Talk:Health at every size

Article needs major improvement. Scientific consensus is that obesity is unhealthy
The scientific consensus among the medical science community is that obesity is unhealthy.

The article needs to be cleaned up. RW can't have an article filled with pseudoscience that justifies unhealthy behavior that medical science community knows is unhealthy. It would greatly tarnish the reputation of the website.

There are some great articles on the net as far as obesity (such as: Obesity - Mayo Clinic, Obesity - CDC and Overweight and Obesity - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI)).Yakikako (talk) 23:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Eight edits, account created yesterday. Yawn. Splainer (talk) 23:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That is the bottom line, though. We do not go against the medical or scientific consensus and we can't let one or two agenda driven editors give us a bad name by doing so-Hastur! (talk)  05:53, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, but you need someone to edit it. I don't have time, patience or knowledge to do it. It's not like the Ableism article, where SiB just bloated it to make it more incisive, there's substance here. said he was going to do it, let's see. GeeJayK (talk) 15:45, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Except that this isn't the scientific consensus, and new research can and will upset that consensus, as has been shown on this very page. — Oxyaena Harass  15:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the CDC and the Mayo Clinic are lying. Good thing we have intrepid teenaged neurosurgeon Oxyaena to tell them off!-Hastur! (talk)  15:57, 30 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Overweight (and not only obesity) are still regarded as diseases by the ICD, I don't think the consensus is upset by any means, Oxy. GeeJayK (talk) 16:30, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * My two sense is that this article shouldn't be about Obesity per se, but the Denialism amongst people regarding the health dangers of Obesity. Is it possible for an Obese person to be healthier than a Thin person?  Of course.  But is that likely to be the case?  No.  The simple fact is, even without the health effects of a poor diet, even if all your calories came from vegetables (no, especially vegetables; they have so few calories that eating 2500 calories of carrots probably has more "toxins" than 2500 calories of chicken), being larger still means your heart has to work that much harder, your joints suffer that much more stress, and your body breaks down and ages that much faster.  Simply put, it is always healthier to a thin layer of fat than a thick one.
 * Now, the methods of losing weight are their own thing and could probably get an article all on their own. A "diet" literally means "what you eat", and not "temporarily giving up food to lose weight".  A change in diet must be permanent.  For example, giving up soda forever, even diet sodas, would probably be enough for most people.  Reducing alcohol consumption would be a big one as well. SockPup (talk) 16:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Keep up the good work
Your patience in dealing with these morons is impeccable. This "splainer" user (who aside from having a fittingly inarticulate name) seems to be an account that ought to be in the immortal words of David Hume "commited to the flame"; and the sooner - the better; and by flame - I mean blocked. Leucippus Talk 23:54, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Christopher's case isn't strong imo. I'm personally not very convinced. 01:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I COMPLETELY RECANT WHAT I SAID
YES! I SEE it NOW.... McDonalds, Burger king, KFC, they've all been campaigning for this for years! Health at every size!! Its the new gospel, and it demands a new trinity, which of-coruse will be splainer: the ghosty moron, QuietLuna: the mornic spirit, and saving best till' last...Oxyaena: the holy moron. Revelation will commence with these eternal words: I'm not LYING!!! And of course how could I forget...the preacher... the esteemed master of ceremonies...the cherry on top...Catgurrrl! Leucippus Talk 00:06, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * . Meh. Please stop. 01:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Catgurl has been gone for months, I don't know what y'alls obsession with her is about. — Oxyaena Harass  04:32, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That was really uncalled for. I think splainer's view on HAES is absurd, but they are holding the discussion in good faith. GeeJayK (talk) 04:35, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It was indeed uncalled for, I disagree with you that it is absurd, but we can both agree that this is a troll post. — Oxyaena Harass  04:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Coca-Cola
The Coca-Cola paragraph frankly reads like a conspiracy theory. The fat acceptance movement article (which needs its own overhaul, but that's another kettle of fish) highlights similar conspiracy theories advanced about Big Pharma/doctors/the diet industry funding research for nefarious reasons. There's certainly room for examining how conflicts of interest or corporate sponsorship can impact the quality of research. But stating that specific research is "suspicious" on no other apparent basis than guilt by association is unwarranted. Corporate sponsorship of research isn't exactly uncommon, after all. It's a systematic issue.

The source cited by the paragraph is insufficient. It presents a muddled understanding of what the obesity paradox actually is. In the first paragraph it suggests the obesity paradox holds that "our pursuit of thinness is a big, fat waste of time," i.e. that obesity has no associated health risks. This is emphatically not what the posits. The article goes on to state that Coke has funded research that "blame[s] obesity on too little exercise, rather than on too many calories." Once again: not something the obesity paradox posits. The author gets it right in a section rehashing her other article about the 2014 Stokes study, but that doesn't cancel out the earlier misinterpretation. All in all: maybe an OK source for for a section discussing conflicts of interest in research, but not a sufficient one for criticism of the obesity paradox, specifically. There's a number of critical academic studies that could be cited here in the Wikipedia article on the subject. Splainer (talk) 08:50, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Article fails to properly address the CICO hypothesis
"Poverty is associated with an increased risk of obesity.[20] Fresh vegetables and meat can be prohibitively expensive for the poor, leading them to opt for cheaper, unhealthier food choices". While hyper-palatable foods is not great for your bloodwork, if you are still in an energy deficit, you can still lose the same weight as the LCHF, HCLF camp. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5546881/

The entire section of  does not even mention the word calorie, but I would like to address a few points:

"This "famine reaction" leads to a reduced resting metabolism, meaning the body burns less calories and stores more fat, and this lowered metabolic rate may persist even as weight is regained" The idea of a slow metabolism and high weight is stupid since it takes a lot of energy to maintain such weight.https://www.bjanaesthesia.org/article/S0007-0912(17)37339-7/fulltext

"Excessive cortisol, often known as the "stress hormone," can have several health consequences.[40] Not only does it cause weight gain" Ah yes change cortisol with insulin and you get shit from the LCHF camp. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, so where is the energy surplus?

"It can be difficult to measure how strictly someone follows a diet. Dieters may under-report the number of calories that they eat and/or over-report the exercise they do" Likely the true reason why calorie restrictions fail. They were never in one. As I mentioned, it is impossible to gain adipose tissue in a calorie surplus.

Thats all my complaints.

18.216.158.198 (talk) 14:45, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Notice how it says Health at every size, not healthy at every size. 2600:387:9:5:0:0:0:16 (talk) 14:43, 17 August 2022 (UTC)