Page 2 of 5 [ 68 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 114,555
Location: the island of defective toy santas

12 Sep 2010, 8:15 am

buryuntime wrote:
Excessive fat is not healthy, nor is it attractive.


i imagine many of the unfortunately obese already well know this, despite the brave face. there but for the grace of god...



sartresue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Age: 70
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,313
Location: The Castle of Shock and Awe-tism

12 Sep 2010, 6:50 pm

Fat is yellow adipose tissue topic

To call someone fat is inaccurate. The correct terms are overweight or obese.


_________________
Radiant Aspergian
Awe-Tistic Whirlwind

Phuture Phounder of the Philosophy Phactory

NOT a believer of Mystic Woo-Woo


Meadow
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Dec 2009
Age: 64
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,067

12 Sep 2010, 7:01 pm

Most undesirable, unwanted, fleshy, obese.



Henriksson
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Nov 2008
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,534
Location: Sweden

13 Sep 2010, 12:40 pm

buryuntime wrote:
Excessive fat is not healthy, nor is it attractive.

Actually, in the past it has been healthy, as excessive fat helps you survive famines and you don't live long enough to be affected by diseases caused by obesity anyway. Obesity as a beauty ideal is also incredibly common if food is not abundant.


_________________
"Purity is for drinking water, not people" - Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.


Asmodeus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Feb 2009
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,520

13 Sep 2010, 1:42 pm

Why is the word "fat", applied to a person, so widely understood in the West/industrialised society as a negative value judgement?
Because obesity is a lifestyle disease, and has other negative connotations.

What is it about the meaning of the word "fat" which is so abhorrent, repellent, loathsome, such that "fat person" is a judgement which sets someone up to be despised, rejected, mocked, or pitied, looked down on, etc?
"fat" commonly refers to obesity or morbid obesity. Finding malnourished people less pleasing to the eye is hardwired, be they largely under or overweight, or in any other way different for that matter. In a society free to eat as much or little as we like, obesity is no longer a symbol of wealth through excess, and remains only as a sign that one's discipline of body is lacking. Social pressure, both positive and negative, exists to pull people to conform, and to have similar fitness to your peers is no exception. Because of this, obese people will be mocked, rejected, and resultantly pitied or looked down upon.

Why is "fatness" seen like this?
Because obesity is a lifestyle disease, it is in the vast majority of cases both preventable and treatable. Socially it is commonly considered physically unattractive, see above.

What does the word mean to you?
Fat can mean the file system mentioned, and a kind of carbon string in organic chemistry, but more commonly refers to the topic mentioned, I don't have a strong meaning attached to the word in my mind.



Jono
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,653
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

13 Sep 2010, 2:42 pm

hyperlexian wrote:
Jono wrote:
It doesn't have to do with control, it has to do with public health. Obese people can develop a lot of health problems and may even have an early heart attack.
interesting factoid, though it don't know how reputable it is. it seems that the consumption of alcohol costs the public health system more than obesity:

http://www.marininstitute.org/alcohol_policy/health_care_costs.htm wrote:
Annual health care expenditures for alcohol-related problems amount to $22.5 billion. The total cost of alcohol problems is $175.9 billion a year (compared to $114.2 billion for other drug problems and $137 billion for smoking)


http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/weightloss/2009-11-17-future-obesity-costs_N.htm wrote:
The report adds to the growing body of evidence of obesity's impact on medical costs. A study released in July showed that obese Americans cost the country about $147 billion in weight-related medical bills in 2008, double what it was a decade ago. It now accounts for about 9.1% of medical spending.


YET people care so much obesity but not about the health effects of alcohol (in adults, in fact, the 2 are often linked). why is it the case that obesity is seen as such a drain on the health care system but alcoholism gets away scot-free?


Well, obese people are definitely more at risk of developing health problems than people who are not obese and the relationship is causal. For example, obese people are likely to get clogged up arteries due to cholesterol, which in turn could lead to a heart attack. I don't know why alcohol problems would take less priority because that would cause health problems as well, mainly liver problems. Keep in mind though that alcoholism has a genetic predisposition and that people who predisposed to become alcoholics genetically would have to stay away from alcohol completely.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

13 Sep 2010, 3:55 pm

ouinon wrote:
I was leaning towards the theory that fat/fatness represents the sexless but feminine maternal, which our society provides so little space for ...
.


interesting; I honestly have not heard that theory before, but it jibes somewhat with the fact that women who nurse their children in public are sometimes seen as 'exposing themselves indecently' or 'obscene.'

I'm sure that there's more to it than that, but that might be part of it.

edit, wrt. obesity and health risks: while obesity, and especially morbid obesity, is *often* associated with an increase in health risks, it is entirely possible to be active and metabolically healthy and also overweight. If a person wants to worry about their health, they would be statistically more accurate if they pay attention to their B/P, their resting heart rate, and their cholesterol levels than to their BMI.

As far as attractiveness goes, I am not attracted to obese individuals but I'd rather date someone who was slightly overweight than someone who was slightly underweight. I honestly don't understand why our society finds models who look like concentration camp victims attractive.



hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

13 Sep 2010, 4:56 pm

Jono wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
Jono wrote:
It doesn't have to do with control, it has to do with public health. Obese people can develop a lot of health problems and may even have an early heart attack.
interesting factoid, though it don't know how reputable it is. it seems that the consumption of alcohol costs the public health system more than obesity:

http://www.marininstitute.org/alcohol_policy/health_care_costs.htm wrote:
Annual health care expenditures for alcohol-related problems amount to $22.5 billion. The total cost of alcohol problems is $175.9 billion a year (compared to $114.2 billion for other drug problems and $137 billion for smoking)


http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/weightloss/2009-11-17-future-obesity-costs_N.htm wrote:
The report adds to the growing body of evidence of obesity's impact on medical costs. A study released in July showed that obese Americans cost the country about $147 billion in weight-related medical bills in 2008, double what it was a decade ago. It now accounts for about 9.1% of medical spending.


YET people care so much obesity but not about the health effects of alcohol (in adults, in fact, the 2 are often linked). why is it the case that obesity is seen as such a drain on the health care system but alcoholism gets away scot-free?


Well, obese people are definitely more at risk of developing health problems than people who are not obese and the relationship is causal. For example, obese people are likely to get clogged up arteries due to cholesterol, which in turn could lead to a heart attack. I don't know why alcohol problems would take less priority because that would cause health problems as well, mainly liver problems. Keep in mind though that alcoholism has a genetic predisposition and that people who predisposed to become alcoholics genetically would have to stay away from alcohol completely.
well... excess alcohol causes increased risk of certain cancers (gastrointestinal tract, pharynx, larynx, lips, mouth, esophagus, breast and liver), accidents, digestive disturbances, liver cirrhosis, heart disease, hemorrhagic stroke, high blood pressure, immune system suppression, neurological disorders/cognitive dysfunction, obesity (lol), osteoporosis, pancreatitis, and sleep disruption... all of which cost money to treat.

it seems like our governments need a health enemy to target, and i think alcohol is a better candidate than obesity. in fact, if we target alcohol, some adult obesity will be decreased in response.


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105


Janissy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 May 2009
Age: 58
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,450
Location: x

13 Sep 2010, 5:14 pm

ouinon wrote:
pgd wrote:
In my view, the message the Obama White House is sending is to look like Barbie and Ken dolls from Hollywood. ... eliminate fat children [ so as ] to perhaps roll back time to an era when new recruits for the armed forces were deemed to be healthier than today.

I wonder whether it might have something to do with "control". Fatness is seen as lack of control, ( always has been to some extent but the association has become increasingly powerful in the last four decades or so since people started "struggling" with fat, attempting to lose weight, etc ), and perhaps the Administration/govts see "fat"/fat people as a sign of, and easy scapegoat for, what they perceive as a nationwide "loss of control", over a lot of things.

Fatness may be acting as a symbol for "that which can not control", which might go someway towards explaining why attempts to deal with it have been so stunningly inept, govt campaigns so ill-informed, etc such that the population earnestly following govt advice, ( to eat more complex carbos and less fat ... ha! :roll: ), etc has actually ended up fatter than ever before. ... If fat/fatness is acting as a symbol for "that which can not control" then it cannot disappear.

I was leaning towards the theory that fat/fatness represents the sexless but feminine maternal, which our society provides so little space for ... but the fact that one of the most hostile reactions that many fat people get is that they are unable to control themselves, that they must be "weak", undisciplined, self-indulgent, etc does suggest that fat may be functioning as a scapegoat for widespread anxiety about ( an apparently increasing ) loss of control. Which is interesting. :) :lol
.


Yes, I think that "fat" represents weakness and an inability to control oneself. Loss of control is seen as the ultimate horror, at least in the U.S. Americans (I am one) are very big on independence, controlling oneself, being the master of one's own destiny. Fat mocks all that. Instead of being in control, you are controlled by food. Look at our reality shows. They are set up to mock loss of control ("Real Housewives" with all their mockable meltdowns) and to celebrate the regaining of control ("Biggest Loser"). We scorn celebrities who lose control (Mel Gisbosn swearing) and celebrate celebrities who regain control (Robert Downey Jr. controlling his addictions-finally).

People struggle with weight. It's a fight for control. Who will win? The person or the food?

People "let themselves go". They give in and surrender control to the food.

Hold or regain control=good

Lose control=bad

So yes, I think that fat is seen as being a marker for loss of control which makes it loathsome in a society that values control.

It used to be a marker for wealth, which made it desirable as all markers for wealth are. But those days are long gone and since fattening food is also the least expensive, it has also become a marker for poverty. Wealthy people get fat too. And they get mocked for it. If they are obviously wealthy, it won't be a marker for poverty. But it remaions a marker for the despised loss of control. And in the absence of obvious money, it's a marker for both poverty and loss of control- double ick.



Meadow
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Dec 2009
Age: 64
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,067

13 Sep 2010, 5:24 pm

Obese women pushing carts three times their size around WalMart & Sam's Club.



Meadow
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Dec 2009
Age: 64
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,067

13 Sep 2010, 5:30 pm

And fat b*****s who hate and treat me badly.



greenblue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,896
Location: Home

13 Sep 2010, 6:47 pm

Asmodeus wrote:
Why is the word "fat", applied to a person, so widely understood in the West/industrialised society as a negative value judgement?
Because obesity is a lifestyle disease, and has other negative connotations.

well, he said fat, and I find generalizations often made a bit problematic, while in some cases overweight is due to lifestyle, there are the ones who are genetically predisposed of being overweight, so they have to do diet and make more sacrificies than you may be willing to do, if you are not overweight, and even that may have trouble losing weight. I mean, I am skinny, but I have noticed I eat more than some of them do, and I'm not that overweight. Not only that, but with the issue of obesity, at which point it can be accurately said that a person is actually obese, because overweight doesn't seem to always equal to obesity.

Quote:
What is it about the meaning of the word "fat" which is so abhorrent, repellent, loathsome, such that "fat person" is a judgement which sets someone up to be despised, rejected, mocked, or pitied, looked down on, etc?
"fat" commonly refers to obesity or morbid obesity. Finding malnourished people less pleasing to the eye is hardwired, be they largely under or overweight, or in any other way different for that matter. In a society free to eat as much or little as we like, obesity is no longer a symbol of wealth through excess, and remains only as a sign that one's discipline of body is lacking. Social pressure, both positive and negative, exists to pull people to conform, and to have similar fitness to your peers is no exception. Because of this, obese people will be mocked, rejected, and resultantly pitied or looked down upon.

Fat would be refered to people from being overweight to obesity, not necessarily being solely refered towards obese people, and the issue of finding displeasing fat people, that is related to the yuck factor, so there lies the question, is it reasonable and moraly justifiable to socially mistreat and practically some sort of discrimination against a group of people based on the yuck factor? I mean, some people have tried to justify racism and homophobia under that, and so they could very well claim that "the despleasing in the eye to be hardwire" as well, and many people would find that demoralizing.

Quote:
Why is "fatness" seen like this?
Because obesity is a lifestyle disease, it is in the vast majority of cases both preventable and treatable. Socially it is commonly considered physically unattractive, see above.

Not always, given that in some cases it is congenital, and some of them work really hard to lose some weight, and doing so to gain social acceptance, and some of them develop low self-steem given the social issues for their physical appereance. Heck, some of them can develop symptoms similar to anorexia nervosa.

I have observed that some people don't seem to acknowledge or care about the efforts, so much as I would advise them to do the job for themselves and healthy reasons rather than pleasing other people, because for one, I distrust those other people and people's judgments in general, especially regarding assumptions towards other people.


_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?


LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

13 Sep 2010, 7:25 pm

Well, Meadow, care for a little fat-loathing with your misogyny?



Meadow
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Dec 2009
Age: 64
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,067

13 Sep 2010, 8:02 pm

LKL wrote:
Well, Meadow, care for a little fat-loathing with your misogyny?


Do you have a problem with my reference to over-sized mean people? I'm a woman and do not hate women, but you are free to make whatever judgment call you wish to with regard to my comment.



UnderINK
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 12 Sep 2010
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 94
Location: McAllen, TX

13 Sep 2010, 8:40 pm

"Fat" to me is above thin and normal. Not fat doesn't mean you have to look like Barbie (let's disregard that being Barbie's measurements is physically impossible), because people disregard there is a line of 'normal'. A lot of people don't know that at 5'4", on average, a woman can weigh up to 140 pounds and still be in the 'desirable' range (depending on her body fat percentage, she could also range in the slightly overweight, but nothing too alarming). Anything above that is not just unappealing for other people to look at, but it's unhealthy. There's no reason for anybody to weigh as much as some people do, such as ranging over 500 to 1000 pounds. Even bed-ridden people can avoid weighing that much. People with hypothyroidism can avoid weighing that much with medicine and a diet. The problem with 'fatness' or 'obesity' comes down to this: lethargy combined with a serious addiction to food. A look inside any obesity clinic can show this.

A thinner nation is a healthier nation. People who rage that fat people should be left alone are usually overweight and uncomfortable with their bodies by my experience, and those same people who end up losing a hundred or two pounds quickly change their tune and experience uplifting confidence and a sense of self worth they never experienced before. Humans biologically are constantly competing for alpha status (one of those things that does not occur within the Autistic community; we are blind to both the 'need' to be Alpha and the way to achieve it, as a rule of thumb--- but we are talking about neurotypicals), and part of that is looking the part of a strong and fit (healthy, with good genes) person worth mating with. Obese people by default don't fit this criteria and are everything *the opposite* of what the average person wants to procreate with, so it tends to lead to an omega status in society (lower than beta). To me, there is no excuse for ranging into the BMI of obese unless it's muscle content and not fat content (or worse, morbidly obese).

Don't get me wrong, I have several friends who range in the obese to morbidly obese BMI ranges, it doesn't affect my ability to interact with them by any means, but they know well where I stand on the issue and they freely admit that they are the way they are because of food (one is starting a rigorous diet in November). Ideally, we would want people to be able to be that way if they wished because it is their bodies. However, in our system of things, the cost of health care is skyrocketing partly because of health issues connected to obesity, not to mention the public assistance they receive for disabilities frequently related to being so obese they are handicapped, where the government pays for their numerous hospital visits a year which helps drive up the cost of me getting my daughter to the doctor on the grand scale of things (malpractice lawsuits also help this out substantially).

That all being said, being 'fatness' is something that SHOULD be pulled in somehow by the government. The method needs to be minimally controversial, however. I can tell you that sending kids home with a note to their parents that they are overweight is NOT the way to do it, because although this could be used as a positive shocker for parents, it can lead to plummeting self esteem for young girls who already deal with their image on a daily basis (and the suicide rates of girls because of that is pretty saddening).

There was little obesity in my school because my mine was quite tough with physical exercise. PA requires four years of physical education to be taken and passed, and in our school I used to run on a tread-mill during gym class for the entire 45 minutes and clock my burnt calories at around 600 a day in that class alone. I was never overweight while I was in high school, consequently. Our school did cater to ability level. Severely obese people (the two or three in the entire school that there were) did not do AS MUCH in class as everyone else, they did as much as they could handle. We did have a very small grade of about 156 students (I think between 7th and 12th grade there were around a thousand kids total), but I'm sure that system could be adapted for larger schools as well. That being said, another thing that can be done to help combat obesity is lower-calorie food choices in school instead of the greasy messes that are served now.

Like I said, it extends beyond image and the person being a 'good person' and darts right into health. They don't have to be super skinny, but there's no excuse for morbid obesity.



hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

14 Sep 2010, 12:20 am

UnderINK wrote:
"Fat" to me is above thin and normal. Not fat doesn't mean you have to look like Barbie (let's disregard that being Barbie's measurements is physically impossible), because people disregard there is a line of 'normal'. A lot of people don't know that at 5'4", on average, a woman can weigh up to 140 pounds and still be in the 'desirable' range (depending on her body fat percentage, she could also range in the slightly overweight, but nothing too alarming). Anything above that is not just unappealing for other people to look at, but it's unhealthy. There's no reason for anybody to weigh as much as some people do, such as ranging over 500 to 1000 pounds. Even bed-ridden people can avoid weighing that much. People with hypothyroidism can avoid weighing that much with medicine and a diet. The problem with 'fatness' or 'obesity' comes down to this: lethargy combined with a serious addiction to food. A look inside any obesity clinic can show this.

A thinner nation is a healthier nation. People who rage that fat people should be left alone are usually overweight and uncomfortable with their bodies by my experience, and those same people who end up losing a hundred or two pounds quickly change their tune and experience uplifting confidence and a sense of self worth they never experienced before. Humans biologically are constantly competing for alpha status (one of those things that does not occur within the Autistic community; we are blind to both the 'need' to be Alpha and the way to achieve it, as a rule of thumb--- but we are talking about neurotypicals), and part of that is looking the part of a strong and fit (healthy, with good genes) person worth mating with. Obese people by default don't fit this criteria and are everything *the opposite* of what the average person wants to procreate with, so it tends to lead to an omega status in society (lower than beta). To me, there is no excuse for ranging into the BMI of obese unless it's muscle content and not fat content (or worse, morbidly obese).

Don't get me wrong, I have several friends who range in the obese to morbidly obese BMI ranges, it doesn't affect my ability to interact with them by any means, but they know well where I stand on the issue and they freely admit that they are the way they are because of food (one is starting a rigorous diet in November). Ideally, we would want people to be able to be that way if they wished because it is their bodies. However, in our system of things, the cost of health care is skyrocketing partly because of health issues connected to obesity, not to mention the public assistance they receive for disabilities frequently related to being so obese they are handicapped, where the government pays for their numerous hospital visits a year which helps drive up the cost of me getting my daughter to the doctor on the grand scale of things (malpractice lawsuits also help this out substantially).

That all being said, being 'fatness' is something that SHOULD be pulled in somehow by the government. The method needs to be minimally controversial, however. I can tell you that sending kids home with a note to their parents that they are overweight is NOT the way to do it, because although this could be used as a positive shocker for parents, it can lead to plummeting self esteem for young girls who already deal with their image on a daily basis (and the suicide rates of girls because of that is pretty saddening).

There was little obesity in my school because my mine was quite tough with physical exercise. PA requires four years of physical education to be taken and passed, and in our school I used to run on a tread-mill during gym class for the entire 45 minutes and clock my burnt calories at around 600 a day in that class alone. I was never overweight while I was in high school, consequently. Our school did cater to ability level. Severely obese people (the two or three in the entire school that there were) did not do AS MUCH in class as everyone else, they did as much as they could handle. We did have a very small grade of about 156 students (I think between 7th and 12th grade there were around a thousand kids total), but I'm sure that system could be adapted for larger schools as well. That being said, another thing that can be done to help combat obesity is lower-calorie food choices in school instead of the greasy messes that are served now.

Like I said, it extends beyond image and the person being a 'good person' and darts right into health. They don't have to be super skinny, but there's no excuse for morbid obesity.
sounds boring. i'd rather be fat. and i am scrumptiously plump!


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105