Body shaming, and "My Big Fat Fabulous Life"

[CapnAwesome]

No shit, Sherlock - here's your sign.

Psychologically and physiologically it's a damn sight harder than that.

You can say that again.

From an evolutionary standpoint, our brains and bodies still consider food as scarce/difficult to come by. The human brain is programmed to interpret even a modest weight loss as starvation, and subsequently responds to it as a threat to survival . The brain makes no distinction between true starvation and a reduced calorie eating plan; It will "defend" the body with ruthless efficiency by attempting to hold on to existing fat stores (significantly slowing metabolism) and attempt to recover/regain any fat that's been lost (witholding/decreasing the release of hormones that signify fullness) all the same. 

That alone is enough to make voluntary, permanent weight-loss extraordinarily difficult to achieve and a highly unlikely state to maintain. Human beings are literally fighting an onslaught of real neurological/chemical responses honed by millions of years of evolution, that are expressly designed for the task to fail ; not just general laziness or a lack of "willpower". 

Keep in mind, that's without other contributing factors such as genetic predisposition, excessive cortisol production/additional hormonal issues, disorder/disease, addictive behavior, etc. even being brought into the picture.

This is why the notion of weight loss as a simple matter of calories in/calories out is nonsense. It's clearly an assertion that's primarily derived from ignorance (and personal distaste, I suspect) as it blatantly fails to account for the human body being a complex biological machine. The protests of those who insist that they're "logically" arguing the matter are quite laughable, considering the fact that ACTUAL scientists say otherwise.

All of those things you mention just effect the number of calories that you either put in or take out, minus perhaps a disease, which is very rare. Saying that it's a matter of calories in/calories out doesn't exclude any of the stuff that you just said. All of that just changes the amount of calories in the equation. Metabolism doesn't vary that much from person to person. https://examine.com/nutrition/does-metab...wo-people/ An extreme metabolism variance between two people is 8%. That's around 160 calories or 2 slices of bread. So people who say they are fat because of their metabolism are scientifically ignorant about it or just lying to make excuses. All of those neurological/chemical responses just mean more calories in. So no matter how complex the machine is, if you burn more calories then you take in, you lose weight. That someone says that as a fact, which it is, doesn't mean that the other stuff doesn't change calories in or calories out one way or another.

If you are really concerned about scientific acceptance, I'd take a look at the fat acceptance movement. Which denies tons of basic science and would rewrite our biology books just as quick are creationists would.

The problem is one of lifestyle. People don't keep off weight because they go on diets or go the the gym to lose weight but make no lifestyle changes. If someone became a road biker as a lifestyle, rather the biking to lose weight and then returning to normal habits, I can guarantee they would keep the weight off. People in Europe, which has far less obesity then America, have all the genetic programming to gain weight that Americans do. Yet their lifestyles make them on average thinner then Americans. It's about lifestyle, not metabolism and very rarely a disease or disorder.

[bennyboy]

We aren't logical creatures. Anyone can see that if calories burned > calories consumed, a person must lose weight. Anyone can see that if an unhealthy person can exercise more, he will gradually become healthier.

But what you don't understand enough is the psychology and negative momentum that any normal person can build up.

Let me tell you my own story. About 10 years ago, I was a pretty skinny guy, with a very slight pot belly. A coworker invited me to go to the gym. I liked it a lot. I started reading online about fitness, about how to work out properly, about diet. I started running a lot-- 12km 3 times a week, and the occasional marathon. On my other days, I did a gym workout, and did pyramids on the treadmill until I could run a mile in 6 minutes-- the fastest speed the treadmills in my gym would go.

One day, I woke up with a pain in my groin, like in the socket of the thigh or whatever. I went to a doctor, got MRI, got advice. Then the following week, the same thing in the other leg. It was really weird. Some doctors said I needed surgery. Some said I had tendinitis and needed a few months off.

I was really confused. Sometimes I went a few weeks, then tried jogging a lot, and got a flare-up right away. Sometimes, I jogged several km, and felt great, with no apparent problems at all. This inconsistency-- sometimes being able to exercise and sometimes not, gave me a kind of phobia-- I always want to exercise, but I'm always afraid the next step is going to put something out of whack.

In the last 5 years, I've gained about 60 pounds. I still exercise a fair deal, but it's on and off. I'll eat moderately, but then one holiday weekend, I can gain a couple pounds, and I just never seem to get it back off.

So look, I know what I need to do-- find exercise I can do regularly and re-establish discipline in my diet. But I have some compulsions and some phobias now based on how quickly things went bad for me when they were going so well.

This is what it means to be human-- if ANY of us could overcome all the obstacles we impose on ourselves, we could become much better, more successful, and maybe happier people. But maybe 1% of people actually achieve this. And unless you are really God of your own life, in which case you are probably designing a Mars lander right now or something, why would you pick on the particular failings of some people? is it, perhaps, that by projecting weakness onto others, you can avoid looking in the mirror and facing YOUR particular demons and shortcomings?

If so, you have two problems: whatever is holding YOU back in life, and a complex (and socially shitty) avoidance mechanism.

[Faith No More]

If obesity was as simple as accepting that one has a problem, then we could be squared away.

Obese people do not want to admit that they have a problem.

They do not want to exercise or to change their diets.  They just want to be themselves.

You are welcome for this reality check.

Who said it was that simple? You're the only one trying to simplify the issue.

And you think making an unfounded generalization about an entire group of people is giving me a reality check? You know, for someone that is constantly insulting other people's intelligence, you say a lot of dumb stuff yourself.

[Athene]

---

You can say that again.

From an evolutionary standpoint, our brains and bodies still consider food as scarce/difficult to come by. The human brain is programmed to interpret even a modest weight loss as starvation, and subsequently responds to it as a threat to survival . The brain makes no distinction between true starvation and a reduced calorie eating plan; It will "defend" the body with ruthless efficiency by attempting to hold on to existing fat stores (significantly slowing metabolism) and attempt to recover/regain any fat that's been lost (witholding/decreasing the release of hormones that signify fullness) all the same. 

That alone is enough to make voluntary, permanent weight-loss extraordinarily difficult to achieve and a highly unlikely state to maintain. Human beings are literally fighting an onslaught of real neurological/chemical responses honed by millions of years of evolution, that are expressly designed for the task to fail ; not just general laziness or a lack of "willpower". 

Keep in mind, that's without other contributing factors such as genetic predisposition, excessive cortisol production/additional hormonal issues, disorder/disease, addictive behavior, etc. even being brought into the picture.

This is why the notion of weight loss as a simple matter of calories in/calories out is nonsense. It's clearly an assertion that's primarily derived from ignorance (and personal distaste, I suspect) as it blatantly fails to account for the human body being a complex biological machine. The protests of those who insist that they're "logically" arguing the matter are quite laughable, considering the fact that ACTUAL scientists say otherwise.

---

All of those things you mention just effect the number of calories that you either put in or take out, minus perhaps a disease, which is very rare. Saying that it's a matter of calories in/calories out doesn't exclude any of the stuff that you just said. All of that just changes the amount of calories in the equation. Metabolism doesn't vary that much from person to person. https://examine.com/nutrition/does-metab...wo-people/ An extreme metabolism variance between two people is 8%. That's around 160 calories or 2 slices of bread. So people who say they are fat because of their metabolism are scientifically ignorant about it or just lying to make excuses. All of those neurological/chemical responses just mean more calories in. So no matter how complex the machine is, if you burn more calories then you take in, you lose weight. That someone says that as a fact, which it is, doesn't mean that the other stuff doesn't change calories in or calories out one way or another.

If you are really concerned about scientific acceptance, I'd take a look at the fat acceptance movement. Which denies tons of basic science and would rewrite our biology books just as quick are creationists would.

The problem is one of lifestyle. People don't keep off weight because they go on diets or go the the gym to lose weight but make no lifestyle changes. If someone became a road biker as a lifestyle, rather the biking to lose weight and then returning to normal habits, I can guarantee they would keep the weight off. People in Europe, which has far less obesity then America, have all the genetic programming to gain weight that Americans do. Yet their lifestyles make them on average thinner then Americans. It's about lifestyle, not metabolism and very rarely a disease or disorder.

No one's disputing that a calorie deficit is what's need to lose weight. Calories in/calories out; Everyone gets that. It's also understood that personal choices impact weight, and that easy access to an overabundance of food and a sedentary lifestyle are contributors to obesity. No argument with you there. 

What you've chosen to ignore are the various processes and functions within the human body that can make achieving this deficit exceedingly difficult, as your "preference" appears to be attributing unsuccessful outcomes almost exclusively to character flaws/personal failure. In regards to overweight and obese individuals, it's  well-known, well-documented and well-proven that "greed" isn't the sole factor affecting calories in,  and that "laziness" isn't the only factor that impacts the calories out part of the equation. Yet, you're here categorically dismissing any and all mention of the associated neurological and biochemical factors as being not a big deal, rare, excuses and or lies....all while maintaining that your musings should be considered completely rational.

I'm sorry Captain, but I don't see it. Not in this thread, anyway.

[I_am_not_mafia]

As I said, I battle being too skinny.  Not because of anorexia or any other eating disorder, thank heavens, but I do understand what it is like to battle with your weight.  Some people laugh that off, or even get snarky or angry with me.  
"Oh, poor YOU, too skinny and can't keep weight on, whaaa." <-----this hurts!
But that seems a much more accepted behavior than the exact same kind of dismissive or shaming attitude towards bigger people.

I used to be too skinny. I used to be UK dress size 8, which is equivalent of US dress size 6. I'm also 5'10" (1.8m).

This was when I was depressed and I just wouldn't bother eating. Then I took up Thai boxing, which gave me an appetite and a zest for living again. Well, sort of, but more than I had before.

I was really happy with my body when I went up to Size 10 (US size 8) but now have gone a little too far (UK size 12). I wouldn't ever want to go back to Size 8. My rib cages stuck out as much as my breasts and my shoulder blades really were like blades. I'm not depressed any more, just perpetually bored. I also feel hungry quite often and don't get the chance to do the exercise I want. When I was cycling 22km a day to and from work on a dirt track alongside a river it was ideal. Unfortunately I just don't have the time or opportunity to build exercise into my daily routine and that really annoys me.

I used to drink a lot more water than I do now. I don't know why I stopped. I sometimes wonder if giving up caffeine and salt has allowed me to put weight on. Caffeine makes me very nervous and I need to know that I am exhausted enough to drink a coffee in the morning. Even then I will be fidgeting all day long and hyper active. And cutting down on my salt has meant that I don't feel as thirsty which means I drink less and have less water bloating out my stomach making me feel full all the time.

[Banjo]

First of all, thanks to the OP for beginning this fascinating discussion. And those who have participated have made it thought provoking and meaningful.
Although I personally never shame people, I have seen it many times in my industry, which was entertainment.

I have worked with many dancers and seeing some fail an audition due to their look was always horrid. In acting it is the same, as it also is in music. One thing that began to hinder my career was age. So age shaming is also alive and well. Indeed, I once failed an audition because I was not as young or blonde as what they wanted.

It is a terrible thing when the value of a person is driven by such demeaning standards. IMO demeaning to both the shamed and the shamer.

Recently I helped a friend's young band play their CD launch. After the show, very innocently, the young bass player said "It's been great to have Dale on stage with us blah blah blah. It is like being on stage with my dad."

I felt a little lower in stature as a result.

I think it so ingrained in society many simply do not know when they see or do it.

Thanks again for such an interesting thread.

[CapnAwesome]

All of those things you mention just effect the number of calories that you either put in or take out, minus perhaps a disease, which is very rare. Saying that it's a matter of calories in/calories out doesn't exclude any of the stuff that you just said. All of that just changes the amount of calories in the equation. Metabolism doesn't vary that much from person to person. https://examine.com/nutrition/does-metab...wo-people/ An extreme metabolism variance between two people is 8%. That's around 160 calories or 2 slices of bread. So people who say they are fat because of their metabolism are scientifically ignorant about it or just lying to make excuses. All of those neurological/chemical responses just mean more calories in. So no matter how complex the machine is, if you burn more calories then you take in, you lose weight. That someone says that as a fact, which it is, doesn't mean that the other stuff doesn't change calories in or calories out one way or another.

If you are really concerned about scientific acceptance, I'd take a look at the fat acceptance movement. Which denies tons of basic science and would rewrite our biology books just as quick are creationists would.

The problem is one of lifestyle. People don't keep off weight because they go on diets or go the the gym to lose weight but make no lifestyle changes. If someone became a road biker as a lifestyle, rather the biking to lose weight and then returning to normal habits, I can guarantee they would keep the weight off. People in Europe, which has far less obesity then America, have all the genetic programming to gain weight that Americans do. Yet their lifestyles make them on average thinner then Americans. It's about lifestyle, not metabolism and very rarely a disease or disorder.

No one's disputing that a calorie deficit is what's need to lose weight. Calories in/calories out; Everyone gets that. It's also understood that personal choices impact weight, and that easy access to an overabundance of food and a sedentary lifestyle are contributors to obesity. No argument with you there. 

What you've chosen to ignore are the various processes and functions within the human body that can make achieving this deficit exceedingly difficult, as your "preference" appears to be attributing unsuccessful outcomes almost exclusively to character flaws/personal failure. In regards to overweight and obese individuals, it's  well-known, well-documented and well-proven that "greed" isn't the sole factor affecting calories in,  and that "laziness" isn't the only factor that impacts the calories out part of the equation. Yet, you're here categorically dismissing any and all mention of the associated neurological and biochemical factors as being not a big deal, rare, excuses and or lies....all while maintaining that your musings should be considered completely rational.

I'm sorry Captain, but I don't see it. Not in this thread, anyway.

I didn't use greed or laziness at all. In fact I said the exact opposite of fat people are lazy. I don't know who you are replying to, but if you are going to get all huffy, maybe you should at least read my posts.

[Athene]

---

No one's disputing that a calorie deficit is what's need to lose weight. Calories in/calories out; Everyone gets that. It's also understood that personal choices impact weight, and that easy access to an overabundance of food and a sedentary lifestyle are contributors to obesity. No argument with you there. 

What you've chosen to ignore are the various processes and functions within the human body that can make achieving this deficit exceedingly difficult, as your "preference" appears to be attributing unsuccessful outcomes almost exclusively to character flaws/personal failure. In regards to overweight and obese individuals, it's  well-known, well-documented and well-proven that "greed" isn't the sole factor affecting calories in,  and that "laziness" isn't the only factor that impacts the calories out part of the equation. Yet, you're here categorically dismissing any and all mention of the associated neurological and biochemical factors as being not a big deal, rare, excuses and or lies....all while maintaining that your musings should be considered completely rational.

I'm sorry Captain, but I don't see it. Not in this thread, anyway.

---

I don't know who you are replying to, but if you are going to get all huffy, maybe you should at least read my posts.

Huffy? No sir, Captain.
Bear in mind...I'm not the one who's offended or irritated by obese people being on television.

I didn't use greed or laziness at all. In fact I said the exact opposite of fat people are lazy. 

And according to you, weight loss is simply a matter of calories in/calories out, and that's it. You've essentially dismissed any of the underlying physiological and psychological contributors as being atypical, excuses, lies, or of little significance. If you believe none of those things are of particular relevance, how do you suppose a person comes to be obese, then? Honest question.

I'm here to learn.

[CapnAwesome]

I don't know who you are replying to, but if you are going to get all huffy, maybe you should at least read my posts.

Huffy? No sir, Captain.
Bear in mind...I'm not the one who's offended or irritated by obese people being on television.

I didn't use greed or laziness at all. In fact I said the exact opposite of fat people are lazy. 

And according to you, weight loss is simply a matter of calories in/calories out, and that's it. You've essentially dismissed any of the underlying physiological and psychological contributors as being atypical, excuses, lies, or of little significance. If you believe none of those things are of particular relevance, how do you suppose a person comes to be obese, then? Honest question.

I'm here to learn.

I apologize for calling you huffy, on a second reading you don't appear that way at all.

What I didn't say is that fat people are lazy or greedy. So I'm just not sure who you are replying too there, certainly not me. In fact I said the exact opposite of fat people being lazy in an earlier post. Everything is more difficult when you are overweight, it is difficult to do everything so you certainly aren't lazy. The physiological and psychological aspect either make more calories in or less calories out. I'm not dismissive of them at all. All that makes is it more difficult, one way or another. So I have never said it was easy to contain your weight, nor equally easy.

However, Colorado is the least obese state. In fact by far it's the least obese state. People in Colorado presumably aren't physiologically different then people in Alabama. People in Europe aren't physiologically different then people in the United States or Australia (which has shocking obesity as well). They aren't genetically different. Perhaps there is a psychological difference (Colorado ranks in the middle in terms of mental health problems http://www.mentalhealthamerica.net/issue...ing-states), but if there is one I suspect it comes from the same thing that lowers their obesity rate: Different lifestyle choices. If it were all about genetics and psychological issues, you'd see an even distribution of overweight people. You don't.

Colorado is the state with the most outdoor activities, where people on average spend the most time outdoors. Where there is the highest percentage of skiers in the country. Where there is the highest percentage of rock climbers in the country, the highest percentage of hikers and trail runners. That's what makes a difference in obesity rates. Going to the gym is never going stick unless you enjoy going to the gym and it's part of your lifestyle. That's why diets don't stick, why exercise programs don't stick. It's not going to unless you enjoy what you are doing, and lets face it, the gym sucks.

[mlmooney89]

I see it as the physical side of weight loss is simple. You do what you need to do and it happens.

The psychological side of it is complex.

Pretty much once we can get past our own brain things work out.

Omg I made a pun, I never do that. I'm hilarious. ;p