Do fat women who are Body-Positive really love being fat?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

https://www.feministpress.org/books-n-z/you-have-the-right-to-remain-fat?_ga=2.265037071.1667855043.1564494820-1305871448.1564494820

The irony is the woman on the cover is not fat at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

https://www.feministpress.org/books-n-z/you-have-the-right-to-remain-fat?_ga=2.265037071.1667855043.1564494820-1305871448.1564494820

The irony is the woman on the cover is not fat at all.

Are you blind? She's definitely fat and overweight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

https://www.feministpress.org/books-n-z/you-have-the-right-to-remain-fat?_ga=2.265037071.1667855043.1564494820-1305871448.1564494820

The irony is the woman on the cover is not fat at all.

I imagine many of the creeps on this thread would declare her an obese cow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

https://www.feministpress.org/books-n-z/you-have-the-right-to-remain-fat?_ga=2.265037071.1667855043.1564494820-1305871448.1564494820

The irony is the woman on the cover is not fat at all.

As a formerly fat person, yes... yes she is. Her pose stretches her fat out, and while not morbidly obese, she is definitely fat, quite chunky and rather thick.

Maybe as a society we’re so damn fat that we don’t recognize fatness anymore. It’s normalized.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
https://www.feministpress.org/books-n-z/you-have-the-right-to-remain-fat?_ga=2.265037071.1667855043.1564494820-1305871448.1564494820

The irony is the woman on the cover is not fat at all.

Virgie Tovar is an author, activist and one of the nation's leading experts and lecturers on fat discrimination and body image. She is the founder of Babecamp, started the hashtag campaign #LoseHateNotWeight, and edited the groundbreaking anthology Hot & Heavy: Fierce Fat Girls on Life, Love and Fashion (Seal Press 2012). Virgie has been featured by the New York Times, MTV, Al Jazeera, NPR, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Huffington Post, Cosmopolitan, and BUST.

[Anonymous]

And here comes the smug RDN on this thread,… your ilk is as much to blame for the fat epidemic as anyone. You pushed the message. …So yeah. I’m annoyed with people who pretend to know but don’t admit what their field did.

DP. And ignorant. Prior PP was on point re dieticians.

You two are really smug with your handy hindsight. Do you two retroactively blame all practitioners for their prior care when the scientific evidence is later updated? Or just the dieticians?

All those MDs in the 1950s who encouraged parents to put their babies on their stomachs to sleep, surely leading some infants to die of SIDS — shall we lash out smugly at 1951 pediatrician Dr. John Doe while applying updated research that wasn't available until decades later? The EMS guys helping you install your carseats next week — should we blame them when, in 2040, the research shows kids should be rear-facing until age 6, and the EMS installer only told you "rear-facing until 2" based on 2019 evidence?

I mean, we could do this all day. I'm a physical therapist who prides herself on staying very current on good research, and I apply that to my patients (I'm inpatient). Using your logic, it's apparently going to my fault if my current care is outdated in 25 years due to research that hasn't been conducted yet. I will be "much to blame" for things that don't exist yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have an overweight friend who is really into body positivity and the HAES movement. I don’t really think much about about people‘s size and I‘ve never been overweight, so body positivity is something new to me. Why do people who love their bodies need to convince everyone?

Is your friend going around saying I'm happy to be fat? How is she promoting the movement? Or is she responding to people who are fat shaming her?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

And here comes the smug RDN on this thread,… your ilk is as much to blame for the fat epidemic as anyone. You pushed the message. …So yeah. I’m annoyed with people who pretend to know but don’t admit what their field did.

DP. And ignorant. Prior PP was on point re dieticians.

You two are really smug with your handy hindsight. Do you two retroactively blame all practitioners for their prior care when the scientific evidence is later updated? Or just the dieticians?

All those MDs in the 1950s who encouraged parents to put their babies on their stomachs to sleep, surely leading some infants to die of SIDS — shall we lash out smugly at 1951 pediatrician Dr. John Doe while applying updated research that wasn't available until decades later? The EMS guys helping you install your carseats next week — should we blame them when, in 2040, the research shows kids should be rear-facing until age 6, and the EMS installer only told you "rear-facing until 2" based on 2019 evidence?

I mean, we could do this all day. I'm a physical therapist who prides herself on staying very current on good research, and I apply that to my patients (I'm inpatient). Using your logic, it's apparently going to my fault if my current care is outdated in 25 years due to research that hasn't been conducted yet. I will be "much to blame" for things that don't exist yet.

have a snickers

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

https://www.feministpress.org/books-n-z/you-have-the-right-to-remain-fat?_ga=2.265037071.1667855043.1564494820-1305871448.1564494820

The irony is the woman on the cover is not fat at all.

Interesting you think that and many/most disagree. Clearly she is fat, but I think the rub is that she is probably average *American* sized (size 16-18). So average sized but in fact fat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

And here comes the smug RDN on this thread,… your ilk is as much to blame for the fat epidemic as anyone. You pushed the message. …So yeah. I’m annoyed with people who pretend to know but don’t admit what their field did.

DP. And ignorant. Prior PP was on point re dieticians.

You two are really smug with your handy hindsight. Do you two retroactively blame all practitioners for their prior care when the scientific evidence is later updated? Or just the dieticians?

All those MDs in the 1950s who encouraged parents to put their babies on their stomachs to sleep, surely leading some infants to die of SIDS — shall we lash out smugly at 1951 pediatrician Dr. John Doe while applying updated research that wasn't available until decades later? The EMS guys helping you install your carseats next week — should we blame them when, in 2040, the research shows kids should be rear-facing until age 6, and the EMS installer only told you "rear-facing until 2" based on 2019 evidence?

I mean, we could do this all day. I'm a physical therapist who prides herself on staying very current on good research, and I apply that to my patients (I'm inpatient). Using your logic, it's apparently going to my fault if my current care is outdated in 25 years due to research that hasn't been conducted yet. I will be "much to blame" for things that don't exist yet.

There is nothing quite like the obesity rates, however, nothing. It was a situation created by the medical community, a situation which afflicts unevenly - those who have genetic susceptibilities to obesity - perhaps a slow thyroid, a predisposition to put on fat, issues with insulin, etc - and the poor for whom cheap, poor quality processed food is the most accessible. The medical community *made* this happen and then blamed people for getting fat. Therein lies the difference from your babies on their stomachs advice.

And what would you do if you noticed that your patients weren’t improving with what you were telling them to do, if it was visibly causing harm? Would you tell them to really commit to the exercises? What if everyone in your field was giving the same advice and they too were noticing a worsening among approximately 30-50% of their patients? Would you double down, even when the initial research that made you recommend such a treatment was based on shoddy science? Because Angel Keys manipulated the crap out of that data - omitting entirely several nations who ate fairly high fat traditional diets but had good cardiovascular health anyway. Yes, the low fat dogma began to treat heart patients, but it wasn’t so long before low fat at all costs - even when it had to be replaced with sugar - was recommended to everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And here comes the smug RDN on this thread,… your ilk is as much to blame for the fat epidemic as anyone. You pushed the message. …So yeah. I’m annoyed with people who pretend to know but don’t admit what their field did.

DP. And ignorant. Prior PP was on point re dieticians.

You two are really smug with your handy hindsight. Do you two retroactively blame all practitioners for their prior care when the scientific evidence is later updated? Or just the dieticians?

All those MDs in the 1950s who encouraged parents to put their babies on their stomachs to sleep, surely leading some infants to die of SIDS — shall we lash out smugly at 1951 pediatrician Dr. John Doe while applying updated research that wasn't available until decades later? The EMS guys helping you install your carseats next week — should we blame them when, in 2040, the research shows kids should be rear-facing until age 6, and the EMS installer only told you "rear-facing until 2" based on 2019 evidence?

I mean, we could do this all day. I'm a physical therapist who prides herself on staying very current on good research, and I apply that to my patients (I'm inpatient). Using your logic, it's apparently going to my fault if my current care is outdated in 25 years due to research that hasn't been conducted yet. I will be "much to blame" for things that don't exist yet.

There is nothing quite like the obesity rates, however, nothing. It was a situation created by the medical community, a situation which afflicts unevenly - those who have genetic susceptibilities to obesity - perhaps a slow thyroid, a predisposition to put on fat, issues with insulin, etc - and the poor for whom cheap, poor quality processed food is the most accessible. The medical community *made* this happen and then blamed people for getting fat. Therein lies the difference from your babies on their stomachs advice.

And what would you do if you noticed that your patients weren’t improving with what you were telling them to do, if it was visibly causing harm? Would you tell them to really commit to the exercises? What if everyone in your field was giving the same advice and they too were noticing a worsening among approximately 30-50% of their patients? Would you double down, even when the initial research that made you recommend such a treatment was based on shoddy science? Because Angel Keys manipulated the crap out of that data - omitting entirely several nations who ate fairly high fat traditional diets but had good cardiovascular health anyway. Yes, the low fat dogma began to treat heart patients, but it wasn’t so long before low fat at all costs - even when it had to be replaced with sugar - was recommended to everyone.

You’ve really got an ace to grind huh? Are you selling something? Bitter about your struggles with weight?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And here comes the smug RDN on this thread,… your ilk is as much to blame for the fat epidemic as anyone. You pushed the message. …So yeah. I’m annoyed with people who pretend to know but don’t admit what their field did.

DP. And ignorant. Prior PP was on point re dieticians.

You two are really smug with your handy hindsight. Do you two retroactively blame all practitioners for their prior care when the scientific evidence is later updated? Or just the dieticians?

All those MDs in the 1950s who encouraged parents to put their babies on their stomachs to sleep, surely leading some infants to die of SIDS — shall we lash out smugly at 1951 pediatrician Dr. John Doe while applying updated research that wasn't available until decades later? The EMS guys helping you install your carseats next week — should we blame them when, in 2040, the research shows kids should be rear-facing until age 6, and the EMS installer only told you "rear-facing until 2" based on 2019 evidence?

I mean, we could do this all day. I'm a physical therapist who prides herself on staying very current on good research, and I apply that to my patients (I'm inpatient). Using your logic, it's apparently going to my fault if my current care is outdated in 25 years due to research that hasn't been conducted yet. I will be "much to blame" for things that don't exist yet.

There is nothing quite like the obesity rates, however, nothing. It was a situation created by the medical community, a situation which afflicts unevenly - those who have genetic susceptibilities to obesity - perhaps a slow thyroid, a predisposition to put on fat, issues with insulin, etc - and the poor for whom cheap, poor quality processed food is the most accessible. The medical community *made* this happen and then blamed people for getting fat. Therein lies the difference from your babies on their stomachs advice.

And what would you do if you noticed that your patients weren’t improving with what you were telling them to do, if it was visibly causing harm? Would you tell them to really commit to the exercises? What if everyone in your field was giving the same advice and they too were noticing a worsening among approximately 30-50% of their patients? Would you double down, even when the initial research that made you recommend such a treatment was based on shoddy science? Because Angel Keys manipulated the crap out of that data - omitting entirely several nations who ate fairly high fat traditional diets but had good cardiovascular health anyway. Yes, the low fat dogma began to treat heart patients, but it wasn’t so long before low fat at all costs - even when it had to be replaced with sugar - was recommended to everyone.

You’ve really got an ace to grind huh? Are you selling something? Bitter about your struggles with weight?

You must feel very vulnerable to go right to the personal insults. I’ve clearly hit a nerve for you as you don’t talk about the substance of what I posted, you just go to trying to hurt my feelings. Didn’t work.

[Anonymous]

My Big Fat Fabulous Life

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^ Gurl there is no way Serena is a size 16, at 5'9"

Even if she did actually wear a size 16, 99.9% of American women who are a size 16 do not come anywhere close to resembling her fitness.

99.9 percent bof all humans are not close to her fitness! This picture is fierce.

[Anonymous]

Middle class and below tend to be overweight while affluent tend to be thin. It's almost like lifestyle and education (discernment) influence weight, somehow. Like that making certain choices can affect weight even more than genetics.