Should we take thin privilege and health at any size more seriously?

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Should we take thin privilege and health at any size more seriously?

Submarine Sandpaper: May 27, 2007

Series DD Funding posted:

Weight training doesn't burn a significant amount of fat though

Define "burn;" it's better than cardio.

# ¿ Nov 23, 2015 23:10

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 16, 2024 21:45

Submarine Sandpaper: May 27, 2007

Series DD Funding posted:

I can't find studies for weight training right now, but running is around 100 calories per mile: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/22446673/

I agree with the caveat that people starting off will not be able to run 100's of calories off but are more likely to be able to lift 100's off.

deptstoremook posted:

I've noticed that obesity discussions always seem to turn around topics of diet/exercise, public health interventions, and physical health facts.

Those are fine and important subjects, but to me there is a far more important question (brought up on the last page but not followed through): is overeating an addiction?

If overeating is an addiction, then the intervention of "telling overeaters to eat less food" is about as effective as "telling heroin addicts to use less heroin;" raising awareness about the negative health effects of obesity is about as effective as raising awareness about the negative health effects of smoking.

Furthermore, if overeating is an addiction, discussing personal strategies for not overeating are marginally helpful at best (if you no longer overeat) and patronizing at worst (if you've never had a problem with overeating). That would be, again, like a lifelong non-drinker sharing their secret to never having become an alcoholic.

If overeating is an addiction--and I think it is--then it would be good to acknowledge that the "usual" way of talking about overeating is unhelpful to those who overeat to the point of health risks.

At the same time, I think there's about as much place for communities that seek to normalize obesity as there is for pro-ana communities, or communities of drug users that rationalize each others' habits. They are distinctly counterproductive. And yet, nobody ever felt better from having their problems written off as "a simple matter" of diet/exercise, or positive thinking, or drug abstinence. That only makes people feel worse.

Basically, any strategy that addresses obesity must, first and foremost, to be supportive of obese people. And maybe that does look like "acceptance:" the same kind of acceptance and empathy one extends to addicts and anorexics.

It is nowhere near your parallels to addiction because of the lack of fatal withdrawal/overdose.

# ¿ Nov 24, 2015 17:55

Submarine Sandpaper: May 27, 2007

Ddraig posted:

Overeating absolutely is an addiction, one that like many addictions is exacerbated by stress and other factors (comfort eating is a real thing)

Unfortunately people do tend to provide the same level of kindness and support that they extend to other addicts: They did it to themselves, they should just have the willpower to stop, etc.

That parallel would be smoking cigarettes (and there's not much empathy there) not chasing the dragon.

# ¿ Nov 24, 2015 17:57

Submarine Sandpaper: May 27, 2007

Ddraig posted:

Food is sort of a different beast, though, in that people actually need it to survive. You can just say no to alcohol, tobacco and drugs, trying the same thing with food will not end well.

Well then it can't be an addiction then huh?

# ¿ Nov 24, 2015 18:27

Submarine Sandpaper: May 27, 2007

Ddraig posted:

I've been a food addict for 27 years. I first got started in the womb when my mother was hitting up. After that I did everything I could do to score that poo poo for myself, but she was my main supplier for the first 16 years. I got some from other sources, but it was never as good as the home grown poo poo.

I tried giving it up for a while, the withdrawal was a bitch. Got the shakes, light headed, chronic stomach pain. Never again. Tonight I've got my main man cooking up some of the good stuff for me and bringing it round.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DH5TMCR8etc

# ¿ Nov 24, 2015 18:35

Submarine Sandpaper: May 27, 2007

fishmech posted:

There is no coherent and legally or medically supportable definition of "poo poo food", is the problem with just trying to ban or regulate "poo poo food".

The current initiatives to show added sugar will help people ID them. New York City has had some success with regulation.

# ¿ Nov 24, 2015 23:01

Submarine Sandpaper: May 27, 2007

fishmech posted:

Added sugar is effectively meaningless. It gets really easy to argue that a given product's sugar content is "integral" or whatever you want to call sugar that isn't "added".

I forgot the full context and latched onto that phrase, my bad:

Added sugars: FDA is proposing including the percent daily value (%DV) for added sugars on the Nutrition Facts label of packaged foods, giving consumers additional information for added sugars similar to information they have seen for decades with respect to nutrients such as sodium and certain fats. The percent daily value indicates how much a nutrient in a serving of food contributes to a daily diet and would help consumers make informed choices for themselves and their families. The percent daily value would be based on the recommendation that the daily intake of calories from added sugars not exceed 10 percent of total calories.

# ¿ Nov 25, 2015 01:39

Submarine Sandpaper: May 27, 2007

Effectronica posted:

The main issue is that this is going to get latched onto as "_added sugar is bad", just like with carbohydrates, fat, sodium, etc. It also might not decrease sugar intake as people go to fruit juices and so on.

If you look at a current nutritional label it's already there.

/e- and for those who need to care it is likely bad anyway.

# ¿ Nov 25, 2015 01:47

Submarine Sandpaper: May 27, 2007

twodot posted:

Can you explain what added sugars actually mean? Like is the caramel on a caramel apple added or part of the product? I see their explanation in the Q&A, but I don't think it answers the question.

https://www.google.com/search?q=apple+nutrition+label&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS474US474&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=995&tbm=isch&imgil=cZIw1FlfiS-QNM%253A%253BnVisBKcrc7DkxM%253Bhttps%25253A%25252F%25252Fsnaped.fns.usda.gov%25252Fnutrition-through-seasons%25252Fseasonal-produce%25252Fapples&source=iu&pf=m&fir=cZIw1FlfiS-QNM%253A%252CnVisBKcrc7DkxM%252C_&usg=__WaPk-L0bsmj3CMDKDmOUqnuNyf8%3D&ved=0ahUKEwiR6_T-rKrJAhWWC44KHc8oCLwQyjcIMw&ei=SAVVVpGnHZaXuATP0aDgCw#imgrc=cZIw1FlfiS-QNM%3A&usg=__WaPk-L0bsmj3CMDKDmOUqnuNyf8%3D

# ¿ Nov 25, 2015 01:48

Submarine Sandpaper: May 27, 2007

Solkanar512 posted:

There's more to being healthy than just eating leafy greens. Exercise on a regular basis is highly beneficial, as is sleep. I've said this several times already, so it looks like you're not interested in discussing this in good faith.

Why are you dismissing this as just a step, cooking is hugely beneficial regardless of if you feel it's worth the time of a subset of the population.

# ¿ Nov 25, 2015 17:34

Submarine Sandpaper: May 27, 2007

"Being healthy is hard so it's not worth doing."

did that sum it up?

# ¿ Nov 25, 2015 18:01

Submarine Sandpaper: May 27, 2007

Ddraig posted:

Healthier products tend to actually be more expensive in the long haul. Due to it being trendy to eat certain things, it's actually more expensive to get, say, brown rice than white rice. In the UK I can go to virtually any major supermarket and buy a 10kg bag of white rice for about �10, maybe even less if there's a special deal going on. To get a comparable amount of the much more healthy brown rice it would cost much, much more, with prices ranging anywhere from �2 to �4 a kilo

Even going to specialist health shops doesn't really help matters, as even though these are places where you're more likely able to buy these in bulk, prices tend to be way more expensive than others.

Fetishization and gentrification of "healthy" foods means that they tend to be more expensive, given that the people who buy them have the money to pay that premium, whereas most people would find it hard to do so in a meaningful way.

Shop at ethnic markets.

UK might not have them as it's the island of bland but whoknows

# ¿ Nov 25, 2015 18:50

Submarine Sandpaper: May 27, 2007

Ddraig posted:

Obese kids tend to grow up to be obese adults. For some, there may be a magical point in their lives where they forget all the preferences, tastes and experiences imparted on them their entire life but for the most part they don't.

At which point does the responsibility shift from that of the obese kid's parents to the obese adult's self?

I don't think you've thought about this at all.

Hmmm when is a kid no longer considered a kid?

# ¿ Nov 25, 2015 19:54

Submarine Sandpaper: May 27, 2007

Ddraig posted:

Okay, cool. There's increasing amounts of evidence to suggest that maybe the mother's diet, even before she is pregnant, may have effects on the birth weight of the child and the subsequent health of the child. Who bears the responsibility there? The mother? The mother of the mother who may have ate poorly? How far does the cycle go?

Do you play by catholic rules that responsibility is imparted on conception? Or does it go much farther back? Does it start at birth? What about legal rules? In some cultures and legal systems the child is not a child at a much earlier date than most would consider.

If a woman is expecting to have a child at some point in her life should she be required, via the mantra of personal responsibility, to think of the health of her unborn child even before she's aware of that possibility? Should she be told this when she's a child? Should that responsibility be delegated to the parents? After all, the child has no responsibility, it's the parents.

Honestly if you think about it, the issues goes back to Eve gorging her fat face with apples. All subsequent generations have no personal accountability.

# ¿ Nov 25, 2015 20:26

Submarine Sandpaper: May 27, 2007

Solkanar512 posted:

Making those sacrifices to simply rid the world of people you don't find sexually attractive doesn't seem worth it in my view.

Why do us it always come down to sex for ya'll

# ¿ Nov 26, 2015 02:49

Submarine Sandpaper: May 27, 2007

poo poo, the only reason I don't treat obese people with complete and utter contempt is that it isn't socially acceptable yet. I'd love for that to change.

# ¿ Dec 3, 2015 16:19

Submarine Sandpaper: May 27, 2007

Also there's the non insignificant extra cost to infrastructure like bridge/road/sidewalks/elevators/railways from the scooters that have their weight and a half added to them since it just gets too gosh darn hard to walk, the need for larger and larger ambulances, mental health consoling for people who have to see 1 ton corpse blobs fused to scooters or couches, trash and sewage has to be expanded etc...

# ¿ Dec 3, 2015 20:16

Submarine Sandpaper: May 27, 2007

fishmech posted:

All of these already have to be in place for people on regular old wheelchairs though, so only way to avoid that would be like, building robot exoskeletons so wheelchair bound people can walk normally.

A regular person in a wheelchair or scooter might be able to go up a 1:5 incline, where a rascal probably won't have the HP to get a lard-rear end up such a steep slope.

Maybe force fat people to smoke as that will help out with sheer quantity of eating, and if not it'll at least take some years off their lives.

# ¿ Dec 3, 2015 20:42

Submarine Sandpaper: May 27, 2007

fishmech posted:

Uh what? It's the other way around, some dumb mobility scooter will be more likely to handle any given dude in a regular wheelchair. Yeah your wheelchair athletes and others like them can handle anything, but the rule for new wheelchair ramp slope since the 90s, under the ADA, is to try for 1:12 inclne or shallower whenever possible, and stuff like 1:10 or 1:9 or steeper is only allowed for trying to retrofit ramps into inherently cramped environments, or when you're trying to retrofit a historical marked structure without significantly disturbing the appearance.

I did not know the incline ratios on the book, I was just referencing the ones I saw for streets in HK. Regardless of the details, an average person can help a non overweight person even via pushing while it may result in a fatality if they help the obese individual.

# ¿ Dec 3, 2015 21:20

Submarine Sandpaper: May 27, 2007

fishmech posted:

No, black coffee has been found unpalatable by people since coffee was first made. Because it's strictly an acquired taste.

No, this is wrong entirely. We get it, YOU like black coffee. Tons of people, with wildly varying diets from all across the globe and history don't like it. It has nothing to do with how much sugar people eat on a regular basis.

People certainly normalize the flavor of sugar (or anything) in their diet and the use of sugar was and still is used to mask lovely, horrible, coffee. I'm sure goons who went off the soda here will testify as to how horrendously sweet a regular soda is after being off the stuff for a while. There's a natural tendency for your pallet to move away from sweet as you age as well which is why kids generally don't like coffee even with sugar.

# ¿ Dec 10, 2015 17:01

Submarine Sandpaper: May 27, 2007

Effectronica posted:

I don't like coffee and like curry, seems like your simplistic worldview is a house of cards.

Everyone knows you're a child though.

# ¿ Dec 10, 2015 17:07

Submarine Sandpaper: May 27, 2007

Discendo Vox posted:

Do you have a evidentiary basis or a causal explanation for how palates and "acquired tastes" function, or how they influence obesity rates?

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195666383800038

While not what you're looking for, the first sentence of the synopsis seems to indicate that research exists for your 1). 2) is obviously conjecture.

# ¿ Dec 10, 2015 21:12

Submarine Sandpaper: May 27, 2007

fishmech posted:

In recent studies we aren't seeing high sodium intake causing problems, but rather exacerbating problems induced by other things. That if you already have clinically proven consistent high blood pressure hen you specifically should try to reduce it if you eat a lot, but that Joe No Diagnosis doesn't seem to need to.

There's also a noticeable lack of consensus on what even counts as "high sodium intake" and what seems to be a consensus that whatever the target should be, it's higher then what many public health orgs are currently recommending (and which very few people stick by anyway). And that separately, there seems to be a very wide range that results in health as regards sodium intake.

chicken or egg good sir?

# ¿ Dec 11, 2015 00:14

Submarine Sandpaper: May 27, 2007

You are wrong and veganism is not a go to for cal deficits; it'll rather just make it harder to get all your IDAA.

# ¿ Dec 22, 2015 20:41

Submarine Sandpaper: May 27, 2007

Coylter posted:

The point isn't to go for cal deficits, the point is eating food that doesn't make you sick. Since a vegan diet has more volume you'll feel full and your digestive track will have to work to push all that poo poo down. Also i don't understand your point about IDAA.

Ah I didn't know a trait of veganism was that the gravity of the food was so low it was impossible to overeat. Thanks. The point about IDAA is that a vegan diet will literally make you sick from an almino acid deficiency.

# ¿ Dec 22, 2015 21:01

Submarine Sandpaper: May 27, 2007

Coylter posted:

Yes because humans have always had an obesity problem...oh i forgot, its the loving air.

Vegans have lower BMI than any other diet.

I believe you'll see that the holocaust diet had a lower BMI back in the 40's.

# ¿ Dec 22, 2015 21:28

Submarine Sandpaper: May 27, 2007

Coylter posted:

Climbing new heights of discourse here with the godwin.

Which is sadly perfectly sound with your logic.

# ¿ Dec 22, 2015 21:34

Submarine Sandpaper: May 27, 2007

Coylter posted:

Neither is a single food is going to guarantee it for any diet. This isn't a property that's unique to veganism. I absolutely get your point. My point is that you should use your brain when assessing what you shove down your mouth. It still doesn't make it hard.

I emphasized where you're wrong.

# ¿ Dec 22, 2015 21:40

Submarine Sandpaper: May 27, 2007

Coylter posted:

Only veganism cannot cover its nutritional needs with a single food stuff?

Maybe a soylent diet lol.

Soylent isn't a single food item.

# ¿ Dec 22, 2015 21:44

Submarine Sandpaper: May 27, 2007

Or enjoy one of many succulent fleshes. You'd also want to be taking supplements far more often than that as a majority of them are not absorbed.

# ¿ Dec 22, 2015 22:01

Submarine Sandpaper: May 27, 2007

I wanted to see if I could find anything fast regarding veganism and childhood neglect and meh, it's a pretty sad read. Anecdotes of underdevelopment which likely stemmed from year 0-1 malnutrition, recommendations to not tell CPS/others that you feed your child a vegan diet, and my heart just breaks for how difficult that child's life will be if they ever decide not to be vegan; finding that they cannot process dairy or other foods well.

# ¿ Dec 22, 2015 22:41

Submarine Sandpaper: May 27, 2007

E. I think I read sarcasm where there was none.

# ¿ Dec 30, 2015 00:57

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 16, 2024 21:45

Submarine Sandpaper: May 27, 2007

twodot posted:

I have a problem with someone talking about their personal experience when their personal experience is demonstrably wrong. Like I was expecting you to say "Whoops, I wrote 800, but I really meant 2000" or "I live in Europe and that is a lot by my regional standards" or "I was lying for rhetorical effect", because 800 isn't in the ball park. I wasn't expecting you to assert that calorie density exists. Let's take a look at a local steak restaurant I enjoy: John Howie.
http://johnhowiesteak.blob.core.windows.net/menu/Dinner.pdf?635825528961203591
Their ribeye comes aged either 28 days or 42 days, both are a 16 oz portion. Let's note here we're not talking about adding any sauces or sides which would be the normal experience.
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=calories+in+16+oz+of+ribeye 1081 calories average with a range of 930-1202
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/food/calories/texas-roadhouse-16-oz-ribeye-steak-37650352 1240
http://www.sparkpeople.com/calories-in.asp?food=ribeye 1268
In case you think that's intended to be shared, John Howie also serves a 40oz porterhouse "Tableside for two".

a loving lb of beef is a lot and far more than a serving is in any other country and almost any restaurant that isn't dedicated to give people cardiac disease so what's your point? Are you aware a burger is over 3k calories see: http://www.heartattackgrill.com/

# ¿ Jan 21, 2016 22:49

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Should we take thin privilege and health at any size more seriously?