Talk:Fat acceptance movement

	This Social justice related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

A thought regarding the criticism section

I think Nash Bozard gave the best quote about trying to refute one oppression with another. "Trying to play “who has it better/worse” in terms of oppression and discrimination is a game that only has one winner: those who oppress and discriminate." --BoN 06:11, 1 January 1950 (UTC)

Calories in/calories out

*Spreading medical myths, such as the claim that burning more calories than one consumes (also known as "calories in/calories out") does not lead to weight loss^{Ragen Chastain: Calories In/Calories Out? Science Says No (if you have a faulty understanding of thermodynamics)}, and so forth.

This is clearly a straw man. I read through Chastain's blog entry and cannot find anything she gets fundamentally wrong. It's just a fact that "calories in/calories out" is incredibly misleading. For example, your body may simply excrete a larger or smaller percentage of the food you eat undigested, or your basal metabolic rate may vary, foiling any attempts to predict weight gain by a simplistic "calories in/calories out" calculation. Nobody is claiming that the energy required to build fat storages is literally coming out of nowhere, which would be obvious nonsense. --91.7.40.43 (talk) 06:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I read it too. There are valid and invalid points in that article. The valid point is that many things can reduce BMR and thus calories out, and these include genetics, environment, gut flora, and already being on a diet. But the invalid points make the article as a whole appear as a stopped clock. Issue 1 is under a mistaken assumption that using fat and protein as building blocks for structures in the body doesn't count as "storage". The rest blatantly misuse thermodynamic terminology. --Damian Yerrick (talk) 20:57, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Problematic and false statements in this article

Generally good article on a generally excellent wiki.

HOWEVER.

RW = RationalWiki

RW: "while obesity is a remediable problem, barriers to such remedies may be markedly higher among groups in society which are underprivileged for other reasons."

If it is a "remediable problem", then I know of several hundred million people who would love to know the "remedy". Please hold forth. Diets and exercise programs of every sort imaginable have been a near-complete failure in the management of obesity.

Actually, I agree that it is a theoretically remediable problem, and I have my own ideas about remedies (a complex battery of things), but it is ridiculous to speak of it casually as a "remediable problem" as though a (single, obvious and easy) remedy exists.

RW: "obesity, being largely caused by an imbalance of calories taken into the body versus calories out, is a condition that can often be remedied"

Where is your evidence for the idea that it can "often" be remedied? In fact, the evidence is overwhelming that it can only seldom be remedied. Recorded long-term success with all known combinations of diet and exercise are in the neighborhood of 5%. The occasional (rare) INDIVIDUAL is able to control their weight over the long term with diet and exercise; the vast majority are unable to do so -- after repeated attempts, often over decades, and with extremely powerful motivation and rewards for being successful.

RW: "[obesity] is often (if not in the vast majority of cases) caused by overeating and a sedentary lifestyle"

Where is your evidence for this statement? The developed world is an obesogenic environment, and most of the obesogenic factors have nothing to do with overeating and sedentarism.

RW: "...similar disparities can also be seen on less socially acceptable things which are generally not regarded as bestowing any lack of privilege, such as tobacco smoking and drug use, and nobody is suggesting that the concept of "non-smoker privilege" exists"

"Nobody", perhaps, except people who are observing the world. Non-smoker privilege certainly exists, and anti-smoker prejudice is strong, almost everywhere now. Smokers are now pariahs in most circles.

RW: "Forgoing medical science or disregarding medical advice from accredited doctors in favor of alternative medicine[18] or other potentially unhealthy woo-y practices."

"Medical science", and advice from "accredited doctors", is nearly worthless for dealing with obesity. If that were not the case then people who listen to "accredited doctors" would be getting thinner. They are not. Conventional medicine, and medical science, is a total failure in this area; your bias in defense of the conventional, here, is foolish and serves no one. For all we know, people might be better off treating their obesity with crystals and homeopathy. They certainly could do no worse with those than with the advice of "accredited doctors", and indeed would probably do better. Those "accredited doctors" to which you are in thrall are notoriously prejudicial fat-shamers, in addition to being generally arrogant elitists and classist 1%-ers; this, combined with their ignorance and incompetence (in this area) result in more harm being done than good.

RW: "Spreading medical myths, such as the claim that burning more calories than one consumes (also known as "calories in/calories out") does not lead to weight loss,[20] and so forth."

Yes, of course that leads to weight loss -- and no one denies that, so you can skip the jab -- but HOW do you do that over the long term? i.e. how does that fact get translated into something useful for the treatment of obesity? There is no easy answer, and if there were an easy answer, we would not have hundreds of millions of obese people.

Further, the "calories in calories out" (CICO) idea, though of course thermodynamically unarguable, tells us very little that is useful for obese people. There are many variables that influence the absorption and disposition of calories, and they are all conveniently elided by CICO. And CICO tells us nothing about the dozens of obesogenic environmental factors. CICO obscures the complexity, difficulty and nuance of the obesity problem, reducing it all to a simple (and useless) arithmetic note. CICO is in this sense a "medical myth", which draws us away from the truth. If you participate in discussions of this issue on social media and elsewhere, you will notice that CICO is repeatedly invoked by ignorant prejudicial assholes and idiots, as their "answer" to the obesity problem, when it is nothing of the kind. It is THEY who are spreading what amounts to a "medical myth", ignoring that CICO lacks meaningful explanatory power.

RW: "Denying that having a high percentage of body fat does not contribute to potential health risks,[27][28]...or claiming other denialist beliefs is a very dangerous message."

Lots of problems with this statement. It is true that morbid obesity correlates with health risks, but moderate obesity much less so, and perhaps it is protective. Distribution of body fat is much more important than fat percentage or BMI; abdominal fat is much more pathogenic than fat elsewhere; fat elsewhere is largely and perhaps entirely benign. Simple statements about body fat and health risk are always wrong -- and are much beloved by the same ignorant prejudicial assholes and idiots that I referred to above.

Bottom line: obesity is a complex and difficult issue. I've been reading and thinking about it for many years. I do NOT have all the answers, but I'm a good deal further along the path than the author of this article. I'm not blaming the author, much. It takes years, or even decades, to achieve a fair understanding in this area.

...........................

PS: I wrote: "Those "accredited doctors" to which you are in thrall are notoriously prejudicial fat-shamers".

And not only that. They were the source of the whole "obesity epidemic" hysteria -- an emotional panic -- that developed in the late 1990s and early 2000s. While it is true, as I indicated above, that some forms of adiposity (abdominal adiposity, and morbid obesity) are harmful, the "obesity epidemic" hysteria was a wildly-inappropriate reaction. The result was widespread vilification and prejudice against heavy people. Hence it is not just a matter of our wonderful "accredited doctors" being prejudicial fat-shaming assholes on an individual, retail basis in their own clinics. They actually created an evil mass consciousness change, resulting in the rabid scapegoating of scores of millions of our fellow citizens. There are disturbing parallels here to historical episodes such as the manipulation of popular attitudes toward the Jews in Nazi Germany. (Yes, there, I said it; Godwin's crappy over-hyped "law" can now be invoked.) If you doubt what I say, then really you should follow the social media discussions to which I alluded, above. Words like "rabid" and "vilification" are NOT exaggerations, I assure you. And our "accredited doctors" are in a large measure responsible. They CREATED this nasty social/cultural phenomenon. If you are interested in learning more, you can start by googling "paul campos obesity". Campos is one of a number of scholars who have exposed the "obesity epidemic" insanity. He is probably the most accessible. There are others, and I can post more if anyone is interested.

Alan2102 (talk) 00:10, 23 July 2016 (UTC)Alan2102

In the future, make sure to sign the end of your posts when you're writing silly rants. Nergali (talk) 23:39, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, Nergali. And thanks for your well-argued, fact-based and compelling reply to my post. Alan2102 (talk) 00:10, 23 July 2016 (UTC)Alan2102

I gave it exactly the right amount of attention a crazy rant is worth. Nergali (talk) 01:42, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

The superiority of your intellect is clear and undeniable. Alan2102 (talk) 02:43, 23 July 2016 (UTC)alan2102

Well given that your very first question - or statement, given you never used a question mark in it - is outright answered by the line before the one you quoted, I would say that that is rather telling of your intellectual capacity, capability for quote mining, and the extent of how crazy this rant of yours has been. Nergali (talk) 02:51, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

"your very first question - or statement, given you never used a question mark in it - is outright answered by the line before the one you quoted" -- In the unlikely event that you want to have a rational discussion, and making the unjustified assumption that you deserve same, including civil treatment, the deal is this: you need to quote specific passages -- as I did -- and then reply to them, rather than playing this idiotic guessing game of "the line before something-or-other, which I won't specify, but which I think was a question, but it wasn't really, but actually it was...", etc.. -- Alan2102 (talk) 00:26, 25 July 2016 (UTC)alan2102

"In the unlikely event that you want to have a rational discussion," Don't we all? But first you need to show that you are capable of handling one, something that, so far, you appear to be unable to based on how you've reacted to me simply pointing out that you've written a rant. "and making the unjustified assumption that you deserve same," So you make the assumption of anyone who disagrees with your sourceless rant is undeserving of a rational discussion? How odd of you to think so. "including civil treatment," This coming from the man whose only argument against the doctors mentioned was that they were "notorious prejudicial fat-fat-shamers... but provided nothing to back it up or demonstrate how they are wrong. "the deal is this: you need to quote specific passage... I think was a question" I'm sorry for thinking too highly of you. I thought it would have been rather simple for someone to realize your complaint about "obesity being a remedial problem", would be considered your first statement - once again you write it like a question but fail to include a question mark - you make after "RW = Rationalwiki". What else would someone think I was referring to? Unless of course assuming you didn't think the "RW = Rationalwiki" was the statement I meant, but that wouldn't make sense when when I pointed out that the passage you quoted was answered in the article by the sentence before it. "In other words, SAY SPECIFICALLY what the fuck you are talking about" I believe the fuck I was talking about would be you and your rant. Even you must realize that... right? Nergali (talk) 22:44, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Nergali: ""In the unlikely event that you want to have a rational discussion," Don't we all?"

Apparently you don't. Your first two posts were nothing but ugly slurs. That's a good indication of disinterest in rational discussion.

Nergali: "But first you need to show that you are capable of handling one, something that, so far, you appear to be unable to based on how you've reacted to me simply pointing out that you've written a rant."

You yelled a couple of insults at me. That's ALL you did. And that's fine. But if that is all you do, then one can fairly conclude that you are uninterested in, and possibly incapable of, rational discussion, and that you are likely to be unworthy of civil treatment.

If you wanted a rational discussion, you could have, and would have, quoted something that I said, and stated your objection, or question, or critique, or whatever. You did not do this. You yelled insults.

Nergali: "you make the assumption of anyone who disagrees with your sourceless rant is undeserving of a rational discussion?"

Certainly not. I make the assumption that anyone who behaves like an asshole, as you did, is probably undeserving of civil treatment.

As for "sourceless": everything I said can be sourced. Putting together a sourced writeup is a different project, and a lot more work. I was just encouraging the author to investigate this matter more closely, and to question his/her assumptions. I would be happy to help the author with sources, if there were any interest. Mostly it is a matter of putting in the hours, reading widely in this field which is, as I said, complex and difficult.

Nergali: "I thought it would have been rather simple for someone to realize your complaint about "obesity being a remedial problem", would be considered your first statement"

"Remedial problem"? The phrase doesn't make sense. Do you mean "remediable problem"? Why don't you quote my words rather than making shit up? Why don't you quote a complete sentence of mine, so we all know what you are talking about? Don't you know how to use the cut/paste functions?

Nergali: "once again you write it like a question but fail to include a question mark"

I write WHAT like a question? Again, you don't quote my words, my complete sentences. If you actually quoted my complete sentences, it would be clear that there was no missing question mark. I know how to punctuate, and generally how to write and think.

I notice that you seem to have difficulty writing coherently. Your sentences are often garbled, disjointed and only semi-coherent. Are you sure you belong here? i.e. RATIONAL-wiki? Are you on drugs or something? Drunk, perhaps?

You need not reply. I've seen enough, and I won't be posting any more here. Leaving aside the possibility that you are on drugs or booze, your intelligence appears to be below-average, you have poor control of the English language, you have trouble thinking rationally, and you have personality problems of an anti-social nature. Further interaction with you would be a waste of my time.

If anyone reading these words is intelligent and rational, and wishes to discuss sources or anything else in a collegial, constructive fashion, that would be fine. I am alan2102 at gmail.

Ciao.

Alan2102 (talk) 04:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)alan2102

Oh my GOD! You're spending all of your internet time trying to prove fat acceptance is good! WTF?!

"Further interaction with you would be a waste of my time." You're the one who's going to say this? Really? Look, I could write an entire dissertation on why laptops are better than tablets, but in the end it DOESN'T MATTER. I'm shocked by how long people are willing to spend talking about pointless menial things like the fat acceptance movement, and not talk about the real issues. You realize climate change is a thing, right? You get that the big bankers committed fraud in the recent financial crisis and escaped unpunished, no? You understand that thousands of people are being put in jail for using drugs and causing little to no harm to others, correct? Aren't you doing anything about this? At least I'm trying, while you're here spending 30 minutes writing a refutation to someone you don't even know about the fat acceptance movement?

Absolutely ridiculous. You need to focus on more important things, brother. PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 04:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

"Apparently you don't. Your first two posts were nothing but ugly slurs. That's a good indication of disinterest in rational discussion."

Last I checked, referring to something as a rant wasn't considered a slur.

"You yelled a couple of insults at me. That's ALL you did. And that's fine. But if that is all you do, then one can fairly conclude that you are uninterested in, and possibly incapable of, rational discussion, and that you are likely to be unworthy of civil treatment."

I referred to what you wrote as a rant. As Reverend Black Percy pointed out, one of your very first sentences lends credence to this.

"If you wanted a rational discussion, you could have, and would have, quoted something that I said, and stated your objection, or question, or critique, or whatever. You did not do this. You yelled insults"

I referenced your first statement as evidence alone that you had written a rant, simply because the part you quoted was answered by the sentence just before it in the article. This demonstrates quote mining. Now as for yelling... Where exactly did I do this? Surely you can quote the part, can't you?

"Certainly not. I make the assumption that anyone who behaves like an asshole, as you did, is probably undeserving of civil treatment."

So referring to your writing as a rant for failing to provide any sources for your claims, basically making the "but I thought this was RATIONALwiki?", and referring to yourself as more of an expert than the authors of this page but providing no means for which we should consider you as such... makes one an asshole?

"As for "sourceless": everything I said can be sourced."

But you failed to do so, which was the point I made. You can't expect others to do the work for you whenever you make a claim, now do you?

"Putting together a sourced writeup is a different project, and a lot more work."

Which clearly you are incapable of, despite the fact that it would have helped your "argument".

"I was just encouraging the author to investigate this matter more closely, and to question his/her assumptions."

As previously stated, this is essentially telling someone else to prove you wrong by doing the research for your claims.

"I would be happy to help the author with sources, if there were any interest. Mostly it is a matter of putting in the hours, reading widely in this field which is, as I said, complex and difficult."

Then why did you not link any in your rant? No one is going to take what you say seriously unless you actually do the work in order to demonstrate what you say is factually based.

""Remedial problem"? The phrase doesn't make sense. Do you mean "remediable problem"?"

You might want to reread what you first wrote, because that was something you brought up, whereupon you question what the "remedy" is.

"Why don't you quote my words rather than making shit up? Why don't you quote a complete sentence of mine, so we all know what you are talking about? Don't you know how to use the cut/paste functions?"

Where have I made shit up? Either I have quoted you word for word, or you're claiming I poorly rewrote what you had. Since it's quite clear that I had been using the cut/paste functions, I think the answer is fairly obvious.

"I write WHAT like a question? Again, you don't quote my words, my complete sentences. If you actually quoted my complete sentences, it would be clear that there was no missing question mark. I know how to punctuate, and generally how to write and think."

Are you having this much difficulty finding your own first statement?

"I notice that you seem to have difficulty writing coherently. Your sentences are often garbled, disjointed and only semi-coherent."

Let me guess, you won't provide a source for this as well?

"Are you sure you belong here? i.e. RATIONAL-wiki? Are you on drugs or something? Drunk, perhaps?"

Odd coming from the man writing a rant. Then again, you probably know such symptoms from personal experience.

"You need not reply. I've seen enough, and I won't be posting any more here. Leaving aside the possibility that you are on drugs or booze, your intelligence appears to be below-average, you have poor control of the English language, you have trouble thinking rationally, and you have personality problems of an anti-social nature. Further interaction with you would be a waste of my time."

Bye then. I look forward to see whether or not you keep your promise. Nergali (talk) 00:42, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Pbfreespace3: "You realize climate change is a thing, right? You get that the big bankers committed fraud in the recent financial crisis and escaped unpunished, no? You understand that thousands of people are being put in jail for using drugs and causing little to no harm to others, correct?" Yes, I do, and I am much more concerned with those things than "fat acceptance", per se, and I always have been. However, I think you need to understand that prejudice against people because of their size (including but not limited to obesity), class, race, sex (including discrimination against men, not only women), and so on, are all aspects of civil and human rights, which is an important aggregate issue. The fact that other things might be more important does not render those aspects of civil and human rights unimportant. You look at "fat acceptance" as a trivial thing, and standing alone it might be, but it is one instance of a broad category of significant injustice that deserves attention; a category that, in aggregate, is every bit as important, in my view, as people being jailed for non-violent "crimes". We can't always talk about things in the aggregate. Often, we must talk about specific instances or aspects, such as race, class, sex, size, and so on. You should not lose sight of the fact that the specific is connected to the (much larger and more important) generality, or aggregate. As to use of my time: you are certainly correct that it was a waste of time. Here on "RATIONAL-wiki" I did not anticipate an exchange with an idiot/asshole like "Nergali". But, once it started, it needed to be brought to a proper close (at least so I thought), so that is what I did. OK, the more the fool me. ;-) Cheers. Alan2102 (talk) 14:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)alan2102

TL;DR CorruptUser (talk) 04:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

The opener was predictable enough.

"Generally good article on a generally excellent wiki.

HOWEVER.

RW = RationalWiki"

In other words, "But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:16, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

"But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink!: "When someone says that RationalWiki is not rational, take a drink." --- Yo! The drinks are on me! Alan2102 (talk) 20:06, 26 July 2016 (UTC)alan2102

-I think there were some problems with the article. Even poor and uneducated people have access to basic health knowledge in the Western World, through public education, libraries, internet etc. Basically everybody who can read, has an access to information needed. Even poor people have access to physical exercise, you don't need a gym, you can run, walk, do body weight exercises etc. Wealthy people have way more things to choose from that give them pleasure etc. Wealthy people might also want to stay healthy because it gives them the theoretical ability to enjoy their wealth longer. They might also think that "looking and feeling great is part of doing good" on top of actually doing good financially.

As a person who is both overweight/obese and not doing great financially, I still have to take responsibility of the choices I've made and how I've prioritized things. My weight might have caused or aggravated some of my health problems and so my individual choices might have put a strain on public healthcare and taxpayers. Only a tiny minority of obese people are completely guilt free of their condition. AkuraIchiban (talk) 21:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

List of Citations-Needed

In the "Rejection of Idealized Body Types" section, there is a sentence with no fewer than five [citation needed] markers, the last four of which are only 2-3 words apart. I can't tell if this is a joke ("We need a citation that you can't tell someone's blood pressure by looking at them!" or another sign of this article's suboptimal condition; either way, it needs to be tweaked. ^{— Unsigned, by: GreatWyrmGold / talk / contribs}

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. —ClickerClock (talk) 03:53, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Tumblr Blog: Big Fat Science

Big Fat Science is a pro-fat tumblr blog by a scientist with a PhD (experimental social sciences). They say they're a tenured professor. I honestly cannot see anything wrong with what they post. It seems pretty correct science to me. Please keep in mind, I have no background in science. Is there a doctor on RW? —ClickerClock (talk) 14:47, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Overweight people having doctors ignore problems

I've read this in a lot of places. Here's an article I like. How would it be best to include this here (or elsewhere)? Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 15:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)