Obesity is unhealthy, why is it being embraced?

"There are absolutely structural parts of life today that contribute to a heavier population - more food processing, more food marketing, a more medicated population, a population with higher rates of diagnosed mental health conditions, etc. These are all big, societal differences. Those are the things we should be examining in the interest of population health, not prescribing diets to people when we know they will fail."

You certainly seem knowledgeable and earnest. Thanks for the words.

But I will focus on your paragraph above. I really see it being a bit absurd, from the viewpoint of an individual. From a policy and advocacy and activism standpoint, sure, have at all of that. But the in the meantime, we shouldn't be telling people to watch what they eat (~"diet") and exercise? The obese person should just wait around for decades for all of the those policy issues to be resolved positively and bear fruit in their lives?

Put more specifically, and again, from the individuals perspective:

1) Concerted effort to reduce calories and exercise more: In many/most cases, impact seen within months.

2) Reduce food processing in the U.S. NOT months. Maybe never.

3) Less food marketing. NOT months. Maybe never.

4) Less medicated population. NOT months. Maybe never.

5) Reduction in mental health conditions. NOT months. Maybe never.

I'm going with #1.

Vacilated wrote:

FredFlintstone wrote:

All these fat people are raising the sea level. It isn't global warming that's doing it.

I like the way you think! The chubby are actually sinking the continent, in effect, make the sea level rise.

Finally a theory I can believe in.

Be smarter wrote:

Besides.

http://www.steveheimoff.com/index.php/2018/06/22/why-are-trump-voters-so-fat/

Interesting link--thanks. One excerpt: "The CDC finds that levels of mental illness are highest in precisely the red states that voted for Trump. In fact, the familiar map of red states-blue states almost exactly matches up with the map of more mentally ill states."

Tell us something we *didn't* know.

US system requires everyone to hustle all the time just to have the basics. Doesn't leave a lot of time for self care.

Hilarious.

Every time a Trump voter scarfs down a plate of Bic Macs and fries, washed down with Big Gulps of sugary soda, he or she gets less healthy, more mentally deranged, and more Republican. In fact, given the data we now have, it’s possible to speak of two political alignments in America: not red vs. blue states, but obese, morbidly unhealthy Republicans vs. healthy, fit Democrats.

. . .

I can’t imagine anyone voluntarily willing to be in the obese, sick group. Would you, if you had a choice? And maybe that gets to the bottom of the mystery of why these Trump voters support a man who is so inimical to their own self-interest. With their fat guts, diabetes and mental illnesses, they’re giving a big “middle finger” to the “experts” and “elites” who tell them there’s something wrong with them, even thought the “experts” are trying to save their lives. It’s sad, pathetic and bizarre, but there you have it: fat Trump Republicans, killing themselves with their unhealthy lifestyles, and blaming healthy people for their problems.

runnerboy70 wrote:

It's a conundrum for liberals because they worship victimhood and they think obesity might be on the list

Good luck wrapping your small liberal brain around your conundrum You’re a soy boy weakling.

Who we are - large and proud.

GettingFasterDude wrote:

Vacilated wrote:

Obesity is unhealthy, why is it being embraced?

Two reasons:

1) It's the majority.

The majority of people are overweight and obese. To the extent "the majority rules," overweightness and obesity, rule.

2) It's easier.

It's much easier to be overweight or obese, than being at a healthy weight. Eating a lot and exercising little, is much easier than eating little and exercising a lot. You get more of, what's easier to accomplish.

Obesity is being normalized as acceptable but I can't think of a single reason why someone would desire to be obese. So the OP is asking why does it seem that society or the media is embracing obesity instead of promoting a healthy weight. Ask yourself who benefits for having a population full of obese people? Food manufacturers, big pharma, medical industry???

The interesting thing about this politically is that the party "of personal responsibility" is made up more of obese people. And I bet these people genuinely think it is their fault for being fat and if they had only enough willpower, they could slim down. But obviously it doesn't work. You have to move to Thailand. They don't understand how much the environment affects their choices.

Fat shaming yourself is not a good attitude for weight loss or any kind of self-care—just makes it worse. And willpower is a limited supply. It may be their personal choices making them fat but it's personal choices within the American environment centered on a wal-mart superstore. What they need to do is change their environment so their personal choices don't have to come into play every minute. That could mean not bringing any junk into the house. That could mean having the same breakfast of oatmeal every day. They need help in reducing their options and it doesn't mean you are endorsing a culture of victimization if you endorse policy changes that support good habits.

That could mean putting a tax on soda, limiting the largest size for processed foods like potato chips, government subsidy of leafy greens rather than corn and soy, so corn syrup doesn't necessarily have to be in everything, creating green spaces and sidewalks along roads.

If being fat is just someone's personal fault, rich people would be the same percentage of obese as the deep South. But the rich have a different environment in which to play out personal choices. And they can pay for recreation that costs more than the pleasures of snacking.

appleapple wrote:

I don't think this is a very accurate understanding of the issue. There is a movement to embrace all body types because we know that no weight loss intervention (with the exception of bariatric surgery, which is a different can of worms) has proven successful in more than 5% of those who attempt it - no other medical intervention with those results would be celebrated or prescribed. The majority of people can't just "choose" to lose weight, and their attempts to loose weight perpetuate a cycle of weight gain. These people will have better health outcomes if they focus on the things they can control and accept the things they can't.

This is the correct answer.

If you see a junkie shooting up on the street, we are not taught to think ‘live and let live’ or ‘that’s just their nature’ or ‘there’s nothing they can do about it’. How is a food addiction any different and why shouldn’t it be viewed with the same distain?

Like someone else said, calorie counting when done properly works for 100% of people. We're not breaking laws of energy here.

To the person who mentioned feeling starved on 1500 calories - it depends on what you eat. I've seen a tiny pudding (like a little pot) that was 550 calories. If you eat one of those, have a milkshake and eat a bag of chips/crisps then yes, you will feel starved as opposed to a different diet with bread, vegetables, proper meals - which people can do on 1500 calories. Two diets that constitute 1500 calories can be drastically different.

If someone is eating 3000 calories a day and then they cut out all alcohol, all of the calories they drink, junk food and go to 1500 calories a day of course they will lose weight. If someone changes to eating 2/3 of what they normally eat then yes, surprise, they will lose weight. To say otherwise is just denial.

People are scared of feeling hungry, they view it like it's the worst thing in the world. It really is as simple as eat less. People massively over complicate it.

👍🏼👍🏼

CrispyChicken wrote:

Q: Obesity is unhealthy, why is it being embraced?

A1: Because people can't handle the truth.

A2: Because people are soft and lazy.

A3: Because corporate Big Food and corporate Chain Restaurant don't want to lose revenue.

A4: All of the above.

EOT./

I just want to add that I don't think anyone should be shamed. I just don't like this relatively new thing of "fat is beautiful!" where they basically slate people for being thin/slim/a normal weight ("real women have curves!") and write about how being fat is as healthy as being a normal weight. It simply isn't. I don't think that pretending that being obese is healthy is the way to go.

People look for all of these crazy fixes and they're non-sustainable. I also think the focus shouldn't be on exercise - it generally tends to make people more hungry and as a consequence they eat more. They also are more able to justify eating more if they've started exercising. Of course, exercise is a good thing but in terms of weight loss it's not the most important factor by a long stretch. That is diet.

If people want to lose weight they can make small changes that result in a decrease in the amount of calories they take in per day and some of the changes are barely noticeable. I don't think people should be going to bed so hungry that they can't sleep but there's nothing wrong with being hungry before your meals or being a bit hungry in the day. People treat it like it's the worst thing in the world.

Years ago I worked in a large department with forty people and saw all kinds of unusual eating habits. One woman was trying to lose weight so each day she had a flapjack from the vending machine as a healthy snack. This flapjack had over 600 calories in it. She had swapped to that from biscuits to try to lose weight - she would've been better off staying with the biscuits. She also had a jacket potato with cheese and beans as a 'healthy lunch' for weight loss. I don't know how many calories are in that but considering they served them with butter as well it was a substantial meal and maybe near 1000 calories... whereas there are so many options nowhere near that.

If people are going around doing things like that they simply aren't going to lose weight no matter how hard they try.

She was desperate to lose weight and if she had learnt about counting calories instead of doing Slimming World and counting "sins" she would've had a better chance. A lot of the women would talk about all of this stuff constantly which drove me nuts but I don't understand why they carried on with it when it simply didn't work.

If they had worked out how many calories they were eating a day and gradually reduced it - first by 200, then by 400 then by 500 they could've done a gradual weight loss of 1lb per week. They could've found ways to reduce it that didn't impact too much - swapping things out, calories in liquid, making simple changes. The amount of money some of them spent on Slimming World was staggering and it was sad because they were getting nowhere and getting ripped off by the organisation really. They were being told things that were false.

If magazines and the media tell us over and over again that being obese or being fat is OK there comes a point when there's less incentive to change it. My issue is with us being told it's healthy which I've seen more often recently. Just take shame and feelings out of the equation and focus on healthy changes people can make. The problem now is that there's so much money in the diet industry that they have no reason to want to do that. No one wants to promote something they can't make money out of or even that works. They can't make money out of that which is the reason it's not publicised more. It's not really a method and it doesn't involve special ingredients or buying into things - it just involves common sense.

Keep in mind, jealousy is a big factor in this.

track chick wrote:

If magazines and the media tell us over and over again that being obese or being fat is OK there comes a point when there's less incentive to change it.

Being overweight and obese, kills 2.8 million people per year, per the World Health Organization. Does anyone know how many are killed per year by anorexia and bulimia? I honestly don't know and couldn't find an answer with a web search.

track chick wrote:

To the person who mentioned feeling starved on 1500 calories - it depends on what you eat. I've seen a tiny pudding (like a little pot) that was 550 calories. If you eat one of those, have a milkshake and eat a bag of chips/crisps then yes, you will feel starved as opposed to a different diet with bread, vegetables, proper meals - which people can do on 1500 calories. Two diets that constitute 1500 calories can be drastically different.

For the average obese American, they could easily lose weight if they were only eating 3000 calories per day but I bet you many obese people eat way, way, way more than that every day and do zero physical activity. There's no need to only eat 1500 calories a day, just eating 2000 calories on average would cause you to go towards a lower weight. And if you do physical activity, you can eat some more. They key is average calories per day, it's not that you must eat only 1500 or 2000 calories every single day. Maybe one day a week you'll eat 3000 or 3500 calories or 4000 calories and that is okay and even necessary so your body metabolism doesn't allow down.

I find exercise actually suppresses appetite to an extent since is shunts blood from the stomach to the muscles. But average obese people don't exercise long or hard enough or regularly enough to get this effect. And for God sakes, do weight training to build muscle

GettingFasterDude wrote:

track chick wrote:

If magazines and the media tell us over and over again that being obese or being fat is OK there comes a point when there's less incentive to change it.

Being overweight and obese, kills 2.8 million people per year, per the World Health Organization. Does anyone know how many are killed per year by anorexia and bulimia? I honestly don't know and couldn't find an answer with a web search.

I don't know but what I'd really like to see is a normal healthy weight being promoted. Not underweight and not overweight. Some models are really grossly underweight and that's not healthy either. Aim for somewhere in the middle?

Re the figures in the last post. I agree. They are just examples. Also, with this being a running website, I can understand the person who posted being genuinely starving on 1500 calories. That is probably a reasonable amount for a sedentary middle aged woman to lose weight on not 1. a man 2. a runner and it also depends on his height and so on. Those people (who the diet industry aims things at) - middle aged women - may not be starving on 1500 calories.

There's quite an interesting programme called Secret Eaters where they think they're eating around 1500 calories but often it's 4000, 5000 a day etc. As I put in my post, aiming for a 500 deficit per day is probably the best idea ton do it slowly - 1lb a week loss.

Often people start out on these things and really take it to extremes (e.g. cabbage soup diet) and then wonder why they can't stick to it. The best approach is to start cutting by 200, 400, then 500 deficit per day... IMO.