Thin model walks fashion runway = HARMFUL. Get that person off the stage and out of media due to harm to young girls and women. NO data needed.


Morbidly obese person does same = Brave and to be commended as HAAS and anyone saying this is harmful better have DATA to back it up.


This is the clown world of the far left.

Studies get done on all kinds of odd subjects. Here's one that looks into the Ministry of Sill Walks.

Yes, I've posted exactly this in the thread more than once. That you don't know how to evaluate the science doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Ultimately your theory that HAES ideology is killing people doesn't pass the smell test.. Teenage girls aren't looking to get huge afaik because of some Cosmo covers-- too busy wanting to cut their breasts off instead.

fyp

You're completely missing the point. Virtually every healthcare professional, scientist and reasonably intelligent person understands and accepts that obesity is a risk factor and indeed causal factor for death.

HAES "challenges this assumption". They are literally saying obesity does not kill people when it clearly does.

That's what I disagree with.

You are again confusing the primary message of HAES. It is not the descriptive claim that obesity is not correlated with mortality. It is various themes along the idea that people should try to be healthy and life healthy lifestyles regardless of their weight, as opposed to primarily focusing on diet-based weight reduction. If you want to focus on the few (maybe single?) example thus far ITT if someone even pushing back at the strength of the connection between obesity and mortality, then sure, be mad, but you should acting as if this is the primary message of HAES. It isn’t.

Yes it is. It's literally point 1 in their list of bullet points summarising the HAES approach in a paper that has been peer reviewed in a high quality journal.

Sure but i could name exponentially more 'silly things' that never get studied so you are not really making a point.

Just because on a lark,some quirky things may get studied (Monty Python Walk) is not a reason to suggest Mr Beans walk should also be studied or you would be making any strong point, demanding proof it was studied.

Again the question no one attempts to answer here 'who would be motivated to pay for that study to see how HAES correlates or not, to obesity growth in society' and in a way 'that draws clear separation from all the other overlapping factors'. As the latter is key in the same way the obesity normalization defenders will say 'prove its not the other factors such as food deserts, etc that are at play' when HAES is brought up as bad.

I for one acknowledge many factors are clearly in play on this topic. The only place I diverge mainly from the obesity normalization crew is that they 100% deny HAES has any impact and hide behind '..but data' as a way to do so.

Quote the specific 'data'.


Or don't and continue to prove you won't because you know you do not want a discussion to focus on the specifics of the 'data' so you can just hide behind '...but a study'.


Until then everyone should just know, i too quoted a study and a much better one than ganstaman's with far more relevant data.

Well then good thing that is not my theory then. Whew.

However my theory that such imagery would be similarly impactful and harmful in the same type of ways 'thin imagery' was accepted to be is something I stand by.

Teenage girls, grade school girls, and all girls and women are far more likely to find comfort and solace in the herd, when they are in the majority of the populace, as fat people, and not the minority. Getting 'fit' gals taken off billboards and advertisements is not because it is 'dangerous' or 'damaging' for a fat women to see this...




This women is not dangerously thin, nor overly fit. She is simply at what would likely be her ideal weight for her height of someone who is active.

The obese normalization folk want such imagery gone as it can cause some of them to feel guilt and that they are not meeting their own goals, and that reminder can then depress them. So better to get rid of all the reminders than to actually work on the goals.

Plus men are adaptable. If all the women they can find to choose from are obese, they will choose an obese women.

Checkmate men!!!!

Why not just start with supplying some data, and then we can debate its merits later? You seem so afraid that we'll tell you it's not sufficient that you won't even post it at all. If you think HAES causes obesity, you should be able to show some correlation between the 2 (either because someone already wrote such an article or because you can find data on both). Sure, there will be other factors to analyze and discuss, but showing a correlation is an absolute must to start.


I honestly don't know how to make this any easier for you. What are you having trouble with in the article I posted? It summarizes and explains multiple studies, providing links to each of them. You want a graph or a chart? They're in those studies. Is there a particular study or chart you disagree with?

Are they though?

Are they arguing to bring back the super thin models as they too can be 'Heathy at any size' and in fact are more likely to be healthy, than an over weight person?

When I google HAES movement and check the image search it is basically all over weight bodies being used with a few I would call in the boundary of 'target weight' and none I would call skinny, and certainly none who would be the thin comparable to the overweight comparables we see.

I also see that they go to a lot of effort to explain 'thin privilege' and to disassociate themselves from 'thin bullying'. There is a clear need to say thin people who suffer bullying do not get to associate themselves with them. Sorry for your problems but you are not one of us.

You first.

I have been asking you to cite the data you claim to have and you have taken this weird 'it is not my job to cite it... you find it' approach.

And again you are making the same specious argument. I can make the argument that if kids eat lego blocks it will cause them bad health impacts. That you might say 'i should then be able to show some correlation or study' as if none existing makes your point is just the dishonest game you play.

again not everything gets studied and not everything not studied is not true by virtue of not having a study.

You and uke have no issue speaking to current escalation of 'groomer' language, etc being detrimental to LGTBQ+ individuals and resulting in violence and you do so even if no studies correlating the rhetoric are completed.

We see Tucker Carlson and other talking heads on the right play the EXACT game you play here where they demand PROOF of their rhetoric doing harm or they deny it.

Reasonable people see thru Tucker and those type games and i expect they see thru you and those on the far left playing the same game.

You are no better than a Tucker Carlson and it is because of you he feels secure in his arguments based on same.

I have literally linked to it multiple times in this thread. I'm not asking you up find anything, just to read.

I have done no such thing. Can you stay on topic?

i have linked to studies too so we have done the same except mine has better data.


And now are you suggesting that the recent ramp up of 'groomer' type language on the far right and in right Talk Show media has no impact on the LGBtQ+ community as that would be clearly at odds with uke?

I'm a bit confused. Thin models are......everywhere! I did some research for this thread at the grocery store and scanned the row of magazines at checkout. It was just attractive skinny person after attractive skinny person. I didn't see an obese person on this random scan, and I think that is not atypical. Occasionally we'll get a Tess Holiday cover or whatever and four years later it will still be making the rounds, but what is notable is how notable that is!

I of course don't support bullying thin people, and consider the issues to be one of allyship and mutual support.

I have directly quoted from my study where it talks about this thread topic. The article you posted never mentions obesity and is therefore off topic. I don't know who you think is falling for your games, but only one side of this argument seems to have evidence supporting it.

I have made no comment on this topic and am not offering an opinion (go ahead, search if I've ever talked about groomers on this forum). How I feel about it has no bearing on the questions in this thread -- whether HAES is responsible for a large amount of the increase in obesity, and whether a HAES approach leads to better health outcomes than a weight-focused approach. Is your goal to discuss me or the thread topic?

oh back to the Dave CHappelle and Joe Rogan were not cancelled thus cancel culture not a thing, dishonest argument.

Just create a wheel of answers and we can rotate it around to the same old recycled and failed ones.

Obese and trans people exist, many not suffering all issues of abuse...thus none of the issues of abuse raised are real. Am i doing it right uke?

Quote the specific 'data' you are saying shows the linkage or do not, and continue to play games.


And yes how you feel about language such as groomers has every bearing on this debate. Again adults in the room will tell you a consistency of thought and applied logic matters. If you hold opposing stances simply due to 'sides' then you are not credible outside just being a partisan actor who will FIT any argument to their partisan 'side.


DO you agree or not, that language such as used by Tucker Carlson and that uke calls out constantly as harmful, is harmful?


(inb4 no answer because as i point out often ganstaman runs from conversations and refuses to answer questions he knows trap him into admitting a truth he does not want to due to 'sides' concerns)

I could be the most inconsistent, hypocritical person in the world, that wouldn't influence whether HAES impacts obesity rates or individuals' health one bit. It's quite odd to suggest that me as a person somehow matters to the truth of this thread topic. But that's why I posted an article anyway, that way people could read it and evaluate the evidence themselves instead of just trusting me.

I didn't make the bolded argument. But I suppose you are right that there are some parallels here. I think you exaggerate the significance of "cancelling" causing a "large" part of the current obesity epidemic, just as you exaggerate the significance of cancel culture more broadly. Mostly, I think you just fail to substantiate your claims using instead occasional anecdotes like the Tess Holiday cover from four years ago.

I'd bet my Dake Reference Bible that the answer to that question is "No."

Are you on drugs?

(Serious question.)

True but as the advocate for one of the arguments people knowing you are inconsistent and hypocritical matters.

That is why you have made it an absolute position to post the 'data' you claim exists as if it is some ethical stance to 'not post what i say i found' because you know it does not hold up and people tend to not read stuff here, especially studies and instead they tend to take sides based on who is arguing. You realize your 'data' is laughable and that is why you hide behind a wall of 'not going to ever cite any of it'.