I don't have a problem with fat people. I have a problem with people who lie to themselves and/or to others about the motivations and consequences of their decisions. Be fat. Eat what you want. But be honest about how much you eat, what you eat, and what will happen if you continue to do so.
But even then, I hesitate to make such a bald statement, because who among us has such self-awareness and security that we either don't know something about ourselves or tell ourselves little lies for comfort?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Didace
That seems a bit high. Very, very few people have a condition that causes them to gain weight. The cause of fatness is calories in > calories out. And people don't have special slow metabolisms; everyone is more or less the same. Fat people are fat because of the choices they make. As a case study, see the YTF thread in Health and Fitness.
If we're only talking about varied metabolic rates, then yeah. IIRC the varied metabolic rate (assuming sedentary conditions) is at most a few hundred calories. However, while it might seem like a small rock for someone to have a base metabolic rate of only 100-200 calories less than someone else, that can easily make a HUGE difference. If you eat a couple of hundred extra calories a few days out of the week but otherwise eat at maintenance, you will slowly put on weight.
This easily defies our day to day intuitions, especially if the person doesn't actually track their caloric intake!
When we discuss genetic factors, we need to take into full account the predispositions of the individual beyond a varied metabolic rate. Other posters have touched on this, but there are other issues, such as psychological issues and problems with hunger satiation. The YTF thread you recommended is an excellent example of all of these things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nab76
but i am curious if i was comparing fat people to gay people, why would that analogy be way off? I wasn't doing it then, but i will now, Being attracted to the opposite sex may not be a choice, but acting on that attraction is, just like eating isn't a choice, while eating to much is. Why is it socially acceptable to bash one, but not the other?
For your analogy to be appropriate, it would need to be something like
satisfying hunger=satisfying sexual attraction
You make a fairly obvious conflation when you say acting on sexual attraction is analogous to eating TOO MUCH, not simply to eating. But eating itself is essential to our health, just as acting on our sexual desires is essential to our health. If you'd said that indulging to excess in either could lead to negative consequences, I don't think there'd be any obvious disagreement, aside from maybe asking what that has to do with the discussion ITT.
Quote:
Originally Posted by diebitter
yes, but that trend could be the environment is such that food is now plentiful, exercise (particularly in terms of manual labour) is less common, and this coupled with genetic factors causes this rising trend. That is a possibility, surely? We all know one guy who eats like a horse and stays thin, and another guy who seems to eat the same but is fat, right?
DB,
If we're simply going off anecdotal evidence, sure, most of us probably know someone who SEEMS to eat like a horse and stays thin, while the other person SEEMS to eat much less but is fat/keeps gaining weight. But science has shown us that the situation is pretty much never like you describe. Base metabolic rates (assuming sedentary conditions) won't be very different, at most in the order of a few hundred calories.
But let's say we knew both people had the same level of activity. We'd still need to actually keep track of their intake. We have seen time and again that people who mentally keep track of their intake have a huge margin of error, so again, even if we knew two people had the same level of physical activity, if you're not actually tracking the caloric intake of the person who eats like a horse and comparing that intake to someone who seems to eat like a mouse (or whatever), you're probably wrong about how much more the skinny person is eating than the fat person.
What if the skinny person engages in more physical activity? I know for a fact that I eat close to 2.5x the amount of calories my wife does, but my muscle mass and weekly activity requires me to eat that much.
Quote:
Originally Posted by diebitter
There really is a feeling itt that fat people have only themselves to blame. Part of me thinks that's true, and part of me think that's the type of thinking that people who are naturally skinny indulge in cos they don't know what it feels like to have a big, almost insatiable appetite gnawing at them all the time, or don't understand what it might be like to lack the ability to achieve a sense of fullness when eating, or don't have emotional problems that are sated temporarily by eating, or don't have a sleeping dyfunction which causes constant low energy which seems only eating can counter, or have a high tension job that means relaxation/sleep is hard to get in healthy amounts etc etc etc.
I'm a little put off by whole 'fat people have themselves to blame' sentiment, but I get why it's around. But it has the convenience of scapegoatery about it.
You bring up some excellent points. This is a really tough issue. I know how hard it is for people to manage their weight.
I have been to both ends of the spectrum, anorexic and so skinny I was close to death as well as overweight and wondering why my clothes didn't fit anymore. I don't think the problem is so simple as learning facts about nutrition and satiety, but there is an awful lot of pseudo-science mucking up most people's attempts to manage their weight, and I think the first step is to at least understand why one is overweight and what they could do about it if they wanted. It isn't easy for anyone. I hear the trainers at my gym preaching pseudo-science like "Eat small meals to keep the metabolic fires stoked throughout the day!" These trainers are supposed to be the experts. How is the layman supposed to know that they are being sold bull****?