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.

I'm a different Pp that called her fierce. That was my 1st post. Much of this thread is just crazy gross

It's just accepting differences and questioning the beauty ideals.

I can accept differences in some abstract way but fat or questionable proportions are never going to be beautiful to me, or to the most people (no matter what they claim).
Beauty standards didn't change as much we have to believe in this era of "everyone is beautiful". It's still just a few lucky ones, sorry.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The average size 12, 14, and 16 woman is overweight bordering obese. It is unhealthy. Sorry snowflake, science doesn’t agree with you.

Why are some people so dense? Does anybody think this is an intelligent statement?

The average 0-6 is also not healthy.

That is why size 8 is perfect.

Also women are getting bigger. It biology. Small women marry bigger and taller men. Their daughters will be bigger.

It totally depends on body type. For me, size 6 is fat. I have no boobs and bird bones with a tiny rib cage. When I get to size 6, I have rolls of fat around my abdomen. My sister, who inherited a different set of genes, is totally healthy and curvy at size 12. When she gets up to a 16, that's too fat for her and unhealthy for her. I know other women who are really big boned for whom a size 16 might not be fat, though. The sizes, and even weights, are really meaningless because people are all built differently. I think when your weight interferes with your life (e.g.,can't walk upstairs, can't fly commercial, type 2 diabetes, etc.) that's sad and I feel bad for those individuals. Otherwise, who cares?

NP. I like your POV and attitude. I think I'm similar.

For me at 5'3" size 12 is fat. Size 6-8 is my wheelhouse. Smaller than that and people I know literally ask me if I am ill (it happened when I joined Weight Watchers and lost some weight). I have sympathy with people who are overweight or obese because I know, at least for me, I have a band that I can't go above or below, even with Herculean measures. I starved myself when I was a teenager and the weight loss, needless to say, was brief and impossible to maintain (society would've given me a thumbs up but I was very unhealthy). But I gained a bunch during two pregnancies but topped out at exactly the same weight, and then snapped back to my normal "non-pregnancy high" weight. Now, as I get older, the band is shifting -- I am noticing the weight creeping up unless I do something extra to maintain my ideal weight (my ideal, btw, not society's) -- again, probably due to my unique genetics. Whenever I see someone who is obese, I just figure that that is where their genes want them to be.

I don't see how body positivity could possibly be a bad thing. Same thing for all the models I see now with vitiligo, freckles, cellulite, wrinkles and gray hair, or models who are amputees, or trans models. It's just accepting differences and questioning the beauty ideals.

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.

There's just no way Serena is a size 16. American size 16. Maybe she is a UK size 16.

She is no where near a size 16.

Before baby pic.

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.

There's just no way Serena is a size 16. American size 16. Maybe she is a UK size 16.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DP. That PP is quite obviously correct. You are just defensive because you and your profession actively hurt people, and you want to believe you are weight loss gods, so it makes you lash out in a personal manner. Ridiculous behavior on your part.

Oh you're back. The "medical community" in PP's post =/= "just registered dieticians," though. Right? In your previous overwrought posts, you singled out dietiticians as the root cause of all low-fat policies in the US. You gave a pass to the MDs, PhD researchers, and feds at the USDA who actually created the low-fat idea in the first place.

I wasn’t back, that was a different person defending my post. I stand by all my posts. No, you didn’t create the diet, but your profession pushed it for decades to the detriment of American health and waistlines. Plus it turns out that for many people, once you break your body’s ability to regulate weight, it’s nevee the same again. If it were, calories in calories out (another great myth) would work for everyone.

But it doesn’t. Better instead for everyone to love their body and treat it right:eat nourishing foods (with loved ones when you can), move your body every day, dress yourself like you matter. This is what body acceptance is: many people can’t lose weight. That doesn’t mean they need to punish themselves and hate themselves.

Those of is with compassion hear you. Ignore the rest.

I know you do. Thank you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DP. That PP is quite obviously correct. You are just defensive because you and your profession actively hurt people, and you want to believe you are weight loss gods, so it makes you lash out in a personal manner. Ridiculous behavior on your part.

Oh you're back. The "medical community" in PP's post =/= "just registered dieticians," though. Right? In your previous overwrought posts, you singled out dietiticians as the root cause of all low-fat policies in the US. You gave a pass to the MDs, PhD researchers, and feds at the USDA who actually created the low-fat idea in the first place.

I wasn’t back, that was a different person defending my post. I stand by all my posts. No, you didn’t create the diet, but your profession pushed it for decades to the detriment of American health and waistlines. Plus it turns out that for many people, once you break your body’s ability to regulate weight, it’s nevee the same again. If it were, calories in calories out (another great myth) would work for everyone.

But it doesn’t. Better instead for everyone to love their body and treat it right:eat nourishing foods (with loved ones when you can), move your body every day, dress yourself like you matter. This is what body acceptance is: many people can’t lose weight. That doesn’t mean they need to punish themselves and hate themselves.

Those of is with compassion hear you. Ignore the rest.

Anonymous wrote:

DP. That PP is quite obviously correct. You are just defensive because you and your profession actively hurt people, and you want to believe you are weight loss gods, so it makes you lash out in a personal manner. Ridiculous behavior on your part.

Oh you're back. The "medical community" in PP's post =/= "just registered dieticians," though. Right? In your previous overwrought posts, you singled out dietiticians as the root cause of all low-fat policies in the US. You gave a pass to the MDs, PhD researchers, and feds at the USDA who actually created the low-fat idea in the first place.

I wasn’t back, that was a different person defending my post. I stand by all my posts. No, you didn’t create the diet, but your profession pushed it for decades to the detriment of American health and waistlines. Plus it turns out that for many people, once you break your body’s ability to regulate weight, it’s nevee the same again. If it were, calories in calories out (another great myth) would work for everyone.

But it doesn’t. Better instead for everyone to love their body and treat it right:eat nourishing foods (with loved ones when you can), move your body every day, dress yourself like you matter. This is what body acceptance is: many people can’t lose weight. That doesn’t mean they need to punish themselves and hate themselves.

Anonymous wrote:

DP. That PP is quite obviously correct. You are just defensive because you and your profession actively hurt people, and you want to believe you are weight loss gods, so it makes you lash out in a personal manner. Ridiculous behavior on your part.

Oh you're back. The "medical community" in PP's post =/= "just registered dieticians," though. Right? In your previous overwrought posts, you singled out dietiticians as the root cause of all low-fat policies in the US. You gave a pass to the MDs, PhD researchers, and feds at the USDA who actually created the low-fat idea in the first place.

Just keep digging further, I see.

Funny how you dish out "personal responsibility" when it comes to obesity but can't manage any yourself. It's almost as if you are a complete hypocrite.

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.

I could believe she’s a 16 - she’s 5’10”, for one thing, and for another, she is in crazy good shape.

Not to mention this is the slimmest I've ever seen her look in a pic.

DP. That PP is quite obviously correct. You are just defensive because you and your profession actively hurt people, and you want to believe you are weight loss gods, so it makes you lash out in a personal manner. Ridiculous behavior on your part.

Oh you're back. The "medical community" in PP's post =/= "just registered dieticians," though. Right? In your previous overwrought posts, you singled out dietiticians as the root cause of all low-fat policies in the US. You gave a pass to the MDs, PhD researchers, and feds at the USDA who actually created the low-fat idea in the first place.

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?

DP. That PP is quite obviously correct. You are just defensive because you and your profession actively hurt people, and you want to believe you are weight loss gods, so it makes you lash out in a personal manner. Ridiculous behavior on your part.

Anonymous wrote: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.

Hey! Someone above summoned you and here you are!

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.

I could believe she’s a 16 - she’s 5’10”, for one thing, and for another, she is in crazy good shape.