating (one of my old PE teachers fell into this category. She killed herself. Possibly from attitudes like these.) You don't know anything about them and it is seriously bloody rude to make presumptions that they a) don't know that they're fat, b) don't know that it's unhealthy, c) are doing nothing about it. They probably are, and if they're not, sanctimonious contempt from strangers isn't going to help.
-
This thread is giving me the right hump >:(
Let's go ten pages back to the OP:
Mrs G is watching BBC News and Madame Coupe is talking ( she appears American ) about + size clothes that are now required on the High Street for all the larger women out there.
There are lots of reasons why women are getting larger she said.....
Looking at the size of her neck she certainly needs a larger collar size than me. All those chins.
But really, it would seem that the 'I'm fat and proud' movement is gaining momentum ( pardon the pun ) and the health benefits of not getting to this size are being ignored.
It's one thing to start a thread about ladies plus sized clothing - if you're a woman yourself. I have to question the motivation of a man who starts one.
Irrespective of your gender, it's really quite unpleasant to start a thread like this, just to sit in judgement on others and to make pronouncements from a position of privilege. If you've never been chronically overweight, (and by this, I mean clinically and morbidly obese) then I think you're best off trying to empathize a little bit more and opine a little less.
If you've ever been there yourself, you'll know that being very fat isn't as simple a health issue as being unfit or being addicted to tobacco. Being fat is something that is intertwined with your personal self-image, as well as the way that you necessarily have to portray yourself to the world. Nobody wants to be fat - it's horrible. What people want to be is to be left alone to work out whether they can deal with being fat or not in their own time and their own way.
Fat-shaming is socially no more acceptable than any other kind of abuse based on people being different. It's vile and it's nasty and we should see it for the prejudice that it is.
Whether it's groups of cat-calling youths, smug magazine articles or posts like Greg's, it's still the same stuff:
And I'm afraid that clinically obese people do adversely affect other people. Whilst it is nice to think that we should allow everyone to live their lives as they wish, we have to remember that 'no man is an island' and there is such a thing as society. Obesity and its related impacts cost the NHS and social services billions each year. Obesity and obesity related health issues will soon overtake smoking as the primary cause of disability and preventable deaths in the UK.
The extra demands on the NHS and social servies means that it adversely impacts upon the taxpayer - you and me. At least smokers pay into the Treasury much, much more than they eventually cost the NHS, etc.
I'm a fat bugger. I've really put on weight after spending several years on steroids - but I have to admit that the reason the weight is still on is that I eat too much, drink too much and don't get enough exercise.
I struggle to lose weight and know how soul-destroying it can be. So I empathise and sympathise with those who find it difficult. But I also get annoyed when people try to suggest that we should 'normalise' obesity - it doesn't do anyone any favours.
Promoting excercise and healthy eating area absolutely what the government and NHS should be doing.
Trying to argue that society should regard people's body sizes as "abnormal" if they don't conform to a certain ideal isn't going to help anyone.
Just because you're fat, doesn't mean you're incapable of fat-shaming others.
-
Denial? How can a fat person, one that is morbidly obese actually eat a kebab?
Is it because they are in denial of the effect it will have upon their already overweight body.
In for a penny and in for a pound.
Maybe. Maybe they don't mind that they're obese. Maybe they don't care. Maybe they have complex psychological issues which mean they find being morbidly obese comforting and familiar and the thought of losing weight is scary and threatening. Maybe they like food more than exercise and think ill health and early death is a price worth paying. Maybe they don't give a shit what anyone else thinks. Maybe they prioritise other things in their life.
Why does it matter to you what other people do with their bodies?
-
Charlotte,
I am called fat by my children daily. I am fat by their standards but I fully accept that I may not be fat by others.
My BMI is too high but I am working on that and I appear to be winning albeit slowly and with much dedication and it is far from easy. It is horrible and I hate doing it but I have to do it. I have no choice.
Why did I start this thread? Mainly because Mrs G was aggrieved by the subject on the news and how some fat American was explaining why there is a need to introduce another clothing size range.
As to why I think like this, perhaps I am fatisct? I certainly have been brought up to closely monitor my weight - mother was a diabetic and she used to joke that I caused it by kicking her in the pancreas. Guilt maybe that I caused such an illness upon her? I don't know.
But what I do know is that this used to be a place where one could share their thoughts, no matter how emotional they got as the act of sharing views and ideas can enlighten others, inspire others and even might help views to be changed or altered.
I don't' see the need to criticise or act all sanctimonious as it goes against my last point and makes this a police state in more ways than one.
-
Yeah, I don't like it when people criticise and get all sanctimonious either.
Which is why I haven't liked a lot of the fat-shaming on this thread. :-\
-
;D
-
Any discussion about weight is going to be emotive.
A statement that being overweight is unhealthy and a possible burden on the NHS is not being discriminatory. It's a fact. The same could be said of being underweight. And it should be said too.
But for some reason society is becoming more accepting of 'overweight' as the norm. I don't think this is good. Whilst we accept that people come in a range of sizes, I do have to wonder if increasingly that range is encompassing more and more sizes at the top end of the scale. And I have to wonder why.
Whilst I accept that there are many reasons for being overweight, and I do not sit in judgement of those who are, I also think that morbid obesity is not something we, as a society, should learn to live with. If people's health is affected by their weight, it is something that should be addressed. As is smoking and excessive drinking. But name-calling is not the way to go.
Partly, I suspect, as our society becomes more and more leisured, with food more readily available, we are losing touch with how much we need to eat. And by this I mean everyone, not just people who are overweight. Slowly, as a whole, the population gets bigger.
And I really believe that clothing sizes have a part to play in this.
In the 1980's an M&S size 8 had a 23" waist. Now it is 25.5". With this trend for vanity sizing, it is possible to gain a stone or two over a lifetime, yet always wear the same size label. How would you know you had gained weight? What was once thought of as 'large' (say a size 18), now becomes 'average' - a re-branded 14. Well, 14 sounds more acceptable than 18, doesn't it?
It's ridiculous. I don't care what size label is inside my clothes, no-one but me sees them, so no-one knows. What I do want to know though, is that a 12 in one shop is the same as a 12 in another. Clearly, as ladies clothing sizes are so arbitrary (what does '12' refer to anyway?) it would be better to use a system of actual measurements. I don't expect to remain the same size throughout my adult life, therefore I don't expect to wear the same dress-size. If I go up a size or two, so what? It's just a small garment label I can always cut out.
If your bust is 34", wouldn't it be nice to walk into a shop, ANY shop, and know that the top you want, the one labelled 34", really IS designed for a 34" bust? Surely this would help people of all sizes? Can we relly be so focused on a random number that people can't consider buying clothes according to their measurements?
If you want stylish clothes that fit, are well made, suit your personality and age, then you should be able to buy them off-the-peg. In all sizes.
Tackling the health of the nation should not be the preserve of fashion.
-
It's quite strange that while other types of potentially harmful behaviour such as smoking can be freely criticised, being extremely overweight seems to warrant some kind of protected status. It's not about fat-hate. We are all free to comment on changes that we observe around us.
I work with some people every day who are suffering the consequences of being obese*. Most of them are aware of the connection, many have been trying to do something about it, etc etc, but some don't make the connection. There is nothing wrong with increasing awareness of the possible negative effects to try to reduce the numbers of people who find themselves having avoidable life-changing difficulties later in life. It's not "fat-shaming" any more or less than the more full-on anti-smoking campaigns, it's about trying to help. It's not about wanting everyone to conform to an ideal, it's about ensuring people are aware that once you pass beyond a certain range, things might get difficult for them as life goes on. It's not about the cost to society, it's about the fact that life can be very unhappy for some people when the body begins to show the effects of having carried around too much weight for too long: unable to work, travel as easily, enjoy life with their families etc etc in comparison with others in their age group.
*It's only one of many many influences on health, some unavoidable, some not.
Apologies if my earlier posts seemed sanctimonious. I am a long way from perfect in terms of healthy behaviour. But we are all still free to comment on threads like this.
-
A person's potential weight related health problems are between them and their doctor.
Of course the NHS has a part to play in education and awareness, but what I find unacceptable is when the rest of society is encouraged to join in with what is basically state-sponsored bullying. Was there a fat kid in your class who was picked on for being fat? Did bullying help when that child was ten years old? No, and it won't help when they're forty either.
Does everyone really need to join in with the 'education and awareness' stuff? Do you think that fat people don't know that they're fat and it's unhealthy? Really?
Plus sized clothing ranges are useful because fat people need clothes. It doesn't matter if they're a fat person who is losing weight or a fat person who is gaining weight or a fat person of static weight. It doesn't matter if their fat has a root psychological cause or physiological cause or plain old indolence. It is not my business whether complete strangers have medical problems or not and it's not yours either.
Here are some light hearted cartoons on the subject:
So much fun being a fat woman during the summer (http://connivingandsinister.blogspot.com/2010/08/its-so-much-fun-being-fat-woman-during.html)
Liss has the right to bare arms (http://connivingandsinister.blogspot.com/2010/06/tank-top-please.html).
-
Can people stop talking about smoking please? It's not relavent!!
Smoking is GOOD FOR YOU! It contains vitamin C and stuff!
-
I'm sure that people's expectation of 'correct' weight is getting out of kilter.
I used to be very large (6' and 17 stone). I managed to lose a lot of that excess weight (and the cycling certainly helped).
Keeping it off is not easy and I am currently at around 13.5 stone, which is about half a stone into overweight BMI.
I bumped into an old friend a couple of weeks ago who hasn't seen me for a few years (although he did see me at my thinnest) and he commented on how good I looked and how it was good that I'd kept all the weight off. I muttered something about having put weight back on and he commented that I'd been 'too thin' before. I never got to an underweight BMI.
People are now used to people being bigger.
S
-
nutkin makes some excellent points.
I also think vanity sizing may have an insidious effect on our eating behaviour.
A tight waistband/belt can stop some people eating too much, gently and non-judgementally. If a new waistband in 'the same size' is a couple of inches bigger, there's little to stop you eating a bit more...
-
People are now used to people being bigger.
I think people are generally bigger than we were - we're taller, too, and we live longer. A hundred years ago I'd have been tall for a gurl; these days I'm well below average.
Oh, the waist size thing? I could have a tiny waist if I wore a corset or girdle every day. I'd rather my internal organs didn't get squished though. Generally speaking, I'm much healthier than I would have been 100 years ago. I'm taller, with stronger bones and better teeth, broader shoulders and wider hips. I have a longer life expectancy. And yes, a larger waist. I think the waist thing is a sacrifice I'm willing to make (and it's not really related to obesity; it's related to how human bodies have changed with post WWII diet.)
-
what I find unacceptable is when the rest of society is encouraged to join in with what is basically state-sponsored bullying
I often see what might be described as media-driven bullying, but not what I could classify as "state-sponsored". No, not everyone needs to join in the "awareness" stuff and I don't think that they are, by and large.
I do meet (in the course of my work) an increasing minority of people who do not make the link between their weight and their current or potential health issues for a wide range of reasons, including the various psychological or family based reasons mentioned in earlier posts, or due to cultural factors.
-
I was struck by how slim Parisian waistlines were when I went to France last year. Corset wearing was not in evidence.
The waistline thing is one of my interests and does have medical implications.
We aren't all taller than the previous generation either. (I am shorter than both my mother and my late paternal grandmother but 4 inches taller than Julian.)
-
nutkin was pointing out that actual clothing waist sizes have increased from the 1980s, not the 1910s.
-
nutkin makes some excellent points.
She does indeed. But let's face it, she'd look good even in a bin bag!!
-
I was struck by how slim Parisian waistlines were when I went to France last year.
The French eat less than Brits or Yanks. They take their food more seriously, but they east less of it. And although some things are changing for the worse there, it's still the case in France that eating healthily cuts across class boundaries, very much unlike here.
-
nutkin makes some excellent points.
She does indeed. But let's face it, she'd look good even in a bin bag!!
Or in nothing at all, eh, bobb?
d.
-
Why does it matter to you what other people do with their bodies?
Now that is an interesting and thought provoking question. I have been pondering this while gardening with Mrs G.
The short answer is I am not sure why.
The long answer uses examples to try and show why I don't know.
I have often talked about a heroin user I met in Salisbury many years ago. Sadly I am not sure if he is still alive but in my heart of hearts I hope so. He was more than a user, he was a dealer too. But he was different because he was actually a really nice chap. He was caught in a trap though. His IQ was far greater than mine but his own self image was very low. Whenever I stop searched him I probably did him no favours by not being all that thorough as he was not one of our trouble makers and aside from his 'homeless' look, you would not have known that he was different to anyone else. I felt sorry for him and often wondered what had conspired in life to cause him to be where he was. But I did think that if only certain aspects were different then he would be able to make a difference for himself and change his life and to get off and stop dealing the drugs.
I think I look at fat people in the same way. They have a choice. They can make a difference to themselves but I often wonder why they are the way they are and what has caused them to be in that place / state. I often wonder if it is due to some traumatic experience in their younger years, poor parenting, bad dietary habits / choices, ignorance etc. I feel sorry for them. I pity them.
When you look at the children and they are mirroring the parents then I really start to wonder where we are going as a society by enabling, permitting, causing this to continue.
Starving a child falls under neglect and amounts to cruelty. Permitting a child to get so obese that they cannot function properly and with recent studies showing that mortality is greatly increased along with problems later in life a certainty, yet that does not fall into neglect, as yet. Perhaps it should.
-
I was struck by how slim Parisian waistlines were when I went to France last year.
The French eat less than Brits or Yanks. They take their food more seriously, but they east less of it. And although some things are changing for the worse there, it's still the case in France that eating healthily cuts across class boundaries, very much unlike here.
You have never shared a table with me!
We eat lots but we have different courses so it is more difficult to get our diet wrong.
A decade ago some American scientists came over to Brittany to try to understand why on earth we don't die aged 30 with all the butter we eat. They came to the conclusion that may be all the apples we eat counteract the effect of the butter. Why not?
Nevertheless we consider processed food uncool and it is harder to find out of season stuff effectively forcing us to vary our diet, I suspect this has more to do with our waistlines.
-
I think Panoramixes point reinforces the previous one that the French (and various other nations) take food more seriously than the British or the Americans. They may eat as much, or they may eat less, but they tend to do so more thoughtfully, on the whole. I'm sure this has an impact on the incidence of obesity, but I doubt very much if it's the whole story.
-
Bobb... At risk of sounding offensive, but without wanting to be, I will say this. You do drink a large amount of alcohol a large amount of the time. Though I don't know you I do know, just through living in a Polish village where it's the norm for most of the adult male population, a lot of people who are habitual drunkards (and many, even most, of them ride bikes!) and every single one of them is skinny. Skinny is not the norm for Polish villagers who do not drink all day every day (and double on Sundays). You may not be in the same condtion as them, but I don't think you'd want to head that way either.
To go back off topic....
Cudz, I'm not offended, but I would like to point out that I don't drink all day every day!
Also, my sister who is 40 and has had 2 children is still super skinny. And she hardly drinks at all and never has. It's in our genes. Or should that be (difficult to get decent fitting) jeans? :P
OK, as you were...
I'm glad both that you're not offended and about the rest of it!
-
I reckon, but this is only a reckon, that men don't vary in shape so much as women..
I reckon you are wrong. Why would there be a difference?
Men mostly wear what women's fashion call 'separates'. There is no assumption that if you have, for example a 40 inch chest, you will have a 34" waist or 32" inner leg. You can buy a jumper to fit your chest and trousers to fit waist and legs. This is not usually a size n. Stock sizing and shaping is part of the problem.
The other part of the problem is 'curviness'. Some women have big breasts, some don't, all on the same sized thorax. And then there's the huge variation in hip size for a given waist size...
I thought amost everyone knew this...
Pretty much what I was thinking of. Except I hadn't actually given much thought to the "separates" thing - I wonder if priests find it difficult to get robes to fit?
-
Priests' robes only need to fit at the shoulders and can otherwise be tent-like.
I suppose different lengths would be useful.
They don't have to fit at the chest and waist and hip and end of torso.
Boiler suits would be a greater challenge.
-
I think I look at fat people in the same way. They have a choice. They can make a difference to themselves but I often wonder why they are the way they are and what has caused them to be in that place / state. I often wonder if it is due to some traumatic experience in their younger years, poor parenting, bad dietary habits / choices, ignorance etc. I feel sorry for them. I pity them.
I'm a sturdy girl. I used to be thin, but more often then not in my life, I've been fat. Right now, despite being 5'10 and 12st7lbs, I'm still overweight and if truth be told, I'd rather be lighter because I've got wobbly bits I don't like.
There's no root cause or trauma in my life that makes me a bit fatter than I should be. I just am. I like food, but my metabolic rate isn't so fast that I don't have to watch what I eat most of the time. Me and 95% of the rest of the women I know. That's how it is.
So you can take your pity and you can roll it up into a meaty little privilege-and-prejudice burrito and shove it where the sun doesn't shine because how my body looks and how it functions is none of your damned business. You might take this into consideration before passing comment on how a woman looks in future.
>:(
-
I apologise for being fat, for being a burden on all you slim people and for spoiling the image of all you fit cyclists. I must immediately change the indulgent lifestyle I so obviously enjoy. Just tell me what I need to do to be like you.
I'm an agriculturalist by training. Different breeds/strains tend towards different fat contents. It is a highly heritable factor - I think at least one person here knows about pigs - the fat cover of pigs has been decreased rapidly by selective breeding, not diet. Pigs are the closest animal to us in many ways.
Of course, there were no overweight people in Belsen. Extreme diets can alter body fat content. If, say, Mrs Grub ( no offence, but she has been mentioned as someone who is naturally low in fat) ate 3 meals of chips/day and drank 8 pints a night she MIGHT put on weight. However, most overweight people I talk to don't have extreme diets, they spent their lives trying to eat in moderation.
If it was easy to lose weight wouldn't us unacceptably fat people do it? - after all, this thread has proved what pariahs we have become. Believe me, it would be great to be slim and "fit".
-
I think I look at fat people in the same way. They have a choice. They can make a difference to themselves but I often wonder why they are the way they are and what has caused them to be in that place / state. I often wonder if it is due to some traumatic experience in their younger years, poor parenting, bad dietary habits / choices, ignorance etc. I feel sorry for them. I pity them.
So you can take your pity and you can roll it up into a meaty little privilege-and-prejudice burrito and shove it where the sun doesn't shine because how my body looks and how it functions is none of your damned business. You might take this into consideration before passing comment on how a woman looks in future.
>:(
I was not commenting upon anyone in particular. In actual fact, I think I the only person I referred directly to was either myself or Mrs G. I was asked a question and I answered it honestly. It was not meant to cause offence.
I pity myself too as I am also overweight. Aside from a very small window of my life when I was trying to meet the stringent qualifying criteria to join the police in Australia have I ever been truly fit and low in body fat. I was also probably at the peak time in my life for a male so maybe that helped. Since then I have been on a very gradual and sometimes not so gradual decline. Although I had not thought about it, something that Hellymedic stated upthread rang a bell with me - concerning trouser tightness. I use that as an indicator of whether I am winning my battle or losing it. My work trousers have not changed sizes over the years. I have purposefully kept them the same so I can watch my waist and feel it either grow or decline. My heriditable fat is from my father's side. At present I expect my appearance would be more troublesome to my mother as my face has less weight on it than ever before for the last 20 or so years. I don't look dissimilar to how my father did just before that last bit of cancer ate him up. I have cheek bones now.
But I still have excess fat around my waist. I am not happy about that.
I shall shove my pity for you up my arse as long as you reassure me it is not weight gaining.
-
Right now, despite being 5'10 and 12st7lbs, I'm still overweight and if truth be told, I'd rather be lighter because I've got wobbly bits I don't like
Likewise, substituting 6'1" and 90 kg. I don't think anyone on the forum is likely to fall into the ranges I am thinking of in my posts above; I am thinking of people who at a relatively young age are finding a 15 minute walk on the flat a bit of a struggle in the absence of any underlying health issues.
There is something wrong when there is so much avoidable ill health that is very often related to lifestyle and diet. It's a legitimate subject for debate. To do so is not to say that people over such and such a weight or size are pariahs, and it is possible to have such a debate without involving "pity" or comments on how people "look".
-
I apologise for being fat, for being a burden on all you slim people and for spoiling the image of all you fit cyclists. I must immediately change the indulgent lifestyle I so obviously enjoy. Just tell me what I need to do to be like you.
I'm an agriculturalist by training. Different breeds/strains tend towards different fat contents. It is a highly heritable factor - I think at least one person here knows about pigs - the fat cover of pigs has been decreased rapidly by selective breeding, not diet. Pigs are the closest animal to us in many ways.
Of course, there were no overweight people in Belsen. Extreme diets can alter body fat content. If, say, Mrs Grub ( no offence, but she has been mentioned as someone who is naturally low in fat) ate 3 meals of chips/day and drank 8 pints a night she MIGHT put on weight. However, most overweight people I talk to don't have extreme diets, they spent their lives trying to eat in moderation.
If it was easy to lose weight wouldn't us unacceptably fat people do it? - after all, this thread has proved what pariahs we have become. Believe me, it would be great to be slim and "fit".
None of what you have said, Paul, stands up once you consider the massive rise in obesity over the last decade or two.
Peoples genes haven't changed drastically over this time period, but their eating habits and lifestyles have.
-
I think I look at fat people in the same way. They have a choice. They can make a difference to themselves but I often wonder why they are the way they are and what has caused them to be in that place / state. I often wonder if it is due to some traumatic experience in their younger years, poor parenting, bad dietary habits / choices, ignorance etc. I feel sorry for them. I pity them.
So you can take your pity and you can roll it up into a meaty little privilege-and-prejudice burrito and shove it where the sun doesn't shine because how my body looks and how it functions is none of your damned business. You might take this into consideration before passing comment on how a woman looks in future.
>:(
I was not commenting upon anyone in particular. In actual fact, I think I the only person I referred directly to was either myself or Mrs G. I was asked a question and I answered it honestly. It was not meant to cause offence.
I've been reading this thread since last night, and have bitten my tongue trying to avoid saying more or less what Charlotte has just said. She's a lot more polite than I am, and my post was heading towards being just two words. You can probably guess what they would be. The judgemental (and rather patronising) nature of your assessment of others is part of what makes it offensive, whether you intend it that way or not.
I pity myself too as I am also overweight. Aside from a very small window of my life when I was trying to meet the stringent qualifying criteria to join the police in Australia have I ever been truly fit and low in body fat. I was also probably at the peak time in my life for a male so maybe that helped. Since then I have been on a very gradual and sometimes not so gradual decline. Although I had not thought about it, something that Hellymedic stated upthread rang a bell with me - concerning trouser tightness. I use that as an indicator of whether I am winning my battle or losing it. My work trousers have not changed sizes over the years. I have purposefully kept them the same so I can watch my waist and feel it either grow or decline. My heriditable fat is from my father's side. At present I expect my appearance would be more troublesome to my mother as my face has less weight on it than ever before for the last 20 or so years. I don't look dissimilar to how my father did just before that last bit of cancer ate him up. I have cheek bones now.
But I still have excess fat around my waist. I am not happy about that.
Did it ever occur to you that this thread, along with the one about obsessing over how you look on your bike, says a hell of a lot more about you than about the people you're observing?
You seem to have a problem with your assessment of your weight - yet you project it as pity onto others. You claim you're comfortable on your bike, yet you start a thread which reads to me as though your psyche is far from comfortable. Actually, I'd be more concerned about your unhappiness about your midriff fat than about anything else. The above reads like someone who is desperately unhappy about himself, and tries to judge everyone else from within his own unhappiness, without realising that the judging is part of the problem.
"Fit" and "low in body fat" are not necessarily the same thing. High protein + low energy (fat/carb) diets can cause calcium loss, not something we should induce in most people, especially females. People with high numbers of adipose cells are inclined to lose weight less easily that those with lower numbers of larger cells, and the number of fat cells in the adult can be heavily influenced by diet during early growth. It's a complex subject, to the point that exercise physiology is a specialist branch of medicine. Just assuming that someone 'has a choice' and chooses to be obese is so far from being right I can't let it stand. The last time I was at the 'healthy' weight for my height I was living on nerves, black coffee and cigarettes. If I train I put weight on. I tend towards lumps of muscle, rather than the stringy long-distance whippet shape, despite riding 60-100 miles per week commuting, and topping that up with (say) a 40 miler at the weekend. For me, the only valid measure of how fit I am is based on my resting b.p., heart rate, and my recovery time, all of which are good enough that my doctor calls me 'depressingly' healthy even though by the book I'm something like two stone overweight. I gave up using the scales for that reason - they bear no resemblance to what is healthy for me. Having someone else judge based on appearance would be equally stupid.
I should perhaps add that at this size and shape, very few cycling companies make clothing to fit me. Female clothing, and in particular cycling wear, makes no account of muscularity, with or without extra layers of fat.
-
This will be the second health and fitness thread that has turned into an argument with dodgy personal comments being exchanged and before anyone points a finger I would point out that it takes two to tango.
:facepalm:
-
Redshift,
Thanks for your observation about my psyche. I had thought that as well actually. My mood depends a lot upon my sugar level to be honest and therefore that will effect the way I perceive my self no doubt.
I don't try and sound patronising. I was trying to explain as clearly as I could to avoid being misunderstood.
I'm glad you mentioned the medical science bit at the end of your second paragraph. That reminded me about the chap that the GB squad and Sky have working for them as a dietician. He is also a doctor I believe.
Wouldn't it be nice if we all had access to a real 'sports expert' to assist us to get to where we wanted to be, weight wise.
Only for those that want to though, not for those that are happy with the shape they are.
-
I apologise for being fat, for being a burden on all you slim people and for spoiling the image of all you fit cyclists. I must immediately change the indulgent lifestyle I so obviously enjoy. Just tell me what I need to do to be like you.
I'm an agriculturalist by training. Different breeds/strains tend towards different fat contents. It is a highly heritable factor - I think at least one person here knows about pigs - the fat cover of pigs has been decreased rapidly by selective breeding, not diet. Pigs are the closest animal to us in many ways.
Of course, there were no overweight people in Belsen. Extreme diets can alter body fat content. If, say, Mrs Grub ( no offence, but she has been mentioned as someone who is naturally low in fat) ate 3 meals of chips/day and drank 8 pints a night she MIGHT put on weight. However, most overweight people I talk to don't have extreme diets, they spent their lives trying to eat in moderation.
If it was easy to lose weight wouldn't us unacceptably fat people do it? - after all, this thread has proved what pariahs we have become. Believe me, it would be great to be slim and "fit".
None of what you have said, Paul, stands up once you consider the massive rise in obesity over the last decade or two.
Peoples genes haven't changed drastically over this time period, but their eating habits and lifestyles have.
But there was an extreme diet imposed until the mid 1950s - rationing.
Even then some people (e.g. my Father) managed to achieve 20 stone!
-
That is true, but that extreme diet also looks to be quite a healthy one too. The point I am making is the truly massive shift even in the last 15 years is nothing to do with genes, it can't be! It has everything to do with behaviour. Eating is just one part of it.
-
This will be the second health and fitness thread that has turned into an argument with dodgy personal comments being exchanged and before anyone points a finger I would point out that it takes two to tango.
:facepalm:
Sorry Zoids. :-\ I'm trying to be constructive - that's why I slept on it before replying!
Thanks for your observation about my psyche. I had thought that as well actually. My mood depends a lot upon my sugar level to be honest and therefore that will effect the way I perceive my self no doubt.
I don't try and sound patronising. I was trying to explain as clearly as I could to avoid being misunderstood.
I'd forgotten the diabetes. Yes, that will colour your judgement - I was truly antisocial when I was depressed, and part of that was the not eating properly and screwing up the brain/body chemistry. I wouldn't have willingly gone for a drink with me, if you see what I mean?
I'm glad you mentioned the medical science bit at the end of your second paragraph. That reminded me about the chap that the GB squad and Sky have working for them as a dietician. He is also a doctor I believe.
Wouldn't it be nice if we all had access to a real 'sports expert' to assist us to get to where we wanted to be, weight wise.
Only for those that want to though, not for those that are happy with the shape they are.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing!
-
Right now, despite being 5'10 and 12st7lbs, I'm still overweight and if truth be told, I'd rather be lighter because I've got wobbly bits I don't like
Likewise, substituting 6'1" and 90 kg. I don't think anyone on the forum is likely to fall into the ranges I am thinking of in my posts above; I am thinking of people who at a relatively young age are finding a 15 minute walk on the flat a bit of a struggle in the absence of any underlying health issues.
There is something wrong when there is so much avoidable ill health that is very often related to lifestyle and diet. It's a legitimate subject for debate. To do so is not to say that people over such and such a weight or size are pariahs, and it is possible to have such a debate without involving "pity" or comments on how people "look".
Hear, hear Sergeant Pluck...
It is amazing how nasty and personal this thread has suddenly become.
-
It goes with the territory. It cuts to the heart of identity, self-esteem and liberty.
-
It's quite strange that while other types of potentially harmful behaviour such as smoking can be freely criticised, being extremely overweight seems to warrant some kind of protected status.
Surely it that smoking, drinking, drug-abuse, sky-diving etc etc etc are things that you do - they are behaviours.
Being fat is what you ARE.
And there have probably been points where I might have failed that 15 minute test, although for most of my life I've been in the 'fat but fairly fit' category. I've lost the best part of three stone this year, and could shed as much again and still be resoundingly in the obese range.
-
Being fat is what you ARE
True, apologies for the poor choice of words. I don't think it detracts from my point, as in the vast majority of cases if one is very overweight, or indeed if one loses weight, it is the result of one's lifestyle or behaviour to a significant degree. And that of course is a matter for the individual.
All I suggest is that normalisation of marked obesity, or the widespread acceptance that it is something that is not amenable to change, is harmful.
-
Crinkly, well done for losing three stone!
Having lost one measly stone a few times but since regained it, I can sort of appreciate how much persistence, hard work and suffering are needed. Keep going and don't let the b***ards grind you down!
-
Right now, despite being 5'10 and 12st7lbs, I'm still overweight and if truth be told, I'd rather be lighter because I've got wobbly bits I don't like
Likewise, substituting 6'1" and 90 kg. I don't think anyone on the forum is likely to fall into the ranges I am thinking of in my posts above; I am thinking of people who at a relatively young age are finding a 15 minute walk on the flat a bit of a struggle in the absence of any underlying health issues.
The only times I've struggled with fitness, as opposed to fatness, was when I was reasonably thin. I looked "healthy" if "looking healthy" translates as "being slim" but I was smoking too much, drinking too much, and couldn't do an exercise class without falling apart.
There is something wrong when there is so much avoidable ill health that is very often related to lifestyle and diet. It's a legitimate subject for debate. To do so is not to say that people over such and such a weight or size are pariahs, and it is possible to have such a debate without involving "pity" or comments on how people "look".
It's a legitimate subject to debate but please be aware that weight is used as such a massive club to beat people with, particularly women, that a lot of us are very sensitive about it.
Avoidable ill health relating to drinking, or smoking, or even over-training, doesn't carry the same stigma as Being Fat. People who are fat are often stigmatised as stupid, or lazy, or greedy, or all three.
Did anybody see the Saturday interview with Anne Robinson in the Guardian? (http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/aug/14/anne-robinson-interview) Five separate references in there to how thin she is. She's a size eight, worries if the scales tip over 8 stone 10 lb, in case you were wondering. Oh, and she'd most like to be remembered as 'thin.' What does that tell you about priorities? Women and girls are encouraged to be thin and stay thin - there are whole double-page spreads in those hideous celebrity mags dedicated to blowing up photos of already slim celebrities with a red arrow pointing to their imaginary cellulite.
Fat acceptance is not the same as encouraging people to get morbidly obese. It's about treating everybody with dignity and respect, and IF their fat is a health problem, having the courtesy to leave them to discuss that with their doctor. There's a very good article about it here (http://www.definatalie.com/2010/06/21/about-fat-acceptance/).
-
...
It's a legitimate subject to debate but please be aware that weight is used as such a massive club to beat people with, particularly women, that a lot of us are very sensitive about it.
I'm sorry but I have to disagree. Men are just as "beaten up" over their weight as women. Fat isn't just a feminist issue.
Avoidable ill health relating to drinking, or smoking, or even over-training, doesn't carry the same stigma as Being Fat. People who are fat are often stigmatised as stupid, or lazy, or greedy, or all three.
Again, I have to disagree. Smokers and drinkers are stigmatised as well. Just think of the number of TV programmes about 'drunker Britain' or the amount of avertising that paints smokers as selfish or stupid...
-
Methinks RZ would find getting a minimum order from Owayo very difficult if only sizes S & M were on offer...
If we did an S&M range of bike clothing I reckon it would be a massive seller.
Oh, that's not what you meant, is it? :)
-
The only times I've struggled with fitness, as opposed to fatness, was when I was reasonably thin. I looked "healthy" if "looking healthy" translates as "being slim" but I was smoking too much, drinking too much, and couldn't do an exercise class without falling apart.
I was thinking about this earlier, but you've touched on a core issue, I think. As a society we have come to equate thin with fit, and vice versa. There are other parts of the world where healthy is equated with fat and vice versa. Both are a reaction IMO against the prevailing or recently prevailing trend of food availability. Places where many people are undernourished assume a fat person is healthy (and rich). In the West lack of food is not a problem and we make the opposite assumption. In both cases it's sometimes correct and sometimes not. There are probably quite a few overweight but fit people who've contributed to this thread. There are quite a few skinny labourers in parts of Asia or Africa who are actually fitter and healthier than their sturdier and richer but lazier compatriots. Etc.
-
Did anybody see the Saturday interview with Anne Robinson in the Guardian? (http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/aug/14/anne-robinson-interview) Five separate references in there to how thin she is. She's a size eight, worries if the scales tip over 8 stone 10 lb, in case you were wondering. Oh, and she'd most like to be remembered as 'thin.' What does that tell you about priorities? Women and girls are encouraged to be thin and stay thin - there are whole double-page spreads in those hideous celebrity mags dedicated to blowing up photos of already slim celebrities with a red arrow pointing to their imaginary cellulite.
Years and years ago I saw Maureen Lipman being interviewed by Anne and Nick on breakfast telly and she was talking about her weight and said that she'd been really fat once. She said "I was ten stone" and Anne was horrified "ooooh were you really? Ten stone? Really?"
According to imdb, Maureen Lipman is 5'7" tall.
-
Methinks RZ would find getting a minimum order from Owayo very difficult if only sizes S & M were on offer...
If we did an S&M range of bike clothing I reckon it would be a massive seller.
Oh, that's not what you meant, is it? :)
Might e a good way to lose weight; Instant Whip anyone? ;) :demon:
-
Methinks RZ would find getting a minimum order from Owayo very difficult if only sizes S & M were on offer...
If we did an S&M range of bike clothing I reckon it would be a massive seller.
Oh, that's not what you meant, is it? :)
Might e a good way to lose weight; Instant Whip anyone? ;) :demon:
You called? :demon:
-
Ironically, Anne Diamond herself got Very Large after the Anne and Nick days, leading to Celebrity Fit Club and Gastricbandgate (see also Fern Britton).
-
Methinks RZ would find getting a minimum order from Owayo very difficult if only sizes S & M were on offer...
If we did an S&M range of bike clothing I reckon it would be a massive seller.
Oh, that's not what you meant, is it? :)
Might e a good way to lose weight; Instant Whip anyone? ;) :demon:
You called? :demon:
Now you're torquing.. ;D ;D :demon: :demon: ;D ;D
-
...
It's a legitimate subject to debate but please be aware that weight is used as such a massive club to beat people with, particularly women, that a lot of us are very sensitive about it.
I'm sorry but I have to disagree. Men are just as "beaten up" over their weight as women. Fat isn't just a feminist issue.
Avoidable ill health relating to drinking, or smoking, or even over-training, doesn't carry the same stigma as Being Fat. People who are fat are often stigmatised as stupid, or lazy, or greedy, or all three.
Again, I have to disagree. Smokers and drinkers are stigmatised as well. Just think of the number of TV programmes about 'drunker Britain' or the amount of avertising that paints smokers as selfish or stupid...
I am finding this thread to be an interesting comparison with this thread
Battling the bottle. (http://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=6797.0)
-
...
It's a legitimate subject to debate but please be aware that weight is used as such a massive club to beat people with, particularly women, that a lot of us are very sensitive about it.
I'm sorry but I have to disagree. Men are just as "beaten up" over their weight as women. Fat isn't just a feminist issue.
Yes Greg. That's why I said PARTICULARLY women and not EXCLUSIVELY women.
I do believe that women get more hassle about what they look like than men do. Men can look "distinguished" with a little excess weight or grey hair; women can't. Men don't constantly critique each other's appearance and although the men who appear in Men's Health and other gay porn men's publications tend to have a good figure, they haven't been airbrushed into a state of physical impossibility and I've never seen a magazine aimed at men which contained eight pages of "Celebrity (men) looking FAT!!!!!"
Avoidable ill health relating to drinking, or smoking, or even over-training, doesn't carry the same stigma as Being Fat. People who are fat are often stigmatised as stupid, or lazy, or greedy, or all three.
Again, I have to disagree. Smokers and drinkers are stigmatised as well. Just think of the number of TV programmes about 'drunker Britain' or the amount of avertising that paints smokers as selfish or stupid...
To go along with the equal number of programmes about hilarious fat people. I've never been shouted at by a stranger for holding a drink in my hand. I've had a lot of total strangers comment on the size of my bottom.
And as Zoidburg has very astutely pointed out, people are admiring and supportive of those who are trying to give up booze or fags. If you translate Grub's comment "how could any fat person even be seen eating a kebab??" into the Battling the Bottle thread, it comes out as something like "how could someone with a booze problem even think about another beer??" which isn't in keeping with that thread at all.
-
It's a legitimate subject to debate but please be aware that weight is used as such a massive club to beat people with, particularly women, that a lot of us are very sensitive about it
I understand that and I hope I am mostly succeeding in my efforts to ensure that my comments are not interpreted as being directed at any specific person or group.
-
I found the battling the bottle thread crossed a line from a few persons expressing real concern about their drinking to every bugger thinking that even their own moderate drink intake was the slippery slope to a park bench and a 3 litre bottle of cheap cider which in truth I found erring on the side of hysteria.
The same level of peer group pressure displayed toward diet has been met with resounding hostility possibly because weight concerns are an issue that apply to more of us than drink problems - and yes even a supportive thread can become peer group pressure if everyone sings from the same hym sheet.
I am not saying any one person is one hundred percent right or wrong but the polarisation in attitudes toward two problems which are the same in nature and cause is puzzling.
Someone will probably take offence now but the two threads are indeed in the same ball park.
Sorry.
-
There is the obvious major difference between many bad habits and eating. We can't totally give up eating and having to cope with food temptations all the time is difficult.
Giving up fags and booze totally may be simpler...
-
It's a legitimate subject to debate but please be aware that weight is used as such a massive club to beat people with, particularly women, that a lot of us are very sensitive about it
I understand that and I hope I am mostly succeeding in my efforts to ensure that my comments are not interpreted as being directed at any specific person or group.
That's not enough. We see from this thread that it's taboo to even mention the general possibility of loosing weight because people feel their efforts are being insulted, no matter how much you say you know some people put a great deal of genuine effort into it.
-
But there was an extreme diet imposed until the mid 1950s - rationing.
There was nothing extreme about that diet: it worked out to 3000 calories per day for an adult male. Compare that to the 2500 daily intake recommended for the typical adult male today (which he typically ignores, eating around 3100 calories with almost no exercise). The restrictions imposed under rationing often made it a challenge to cook interesting food and few people liked having to eat less meat than they had been used to, but nobody was being starved.
-
But there was an extreme diet imposed until the mid 1950s - rationing.
There was nothing extreme about that diet: it worked out to 3000 calories per day for an adult male. Compare that to the 2500 daily intake recommended for the typical adult male today (which he typically ignores, eating around 3100 calories with almost no exercise). The restrictions imposed under rationing often made it a challenge to cook interesting food and few people liked having to eat less meat than they had been used to, but nobody was being starved.
People also smoked like troopers, snack food was less accessible, you would reach for a Woodbine as a source of solace rather than raiding the fridge, which you didn't have anyway.
You can take your pick, fat people or folk with a hacking cough.
-
If you're talking about what life was like in the 50s compared to now, it's worth considering that "fashionable" clothes weren't so widely available back then whatever your size. Clothes are incredibly cheap now compared to the 50s, thanks to cheap Chinese labour, and accordingly, fashion moves much quicker.
Back then, a man would buy a tailored suit, it would cost a small fortune and he'd make it last years. Now men can buy off-the-peg suits and they're cheap enough that you can buy a new one every couple of years.
The economies of mass-manufacture are the real reason for the lack of a wider range of sizes, not anti-fatty prejudice.
Sure, they could make clothes in a wider range of sizes, but then we'd all be paying much more for our clothes. It's all very well the medium-sized people being politically correct about not causing offence to larger people, but unless they're prepared to pay double or triple the price for their clothes, the less averagely shaped folk will never get the same range of choice as them.
d.
-
People also smoked like troopers, snack food was less accessible, you would reach for a Woodbine as a source of solace rather than raiding the fridge, which you didn't have anyway.
You can take your pick, fat people or folk with a hacking cough.
Well...that's a false dichotomy unless you're a supermodel ;)
The thing that amazes me is:
1) media images of people (OK, women) are increasingly thin (and often Photoshopped as in this notorious example (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1219046/Ralph-Lauren-digitally-retouches-slender-model-make-look-THINNER.html)). Everyone agrees this is a Bad Thing and that it pressures people to lose too much weight and feel bad about themselves.
2) yet the nation is inexorably getting fatter, with the exception of a few people who turn anorexic. So is the pressure there, or is it there but doesn't have an impact on diet and exercise, just on emotions?
-
I think there is pressure but it's largely ignored. Fashion magazines sell a dream, like motor magazines.
Meanwhile, we are turning into a nation of lardy couch potatoes.
When did you last see a little girl with a skipping rope???
-
You can't let little girls go out and skip! They'll get paedocrimed!
-
When did you last see a little girl with a skipping rope???
Today. My neighbour's daughter. When her and her mates weren't wanging it around on their trampoline, they were skipping.
Why isn't trampolining on TV any more? Bring back World of Sport and Dickie Davis!! :P
-
Little Cudzo has been asking for both a skipping rope and a trampoline. I'd be happy to get him both, but a trampoline seems a bit impractical atm.
1) media images of people (OK, women) are increasingly thin (and often Photoshopped as in this notorious example (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1219046/Ralph-Lauren-digitally-retouches-slender-model-make-look-THINNER.html)). Everyone agrees this is a Bad Thing and that it pressures people to lose too much weight and feel bad about themselves.
That retouched photo - I'm sure I've seen the real being on a Scooby Doo film, where the aliens land in the Nevada desert. Definitely not human.
-
I don't know how many of you have read Caitlin Moran's excellent book, How to be a Woman.
I will quote from it.
In a nutshell, then, by choosing food as your drug - sugar highs, or the deep, soporific calm of carbs, the Valium of the working classes - you can still make the packed lunches, do the school run, look after the baby, pop in on your mum and the stay up all night with an ill five-year-old - something that is not an option if you're caning off a gigantic bag of skunk, or regularly climbing into the cupboard under the stairs and knocking back quarts of Scotch.
Overeating is the addiction of choice for carers, and that's why it's come to be regarded as the lowest-ranking of all of the additions. It's a way of fucking yourself up whilst still remaining fully functional, because you have to. Fat people aren't indulging in the "luxury" of their addiction making them useless, chaotic or a burden. Instead, they are slowly self-destructing in a way that doesn't inconvenience anyone. And that's why it's so often a woman's addiction of choice. All the quietly eating mums. All the KitKats in office drawers. All the unhappy moments, late at night, caught only in the fridge-light ...
... I can't help but notice that in a society obsessed with fat - so eager in the appellation, so vocal in its disapproval - the only people who aren't talking about it are the only people whose business it really is.
Some of my fat is because of sloth and greed. I like to cook, I like to eat, I like to sit and read - I'll always choose a good book and a dish of icecream over a bracing walk up a hill and a salad. But lots of it is absolutely what Caitlin Moran describes. This is me, this is my life. I use food as an emotional support in the way that other people use booze or fags or smack or cutting. It's just another form of self-harm. It's not a question of willpower and discipline (or the lack of). It's about emotional issues and the tools people use to deal with them. My skinny colleague, when he's stressed at work, swears a lot and goes out for a cig. I swear a lot and go to the Tunnocks.
I need to find healthier tools, better choices. I have to lose weight for the sake of my hip, if nothing else. But it's not just a question of cutting out the cake and going to the gym, because I have the willpower to do that religiously, but the first evening I'm upset about something, or feeling insecure, or something's playing on my mind, I'll buy a box of Mars Bar icecreams and they'll be gone before the first ad break in Corrie.
A friend of mine has similar issues with food and she's been having very good results with an NLP course called Shrinking Thinking. She even managed to throw a Cadbury mini-roll in the bin - and didn't fish it out again. It's a lot of money, but I'm thinking about giving it a go.
-
She even managed to throw a Cadbury mini-roll in the bin - and didn't fish it out again.
Heresy :o
Comfort eating is not exclusive to women.
-
Probably been said already but clearly there's too much fat-acceptance TV hours. We can't show smoking as cool on telly any more, should have the same attitude to people who make obesity look like something to be enjoyed. Never seen Mike and Molly but I've seen the ads and that was enough. King of Queens is a good show but that guy needs to stop banging on about meat and show some social responsibility.
Then there's all those Biggest Loser shows convincing fatties that it's all going to be ok because one day they'll be like those people on telly and lose a hundredweight. Only they won't because they'll be content to sit at home eating lard and watching telly programs about losing weight forever.
-
Comfort eating is not exclusive to women.
I don't think anyone is saying it is.
Probably been said already but clearly there's too much fat-acceptance TV hours. We can't show smoking as cool on telly any more, should have the same attitude to people who make obesity look like something to be enjoyed. Never seen Mike and Molly but I've seen the ads and that was enough. King of Queens is a good show but that guy needs to stop banging on about meat and show some social responsibility.
Then there's all those Biggest Loser shows convincing fatties that it's all going to be ok because one day they'll be like those people on telly and lose a hundredweight. Only they won't because they'll be content to sit at home eating lard and watching telly programs about losing weight forever.
::-)
-
"An Olympic legacy for couch potatoes?" was the title of a column in this week's BMJ.
-
Kirst that Caitlin Moran quote goes right back to Susie Orbach doesn't it? How sad that we haven't moved on in all those years.
Food and weight and emotion are so caught up in each other. I look at my naked body in the mirror and feel disgusted with myself then hit the biscuit tin for comfort. Sigh.
There are definitely more calorie dense cheap comfort foods around at the moment and I reckon I can look back at photos of myself and gauge how happy or sad I was at different times just by how fat I was.
Maybe the problem isn't fat at all. Maybe we're all getting more unhappy as a nation.
In which case leave us fatties alone. You won't make me happier by making my muffin top out to be a judgment on my character. I'll just be right back on the Walkers Sensations.
-
"An Olympic legacy for couch potatoes?" was the title of a column in this week's BMJ.
That would be me then,of late.I'd better tune in & watch
-
Maybe the problem isn't fat at all. Maybe we're all getting more unhappy as a nation.
It would help if "they" were less judgemental based on face value judgements.
A man or woman who is fat a different shape than some other individual may,more importantly,be of a morally/socially higher character:that's the important thing.
The outside is only wrapping,it's the contents that make someone likeable/loved or otherwise.
The amount of comment in the mass media relating to weight,whilst perhaps intended to be encouraging & educational wrt ideal height/weight combinations can be for some people discouraging & demotivating.
Let us not lose sight of the fact that some cultures regard as attractive & desireable a 0 body shape.
-
I don't know how many of you have read Caitlin Moran's excellent book, How to be a Woman.
I will quote from it.
In a nutshell, then, by choosing food as your drug - sugar highs, or the deep, soporific calm of carbs, the Valium of the working classes - you can still make the packed lunches, do the school run, look after the baby, pop in on your mum and the stay up all night with an ill five-year-old - something that is not an option if you're caning off a gigantic bag of skunk, or regularly climbing into the cupboard under the stairs and knocking back quarts of Scotch.
Overeating is the addiction of choice for carers, and that's why it's come to be regarded as the lowest-ranking of all of the additions. It's a way of fucking yourself up whilst still remaining fully functional, because you have to. Fat people aren't indulging in the "luxury" of their addiction making them useless, chaotic or a burden. Instead, they are slowly self-destructing in a way that doesn't inconvenience anyone. And that's why it's so often a woman's addiction of choice. All the quietly eating mums. All the KitKats in office drawers. All the unhappy moments, late at night, caught only in the fridge-light ...
... I can't help but notice that in a society obsessed with fat - so eager in the appellation, so vocal in its disapproval - the only people who aren't talking about it are the only people whose business it really is.
<snip>
Meaning who? Who is she referring to as "the only people who aren't talking about it"?
-
I never read such a load of pretentious bollocks anyway.
Fat people do eventually become a burden, at least to the fire brigade when they have to be taken from their house through the especially widened doors on a reinforced trolley on their way to hospital because of the damage cause by overeating.
"All the unhappy moments, late at night, caught only in the fridge-light ..."
What?? That's so corny you cold make starch out of it. Go nicely in your coke with large fries and an ice cream.
-
I think companies like Jacamo etc. are simply enabling obesity.
-
I think companies like Jacamo etc. are simply enabling obesity.
Yeah, let's only sell clothes for skinny people. And we could have a weight limit for walking into Tesco, too.
:facepalm:
-
And while we're at it when are we going to start locking people up for letting their kids become obese? Double whammy, leave them in there till their kids diet down to a healthy weight so the fatter they let them get the longer they serve, and if the kids want to see mommy and daddy again then they'd better get started on the celery.
-
Fat people do eventually become a burden, at least to the fire brigade when they have to be taken from their house through the especially widened doors on a reinforced trolley on their way to hospital because of the damage cause by overeating.
And how many of these 'fat people' actually get to that size then? ::-)
-
I'm losing touch with what's satire and what's serious here. I'm thick like that.
-
I think companies like Jacamo etc. are simply enabling obesity.
There have been outfitters for larger people for longer than I can remember and women previously sewed their own clothes anyway. Women of any size should be able to wear clothes that improve their self-esteem.
Clothes are not the cause of the obesity problem. Eating more calories than needed on a long-term basis is.
-
Fat people do eventually become a burden, at least to the fire brigade when they have to be taken from their house through the especially widened doors on a reinforced trolley on their way to hospital because of the damage cause by overeating.
And how many of these 'fat people' actually get to that size then? ::-)
The article was comparing eating with other addictions. Well how many people who take drugs on a regular basis become a nuisance to others? A tiny minority. Smoking a weed or taking a pill does almost no harm to the zillions of people who do it on a regular basis, it's only the handful that choose to get into more dangerous stuff that end up that way. I reckon that there is more money spent in the NHS on problems caused by obesity than all the drugs put together.
-
I'm losing touch with what's satire and what's serious here. I'm thick like that.
That's the problem with the internet. People who live their entire lives in quotation marks appear in forums and forget that no one else can see them waggling two pairs of fingers in the air. Puts the rest of us in a bad light.
-
I think companies like Jacamo etc. are simply enabling obesity.
Yeah, let's only sell clothes for skinny people. And we could have a weight limit for walking into Tesco, too.
:facepalm:
Good ideas.
-
I think obesity is only just overtaking smoking as a major cause of illness.
When I trained, smoking 20/day was seen to be more harmful than being 4 stone overweight.
-
I think companies like Jacamo etc. are simply enabling obesity.
There have been outfitters for larger people for longer than I can remember and women previously sewed their own clothes anyway. Women of any size should be able to wear clothes that improve their self-esteem.
Clothes are not the cause of the obesity problem. Eating more calories than needed on a long-term basis is.
Exactly, and companies like Jacamo promote the image of obesity as 'normal'.
-
Fat people do eventually become a burden, at least to the fire brigade when they have to be taken from their house through the especially widened doors on a reinforced trolley on their way to hospital because of the damage cause by overeating.
And how many of these 'fat people' actually get to that size then? ::-)
Actually an increasing amount. Enough that most of the UK's ambulance divisions now have bariatric ambulances and teams.
-
Point and laugh might be one solution, like we do to drunk people in the street, or women wearing burkas.
If it really is an addiction then it deserves some social stigma like all the others.
-
Fat people do eventually become a burden, at least to the fire brigade when they have to be taken from their house through the especially widened doors on a reinforced trolley on their way to hospital because of the damage cause by overeating.
And how many of these 'fat people' actually get to that size then? ::-)
Actually an increasing amount. Enough that most of the UK's ambulance divisions now have bariatric ambulances and teams.
Number!
And bariatric ambulances carry people far smaller than those who need cutting out by the Fire Brigade
-
If UK adult average weights have increased by 20kg in the last 50 years, there is a major problem that I am mostly not seeing.
Almost nobody in my extended family is 20kg overweight and few of the people I see walking past my door are that big either. I can only presume these fatties are either in cars or live elsewhere.
-
Fat people do eventually become a burden, at least to the fire brigade when they have to be taken from their house through the especially widened doors on a reinforced trolley on their way to hospital because of the damage cause by overeating.
And how many of these 'fat people' actually get to that size then? ::-)
Actually an increasing amount. Enough that most of the UK's ambulance divisions now have bariatric ambulances and teams.
Number!
Dictionary says they're the same thing. Anyway in the context of this thread discussing people in terms of amounts seems appropriate.
-
Fat people do eventually become a burden, at least to the fire brigade when they have to be taken from their house through the especially widened doors on a reinforced trolley on their way to hospital because of the damage cause by overeating.
And how many of these 'fat people' actually get to that size then? ::-)
Actually an increasing amount. Enough that most of the UK's ambulance divisions now have bariatric ambulances and teams.
Number!
Dictionary says they're the same thing. Anyway in the context of this thread discussing people in terms of amounts seems appropriate.
I don't know which dictionary you are reading but it is incorrect. Anything that is counted (ie unitless) is a number. Anything that is measured (eg mass, intensity) is an amount.
Therefore 10 is a number, 10kg is an amount.
-
Fat people do eventually become a burden, at least to the fire brigade when they have to be taken from their house through the especially widened doors on a reinforced trolley on their way to hospital because of the damage cause by overeating.
And how many of these 'fat people' actually get to that size then? ::-)
Actually an increasing amount. Enough that most of the UK's ambulance divisions now have bariatric ambulances and teams.
Number!
And bariatric ambulances carry people far smaller than those who need cutting out by the Fire Brigade
If there wasn't a problem bariatric ambulances would not be so common. A bariatric ambulance costs £90,000 before it is kitted out with extra wide stretcher etc. Services don't spend that kind of money for no reason.
-
A fully kitted out ambulance of any description costs £250k*, and the price according to the BBC was 'up to' 90k. Many forces also have air ambulances that cost considerably more.
*2004 figure
-
Helly. Do you live in a 'nice' area? Poverty and obesity go together.
-
Exactly, and companies like Jacamo promote the image of obesity as 'normal'.
There are still enough people willing to fat-shame us to keep us fatties in our place though.
-
Exactly, and companies like Jacamo promote the image of obesity as 'normal'.
There are still enough people willing to fat-shame us to keep us fatties in our place though.
I don't see it as any different to smoking. Both will kill you but obesity is more visibly evident.
-
The big difference is that smoking will kill others not just yourself.
-
Most of us are too fat. I'm too fat (for a cyclist). If there was a war tomorrow we'd have real trouble finding sufficient people capable of fighting (which is why PE was introduced in schools, IIRC).
-
The big difference is that smoking will kill others not just yourself.
Obesity has a knock-on effect by draining health resources.
-
I don't know which dictionary you are reading but it is incorrect. Anything that is counted (ie unitless) is a number. Anything that is measured (eg mass, intensity) is an amount.
Therefore 10 is a number, 10kg is an amount.
Stuff like this should be posted to: http://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=51058
-
If there was a war tomorrow we'd have real trouble finding sufficient people capable of fighting (which is why PE was introduced in schools, IIRC).
So how did we cope with Iraq and Afghanistan?
I assume you are suggesting a war of the old days, such as WW1 where millions were involved as opposed to any modern warfare where numbers are limited.
This Government believes we have too many peope capable of fighting and are making them jobless.
-
The big difference is that smoking will kill others not just yourself.
Obesity has a knock-on effect by draining health resources.
So do many things. Sports injuries being the obvious one, IVF being another
-
The big difference is that smoking will kill others not just yourself.
Obesity has a knock-on effect by draining health resources.
So do many things. Sports injuries being the obvious one, IVF being another
25% of the population are classed as obese. Is there that much drain from sports injuries and IVF?
-
The big difference is that smoking will kill others not just yourself.
Obesity has a knock-on effect by draining health resources.
So do many things. Sports injuries being the obvious one, IVF being another
25% of the population are classed as obese. Is there that much drain from sports injuries and IVF?
100% of the population are going to die. Considering the cost of end of life care should the dying be objects of distain?
-
The big difference is that smoking will kill others not just yourself.
Obesity has a knock-on effect by draining health resources.
So do many things. Sports injuries being the obvious one, IVF being another
25% of the population are classed as obese. Is there that much drain from sports injuries and IVF?
100% of the population are going to die. Considering the cost of end of life care should the dying be objects of distain?
Death is inevitable, obesity is not.
-
Think of all the starving around the world, if all the fatties learned a bit of self control we might finally be able to sort Africa out. The 21st century's greatest achievement, at last we could get shut of all those bloody Save the Children ads spoiling Columbo on daytime telly.
-
Helly. Do you live in a 'nice' area? Poverty and obesity go together.
No. I know.
Burnt Oak is cosmopolitan and not particularly 'nice' Fruit & veg are cheap and plentiful though.
-
I'm losing touch with what's satire and what's serious here. I'm thick like that.
plum is satire, obv.
-
Or satyr?
-
Or satyr?
Half man half goat, clever girl!
Has anyone here ever thought what it would actually be like to get off with a mermaid? They're always depicted in fiction as having a flappy fish bottom half and the top half as a beautiful maiden with flowing blonde locks. Not really practical though is it? I reckon if you were really going to do it you'd want it the other way around, real girl lower half with nice legs etc then a fishy top half. Have to go from behind I suppose because the view wouldn't be up to much.
-
Exactly, and companies like Jacamo promote the image of obesity as 'normal'.
There are still enough people willing to fat-shame us to keep us fatties in our place though.
I don't see it as any different to smoking. Both will kill you but obesity is more visibly evident.
People generally make a conscious effort to take up smoking, whereas people (me included) just become fatter.
Demonizing or ridiculing isn't the way to go. Making people feel accepted is. Nobody is going to go outside to exercise, even if it's just a waddle, if they feel that everyone is laughing at them. I have a lot of respect when I see a fat person exercising because exercising is harder if you're fatter and so are the psychological barriers to getting out and doing some exercise in the first place.
From what I've observed of myself over the last decade, regular exercise is better than a lot of exercise all in one weekend. My daily commute is 10% of what it was and I get up to 2 stone heavier than I was 10 years ago (that's 20% heavier!). I still do the big weekend rides of up to 600 miles.
The trick is to entice people to do exercise on a regular basis. The only way you'll do that is by welcoming them and accepting them as one of us and establishing a good social vibe which they feel a part of. After all, I'm no different to a 20 stone guy. We'd both be trying to get fitter than we allready are. YACF could be an excellent tool for this by having daily cycle rides for all abilities and all over the country. The exercise part would be a bi product of the social element and if I'm correct, weight loss would be a bi product of the exercise.
Motorcar depndency has taken away our daily exercise. My grandparents walked 10 miles a day to get to school or work. The average daily commute for the population has always been an hour for as long as we can remember. It's just that nowadays, that hour is rarely a form of exercise. The only way we'll achive this is by making it very enjoyable so that people will want to do it.
I also notice that Rich Forrest has taken up running, so instead of a short daily pootle to work on his recumbent, he now runs to work on a regular basis. He's lost a lot of weight from doing that. He doesn't do the big weekend mileages on the recumbent that he used to, just goes for a run on a regular basis. Regularity seem to be the most important thing.
-
Or satyr?
Half man half goat, clever girl!
Has anyone here ever thought what it would actually be like to get off with a mermaid? They're always depicted in fiction as having a flappy fish bottom half and the top half as a beautiful maiden with flowing blonde locks. Not really practical though is it? I reckon if you were really going to do it you'd want it the other way around, real girl lower half with nice legs etc then a fishy top half. Have to go from behind I suppose because the view wouldn't be up to much.
Dad always told this joke about monosyllabic anglers.
One lands a stunningly beautiful mermaid, then throws her back in the water.
'Why?"
"How?"
-
I don't see it as any different to smoking. Both will kill you but obesity is more visibly evident.
People generally make a conscious effort to take up smoking, whereas people (me included) just become fatter.
Demonizing or ridiculing isn't the way to go. Making people feel accepted is. Nobody is going to go outside to exercise, even if it's just a waddle, if they feel that everyone is laughing at them. I have a lot of respect when I see a fat person exercising because exercising is harder if you're fatter and so are the psychological barriers to getting out and doing some exercise in the first place.
From what I've observed of myself over the last decade, regular exercise is better than a lot of exercise all in one weekend. My daily commute is 10% of what it was and I get up to 2 stone heavier than I was 10 years ago (that's 20% heavier!). I still do the big weekend rides of up to 600 miles.
The trick is to entice people to do exercise on a regular basis. The only way you'll do that is by welcoming them and accepting them as one of us and establishing a good social vibe which they feel a part of. After all, I'm no different to a 20 stone guy. We'd both be trying to get fitter than we allready are. YACF could be an excellent tool for this by having daily cycle rides for all abilities and all over the country. The exercise part would be a bi product of the social element and if I'm correct, weight loss would be a bi product of the exercise.
Motorcar depndency has taken away our daily exercise. My grandparents walked 10 miles a day to get to school or work. The average daily commute for the population has always been an hour for as long as we can remember. It's just that nowadays, that hour is rarely a form of exercise. The only way we'll achive this is by making it very enjoyable so that people will want to do it.
I also notice that Rich Forrest has taken up running, so instead of a short daily pootle to work on his recumbent, he now runs to work on a regular basis. He's lost a lot of weight from doing that. He doesn't do the big weekend mileages on the recumbent that he used to, just goes for a run on a regular basis. Regularity seem to be the most important thing.
I don't agree at all that obesity should be 'accepted'. Smoking is no longer 'accepted' and is seen in most cases as anti-social. We should get that same view of over-eating. I don't believe people should be ridiculed for their size, but I also don't believe we should enable obesity by pretending it is somehow 'normal'.
-
Absolutely. Acceptance is where we're at now with the problem worsening, we're accelerating down the slope to USA style mass obesity and all anyone thinks to do is make clothes bigger in an attempt to make the obese feel accepted and loved.
Except that all that means is that they'll stay fat and wear their tents and be accepted and loved and none of the actual problems will have gone away.
It's not until we start to call a spade a spade and let them know that their behaviour is as unacceptable as smoking or drinking to excess that anything is going to happen.
Put VAT on clothes is another idea I had, with the rate indexed to size [waist/hip/chest ratio obv, we don't want to overtax the regularly big people]. It's like the fuel tax, the more they eat the more they pay in indirect taxes, the better off we all are.
-
I don't agree at all that obesity should be 'accepted'. Smoking is no longer 'accepted' and is seen in most cases as anti-social. We should get that same view of over-eating. I don't believe people should be ridiculed for their size, but I also don't believe we should enable obesity by pretending it is somehow 'normal'.
I agree. But we can still accept people who happen to be obese, smokers or even both. At least, I know that I can. Then, when they feel accepted as a person, we can help them (and ourselves in my case) shed some blubber.
It's obesity itself which needs attacking. You seem to be falling into the trap of attacking people who happen to be obese. We need to isolate the person from the obesity and attack the obesity. The only way we'll do that is by getting the person who happens to be obese on our side by accepting them for the person they are.
It's our culture that's messed up and it's our culture which messes us up.
-
I just wish clothing sizing was honest and transparent. My XL yacf T-shirt is a snug fit but I don't have a huge chest.
I have three pairs of identically shaped M&S trousers, all size 16; one pair won't stay up if I put anything in a pocket, one lot is too big and one fits nicely.
If the label just stated 'Waist x cm, Hips y cm' I could get a better fit; no judgement, no vanity, just facts.
Small, medium, large and XL are often unhelpful.
-
It's our culture that's messed up and it's our culture which messes us up.
Why do fat people always have to blame someone or something else for their over-eating ? They are the ones who choose what foods to eat and how much of them. They need to take responsibility for their own decisions.
-
Helly. Do you live in a 'nice' area? Poverty and obesity go together.
No. I know.
Burnt Oak is cosmopolitan and not particularly 'nice' Fruit & veg are cheap and plentiful though.
O:-)I know you know.
-
It's obesity itself which needs attacking. <snip> We need to isolate the person from the obesity and attack the obesity.
I don't agree with that. People don't 'catch' obesity, it isn't a virus that can be vaccinated against, they simply eat too many calories and don't stop eating too many calories. I was obese, I got up to nearly 18st. So I did something about it. I now count the calories every day and make sure I never go over 2400kcal per day. I also do 35 minutes on a turbo-trainer twice a day plus, weather permitting a 12 to 15 mile ride out. That means when I go out cycling I can actually enjoy the ride instead of feeling obliged to tear along like a wannabe Wiggo. I'm now about 13.5st (I'm 6'3") ideally i should be 12.5st.
-
Why do fat people always have to blame someone or something else for their over-eating ? They are the ones who choose what foods to eat and how much of them. They need to take responsibility for their own decisions.
True. Fat people exist in a vacuum. We're not influenced by our upbringing, the price or availability of food, what kind of cooking skills we've had the opportunity to learn. None of us use food as an emotional support, in the way drinkers and smokers and heroin addicts use their drugs as a way to get through the day. No fat people have any kind of emotional problems, and if we do, we certainly haven't learnt to deal with them in unhealthy ways. None of us have made poor choices and got stuck in a lifestyle we're struggling to change. None of us have reasons to stay as we are. All of us have the ability to sort ourselves out without any kind of help. We just choose not to because we're selfish, lazy and greedy, obviously.
::-)
-
I just wish clothing sizing was honest and transparent. My XL yacf T-shirt is a snug fit but I don't have a huge chest.
I have three pairs of identically shaped M&S trousers, all size 16; one pair won't stay up if I put anything in a pocket, one lot is too big and one fits nicely.
If the label just stated 'Waist x cm, Hips y cm' I could get a better fit; no judgement, no vanity, just facts.
Small, medium, large and XL are often unhelpful.
[/I just wish clothing sizing was honest and transparent. My XL yacf T-shirt is a snug fit but I don't have a huge chest.
I have three pairs of identically shaped M&S trousers, all size 16; one pair won't stay up if I put anything in a pocket, one lot is too big and one fits nicely.
If the label just stated 'Waist x cm, Hips y cm' I could get a better fit; no judgement, no vanity, just facts.
Small, medium, large and XL are often unhelpful.
I agree, most annoying.
It strikes me as odd that at 12 and bit stone at 5' 10" I should be having to buy XXL in some cycling garments.
-
It's obesity itself which needs attacking. <snip> We need to isolate the person from the obesity and attack the obesity.
I don't agree with that. People don't 'catch' obesity, it isn't a virus that can be vaccinated against, they simply eat too many calories and don't stop eating too many calories.
That's true, but we don't 'catch' schizophrenia either. Treatment is usually focussed on the condition, not calling the patient "a nutter who needs to get a grip".
-
Some of the posts in this thread have been removed as they were not excellent. Please be mindful of the requirement to maintain excellence.
-
Helly. Do you live in a 'nice' area? Poverty and obesity go together.
No. I know.
Burnt Oak is cosmopolitan and not particularly 'nice' Fruit & veg are cheap and plentiful though.
O:-)I know you know.
Before this thread was temporarily locked, I started writing a reply which I then could not post.
We'd received a leaflet from the local ASDA featuring all kinds of junk foods we never touch, like Bernard Matthews Turkey Dinosaurs.
These 'foods' are cynically marketed to the gullible and their pester-power kids. They're poor value for money and fattier than necessary.
It's a dreadful shame people buy this junk, harming their wallets and health but obesity and poor nutrition will continue until we can educate people about healthy food choices without antagonising or patronising them.
-
<pedant>
Actually, Turkey is relatively low in fat, and a good choice of meat-based protein but given a rather unfair bad rep by the likes of Jamie Oliver.
</pedant>
-
Some of the posts in this thread have been removed as they were not excellent. Please be mindful of the requirement to maintain excellence.
Srsly? I was about to hit the "report" button, but you say this is after moderation? How bad was it earlier?
I have friends who can't go out and exercise because of the day-to-day fat-shaming they encounter. They know they are fat. Most fat people do. But every time they go to the swimming pool or try to go jogging, they end up in tears from the hateful comments from people who tell them they ought to be ashamed of themselves.
-
Nothing wrong with turkey.
Rather more wrong with coating tiny portions in breadcrumbs and deep-frying, then selling at a huge mark-up.
-
Helly. Do you live in a 'nice' area? Poverty and obesity go together.
No. I know.
Burnt Oak is cosmopolitan and not particularly 'nice' Fruit & veg are cheap and plentiful though.
O:-)I know you know.
Before this thread was temporarily locked, I started writing a reply which I then could not post.
We'd received a leaflet from the local ASDA featuring all kinds of junk foods we never touch, like Bernard Matthews Turkey Dinosaurs.
These 'foods' are cynically marketed to the gullible and their pester-power kids. They're poor value for money and fattier than necessary.
It's a dreadful shame people buy this junk, harming their wallets and health but obesity and poor nutrition will continue until we can educate people about healthy food choices without antagonising or patronising them.
I'm currently out of work, and food shopping is not easy. I've found I can buy enough salad veg to last two weeks for about £9.50. Enough porage oats to last two months for £1.60. So the 'healthy food is too expensive' excuse I hear from so many financially 'poor' obese people simply does not wash with me.
-
It's so much more complex than the cost/price of food.
-
I'm currently out of work, and food shopping is not easy. I've found I can buy enough salad veg to last two weeks for about £9.50. Enough porage oats to last two months for £1.60. So the 'healthy food is too expensive' excuse I hear from so many financially 'poor' obese people simply does not wash with me.
That's fine if you know what to cook and how to cook it, and if you actually like it. There are loads of people who will swear blind they don't like anything other than processed food, and they probably don't. They were never encouraged to eat it, they never developed a taste for it, and now they don't know how to cook and wouldn't want to eat it if they did. Very few people would spend a tenner on healthy food knowing that neither they nor their family will eat it, when they can get something they all will eat for a bit more.
The fact is not everybody has the same life experiences so expecting everyone to react the same way to circumstances is stupid.
-
I'm currently out of work, and food shopping is not easy. I've found I can buy enough salad veg to last two weeks for about £9.50. Enough porage oats to last two months for £1.60. So the 'healthy food is too expensive' excuse I hear from so many financially 'poor' obese people simply does not wash with me.
That's fine if you know what to cook and how to cook it, and if you actually like it. There are loads of people who will swear blind they don't like anything other than processed food, and they probably don't. They were never encouraged to eat it, they never developed a taste for it, and now they don't know how to cook and wouldn't want to eat it if they did. Very few people would spend a tenner on healthy food knowing that neither they nor their family will eat it, when they can get something they all will eat for a bit more.
The fact is not everybody has the same life experiences so expecting everyone to react the same way to circumstances is stupid.
Because a salad is so difficult to 'cook'?
-
No, because if you have three children under ten who swear they HATE salad and will only eat turkey dinosaurs, and you have ten quid for food shopping, you're less likely to waste it on salad that they won't eat. You'll buy the turkey dinosaurs and be grateful they're on offer.
-
No, because if you have three children under ten who swear they HATE salad and will only eat turkey dinosaurs, and you have ten quid for food shopping, you're less likely to waste it on salad that they won't eat. You'll buy the turkey dinosaurs and be grateful they're on offer.
If they're hungry enough they'll eat the salad.
-
No, because if you have three children under ten who swear they HATE salad and will only eat turkey dinosaurs, and you have ten quid for food shopping, you're less likely to waste it on salad that they won't eat. You'll buy the turkey dinosaurs and be grateful they're on offer.
If they're hungry enough they'll eat the salad.
Salad is a very poor food for growing kids.
-
No, because if you have three children under ten who swear they HATE salad and will only eat turkey dinosaurs, and you have ten quid for food shopping, you're less likely to waste it on salad that they won't eat. You'll buy the turkey dinosaurs and be grateful they're on offer.
If they're hungry enough they'll eat the salad.
Salad is a very poor food for growing kids.
But it's very good if your kids need shrinking.
-
No, because if you have three children under ten who swear they HATE salad and will only eat turkey dinosaurs, and you have ten quid for food shopping, you're less likely to waste it on salad that they won't eat. You'll buy the turkey dinosaurs and be grateful they're on offer.
If they're hungry enough they'll eat the salad.
Salad is a very poor food for growing kids.
But it's very good if your kids need shrinking.
I don't have kids. What makes you think I do?
-
No, because if you have three children under ten who swear they HATE salad and will only eat turkey dinosaurs, and you have ten quid for food shopping, you're less likely to waste it on salad that they won't eat. You'll buy the turkey dinosaurs and be grateful they're on offer.
If they're hungry enough they'll eat the salad.
Salad is a very poor food for growing kids.
But it's very good if your kids need shrinking.
I don't have kids. What makes you think I do?
Really? We're going to get into the pedantry of syntax? Ok.
But it's very good if kids need shrinking.
Better now?
-
People don't eat burgers and chips because they're cheap or easy to cook. Jamie Oliver's School Dinners. Those women were forcing burgers through the school railings because it's what they like to eat. Someone else was procuring cheap food and even cooking it for them but no. Vicarious living via one's own children whatever the health risks.
And they do it at home, live on crisps and junk because it tastes nice, nothing to do with economics or culinary skills.
-
Comparing eating with smoking is probably not a bad comparison, if you do it fairly.
Lets look at how smoking was treated in the 30s-50s and compare it with obesity. Surprise surprise - there are voices that say "It's unhealthy and it is killing loads of people" but they are significantly outweighed by the opposite messages. The advertising. The packaging. The availability.
I don't remember the smokers being blamed for smoking. I remember loads of changes to the law on advertising, packaging and availability. I remember loads of help for smokers to become ex-smokers. It is only really now, when smoking is at a level about one-third of what it was, that some people blame smokers.
So whoever it was that compared obesity to smoking probably chose a good comparison. They just didn't think it through.
-
Comparing eating with smoking is probably not a bad comparison, if you do it fairly.
Some would argue that you cannot do it fairly, because fundamentally - people have to eat, they don't have to smoke.
-
And they do it at home, live on crisps and junk because it tastes nice, nothing to do with economics or culinary skills.
You've been spying on me, haven't you.
-
Comparing eating with smoking is probably not a bad comparison, if you do it fairly.
Some would argue that you cannot do it fairly, because fundamentally - people have to eat, they don't have to smoke.
Alright then alcohol, same thing. More so, because alcohol is often linked to emotional ill health, and like food can be enjoyed or abused to any extent you choose. [That's a nonspecific you by the way.]
Extreme alcoholism and extreme obesity might be closely compared.
-
Comparing eating with smoking is probably not a bad comparison, if you do it fairly.
Some would argue that you cannot do it fairly, because fundamentally - people have to eat, they don't have to smoke.
This is a hugely important point. The best way of dealing with an addictive pattern is to completely break it by totally ceasing the behaviour. You can't do this with food, and few people can break a psychological addiction with willpower alone.
-
People do have to eat. They don't have to eat junk. We really ought to teach them how to eat well for little. It's possible but resisting commercial and other pressures may be hard.
I think there's also a need to teach people when (not) to eat.
-
Education is wasted. Several people on here have described themselves being overweight, I could do with losing some, but we all know how to fix it. The women outside Jamie's school new full well that the burgers were crap. None of us need education, we need motivation. Until the enablement stops there isn't any.
-
Education is wasted. Several people on here have admitted to being overweight, I could do with losing some, but we all know how to fix it. The women outside Jamie's school new full well that the burgers were crap. None of us need education, we need motivation. Until the enablement stops there isn't any.
We need a zombie apocalypse. We all know who gets eaten first (http://youtu.be/-o78D7GFFkk).
-
Well, the amount of salt in processed food is being reduced. (regarding commercial pressures)
You are all welcome to pick apart my dissection of the junk food/smoking analogy, however you are missing the point. Being that people are told and encouraged to eat crap, just as they were told and encouraged to smoke. It took some 40-50 years to reduce smoking by 2/3rds. Wither junk food?
-
There is a splendid passage from George Orwell about living on the bread line in Chapter 6 from "The Road to Wigan Pier".
https://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?action=post;topic=36813.300;last_msg=1301663
English working people everywhere, so far as I know, refuse brown bread;
it is usually impossible to buy whole-meal bread in a working-class
district. They sometimes give the reason that brown bread is 'dirty'. I
suspect the real reason is that in the past brown bread has been
confused with black bread, which is traditionally associated with Popery
and wooden shoes. (They have plenty of Popery and wooden shoes in
Lancashire. A pity they haven't the black bread as well!) But the
English palate, especially the working-class palate, now rejects good
food almost automatically. The number of people who prefer tinned peas
and tinned fish to real peas and real fish must be increasing every
year, and plenty of people who could afford real milk in their tea would
much sooner have tinned milk--even that dreadful tinned milk which is
made of sugar and corn-flour and has UNFIT FOR BABIES on the tin in huge
letters. In some districts efforts are now being made to teach the
unemployed more about food-values and more about the intelligent
spending of money. When you hear of a thing like this you feel yourself
torn both ways. I have heard a Communist speaker on the platform grow
very angry about it. In London, he said, parties of Society dames now
have the cheek to walk into East End houses and give shopping-lessons to
the wives of the unemployed. He gave this as an instance of the
mentality of the English governing class. First you condemn a family to
live on thirty shillings a week, and then you have the damned
impertinence to tell them how they are to spend their money. He was
quite right--I agree heartily. Yet all the same it is a pity that,
merely for the lack of a proper tradition, people should pour muck like
tinned milk down their throats and not even know that it is inferior to
the product of the cow.
That was written in 1933.
-
While it is true my nephew went to a slimming club when he got too fat for school trousers (he was not very tall so could not wear adult clothes), I suspect the availability of big clothes will not necessarily act as an incentive to that many people to slim; they need stronger incentives.
I think 'wake-up' calls like health scares or a New Year weigh-in can be effective.
I also think some of the general population don't know about cheap healthy eating.
-
I also think some of the general population don't know about cheap healthy eating.
I think you are being very conservative there.
-
It's quite deliberate that they don't. Big food companies make lots of money by selling inferior stuff to people who don't know any better.
-
It's quite deliberate that they don't. Big food companies make lots of money by selling inferior stuff to people who don't know any better.
And then the big pharma companies make even more from selling drugs to treat the results of that diet.
-
I enjoyed relatively healthy food (compared to Turkey Twazzers) from a very young age because my mother was intelligent and informed, not rich. In fact we had less money than the families I knew who ate junk food exclusively. Also, many included a mother or father who wasn't working therefore had no less time than my mother.
Salad, for example, is excellent food when served with bread, cheese or a hard boiled egg, and is easy and quick to sling together. It can be sweet tasting, too, not like bitter vegetables that many kids naturally don't like.
-
I enjoyed relatively healthy food (compared to Turkey Twazzers) from a very young age because my mother was intelligent and informed, not rich. In fact we had less money than the families I knew who ate junk food exclusively. Most included a mother or father who wasn't working therefore had no less time than my mother, too. Salad, for example, is excellent food when served with protein, and is easy and quick to sling together. And it can be sweet tasting, not like bitter vegetables that many kids naturally don't like.
We ate healthy because the only 'junk' food about when we were kids was fish and chips (I'm 50), and all meals were cooked from basic ingredients. I think the only processed foods we ever had was an occasional Vesta curry as a 'treat' (maybe twice a year) and sometimes mum would buy beef slices in gravy when she couldn't afford a joint of beef or lamb. And when she could afford a joint of beef or lamb it was roast on Sunday, shepherd's or cottage pie on monday, and sandwiches on tuesday. we grew up knowing how to cook and get the most out of a food budget.
-
There is a splendid passage from George Orwell about living on the bread line in Chapter 6 from "The Road to Wigan Pier".
https://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?action=post;topic=36813.300;last_msg=1301663
English working people everywhere, so far as I know, refuse brown bread;
it is usually impossible to buy whole-meal bread in a working-class
district. They sometimes give the reason that brown bread is 'dirty'. I
suspect the real reason is that in the past brown bread has been
confused with black bread, which is traditionally associated with Popery
and wooden shoes. (They have plenty of Popery and wooden shoes in
Lancashire. A pity they haven't the black bread as well!) But the
English palate, especially the working-class palate, now rejects good
food almost automatically. The number of people who prefer tinned peas
and tinned fish to real peas and real fish must be increasing every
year, and plenty of people who could afford real milk in their tea would
much sooner have tinned milk--even that dreadful tinned milk which is
made of sugar and corn-flour and has UNFIT FOR BABIES on the tin in huge
letters. In some districts efforts are now being made to teach the
unemployed more about food-values and more about the intelligent
spending of money. When you hear of a thing like this you feel yourself
torn both ways. I have heard a Communist speaker on the platform grow
very angry about it. In London, he said, parties of Society dames now
have the cheek to walk into East End houses and give shopping-lessons to
the wives of the unemployed. He gave this as an instance of the
mentality of the English governing class. First you condemn a family to
live on thirty shillings a week, and then you have the damned
impertinence to tell them how they are to spend their money. He was
quite right--I agree heartily. Yet all the same it is a pity that,
merely for the lack of a proper tradition, people should pour muck like
tinned milk down their throats and not even know that it is inferior to
the product of the cow.
That was written in 1933.
He also said:
A man dies and is buried and all his actions forgotten but the food he has eaten lives after him in the sound or rotten bones of his children.
I've forgotten where I found that, but it's the example and attitude as much as the biological inheritance that is passed on.
-
Comparing eating with smoking is probably not a bad comparison, if you do it fairly.
Some would argue that you cannot do it fairly, because fundamentally - people have to eat, they don't have to smoke.
Alright then alcohol, same thing. More so, because alcohol is often linked to emotional ill health, and like food can be enjoyed or abused to any extent you choose. [That's a nonspecific you by the way.]
Extreme alcoholism and extreme obesity might be closely compared.
Which brings us back to the point Caitlin Moran and I were making.
Most people who become alcoholic don't become alcoholics because they drink too much every day for no reason and then find they can't stop. Marian Keyes says she was an alcoholic from the day she took her first sip. For lots of people, alcohol, or cigs, or heroin, or dope is what they turn to when things are tough and then it gets out of control. People use substances as a way of feeling better, feeling in control, comforting themselves. For lots of people, it's the same with food. Yes, there are some people who would say honestly that they've got overweight because they've been a bit inactive and eaten too much, but for lots and lots of people, the reasons are more complex. Overeating can be a compulsion and a form of self-harm in exactly the same way that drinking or cutting can be, and telling them they just need a bit of willpower and discipline is as helpful as telling the tide to stop coming in.
-
There is a disconnection between action and consequences for a lot of young people. It is really hard to get them to acknowledge consequences of actions.
There are those of us who eat for comfort (me included). Sometimes the consequences are obesity, sometimes other problems. My digestive problems are possibly connected to my lifelong habit of stuffing endless quantities of food down my throat.
There are those of us who simply put on weight easily. If work is sedentary, that's not easy to deal with. If you do night shifts or long days at a desk, shoving easy fuel down your throat becomes almost necessary.
Then there are the people who simply eat anything that is 'tasty'. Big food companies are very very good at producing food that triggers the 'tasty' sensation. MSG, salt, sugar, certain fats; they know just what pushes the 'eat more' button. It is in those companies' interests to make people eat more.
The first two situations have always existed. People are more sedentary, so that makes the problem more acute.
The third issue is something government can do something about.
There is a fourth category, and that affects women more than men. Body Image. If all women are 'expected' to have an unattainable supermodel figure, and can't, then why not say "fuck you and fuck off" and enjoy the icecream sundae?
-
Tiny amounts per day add up. It's not like all these fatties are spending all day eating. It is the cumulative effect over years.
-
None of us need education, we need motivation. Until the enablement stops there isn't any.
I keep coming back to this. And wondering what, precisely, needs to be stopped and by whom. How you expect to create that motivation.
And I'd quibble a little about the 'none of us need education'. I suspect that there's few of us, in the sense of YACFers, that don't know a reasonable amount about nutrition and exercise and all that. We're a bunch of people wealthy enough to have computers and internet access, loosely connected by an interest in cycling. And arguing on the interwebs, and smut and erudition, obv. It's a self-selecting group I would expect to be not entirely representative of society as a whole. But out there in the big blue room I know a fair few people with some interesting notions about food. Some of which are cultivated by food manufacturers. Like the person who thought it was healthy to almost live on jelly.... low fat, innit?
-
I lived on jelly for a week once. I can't imagine anyone would do that willingly... :sick:
(Other than Rod Hull, of course)
-
So much sanctimoniuos bullshit. Yes it is fine if in a modern environment you can manage to fit in two hours of quality exercise a day, but mos t of the time that is not possible. And life is more immediate - you need energy now, to get through the next hour or so so you eat something (or instead get an attack of the dozies or similar). But the compensatory exercise just isn't there. You can't just shut down to the metabolic minimum and expect that to work - it isn't quite that simple. Adequate food and adequate exercise are both required.
There are also genetic factors. A proportion of the population are self limiting eaters - these are the people who seem to be able to eat what they want and never put on a gram. The rest of us aren't (and in some cases this is extreme). Food intake is going to exceed even the most extreme amount of exercise unless your day job happens to be as a pro cyclist. It is a scientifically recognised neurological condition. If there is food available then you will eat it. Obesity isn't just about exercise and food, it is about our relationship with it. There are two ways to deal with this. One is external restriction of food availability (see the 1940's/50's for that) or apparent food availability, and the other is appetite suppression through leptin mimics or gut derived peptides.
Ultimately now we have an abundance of food, a lack of requirement for physical exercise and a body that is still evolving from teh hunter-gatherer era and struggling to cope.
-
I enjoyed relatively healthy food (compared to Turkey Twazzers) from a very young age because my mother was intelligent and informed, not rich. In fact we had less money than the families I knew who ate junk food exclusively. Most included a mother or father who wasn't working therefore had no less time than my mother, too. Salad, for example, is excellent food when served with protein, and is easy and quick to sling together. And it can be sweet tasting, not like bitter vegetables that many kids naturally don't like.
We ate healthy because the only 'junk' food about when we were kids was fish and chips (I'm 50), and all meals were cooked from basic ingredients. I think the only processed foods we ever had was an occasional Vesta curry as a 'treat' (maybe twice a year) and sometimes mum would buy beef slices in gravy when she couldn't afford a joint of beef or lamb. And when she could afford a joint of beef or lamb it was roast on Sunday, shepherd's or cottage pie on monday, and sandwiches on tuesday. we grew up knowing how to cook and get the most out of a food budget.
Me too. And (unlike you I suspect) I'm overweight. Haven't always been, wasn't really unitil my 30's that I started getting overweight. So childhood upbringing has zero impact on future size, using this example.
-
Spam has been around for more than 50 years!
-
<pedant> I think you mean 70 years.
I've been around for more than 50 years and thought Spam was available during WWII.
-
[pendant]70 is more than 50. The 50 is reference to AK's age.[/pendant]
-
Education is wasted. Several people on here have described themselves being overweight, I could do with losing some, but we all know how to fix it. The women outside Jamie's school new full well that the burgers were crap. None of us need education, we need motivation. Until the enablement stops there isn't any.
You seem to know an awful lot about other people's knowledge and psychologies.
-
I've been to slimming clubs (obviously attended by those motivated to lose some weight). There was quite a high information content to the meetings. Some of the information appeared new to some attendees.
If these people needed educating, many others would also benefit.
I don't think education is always wasted.
It may not always be welcome.
-
None of us need education, we need motivation. Until the enablement stops there isn't any.
I keep coming back to this. And wondering what, precisely, needs to be stopped and by whom. How you expect to create that motivation.
And I'd quibble a little about the 'none of us need education'. I suspect that there's few of us, in the sense of YACFers, that don't know a reasonable amount about nutrition and exercise and all that. We're a bunch of people wealthy enough to have computers and internet access, loosely connected by an interest in cycling. And arguing on the interwebs, and smut and erudition, obv. It's a self-selecting group I would expect to be not entirely representative of society as a whole. But out there in the big blue room I know a fair few people with some interesting notions about food. Some of which are cultivated by food manufacturers. Like the person who thought it was healthy to almost live on jelly.... low fat, innit?
Education is wasted. Several people on here have described themselves being overweight, I could do with losing some, but we all know how to fix it. The women outside Jamie's school new full well that the burgers were crap. None of us need education, we need motivation. Until the enablement stops there isn't any.
You seem to know an awful lot about other people's knowledge and psychologies.
Never mind yacf or self selecting groups. Eat less + exercise more then see if you've lost weight. If not go to step 1. There can't be anyone left in the English speaking world who hasn't been told that. That they choose to ignore it is the problem, not that they haven't been told it.
-
Never mind yacf or self selecting groups. Eat less + exercise more then see if you've lost weight. If not go to step 1. There can't be anyone left in the English speaking world who hasn't been told that. That they choose to ignore it is the problem, not that they haven't been told it.
That's a hilariously simplistic view of the problem.
-
None of us need education, we need motivation. Until the enablement stops there isn't any.
I keep coming back to this. And wondering what, precisely, needs to be stopped and by whom. How you expect to create that motivation.
So, as direct questions...
What exactly is the enablement you think needs to be stopped, and by whom? How do you think that motivation can be created?
-
None of us need education, we need motivation. Until the enablement stops there isn't any.
I keep coming back to this. And wondering what, precisely, needs to be stopped and by whom. How you expect to create that motivation.
We want to stop people smoking, so we tax them, we ban them from public places, we hike up their insurance, we keep them away from our children, in other words we make it clear that it's unacceptable. I wouldn't leave an alcoholic in charge of my bike let alone my children, but if so many people here are claiming exactly the same mindset for chronic overeaters why do we treat them so differently?
Obese people, if half of this forum had their way we'd apologise to them because we've made the outside world is so terribly terribly cruel, give them a pat on the back, a bigger frock, then send them back on their way to the cake shop.
-
Never mind yacf or self selecting groups. Eat less + exercise more then see if you've lost weight. If not go to step 1. There can't be anyone left in the English speaking world who hasn't been told that. That they choose to ignore it is the problem, not that they haven't been told it.
That's a hilariously simplistic view of the problem.
What's hilarious is that the solution is exactly that simplistic. Eat less, exercise more, both necessary and sufficient.
-
That's a biochemical view - it somewhat overlooks the role played by our brains.
It's a bit like a football coach just showing his players videos of 70's Brazil teams."Play like that!"
-
...we tax them, we ban them from public places, we hike up their insurance, we keep them away from our children, in other words we make it clear that it's unacceptable.
Right. So to be absolutely clear, you think that we should do the same thing to people who fail the bmi test? No size 18+ women or whatever the equivalent would be for men - sorry, don't know enough about bloke clothes sizes - anywhere we can see them? In the park (jogging, for example) or the gym or the pool? We charge them more for their, what, car insurance? House insurance? Because the obese _already_ pay more for life and critical illness insurance - if they can get it, of course. They turned me down, y'know. Sorry, when I die prematurely I guess you'll just have to pick up the bill for raising my kids instead. And teachers, nurses, nursery staff, youth workers, midwives, any other profession that works with kids - they can all get sacked if they breach a certain blubber limit? Just, y'know, checking. It's good to be clear about these things.
-
...we tax them, we ban them from public places, we hike up their insurance, we keep them away from our children, in other words we make it clear that it's unacceptable.
Right. So to be absolutely clear, you think that we should do the same thing to people who fail the bmi test? No size 18+ women or whatever the equivalent would be for men - sorry, don't know enough about bloke clothes sizes - anywhere we can see them? In the park (jogging, for example) or the gym or the pool? We charge them more for their, what, car insurance? House insurance? Because the obese _already_ pay more for life and critical illness insurance - if they can get it, of course. They turned me down, y'know. Sorry, when I die prematurely I guess you'll just have to pick up the bill for raising my kids instead. And teachers, nurses, nursery staff, youth workers, midwives, any other profession that works with kids - they can all get sacked if they breach a certain blubber limit? Just, y'know, checking. It's good to be clear about these things.
Shut up I said none of those things. It was a post just like that one that got the thread locked last time. If you want to get hysterical that's fine, like I said before, this is the internet after all, but don't put words into my mouth.
All I said was that if there are no sanctions then there will be no change. Taxing fatty or sugary foods is one idea, sanctioning parents who make their children obese is another.
-
Shut up I said none of those things. It was a post just like that one that got the thread locked last time. If you want to get hysterical that's fine, like I said before, this is the internet after all, but don't put words into my mouth.
All I said was that if there are no sanctions then there will be no change. Taxing fatty or sugary foods is one idea, sanctioning parents who make their children obese is another.
Well, I asked a very direct question. I guess I was hoping for a direct answer. And no, I don't think I will shut up, if it's all the same to you, and no, I'm not being hysterical.
So, idea no 1 is to tax fatty or sugary foods. Any details on that?
These 'sanctions' for parents - care to elaborate?
Any other suggestion?
-
Tax doesn't seem to have stopped excess drinking or smoking. When all these new anti smoker laws came in, nobody where I worked quit smoking. I joked at the time that I smoked and was treated like that, it'd make me want a fag! Demonization doesn't seem to work. The overweight have been the butt of jokes for as long as I can remember, yet people have got even bigger.
I think that Dave Martin is on the money. It's a matter of balancing lifestyle, excercise, eating habbits and I think, least of all what food we eat.
How would I treat the obese?
I wouldn't apologise to them because we've made the outside world is so terribly terribly cruel, give them a pat on the back, a bigger frock, then send them back on their way to the cake shop.
I'd just treat them as the human being they are and ignore their health problem. I'd try to get them on some bike rides and have some fun on the bike as much as possible. I reckon that would be more helpfull than trying to punish them.
-
How would I treat the obese?
I wouldn't apologise to them because we've made the outside world is so terribly terribly cruel, give them a pat on the back, a bigger frock, then send them back on their way to the cake shop.
I'd just treat them as the human being they are and ignore their health problem. I'd try to get them on some bike rides and have some fun on the bike as much as possible. I reckon that would be more helpfull than trying to punish them.
By jingo, TG, you could be onto something there, I reckon!
-
I know from my own experience that it works. ;) :smug:
-
The incentive to solve the problem is likely to come via the NHS/govt. Obesity comes with many issues eg diabetes, cardiovascular disease, stroke, cancer, lymphoedema, osteoarthritis. Some of these are going to become such a huge problem (type 2 diabetes doubling in the next few years) that there is a possibility that the NHS will not be able to afford to survive diabetes (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19259795).
To me society has a very sick relationship with food, we throw away 30+% of food, we have hours of TV programs, but there are huge numbers of fast food joints on the high street. There are increasing numbers of people who do not seem able to cook and then society tells them they must be be unobtainable slim.
Locally to where I work, there was a weight loss program which involved CBT, and had some success as it focused on the relation ship with food, as well as the mechanics of weight loss.
Overall what those incentives will be I don't know.
ps, the american sugar industry denies there is a problem. sounds familiar
-
Treating people like humans? I think Teethgrinder might just have won. Creating an "us" and "them" mentality isn't helpful, particularly when there's such a grey area.
I'm not fat. I'm all in favour of teaching kids about healthy eating, exercise and how to cook a good meal from basic, cheap ingredients. I'm lucky that my parents taught me that - and when I was skint, which I was for a v long time, I was able to get a ten-quid veg box (shared with a flatmate), value rice, value pasta, bag of cash 'n' carry lentils, and eat for under a tenner a week. It was boring but it was pretty healthy.
What I am very strongly not in favour of, and I apologise if the hyperbole went overboard, is creating this "other" category in which we dehumanise the other and it is permissible to point and laugh in the street, as one poster suggested earlier would be a good way to get fat people to recognise social stigma and slim down a bit.
All that does is to give individuals the belief that they are allowed to make snap value judgements on others and then bully them. It doesn't actually matter whether you're pointing-and-laughing at the obese, at smokers, at drunks, or grabbing your pitchfork and looking for paedophiles: it's all the same continuum of a belief that you can enforce your own values on other people via the medium of street abuse.
To put that into a forum context, it's the same attitude that leads motorists to use punishment passes or spray water out the windows at us as we're riding our bikes. The same attitude that leads to people being egged or worse, shoved, at best, gerronthefuggincyclePAAAATH yells. Those people aren't necessarily BAD people but they do believe that their views on what's best for us (riding in single file on a cycle path is safer for us and will lead to us needing less of their tax for NHS treatment and / or less of their insurance if they accidentally hit us, therefore it is better for society that we do so) mean that they can shout abuse at us.
(Before anyone says that motorists who behave like that are behaving illegally but calling taunts at someone in the street isn't - actually, it's an offence under s.5 of the Public Order Act to cause someone harassment alarm or distress. It's not always vigorously prosecuted - there's another parallel - but it is illegal.)
It's not fun being Other, in any capacity. Not as a cyclist and not as a fattie. I've walked down the street with a former colleague who was a bit of a ten-ton nelly, but when people were abusive to her, which they were, they didn't know she'd already lost a lot of weight. The street harassment did very little to persuade her to keep up with the diet and exercise.
-
Never mind yacf or self selecting groups. Eat less + exercise more then see if you've lost weight. If not go to step 1. There can't be anyone left in the English speaking world who hasn't been told that. That they choose to ignore it is the problem, not that they haven't been told it.
That's a hilariously simplistic view of the problem.
What's hilarious is that the solution is exactly that simplistic. Eat less, exercise more, both necessary and sufficient.
Simple to say, but not easy to do when your unconscious mind has more control than your conscious mind. You've got a useless over-simplistic view if you think everyone can act like robots (and it would be terribly boring if we all did).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LM_iiPFkNas
-
What I am very strongly not in favour of, and I apologise if the hyperbole went overboard, is creating this "other" category in which we dehumanise the other and it is permissible to point and laugh in the street, as one poster suggested earlier would be a good way to get fat people to recognise social stigma and slim down a bit.
I say that this will only exacerbate the problem.
You need a positive attitude if you are going to achieve anything. Losing weight is an achievement. Putting someone in a negative state of mind won't help their positive attitude. Making clothes for big people seems like a good way of putting some people in a positive mindset about themselves. People want to be fit. I know many fit people who want to be fitter. I know unfit people who want to be fitter too. I've never met an unfit person who wanted to be even less fit.
Making nice clothes for big people isn't about accepting their size, it's about accepting them as a person.
-
Getting the balance right is hugely problematic. It's one thing to help/support someone who has decided to (say) do some more cycling, but how do you help them get to that point?
"You're dangerously obese, did you know? I've got some suggestions that might help you."
Hmm, maybe not ...
I feel really bad for some obese friends, but I really don't know know how to help them without creating all the negativity mentioned upthread. :(
-
Never mind yacf or self selecting groups. Eat less + exercise more then see if you've lost weight. If not go to step 1. There can't be anyone left in the English speaking world who hasn't been told that. That they choose to ignore it is the problem, not that they haven't been told it.
That's a hilariously simplistic view of the problem.
What's hilarious is that the solution is exactly that simplistic. Eat less, exercise more, both necessary and sufficient.
Simple to say, but not easy to do when your unconscious mind has more control than your conscious mind. You've got a useless over-simplistic view if you think everyone can act like robots (and it would be terribly boring if we all did).
I'll say it again if you like. It's exactly that simple to say because it's exactly that simple. All I said was that everyone already knows *how* to lose weight; eat less and exercise more. It's true.
I made no comment whatsoever about the biological, chemical, emotional, neurological, intellectual or any other barriers which people find to excuse themselves from actually doing so. Deliberately, I'm avoiding that part of the conversation because I don't want to say something that will get the thread locked again.
-
Never mind yacf or self selecting groups. Eat less + exercise more then see if you've lost weight. If not go to step 1. There can't be anyone left in the English speaking world who hasn't been told that. That they choose to ignore it is the problem, not that they haven't been told it.
What you don't seem to be able to grasp is that for some people, eating is a compulsion and an addiction and they are not able to stop as easily as you seem to think they should. I don't believe there's a fat person in the country who doesn't know they're fat, know that they're taking in more calories than they're burning up and know that to lose weight they need to reduce their intake and increase their output. What you are ignoring or not understanding is that some people can't do that. It's not laziness, or greed, or selfishness, or stupidity, or ignorance, any more than alcoholism is any of those things.
That's a biochemical view - it somewhat overlooks the role played by our brains.
It's a bit like a football coach just showing his players videos of 70's Brazil teams."Play like that!"
Hmmm. I wonder if Scotland have tried that. I might write and suggest it.
-
Plum.
I simply can't make up my mind whether you are:
(a) A Troll
(3) Autistic to the point of complete inability to empathise with anyone
(viii) Thick
(e) A genius
On the face of it, yes fat people have an energy imbalance that is simple to fix. If you were in charge of what went into their mouths, it would be an easy fix. But you aren't are you? They are. People have issues, faults, foibles, anxieties.
Frankly - expecting everyone to conform to some kind of theoretical "norm" is... well... a bit Nazi.
Are you Hitler reincarnated? Are you?
-
but how do you help them get to that point?
Not like this ;D
"You're dangerously obese, did you know? I've got some suggestions that might help you."
Ignore the obesity. Just get them out for a bike ride, or whatever, just as you would with anyone. Then you might need to reassure them that they'll be OK, it's just for fun etc and not let them do so much that they feel trashed when they get home.
Forget fat, just get them having fun. They'll still be fat when they finish that ride, and the next, and the next... It takes a lot of bike rides to lose fat, but only one to have fun. Make it fun and they'll want to do a lot.
-
Never mind yacf or self selecting groups. Eat less + exercise more then see if you've lost weight. If not go to step 1. There can't be anyone left in the English speaking world who hasn't been told that. That they choose to ignore it is the problem, not that they haven't been told it.
What you don't seem to be able to grasp is that for some people, eating is a compulsion and an addiction and they are not able to stop as easily as you seem to think they should. I don't believe there's a fat person in the country who doesn't know they're fat, know that they're taking in more calories than they're burning up and know that to lose weight they need to reduce their intake and increase their output. What you are ignoring or not understanding is that some people can't do that. It's not laziness, or greed, or selfishness, or stupidity, or ignorance, any more than alcoholism is any of those things.
In the post prior to that one I'd already made it clear what I'm ignoring and why, but since you choose to labour the point I'll go into more detail while trying to follow C3POs advice to be excellent.
There's no such thing as can't. If it can't be done then you might as well give up, eat yourselves to death. Addictive people will come up with a zillion reasons why they can't quit, but those are just excuses. What they actually list are reasons why it is difficult to quit. What is necessary is to help them to overcome those difficulties. Giving them bigger frocks does not achieve this.
-
Plum.
I simply can't make up my mind whether you are:
(a) A Troll
(3) Autistic to the point of complete inability to empathise with anyone
(viii) Thick
(e) A genius
That is beyond any shadow of a doubt one of the nicest things anyone has ever said to me on the internet.
Apart from what that nice lady with the webcam was saying the other day, but that was £5 a minute charged to my mobile.
-
Are you Hitler reincarnated? Are you?
I call Godwin. Is there any further point to this thread?
-
Are you Hitler reincarnated? Are you?
I call Godwin. Is there any further point to this thread?
Thank you! I knew someone would bite...
-
I think that it is a cultural thing. You don't need to be educated to eat properly my grandparents left school aged 14 or 16, didn't know about calories or complicated diets but none of them and none of their children were overweight despite eating way too much butter if you believe dietiticians. The reality is that the human body is a fantastic and versatile machine. As long as you don't chuck into your stomach processed food, eat varied stuff and exercised, it will probably cope.
It took me several years to stop smoking and I have sympathy for those who struggle to change their eating habits. For the solution, I reckon that TG got it right, it is much easier to burn calories than to survive on two tomatoes per meal.
-
There's no such thing as can't. If it can't be done then you might as well give up, eat yourselves to death. Addictive people will come up with a zillion reasons why they can't quit, but those are just excuses. What they actually list are reasons why it is difficult to quit. What is necessary is to help them to overcome those difficulties. Giving them bigger frocks does not achieve this.
Nobody's ever given me a bigger frock. Any clothes I have, I buy for myself with money I earn. I don't see why I should have to try to wear clothes I don't fit into because you think it'll shame me into instantly overcoming all the issues I have and miraculously becoming thin. Or do I just stay naked until that happens?
-
You wear a sack and cry into your Slimfast, I think. Closer magazine can probably give you some helpful hints. I hear seaweed's a good diet tip.
-
There is no actual frock, it's a metaphor.
-
You can't wear a metaphor. Specially not that one. It's too draughty.
-
Does this metaphor make my bum look big?
-
More phat
-
This thread is mixing up two aspects of one problem IMO. The societal and the personal. If, as someone claimed (possibly in another thread, half the forum seems to be about this right now) the average UK adult is 20kg heavier than 50 years ago, then there's a general problem which can be tackled by Plumite solutions - taxing sugar, rationing fats, compulsory calisthenics in the server room. But even 50 years ago there were obese people - for them different, individual solutions are needed. If you want a slogan, Love the fatty and jeer at the fat society.
-
I might have been the one that posted the statistic quoted by Cudzo.
We need to take a hard look at the factors that have caused the situation at a societal level analyse and tackle them.
We could start by making active travel more attractive, rather than pandering to the motorist. That might not always gain votes...
-
On this thread, those who seem to be most eloquent and 'get it' are Teethgrinder and Julian. There is an awful lot of bigggotted crap written by social misfits I would disregard. I am not obese and have never been, but I think I have a basic understanding of the issues. Anyone who chooses to be judgemental of others stands to be judged to a very high standard (and usually found wanting). Those who see fit to judge themselves 'above' others who are above ideal weight, I find you wanting on many levels. Most of us have a higher scale of judging our fellow human than what they weigh in as. There is more to man than what the scales say FFS. This topic makes me feel lairy, and by definition thatmeans I should ignore it on principal.
-
The cure for the obesity epidemic. Ban sit down toilets. If you go to countries where they have squat/non contact toilets, everyone seems much thinner. if you eat a lot, you also spend a lot of time evacuating it out of your body. Make toilet time less comfortable, and you'll be less likely to overeat. Also having to squat regularly improves mobility, and you are more aware of when you are too fat.
-
The cure for the obesity epidemic. Ban sit down toilets. If you go to countries where they have non contact toilets, everyone seems much thinner. if you eat a lot, you also spend a lot of time evacuating it out of your body. Make toilet time less comfortable, and you'll be less likely to overeat. Also having to squat regularly improves mobility, and you are more aware of when you are too fat.
Then I can wet myself as I can't squat.
Gee thanks!
-
Edit: Post redacted as it was bitchy and non-excellent.
While I'm now technically[1] obese, my own experiences are mostly of the opposite end of the spectrum, though that's not exactly a barrel of laughs either. This thread has been pissing me off all day, nearly as much as Gnome 3. I think we should call it a day and go for a bike ride.
But, just in case there was an on topic post somewhere in the murky depths of the thread, I don't see what's wrong with people wanting clothes that actually fit. I know I do. (Looking at you, Endura)
[1] Depending on how you measure my height.
-
Lots of obese people using squat toilets in India. It's true that they're not the ones drinking untreated water and living in shacks by open sewers though. But I do remember when the woman upstairs from us had a suspected case of typhoid.
-
Isn't obesity in India linked to ghee, condensed milk, and sugar consumption.
Surely there must be some way for a human being to limit the amount they eat, the same way an animal does?
It's very easy to get obese, but it's not something that happens overnight. There must be some kind of feedback system that can stop it early on. I'm not saying anything can be done for those who are overweight now, but to stop those in the future, i.e. the kids now. China with its one child policy is facing childhood obesity for the first time, proper fat little kids, who've been spoilt by parents and 2 sets of grandparents.
If there are cheap preventative methods they can only help.
I also think food is getting better. I remember not wanting to finish meals, or being a much fussier eater. As a child I remember thinking this tastes like sh!t, I'm not eating this. I can't remember the last time I didn't finish something because I didn't like it. Boiled potatoes at school would be regularly left by me, but I can't remember the last time I was served boiled potatoes in this country.
-
Isn't obesity in India linked to ghee, condensed milk, and sugar consumption.
Probably, along with lack of exercise, social status of food and weight, and other factors. But whatever causes it, it's not prevented or solved by squat toilets.
-
Surely there must be some way for a human being to limit the amount they eat, the same way an animal does?
That's pretty much how it works in third-world countries...
Give an animal an unlimited supply of sufficiently desirable food and it will overeat just like most humans.
There's no evolutionary imperative not to die of obesity-related diseases. By the time they become an issue, you've already reproduced.
-
This is societal overweight again. Restricting food availability or attractiveness is going to do nothing to help individuals who treat food as an addiction or comforter etc.
-
There is an awful lot of bigggotted crap written by social misfits I would disregard. I am not obese and have never been, but I think I have a basic understanding of the issues. Anyone who chooses to be judgemental of others stands to be judged to a very high standard (and usually found wanting). Those who see fit to judge themselves 'above' others who are above ideal weight, I find you wanting on many levels. Most of us have a higher scale of judging our fellow human than what they weigh in as. There is more to man than what the scales say FFS. This topic makes me feel lairy, and by definition thatmeans I should ignore it on principal.
That's a pretty judgemental comment in itself.
-
There's no evolutionary imperative not to die of obesity-related diseases. By the time they become an issue, you've already reproduced.
The evolutionary driver would be that it is more difficult to concieve and physically give birth for those who are obese. Obesity is linked to fertility (at least in women), which is why sometimes women are required to lose some weight before undergoing IVF. In the absence of very good healthcare, being very obese is going to be a major barrier to the physical act of giving birth.
The reality is that the typcial evolutionary drivers for humans are somewhat confounded by the way our society has progressed anyway.
-
[/quote]
There's no evolutionary imperative not to die of obesity-related diseases. By the time they become an issue, you've already reproduced.
[/quote]
Depressingly this is not going to be for much longer, the rise in type 2 diabetes in the pre teens/teens will start affecting these.