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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So we agree some people are biologically destined to be size 16 and are not lazy.

Of course some people may be this size and very, very active. But just like when we look at the obesity epidemic and understand that BMI is meant to measure populations, the soaring BMI rates in America are not due to our super high number of body builders and genetic outliers like Serena for whom the scale is not accurate. You can always point at people outside the norm. Most people who are a 16 are not 5'10 with 15-20% body fat, max.

But the PP stated that nobody is naturally 16. Not true lots of people are naturally 16. Actually I suspect Serena is naturally an 18.

I don't think we have any idea about what Serena is "naturally." Nothing about her lifestyle is approaching what most consider "natural" as a top athlete with next level conditioning, for decades.

She clearly is not naturally smaller than a 16. So we agree that some people are naturally 16+.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why is Serena part of this conversation? Is there some weird hang up about her bcs white women hate her? She might have been a bit heavier on occasion, but so what? She is a muscular woman that has dominated a white sport like nobody's business. I don't like her personality here and there, but people really need to shut up about shaming one of the best female athletes that ever existed!

Somebody posted that NOBODY is naturally size 16... they are 16 because they over consume and don't work out.

Serena was an example of that not being true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know what the point is, in posting celebrities and their sizes.

People wear sizes very differently - it really doesn't mean that much. While I/most adore Adele, it doesn't change the fact that she's carrying a bit of extra weight. But it isn't as though she's severely overweight, which is what people are talking about (Tess Holliday, for example). It's gross that she's an icon for "body positivity" while being morbidly obese.

Because for many people Adele in that pic is disgustingly fat. Not to me, but when people here talk fat often the Adeles are equivalent to the Tesses and that is a problem, too.

Oh bull, the vast majority of people know the difference. No one is accusing Adele of someone of Adele's size to be some kind of obese whale. Don't project your own insecurity on others - people on this thread have repeatedly stated a difference between someone a bit chubby and fat, vs truly obese.

Yes, she has been called fat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know what the point is, in posting celebrities and their sizes.

People wear sizes very differently - it really doesn't mean that much. While I/most adore Adele, it doesn't change the fact that she's carrying a bit of extra weight. But it isn't as though she's severely overweight, which is what people are talking about (Tess Holliday, for example). It's gross that she's an icon for "body positivity" while being morbidly obese.

Because for many people Adele in that pic is disgustingly fat. Not to me, but when people here talk fat often the Adeles are equivalent to the Tesses and that is a problem, too.

Oh bull, the vast majority of people know the difference. No one is accusing Adele of someone of Adele's size to be some kind of obese whale. Don't project your own insecurity on others - people on this thread have repeatedly stated a difference between someone a bit chubby and fat, vs truly obese.

Yes, she has been called fat.

Yep. And Adele has said in response to ppl calling her fat that she makes music for your ears not for your eyes. Someone on this thread called her overweight. She looks fine to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know what the point is, in posting celebrities and their sizes.

People wear sizes very differently - it really doesn't mean that much. While I/most adore Adele, it doesn't change the fact that she's carrying a bit of extra weight. But it isn't as though she's severely overweight, which is what people are talking about (Tess Holliday, for example). It's gross that she's an icon for "body positivity" while being morbidly obese.

Because for many people Adele in that pic is disgustingly fat. Not to me, but when people here talk fat often the Adeles are equivalent to the Tesses and that is a problem, too.

Oh bull, the vast majority of people know the difference. No one is accusing Adele of someone of Adele's size to be some kind of obese whale. Don't project your own insecurity on others - people on this thread have repeatedly stated a difference between someone a bit chubby and fat, vs truly obese.

Yes, she has been called fat.

Yep. And Adele has said in response to ppl calling her fat that she makes music for your ears not for your eyes. Someone on this thread called her overweight. She looks fine to me.

Well she wanted to make a change, because she recently lost weight. She looked fine before but does look better now.

[url]https://www.instylemag.com.au/adele-weight-loss

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know what the point is, in posting celebrities and their sizes.

People wear sizes very differently - it really doesn't mean that much. While I/most adore Adele, it doesn't change the fact that she's carrying a bit of extra weight. But it isn't as though she's severely overweight, which is what people are talking about (Tess Holliday, for example). It's gross that she's an icon for "body positivity" while being morbidly obese.

Because for many people Adele in that pic is disgustingly fat. Not to me, but when people here talk fat often the Adeles are equivalent to the Tesses and that is a problem, too.

Oh bull, the vast majority of people know the difference. No one is accusing Adele of someone of Adele's size to be some kind of obese whale. Don't project your own insecurity on others - people on this thread have repeatedly stated a difference between someone a bit chubby and fat, vs truly obese.

Yes, she has been called fat.

Yep. And Adele has said in response to ppl calling her fat that she makes music for your ears not for your eyes. Someone on this thread called her overweight. She looks fine to me.

Well she wanted to make a change, because she recently lost weight. She looked fine before but does look better now.

[url]https://www.instylemag.com.au/adele-weight-loss

She is working out for endorphins to stave off depression, very different than I hate my body and I need to lose weight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Ah. RDN. Those lovely ghouls who helped convince us all that dietary fat was the devil, that satiating butter, animal fat and egg yolks were worse for us than anything, that if we put butter on vegetables we might just as well not eat them. The period in which that was the advice coincided with America’s astonishing weight gain. Hmm.

No honey. Do you need a refresher course on the difference between "source" and "messenger"? Or maybe an RD hurt your family dog as a child, or something?

The scapegoat you're looking for is the USDA at the behest of elected officials from Midwestern farm states where commodity crops are grown.
https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/dga95/12DIETAP.HTM

How the Ideology of Low Fat Conquered America
Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences, Volume 63, Issue 2, April 2008,
https://academic.oup.com/jhmas/article/63/2/139/772615

In relevant part:
"[t]he low-fat diet for weight reduction was already well in place before physicians and scientists began promoting it for cardiovascular health in the 1950s. The low-fat diet was part of our dieting tradition before the ideology of low fat conquered America."


?

Struck a nerve, did I? Your sources confirm what I said.

The cited works contradict what you claimed, that dieticians were the root cause of the low-fat diet advice. Contradict is different than confirm. Enjoy your atherosclerosis, though!

You can’t read, you hypersensitive RDN! I said “Those lovely ghouls who helped convince us all that dietary fat was the devil” Did or did not dieticians convey the low fat dogma to patients? I didn’t say the invented it (thanks, Ancel!), I said they helped convince us.

Also, why assume I’m developing atherosclerosis? Or wish it on someone? I’m confused what kind of angry defensive medical professional with a god complex might suggest that the dietary advice of an RDN is not infallible and in fact helped perpetrate the National obesity crisis.

+1 RDs endorsed Kraft singles as a health food:
https://www.foodpolitics.com/2015/03/dietitians-put-seal-on-kraft-singles-you-cant-make-this-stuff-up/

And they still recommend a low fat diet.

[Anonymous]

My mom was overweight, ever since childhood, back when this was rare (she had metabolism issues). It may be hard for you to imagine how much she endured, both in childhood and as an adult. I think it's pretty much impossible to truly understand how much negativity is dumped on you daily. Even in her own marriage, my dad was physically attracted to her, but still always made disparaging comments about her weight and the weight of other people. It was horrible. This is why, I think, to counteract this tide of judgment, the movement for body positivity has to be extreme in the opposite direction. You can't just look at it without the overall cultural context.

As for me, I wish my mom didn't go through what she did, but it was valuable to me to grow up with a woman I adored and thought was the most beautiful one in the world, who was also fat. I did not inherit her health problems, but I'm not thin, either, but very happy in my own skin.

[Anonymous]

There’s a difference between body positivity and HAES (/fatlogic). The former makes sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There’s a difference between body positivity and HAES (/fatlogic). The former makes sense.

From the HAES website: “We’ve lost the war on obesity. Fighting fat hasn’t made the fat go away. And being thinner, even if we knew how to successfully accomplish it, will not necessarily make us healthier or happier. The war on obesity has taken its toll.
Extensive “collateral damage” has resulted: Food and body preoccupation, self-hatred, eating disorders, discrimination,
poor health, etc. Few of us are at peace with our bodies, whether because we’re fat or because we fear becoming fat.

Health at Every Size is the new peace movement.

It supports people of all sizes in addressing health directly by adopting healthy behaviors. It is an inclusive movement, recognizing that our social characteristics, such as our size, race, national origin, sexuality, gender, disability status, and other attributes, are assets, and acknowledges and challenges the structural and systemic forces that impinge on living well.”

The latter sounds like it makes sense, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s a difference between body positivity and HAES (/fatlogic). The former makes sense.

From the HAES website: “We’ve lost the war on obesity. Fighting fat hasn’t made the fat go away. And being thinner, even if we knew how to successfully accomplish it, will not necessarily make us healthier or happier. The war on obesity has taken its toll.
Extensive “collateral damage” has resulted: Food and body preoccupation, self-hatred, eating disorders, discrimination,
poor health, etc. Few of us are at peace with our bodies, whether because we’re fat or because we fear becoming fat.

Health at Every Size is the new peace movement.

It supports people of all sizes in addressing health directly by adopting healthy behaviors. It is an inclusive movement, recognizing that our social characteristics, such as our size, race, national origin, sexuality, gender, disability status, and other attributes, are assets, and acknowledges and challenges the structural and systemic forces that impinge on living well.”

The latter sounds like it makes sense, too.

Just because you want to believe that becoming thinner when are obese won’t make you healthier doesn’t mean it’s true. But keep on repeating it to yourself until you die of diabetes or heart disease.

[Anonymous]

God, the Reddit fatlogic trolls are so dumb. It's embarrassing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:God, the Reddit fatlogic trolls are so dumb. It's embarrassing.

Not a troll. It’s true. It’s one thing to love yourself no matter what; it’s another to convince yourself that being fat doesn’t come with all sorts of health consequences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:God, the Reddit fatlogic trolls are so dumb. It's embarrassing.

Who is this poster? Who is posting anything from Reddit here?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s a difference between body positivity and HAES (/fatlogic). The former makes sense.

From the HAES website: “We’ve lost the war on obesity. Fighting fat hasn’t made the fat go away. And being thinner, even if we knew how to successfully accomplish it, will not necessarily make us healthier or happier. The war on obesity has taken its toll.
Extensive “collateral damage” has resulted: Food and body preoccupation, self-hatred, eating disorders, discrimination,
poor health, etc. Few of us are at peace with our bodies, whether because we’re fat or because we fear becoming fat.

Health at Every Size is the new peace movement.

It supports people of all sizes in addressing health directly by adopting healthy behaviors. It is an inclusive movement, recognizing that our social characteristics, such as our size, race, national origin, sexuality, gender, disability status, and other attributes, are assets, and acknowledges and challenges the structural and systemic forces that impinge on living well.”

The latter sounds like it makes sense, too.

Just because you want to believe that becoming thinner when are obese won’t make you healthier doesn’t mean it’s true. But keep on repeating it to yourself until you die of diabetes or heart disease.

Why do you assume I’m fat, and gosh you jump quick-quick to the part where you kinda sound like you hope I die.

The entire point of these movements, start to finish, is that no person should have to hate themselves because of the body they’re in. It’s counterproductive to public health goals. Because you read that statistic above where fully 90% of people who lose weight regain it all. It’s reality that without surgery, or maybe fecal transplants in the not too distant future, people cannot lose weight. CICO is a myth, one that some believe in as hard as some believe in Young Earth creationism. For every one person who can make it happen (go, Jeff! That’s a lot of hard work and you look great!), there are nine who have worked equally as hard, but it’s the corporeal equivalent of trying to keep a dozen balls underwater and sooner or later they pop up. No one should have to hate themselves; everyone should love their body enough to practice good self care whether or not it results in weight loss, but because it makes them as healthy as their size allows. For someone who professes to be concerned about health (as evidenced by your all but wishing early death on an anonymous person), you should be banging the healthy at every size drum.

But what means has been covered on this thread, a lot. Sometimes some people just like to beat up on someone with less power in order to feel virtuous. That doesn’t make them virtuous or their position correct, it makes them a bully.