Talk:Health at every size/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 31 July 2022. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

"Some marginalised people are obese" != "All obese people lack privilege as a result of their obesity"

Seriously. That doesn't even make logical sense. The text as I wrote it is entirely correct and does acknowledge that this issue exists, but it simply isn't enough to then make the leap that obese people as a generalised group lack privilege, or that people who are not obese do not have it, especially on the terms usually noted (which could easily be reversed into "obese privilege" - oh no people are constantly jealous of me being able to eat whatever I like! Everyone keeps telling me to eat a sandwich!). It also doesn't in any way change the fact that obesity is a condition that in the majority of cases can be remedied, and that implicitly comparing it to something you simply cannot change and that you have to live with and will probably have lifelong marginalisation because of whether you like it or not is offensive. MortgageBalls (talk) 17:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Eh, are we reading the same text? As far as I could see, the version prior to your edit simply pointed out that privileged people in terms of wealth, education and so forth, tend to have better options when it comes to avoiding obesity. For instance, "food deserts" are usually not a phenomenon found in affluent neighbourhoods, to take just one example. Nor did the erased text claim that such obese people couldn't change their situation, only that it might be more difficult to due so for socio-economic reasons. In addition, you also erased a relevant citation, so I'm restoring the old version but with new first and last sentences to make it clear that the paragraph is not supposed to mean that "thin privilege" is a valid concept and that it doesn't mean that obesity is not remediable. ScepticWombat (talk) 18:08, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not even entirely happy with that. The problem is it doesn't really answer or even mention the glaring issue in that header above - that the existence of underprivileged obese people doesn't mean all obese people are underprivileged. The argument of the "thin privilege" people isn't that marginalised obese people lack privilege, it is that ALL obese people lack privilege solely because they are obese; my text actually addressed what the thin privilege peoples' claims are, whereas the new edit makes it clear that these claims are nebulous in more ways than one, by not even being clear about what those claims are - it goes on to defend an entirely different set of claims against an argument nobody was making. MortgageBalls (talk) 18:52, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

So what? The text doesn't claim that all obese people are underprivileged (though obesity is more prevalent among underprivileged). The paragraph is supposed to highlight that while "thin privilege" is basically putting the horse before the cart (privileged people tend, ceteris paribus, to be less obese than underprivileged, but that doesn't mean the former are privileged because they're thin), obesity is more widespread among the underprivileged, but this is obviously not the same as claiming that people are underprivileged because they're obese. The paragraph is obviously supposed to be read in conjunction with the preceding criticism of "thin privilege" both as a concept and the use of it. ScepticWombat (talk) 19:01, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Eh, I've known a few employers who are less likely to hire the morbidly obese. I don't disagree with them either; major health problem means higher medical premiums and less productivity, all else equal. So it does exist. But it's not exactly something I'm concerned about, because 1) it's based in reality 2) obesity really is a problem 3) it's fixable, usually. Fearing gay people because of "perversion" is not based in reality, homosexuality is about as serious a problem as partial colorblindness, and it's not something that's reasonably easy to change. So to say there is "thin privilege" in the same vein as "straight privilege" is not a proper comparison. Might as well argue about "big dick privilege" or "big boob privilege". CorruptUser (talk) 19:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

My point about "thin privilege" is that it tends to confuse cause and effect: People from higher socio-economic groups are less likely to be obese, but that doesn't mean that it's their "thinness" that put these people in the higher socio-economic strata.

Furthermore, the issue here is that HAES tries to make obesity into a question of mental gymnastics (if you just think positive about obesity, obesity isn't a problem, and obesity only becomes a problem because of social stigma), which is just bunk.

HAES is one more case of the scourge of a mishmash of "positive thinking", Newspeak (relabel "problems" as "challenges" and the problems disappear!) and individualism to the extent of blaming the victim (you're just unemployed because you're not being positive enough about your challenges in finding a job, not because we're in a recession, or any other such boring macro-economic factors) that Barbara Ehrenreich chronicled in Bright-sided: How the Relentless Promotion of Positive Thinking Has Undermined America (2009). ScepticWombat (talk) 19:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the thin privilege section, mostly because it was off-topic when the rest of the article is about whether obesity is healthy rather than socially acceptable, and partly because the analysis was terrible. Something about thin privilege probably belongs in our fat acceptance article, but not like this. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:05, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

So you guys keep putting it back in, ignoring why I've removed it & not bothering to discuss. This is really tiresome. Thin privilege is about societal attitudes towards fat and thin people and relates to the fat acceptance movement, where I have added it. It isn't directly relevant to the subject of this article as defined in the earlier sections, i.e. the view that being fat is not harmful to personal health. + What you are saying about thin privilege is ignorant strawmnanning. You are not addressing the kinds of discrimination & judgement that fat people face, but instead quibbling over red herrings like how wealthy they are. Privilege & marginalisation are things society accords to a certain extent to certain groups & have nothing to do with whether those groups are defined by "innate or immutable" traits. Economic discrimination, classism, cultural discrimination and linguistic discrimination also apply to non-immutable traits, but this doesn't make them "not real discrimination". The argument that "it's your fault; you should improve yourself", which could apply just as easily to these as to fat people, is a privileged discompassionate attitude which really doesn't engage with the kind of barriers these people face & effectively condones discrimination against them. As for arguing that fat shaming isn't a "legitimate" concern for feminists, who are you to make that call? What distinguishes it from "(legitimate) feminist concerns about body issues and body shaming"? Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:21, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

The reason why it has been repeatedly put back in is because you have an ideological axe to grind, which is why you have as stated put something under the fat acceptance page... and made it uncritically positive towards the concept of "thin privilege", incorporating no arguments against it and indeed calling it "important in the modern fat acceptance movement as a social justice cause". So, put it this way; you can change that page to be less uncritically positive and then remove the section here (which I am putting back) or you can leave this page damn well alone, since you appear to be removing parts of it since you couldn't sanitise it to your point of view. MortgageBalls (talk) 19:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I should also point out that the article repeatedly states that HAES/thin privilege is an entirely different thing from just not being a shitty person to fat people, and that it incorporates a rebuttal within itself arguing the point about obesity sometimes being the result of external factors, without going the full mile and saying that obesity is a lack of privilege in and of itself - which you have not actually been able to provide any concrete examples of other than things that equally apply to extremely skinny people, and the available concrete examples are incredibly petty compared to actual forms of privilege. MortgageBalls (talk) 19:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

The material in question was moved to another article. There's no reason for you to keep putting it back here. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 19:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

That's fine. I have moved some of the criticism of the concept to the Fat acceptance article instead of putting it back here. I honestly don't have much hope that it will last long there, despite it being in no way settled and its existence being extremely controversial. The main reason I don't want it there is because, generally, the concept of fat acceptance is a good thing (hence why I didn't put this page under that heading and haven't linked it there.) MortgageBalls (talk) 20:09, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

You wrote a diatribe describing thin privilege as "a truly ludicrous, and even downright offensive concept" and accuse me of having "an ideological axe to grind"?

And if you think "the concept of fat acceptance is a good thing", why are you so sceptical about thin privilege? If fat people aren't underprivileged, why would a fat acceptance movement be needed? Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel}

Misspelled Title

I'd been meaning to start this page for a while, but I guess I was beaten to it. :P

I'll have a more detailed read-through later, but for now, I just shifted over the page as the movement (and the central community founded by Linda Bacon) is known as Health at Every Size, rather than Healthy at Every Size. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 19:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Someone doesn't understand the difference between "pseudoscience" and "something I disagree with."

Health At Every Size has plenty of science research to back it up. This article's insistence that there is some "new, modern day, 'bad' interpretation of HAES" doesn't hold up. It's a mythical boogeyman. HAES is not about obesity. It's about overall wellness, and people with Ph.D.s in nutrition and registered dieticians, as well as obesity experts, are adopting it as a way to help not only people with eating disorders but for eating disorder prevention as well. A lot of the things that this article claims HAES believes and "must be wrong," (that weight isn't simply calories in==calories out, that obesity isn't always unhealthy, that genetics have some responsibility for obesity) are all proved by actual science and real, peer-reviewed studies. This whole article was clearly written by someone with an agenda. The use of emotion-laden words like "deranged" and "being obvious shite" plus the idea that fat people have desires like "guzzle a whole tube of Pringles," makes it read like the FatLogic place on Reddit, where they cherry-pick data to re-inforce the group-think while they make fun of "fats" for liking themselves or refusing to diet, and they use the term "healthy at every size" which only exists in their minds, and not in actual HAES. p.s. You cannot apply the laws of thermodynamics to a human body and if you do not understand why you shouldn't be trying to claim you understand science. And the concept of "genetics can't be blamed because it hasn't changed in 30 years" is a prime example of not understanding either how genetics work or the basic concept of "having a gene doesn't mean that gene is expressed", or even what gene expression means.^{— Unsigned, by: Hidingaardvark / talk / contribs} 01:39, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Some of these need qualification. "weight isn't simply calories in==calories out" is wrong, since, while thermodynamics doesn't apply, conservation of energy certainly does. It's not possible to gain weight without taking in enough energy that it can be stored. That doesn't mean the ideologues who wrote this article are right, of course; the energy balance can change without any change to how much you eat, since both "calories in" and "calories out" are each the sum of a huge number of processes, none of which can currently, to my knowledge, be measured beyond a rough approximation (I'm a physicist, not a medical researcher, so this may have changed without my knowledge). Though that's a bit nitpicky; conservation of energy is a pet peeve of mine.

It's no coincidence that this article was made just a few weeks after Reddit banned fatpeoplehate. I'd bet a hefty sum that the writer of this article was a FPH poster. If the sea lions had gotten their way, this is exactly what our GamerGate article would look like. You're clearly much more familiar with the HAES concept than I am; if you've got the time, this article should be nuked from orbit and replaced with something that wasn't written by an angsty teenager.ChrisB (talk) 01:05, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I just emailed David Gerard about it. MortgageBalls is obviously some colon crucified asshole from FPH or wherever. Cykosys (talk) 17:48, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I have never been a member of FatPeopleHate and consider hatred of fat people to be a worthless, stupid cause, and moreover people that "hate" fat people to be fuckwits. I am a fat person, for Christ's sake. HidingAardvark does have some interesting interpretations of what I wrote though ("guzzle a whole tube of Pringles", for instance, is taken out of context; in the context, it does not refer to fat people or any group of people at all, merely to some foods being less filling and easier to eat large quantities of than others thereby making the concept of someone "intuitively" eating them until they're full complete nonsense from a health perspective). If you have any actual evidence from genuine sources to back up your claims, and also explanations as to why HAES is a valid concept despite it being at odds to the consensus of every public health authority I could think of and document, by all means post it. MortgageBalls (talk) 23:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

The article seems mostly on the right track to me. It could use some rework in a couple places but I don't think the accusations of MB hating fat people are warranted.SolPyre (talk) 23:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I honestly don't know where that accusation comes from, unless being critical of any aspect of fat activism somehow now makes you a complete, irredeemable shitlord. MortgageBalls (talk) 09:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

The persecution complex is real. Cykosys (talk) 14:32, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Right, so saying that you are accusing me of being a shitlord (i.e. FatPeopleHate user) because I've been critical of an aspect of fat activism is a "persecution complex"... after you've accused me of being a shitlord (i.e. FatPeopleHate user) because I've been critical of an aspect of fat activism. There's no persecution, just a baseless assumption and accusation you pulled out of your ass, which there is no shred of evidence for because it isn't true. MortgageBalls (talk) 14:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Your criticism reads like a typical Redditor angrily ranting about the evils of "SJWs", but on a different subject (or a Gamergator desperately trying to convince people that it's actually about gaming journalism, but I repeat myself). While not overtly FPH in tone (too few uses of "hamplanet" for that), it's exactly what we'd expect from a circlejerk like fatlogic. For one: if you intend to point out that some calorie dense foods are less filling and therefore easier to eat to a surplus without stopping, don't use an example that widely stereotypes fat people as constantly overeating junk food ("guzzle a whole tube of Pringles"); you're both communicating badly and spreading myths about obesity. Are there a few teenagers on Tumblr who invoke "health at every size" in the way you claim? Sure, but who cares? Tumblr is the LiveJournal of this decade. You can find a small group that believes just about anything there. But you've by no means demonstrated that it's widespread (i.e. the twisting is the "most common interpretation" is an unsupported assertion).ChrisB (talk) 04:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

First - once again, said "guzzle" comment didn't refer to any people at all, let alone fat people. Unless RationalWiki now no longer allows evocative language, it's a perfectly valid thing to say and is not intended to stereotype anyone. You're reaching. Second - HAES is still pseudoscience that is directly contradicted by every public health authority I cared to look at. If you think the article is wrong in its assertion that a) obesity has a primarily calorie based cause for the vast majority of people and b) obesity is significantly correlated with negative health outcomes and risk (i.e. HAES is bollocks), then rather than criticise me personally, or my use of language, prove that HAES is not pseudoscience or diet woo. Third - there are many, many instances of pseudoscience on this Wiki that are less widespread than HAES or other similar diet woo. Fourth - I have absolutely nothing to do with Reddit, Gamergate, FPH or any other similar agglomeration of fuckwits, and the fact people keep trying to link me or liken me to said fuckwits rather than actually contradicting the article in any meaningful way speaks volumes. MortgageBalls (talk) 19:47, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Whether or not you intended to stereotype anyone is unimportant; the common stereotype in the US and western culture more generally is that obesity is caused by continuous overeating of junk food. Using that example lends credence to the stereotype, especially with the chosen verb. I don't disagree with either assertion a or b (I actually think you're not going quite far enough with a; for obesity defined as weight above baseline, it's caused by caloric excess in 100% of all cases), though b is still an argument from correlation (unless you can demonstrate that there's no confounding variables, and that the risk really is caused by obesity; I don't doubt that the relationship is causative, but you should be able to demonstrate that it is so). You've not actually demonstrated that the claimed interpretation is widespread. Simply saying that other forms of diet woo is less widespread isn't actually showing anything. It's just an assertion. Just a google search seems to indicate that HAES is about behavior/habits, from which a claim that obesity is healthy doesn't necessarily follow. The reason you're being compared to Reddit/GG/FPH because your language is almost identical, all the way down to the vocabulary which nobody else used ("shitlord"). I haven't been commenting on the articles actual 'content' because I don't know much about it. I'm commenting on the language used because it's sophomoric, and reads like an essay by an angry, argumentative teenager. See here for more details.ChrisB (talk) 06:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

RW allows a lot of things, including most instances of evocative language. The question is more: Why poison your own well by using such phrasings? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 19:55, 20 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

Why does it matter? There's all sorts of language on here which is similarly jocular. Does it poison the well, or rather talk about a serious topic in a light-hearted manner? MortgageBalls (talk) 21:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

"that obesity is neither linked to poor health or necessarily unhealthy."

The second one is true, the first one is not. No one I know of is trying to claim that heart disease hasn't been linked to obesity, they're claiming that just because someone is clinically obese doesn't mean they're about to die, or are necessarily outside the range of average healthiness.

I mean, anecdotally, I'm pretty large, but every single time I go to the doctor, they can't find any medical issues with me. They tell me I should lose weight simply because it's a good idea (and I'm working on it), but they've never been able to actually find any medical conditions related to my weight. In other words, it's completely possible to be "in good health" while still being large, even if being large makes it easier to slip into bad health. The point of the movement is to dispel the myth that the obese must be consistently attacked as plaguebearers and treated as if they're about to keel over (even if there are some tumblrites who take it too far).KrytenKoro (talk) 13:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

More comments on just the lead:

"Other key canards are the assertion that the theory that obesity is caused by calories in exceeding calories out (and therefore the inverse, that weight loss is caused by calories out exceeding calories in) is not true"

The reason they're rejecting that is because it assumes that ensuring your calories out exceed calories in will make sure you lose weight that you wanted to lose. Of course conservation of energy is in effect, but that doesn't mean that simply cutting foods out of your diet while only focusing on calorie count will lead to good results.

"that diets do not work as a means of losing weight and/or often fail and therefore are not worth even trying"

Fucking stats, man, virtually every study I've ever seen likens the efficacy of diets to avoiding pregnancy through abstinence -- great if you can stick to it, not very realistic in how many people do.

"and that the medical profession are engaged in some sort of cover up of these facts to "fat shame" people for... some reason"

Cover up? No. Being rushed and taking the easy answer of "it's due to your weight" instead of always investigating and making sure? That's not really a conspiracy theory, that's just pointing out that doctors can sometimes be lazy or wrong, and patients need to make sure they engage their doctor in a dialogue rather than just being cowed and allowing the doctor to miss important symptoms. I wouldn't claim it's necessarily an epidemic (here I think HAES is exaggerating the rate of occurrence similar to MRAs and false-rape accusations), but it does happen. They're accusing their doctors of being lazy, not of being secret eugenecists.

"The present, and most common, interpretation ignores the bit about a healthful lifestyle and disregards the idea of aiming for weight loss, and instead assumes that people who are not actually dead or filled with tumours are perfectly healthy,"

(1) Which major HAES proponents are saying a healthful lifestyle isn't important, and (2) How is it irrational to posit that if you are not actually suffering from a weight-related condition, your weight is not causing you to be unhealthy? Shouldn't your healthiness be determined by your ability and quality of life, not whether you fit some mold?KrytenKoro (talk) 13:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

"Aside from the concept of obesity being genetic and therefore natural and therefore good being the naturalistic fallacy writ large,"

Holy fucking hell, man, they're not claiming it's "good", they're claiming that because of things like PCOS, it would sometimes require reducing calories to the point of dangerous starvation to cause any measurable drop in weight, and that it's important for doctors to take that into account and prescribe remedies for that condition, rather than simply saying "eat less".

How are you so medically illiterate, man? This article is pretty shite, and I've barely gotten more than a few paragraphs in.KrytenKoro (talk) 14:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Got to the end:

"but by wanting the concept of obesity itself to be considered good medically despite its numerous and documented health harms."

No. They are proposing that obesity itself not be considered by definition to be a medical ailment, while acknowledging that it can still lead to ailments. Sort of like how driving a car is not an ailment, but can still lead to broken spines. Risky behavior, certainly. And yes, not all medical associations agree with them, and there's an argument for calling it pseudoscience under that. But at least get their fucking claims right.KrytenKoro (talk) 14:06, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree that this article sounds like a straw-man and seems to misrepresent the positions of advocates of the idea. An actual HAES activist, Ragen Chastain, explicitly rejects the idea of "giving up" (and, as suggested here, just wolfing down arbitrary amounts of arbitrary kinds of food without any restraint, while never walking more than a few steps). She dances for crying out loud; she's not a couch potato. Instead, she does recommend moderate exercise and diets rich in fruits and vegetables in order to promote health – she only rejects the (seemingly intuitive and almost universally accepted) notion that you can tell that a person is unhealthy and unfit just from looking at them, and that it is impossible to be both obese and healthy/fit. According to her and the sources she cites, long-term weight loss (if possible at all) is not necessary in order to be healthy and fit, and does not come as a natural consequence of adopting a health-promoting lifestyle. Instead of being single-mindedly focussed on their weight, and weight loss, she argues, doctors should focus on their obese patients' overall health, because that is a much more effective approach.

Now even if she may be overly pessimistic about the possibility of long-term weight loss – although perhaps she is right in that the approach is unrealistic considering human psychology, and while long-term weight loss is certainly not physically impossible and can be done in principle, that would require basically incarcerating and strictly monitoring and controlling obese patients for life (making the approach indeed no more practical than abstinence-based approaches to avoiding unwanted pregnancies) and significantly lowering their quality of life –, her basic point that nobody has any obligation to be thin, and in fact, not even any obligation to be healthy, is completely sound.

Your value as a human being does not depend on body shape, health or fitness. In a free society like the US pride themselves to be, you simply have the right to be an overeating couch potato, just like you have the right to smoke 100 cigarettes a day or engage in extreme body modification – provided you are only harming yourself. The idea that obese people are a "drain" on existing resources, in fact one so large that they constitute a danger to civilization greater than just about everything else, responsible "for everything from global warming to healthcare costs", is completely unsupported by facts. --91.7.40.43 (talk) 06:15, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Health of overweight but not obese

I've seen some activists citing studies that say overweight people (BMI 25-30) are actually healthier, with longer life expectancy, etc, than people of normal weights or mildly underweight. It would be good if this more moderate claim was covered somewhere. Annquin (talk) 14:22, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

/r/FatLogic likes it

https://www.reddit.com/r/fatlogic/comments/4dbi0n/health_at_every_size/

The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 20:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Now the question is: is it the older users who are more anti-pseudo-health-science who like it? Or the people who just migrated from FPH who like it? ℕoir LeSable (talk) 20:42, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Seems the former.

The Kernels of truth segment had some brilliant insights. I particularly applaud the statement:

"I hate all of myself entirely and I am awful" and "I unconditionally love everything about myself and I am perfect" are almost as unhealthy as each other

Viewing the movement in such terms, as an absolute that is as dangerous as it's counter absolute might help someone looking into HAES understand it's inherent danger.

"Some of the stranger HAES advocates consider that any attempt to restrict ones' calorie intake is a precursor to, or even a symptom of, anorexia,[9] which aside from being obvious shite is insulting to people who genuinely do have anorexia"

This is so important to me. I can never understand why people would compare themselves to someone who has or once had a debilitating mental illness and likely nearly starved themselves to death. It's such a selfish thing to want some 'prestige' (or whatever) of a disability just so they can say what they like without fear or critique.

FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 20:44, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

The question for me is: does anyone who doesn't obsessively track every mention of RationalWiki on Reddit care? --Ymir (talk) 22:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Some Fact Checking

So I decided to a little fact checking and found that intuitive eating is actually supported by the Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics:http://www.andjrnl.org/article/S0002-8223(05)00322-6/abstract There are also a number of claims about HAES's mission statement that don't have citations. I'm afraid we have an article that is promoting pseudo-science.Ryantherebel (talk) 03:58, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree

I respectfully disagree with the bulk of this article and request the author(s) to revisit the science by looking at Dr. Linda Bacon's work and videos. You should cite her in this paragraph at least : ”Originally HAES was intended as a far less specious and far more medically sound idea[citation needed] — that diets, fad and crash diets in particular, in and of themselves are not a sensible way to lose weight and that one should instead focus on living a healthful lifestyle regardless of weight, which can, if the person so desires, lead to a healthy weight loss quest. The present, and most common, interpretation ignores the bit about a healthful lifestyle and disregards the idea of aiming for weight loss, and instead assumes that people who are not actually dead or filled with tumours are perfectly healthy, even if they are morbidly obese due to eating unhealthy food while maintaining a sedentary lifestyle. To reflect this dramatic shift in usage of the term, this article is about its present-day, pseudo-scientific interpretation."

While admitting that fat-shaming is counterproductive, this article is very little of anything but fat-shaming. Surely there is a way to bring in humor and sarcasm by also taking stabs at skinny people, or make fun of the fact that advice for a myriad of health issues from joint pain to heart disease is to "maintain an ideal body weight", which is not realistic for the bulk of yoyo dieters who have wrecked their metabolism and self esteem attempting to achieve some unnecessarily low goal weight in order to become a lifetime member of Weight Watchers.

The original intention of HAES is by no means dead. Read or research "Intuitive Eating" in addition to watching ~Dr. Bacon's videos.

If myfitnesspal is your idea of a healthy weight management system then you are off base. Certainly, calories in, calories out, but the constant hunger many people have, caused by eating fewer calories than they burn is a sure recipe for failure and so it goes, on and on. Becoming resigned to fatness, and alleviating the stress and guilt about eating are all the comfort some of us have. That and bike riding.

TinaBarton (talk) 12:31, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello. Please sign your name after posting on a talk page by typing ~~~~. Thank you! Nerd271 (talk) 11:46, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@TinaBarton Thanks for commenting.

1: Can you please list the most relevant videos by Dr. Bacon?

2: Can you point to examples of fat-shaming within the articles?

3: Feel free to add snark about skinny people.

4: Your suggestion that "an ideal body weight" is unrealistic is very questionable. Just because people use bad methods ("yoyo diets") to achieve a good goal, doesn't mean that the goal itself is bad. And just because people misinterpret the goal as unachievable ("unnecessarily low goal weight" instead of "ideal body weight") doesn't mean that the goal is unachievable.

5: Can you please list the most relevant "Intuitive Eating" entries?

6: It seems like fat shaming to say that becoming "resigned to fatness" and "alleviating the stress and guilt about eating are all the comfort some of us have". If "healthy at every size" is truly a legitimate movement, then shouldn't it have some greater purpose beyond allaying people's guilt? Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 16:58, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

1: Linda Bacon's videos can be seen at

https://lindabacon.org/videos/ . They are all great. "Busting myths in health and weight" might be relevant.

2: Perhaps I'm overreacting, but the way the article starts right off the bat proclaiming Haes as pseudoscience and launching into the horrors of obesity felt like fat-shaming to me. There was a minimal admission way down that maybe perhaps haes might have started out well, but morphed into pseudoscience, but that's not what someone interested in the topic is going to see. A better way to start would be to mention efforts by Dr Linda Bacon and her precursors that brings real science into the picture showing that the bmi chart is off, for one thing; That some people labeled as obese are not really, that there's evidence that for the majority of obese people, they are no less healthy than thin people, etc, and that Haes is not only for the overweight but for people of all sizes (get it? "Every Size") who are concerned about their bodies. There's also evidence that our focus on the war against obesity is a player in increased eating disorders, which is a topic near and dear to my heart, because while I was all stressed about trying to stay on this diet or that diet, over exercising, feeling ashamed, and depressed, a loved one saw it all and went to the other extreme. Of course it's not my fault completely. They don't know all the causes of eating disorders, but focusing on weight alone is not a healthy solution. I did not see Dr Bacon's name mentioned though I see from the entries above, she is known here. I didn't see those entries before I entered mine, or my response may have been different. I also saw no mention of Intuitive Eating, a critical part of Haes in my opinion. Anyway, put the real haes stuff up front, and then explain where the movement goes astray. ( I was not aware it had gone astray. ) People have a right to know that there is truly good helpful information out there, that you don't need to be hungry all the time, that you can be gentle on yourself, that you can eat what you love and savor what you eat, and you don't need to label food as good or bad.

3: Skinny people may think they are healthy but they have heart attacks too.

4: A person's ideal body weight is specific to that person and may not fit on a chart. A person may have lowered their base metabolic rate by attempting to restrict their food, or by (as mentioned in the article and to which I can attest) having thyroid disease. Psychology comes into play. For some, deprivation of "unhealthy foods" leads to cognitive dissonance etc. A person who achieves weight loss but can't get to that magic number on the chart is more likely to lose heart and rebound on eating behavior that they believe is bad because they rebel. Whatever. The point is, learning to eat what our body needs, and enjoying physical activity, are to me what haes is about. The chart can go in the trash.

5: I love the book "Intuitive Eating" found here. https://www.amazon.com/Intuitive-Eating-Revolutionary-Program-Works/dp/B009LB5MFM. Also, I like mindful eating as described in "8 keys to recovering from an eating disorder" here. https://www.amazon.com/Keys-Recovery-Eating-Disorder-Therapeutic-ebook/dp/B005LW5JP8/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1499739288&sr=1-2&keywords=8+keys+to+recovery+from+an+eating+disorder+workbook . I bring up eating disorders despite the comments above because many people have disordered eating, if not an official eating disorder. Binge eating is not what haes is about. Much can be learned from these books.

6: I meant my last comment to be rather tongue in cheek. Fat activists to not deny that they are fat. We need to accept ourselves where we are at. It's great if we can find physical activity we enjoy, mine is bike riding. We absolutely need to lose the guilt!!! If we stress eat because our cat is sick, we need to forgive ourselves and move on. If we eat something our doctor thinks we shouldn't, and feel guilty about it, it becomes the forbidden fruit. We want it more and more. But when we learn to give ourselves permission, and realize we can have whatever we want when we want, suddenly those orange scones at Panera don't taste as good.

{{TinaBarton (talk) 02:25, 11 July 2017 (UTC)}}

Why is this here?

What is this hateful article doing on this site? It reads like it was cut-and-pasted directly from r/FatPeopleHate. Moon Bomb (talk) 23:24, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Your criticism won't be useful unless you can provide passages to support your rather strong conclusion. My problem with this article is that there isn't a lot of sources, and the health at every size movement DOES seem like pseudoscience with valid arguments sprinkled. I checked out the Wikipedia page Health at Every Size and the first thing I see is "Its main tenet involves rejection of the scientific consensus regarding the link between excessive calorie intake, a sedentary lifestyle and lack of physical exercise, improper nutrition, and greater body weight - and its effects on a person's health."; this isn't something that'll get positive comment on RationalWiki. The next paragraph goes into detail about this argument. "HAES advocates argue that traditional interventions focused on weight loss, such as dieting, do not reliably produce positive health outcomes." "HAES proponents believe that health is a result of behaviors that are independent of body weight and that favouring being thin discriminates against the overweight and the obese." So I look at RationalWiki's article, and it doesn't seem that far off the mark as you claim. I think it's good that there are efforts to try to actually address these people's problems and support them, but what's not good is this idea writing off established contributing factors to obesity.

I looked at one source Wikipedia provides; this is a quote from a researcher.

"The HAES movement is, at its origins, about fairness and equity, and about not judging books by their covers, or people by their weight. I support all of that; scales do not measure human worth. I fully endorse the push back against obesity bias in our society," Katz said. "But the simple fact is that excess body fat is a risk factor for most major chronic diseases — it just is. So if weight is an indicator of health risk, it must be treated as such."

And here are quotes from within the article

The issue with HAES is that it takes the idea of "fat acceptance" to a deranged conclusion: not by wanting fat people to be welcomed into society as people to be judged on their merits, but by wanting the concept of morbid obesity or metabolically unhealthy-kind obesity itself to be considered good medically despite its numerous and documented health harms. The former is admirable; the latter is pseudo-scientific and dangerous.

Virtually all governments and health authorities worldwide may not specifically deny the tenets of HAES, but they do fully endorse the opposite conclusions.

I don't believe these quotes support your claim that "It’s a one-sided, hateful rant that treats it as if obesity is solely a matter of poor diet and lack of exercise, completely discounting all the scientific evidence that suggests genetic, epigenetic, and environmental factors play a role. It dismisses fat-shaming and bullying, because, you know, doctors are just telling the cold, hard truth about obesity and evidently they’re not capable of perpetuating negative stereotypes and biases."

The "social issues" section takes beliefs that sound just like your criticism of the article, complete with your accusation against doctors.

There is a definite difference between insulting or even hating someone for being fat and not thinking that someone who is obese is healthy. This runs into the territory of the absurd when HAES advocates accuse actual doctors of "fat shaming" them for suggesting that their obesity may be a medical condition that requires attention, either implicitly or deliberately.

The article is certainly not one-sided; otherwise, we wouldn't even have a "kernels of truth" subsection. Another thing I disagree with is your claim that the article writes off the "other" less controllable factors when I think that's a complete strawman. There is nothing in the article that says explicitly that it's only poor diet and lack of exercise, but what it does say is that it's overwhelmingly caused by poor diet and lack of exercise with evidence being statements from national health organizations, obesity rates surpassing population growth rate, and Japan's case. But even if this article doesn't go into much detail beyond "calories in versus calories out", and while it still mentions other complex factors, this isn't a reason to delete the article but a reason to expand or rewrite it.

I bolded that part because this is a very questionable statement that fosters distrust in experts because "we're all biased". If experts all say one thing, I think it's reasonable to trust that they say. I have no clue how this article at all dismisses fat shaming and bullying when it says right at the last section the valid need to treat fat people kindly ("there is nothing intrinsically wrong with self-acceptance"). The problem with Health at Every Size is that it goes too far in the other direction, which it argues is just as bad as fat shaming and bullying. This is a very reasonable thing to say. The article is about critiquing Health at Every Size, not a piece trying to make fat people feel good nor is it to make fat people feel bad either.

The article does need a rewrite. These passages, I find problematic.

Put simply, in all but a very small minority of cases, obesity is caused by calories in exceeding calories out, is a negative health condition in-and-of-itself, dramatically reduces the quality of life for people who have it and dramatically increases the risk of a large number of debilitating illnesses and chronic conditions.

This statement needs to be qualified somewhat by mentioning a possible genetic factor or possible disease, but I emphasize "somewhat" as the statement here is supported by evidence, being authoritative health organizations around the world.

Aside from the concept of obesity being genetic and therefore natural and therefore good being the naturalistic fallacy writ large

I don't necessarily see that "therefore natural and therefore good" part as being an actual argument by Health at every size, not even implied. This needs to be seriously rewritten, probably to, "Their emphasis on obesity being genetic also comes with problems. Obesity rates have doubled between 1980 and 2015 according to the WHO, something which would be completely impossible if down to genetics (since it would require a dramatic change in the gene pool over the course of 35 years) but is more easily explicable by the massively increased prevalence, availability, consumption and lowered cost of high-carbohydrate and/or high-fat food, as well as its increased marketing to children and decreased levels of physical activity. It also does not explain why countries with much lower consumption and overeating of such foodstuffs, such as Japan, have lower obesity rates than other similarly advanced economies."

While some HAES advocates claim that they have tried to lose weight through increased exercise or lowered calorie intake and failed to lose weight, and that this therefore "proves" the conventional medical wisdom that obesity is caused by calories in being greater than calories out to be incorrect

Unneeded "snark" and sarcasm. Just remove the entire bolded part. Calories in versus calories out has its own problems, being grossly simplistic about how the body metabolizes food. See, 200 calories of soda isn't quite the same as 200 calories of blueberries as well as how easy it is to ingest 200 calories of soda versus 200 calories of blueberries.

The issue with HAES is that it takes the idea of "fat acceptance" to a deranged conclusion: not by wanting fat people to be welcomed into society as people to be judged on their merits, but by wanting the concept of morbid obesity or metabolically unhealthy-kind obesity itself to be considered good medically despite its numerous and documented health harms.

This entire sentence is, just, no. No need for "deranged conclusion" part. And should be rewritten to "takes the idea of 'fat acceptance' too far by rejecting numerous and documented causes of obesity and wanting the concept of morbid obesity or metabolically unhealthy-kind obesity itself to be considered accepted or even good medically despite its numerous and documented health harms." It's wordy, but it's a start.

Also, there has to be some tone changing, such as maybe removing the "easily" adjective (reminds me of people trying to support their claims only by saying how "obvious" it is)

I have to be frank with you: your argument for your attempted deletion for this article comes off more as a rant. The article doesn't quite say what you're arguing about (as well as your failure to be specific about your criticism). I don't buy that this article is just or resembles a coherently-worded and sensical-sounding version by r/FatPeopleHate (much much less "cut-and-pasted by r/FatPeopleHate") or a "one-sided, hateful rant". I don't believe your proposal to delete this article is going to pass. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:35, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• Moon Bomb: "This article is full of the kind of fat-shaming garbage that subreddit was infamous for, although the language is cleaner and superfically more reasonable, obviously."
• Also Moon Bomb: "It reads like it was cut-and-pasted directly from r/FatPeopleHate."

Pick one. You can't say, "it's cut-and-paste" and then say, "it's more coherent than the typical drivel". --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 04:40, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

What happened to this Article

It went from anti-HAES to pro-HAES. 68.0.189.224 (talk) 01:06, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

@QuietLuna made sweeping edits. I really think we should leave out the "calories in calories out" thing (it's overly reductionist and places way too much emphasis on mere calories), which the older revisions had. The edit, however, seemed to remove the portions that say obesity is very, very unhealthy and the acronym itself implies otherwise. A lot of the revision goes into the medical problems of obesity, the problems of dieting, and the social stigma of obesity, but not much into the HAES movement. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 02:46, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Reverted Quiet Luna's edit

I took out that utter garbage. This is Rational Wiki, you don't get to post pseudo-scientific woo here. Most of the citations were to studies that had very little to do with what Luna said they did, and this became some pro-HAES nonsense.

I also urge that we don't actually indulge HAES people. It's sort of like arguing with Donald Trump, you can't have rational discourse with them because they aren't playing in reality. When you are as disingenuous as Trump or a HAES activist things never go well. Scryer 360 (talk) 14:59, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

You've deleted some valid content as well as some vagueness. Your contempt towards HAES doesn't suggest you're willing to debate this rationally, weigh up the evidence, or consider the bigger picture beyond fat=evil, but I hope you'll reconsider. There is a difference between the extreme viewpoint that fat people are just as healthy and long-lived (which I agree is not what the science says), and the pragmatic view that weight loss should not be the sole or main objective for fat people (healthy eating, exercise, etc, will improve their health and longevity, while most purported methods of weight loss are ineffective).

It's valid to point out that fat people get a poorer quality of healthcare, as shown by cited studies; that they suffer prejudice which affects their mental and social health, and therefore their physical health; and that dieting is related to mental health problems. This has been shown by scientific studies and may partly explain why fat people have worse health outcomes (although obviously you can't claim that fat people are equally healthy and at the same time say that fat people are more likely to be mentally ill). There are links between obesity and many health problems, but it's often not clear exactly what the causative factor is, and it's unlikely to be the same factor in all cases.

I suggest that you go through the material that you deleted and reinsert what is backed by science. If you don't, I will when I get the chance. --Annanoon (talk) 18:25, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

We might have to reconcile the positive stuff of HAES movement, but we really need to readd the faulty premise of the name of "HAES" rather than have it appear to be like a side note. I need to know more about this movement in general as it does appear to have conflicting viewpoints within itself. I don't know how common it is for HAES advocates to trot out pseudoscience, like how representative those "extremists" in the movement are. I think "intuitive eating" has some flaws, but I do also think fat people tend to clean plates and eat what they think is the "right amount" rather than listen to hunger signals. And so on. I think there's a bit of truth to intuitive eating, but I also think that there are foods that makes it harder to control since they can be so tasty, like a bag of chips as well as how easy it is to down a shake that's saturated in fat and sugar. Calories, also, provide only a rough estimate of how "healthy" and "unhealthy" a food is, but I think fat, sugar, and sodium content is far more important as well as the satiating quality of the food, as full fat yogurt is, IMO, better for your health than fat free despite fat yogurt having more calories since full-fat yogurt is more fulfilling and won't exactly kill your daily allotment for saturated fat. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 23:16, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Scryer 360 tipped their hand when they wholesale reverted QuietLuna's rewrite of this article with a reference to "Dr. Bacon." There's no need to humor an obvious bad faith actor. The old article was full of fat-shaming and based on outdated science. I am by no means an expert on the subject but there's been a number of studies in the past decade that point to genetic and environmental factors playing a major role in weight. Looking at this talk page it's clear that the old version drew criticism over the years. And rightly so. QuietLuna's revision was a much-needed step toward making this article more balanced and up-to-date. It still needs some polishing, but it's a vast improvement over the old version. Splainer (talk) 22:37, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Unrelated, but...

I feel bad for User:Scryer_360. They tried to revert the misinformation here, but they were stopped by Splainer. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 23:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@MarioSuperstar77 I do agree. I'm very, very happy to see that all the anti-scientic BS has been reverted by @Christopher. This version had been stable and consensual for years. One user then turned the article around without even taking it to the talkpage. @Scryer 360 was obviously referring to (Linda) Bacon, which another user incorrectly interpreted as a food-related joke that exposed Scryer's (non-existent) ill-will. In any case, this article certainly allows for, and, I think, warrants, expansion. UninspiringNickname (talk) 15:23, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah the article does warrant expansion. I did say I’d do it, maybe tomorrow was a little optimistic but I’ll get around to it at some point. Christopher (talk) 15:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Haha, no worries! I won't set any deadlines for my contributions, but I'll definitely get round to it as well. Looking forward to your feedback (and possible cleaning up of my formatting errors, sorry in advance :/) Actually, I think this one article was my main reason for becoming active on the wiki again. This much anti-science was too much for mine wretched eyes :-( UninspiringNickname (talk) 16:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Topic

Did you actually read the version you restored? The one that chooses to conveniently dismiss the substantial body of scientific research pointing to an array of genetic, epigenetic, environmental, and socioeconomic factors that effect human weight so that it can push an outdated, narrow understanding of obesity? The one with a grand total of 15 sources? The one that makes unnecessary fatphobic jokes? @QuietLuna and myself rolled up our sleeves after years of readers raising concerns about that version. The new version is well-sourced, up-to-date, and balanced. It has 86 sources. It stood for over a year before Christopher decided to unilaterally restore the version with 15 sources and fat jokes. Could the new version improved in certain regards? Sure. But the old version is indefensible garbage. Splainer (talk) 05:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, @Christopher and @GeeJayK need to explain themselves. — Oxyaena ^Harass 06:20, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Just posted on your talkpage. I didn't revert because it was made by Christopher or whatever (I haven't even read the article yet), but because there's a place (called Talk:Health at every size) that we use before making large edits. GeeJayK (talk) 06:26, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Last time I checked editing didn't require talk page attention. Christopher unilaterally reverted it, he should've discussed it on the talk page first. A balanced article with 86 sources versus an attack piece with 15 sources and fat jokes. — Oxyaena ^Harass 06:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, he did post here, even though maybe one can argue that it took him too long. As I said I didn't read the two versions, but I already don't like the quality of some of these sources (fucking imgur, come on). You're probably right about the other article not being very good (as I said, I didn't read it), but have you ever opened a book published by Regnery Publishing? They also have dozens of sources. 06:35, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Christopher made a bad call to revert all those edits. The version has not been "stable and consensual". For starters (aside from the bad jokes), the article used to be over-reliant on the "calories in - calories out" argument that is extremely reductionist and takes a way too centralizing approach on calories when the quality of those calories matter more as well as the price of those calories. As I said, 100 calories of soda is not the same as 100 calories of blueberrries. Yes you should count calories, but make those calories count too. And that's just part of the story, I didn't go into the price-calorie ratio; 100 calories of blueberries costs more than 100 calories of soda. It's also easier to drink 100 calories of soda compared to eating 100 calories of blueberries. See what I mean how "calories in calories out" is extremely unreliable? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 06:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd say that the biggest problem is that he said he was going to edit the older edit, that you guys say is bad, and he didn't. But the reversion per si wasn't a major problem since people supported him when he did it. GeeJayK (talk) 06:45, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

You never even read it, and the only people who bothered paying attention to it were a fatphobic and acephobic TERF and you. — Oxyaena ^Harass 07:00, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

To whit: GeeKay points to an Imgur source as one of the problems with the updated version. But the one Imgur source is screenshot of a tweet there to establish something has actually been said...and it's a hangover from the old version. In other words, Imgur comprises 6.6% of the sources in the version GeeKay restored without (seemingly) reading. Splainer (talk) 07:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @Oxyaena What the heck? I only saw it now. MarioSuperstar77 and UninspiringNickname were the ones that posted when Chris reverted the edit. I didn't even remember him doing this, maybe I saw, but I definitely didn't care. Also calling out people for what they said in unrelated events is irrelevant here, and you know it. GeeJayK (talk) 07:14, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I did say “if anyone objects they can revert me”, per the standard policy of reverting to the more established revision in the event of an edit war, so I’ve reverted myself. I don’t see any fatphobia in the old revision, it’s not as long as the pro-HAES one but it’s better to have less content than to have a page promoting woo. Although this page in particular didn’t get much discussion, RW:Articles for deletion/Intuitive eating showed an overwhelming opposition to a very similar idea (both articles were written by QuietLuna). Someone mentioned @Mariosuperstar77 and @UninspiringNickname but I didn’t see any pings so I’ll do it. Christopher (talk) 09:55, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

*@MarioSuperstar77 Christopher (talk) 10:15, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

You unilaterally reverted a well-sourced, up-to-date, collaboratively-produced version that had stood for over a year in favor of a poorly-sourced, out-of-date, fatphobic mess. You didn't explain what issues you saw in the updated version that warranted this wholesale revert other than to flatly declare it "pro-pseudoscience" and "promoting woo." Do you believe the many studies showing links between certain genetic, epigenetic, and environmental factors and an increased risk of obesity are all pseudoscientific or methodologically flawed? Because you're approaching this article as if those studies don't exist, and your understanding of the science is sole, unquestionable truth.

You haven't explained why the version that has 15 sources and three "citation needed"s and is written in a sneering, insulting tone is preferable to the version with 86 sources and a more neutral, encyclopedic tone. I don't claim that the updated version is perfect. It could certainly benefit from more input and polishing. But it's a vast improvement over the joke of an article it replaced.

And this is probably falling into the "show me the transphobic thing J. K. Rowling said" trap, but here are some of the most glaring examples of fatphobia from the version you restored:

"Health at every size (or HAES) is a pseudo-scientific concept peddled by certain fat activists which asserts — in complete opposition to current medical knowledge — that no kind of obesity is linked to poor health or unhealthiness. In most interpretations, HAES then goes on to claim that all kinds of obesity are completely natural and related to genetic causes (much in the same way all cancers and death from old age are), and in no way can be related to bad diet or (lack of) exercise; this leads to the assertion that if obesity is always a natural state of being then it's perfectly fine and not at all unhealthy. Other key canards are the assertion that the theory that obesity is caused by calories in exceeding calories out (and therefore the inverse, that weight loss is caused by calories out exceeding calories in) is not true, that diets do not work as a means of losing weight and/or often fail and therefore are not worth even trying, and that the medical profession are engaged in some sort of cover up of these facts to "fat shame" people for… some reason."

Dismisses out of hand the substantial body of scientific evidence pointing to genetic, epigenetic, and environmental factors playing a role in obesity. Dismisses the studies showing diets often don't work and that the human body seems evolutionarily hardwired to thwart weight loss. Presents this narrow, outdated understanding of obesity as scientifically uncontested. Belittles the impact of fat-shaming (the phrase is in fucking scare-quotes) and insinuates that medical professionals can never be biased or wield their medical authority to the detriment of patients. People have died from ovarian cancer because doctors insisted their back pain was due to their weight and refused to screen them until it was too late.

"The present, and most common, interpretation ignores the bit about a healthful lifestyle and disregards the idea of aiming for weight loss, and instead assumes that people who are not actually dead or filled with tumours are perfectly healthy, even if they are morbidly obese due to eating unhealthy food while maintaining a sedentary lifestyle."

This is a blatant strawman. Most HAES supporters do not deny that being overweight carries health risks. They're trying to highlight that stigmatization and shame do not produce better health outcomes, and that "eat less, exercise more" more isn't a perfect, fail-proof, one-size-fits-all solution to obesity.

"Aside from the concept of obesity being genetic and therefore natural and therefore good being the naturalistic fallacy writ large, the notion of obesity having a mainly or wholly genetic cause is easily evidenced as total bollocks by obesity rates doubling in the years between 1980 and 2015 according to the WHO,[1] something which would be completely impossible if down to genetics (since it would require a dramatic change in the gene pool over the course of 35 years) but is easily explicable if one thinks about the massively increased prevalence, availability, consumption and lowered cost of high-carbohydrate and/or high-fat food, as well as its increased marketing to children and decreased levels of physical activity."

I don't know where to begin. This paragraph was evidently written by someone with little understanding of genetics and a total ignorance of the existence of epigenetics. It presents a single outdated interpretation of a specific data point (the increase in obesity rates between 1980 and 2015) as the only correct one. If there weren't genetic, epigenetic, and environmental factors at play, then one would expect two people eating the same diet and getting the same amount of physical activity to generally be in the same weight range. That manifestly isn't the reality we live in.

"This concept is by no means scientifically supported, either as a means of healthy eating or one of weight loss, and can often be used as an excuse for binge eating — not to mention, some foods (especially starchy, high-carbohydrate ones such as potato chips and bread) are both high in calories and notoriously easy to eat large quantities of before one feels full, meaning that one's intuitive body signals might say things like "guzzle a whole tube of Pringles" — which is, suffice to say, not a particularly healthy attitude to take."

If you can't see the fatphobia in telling fat people they just need to stop "guzzling" entire cans of Pringles, well, I can't help you. Splainer (talk) 12:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

HAES means “healthy at any size”, if you don’t want people assuming you think being overweight isn’t unhealthy you should call yourself something else. We don’t want an encyclopaedic or neutral tone. As I said before, less content is better than bad content, and the idea that you can be healthy at any size is patently false. I think the pringles comment is fine, but if you want to reword it to be less offensive go ahead.

I’m sure there’s some stuff that can be rescued from the pro-HAES revision, you’re right that epigenetics needs to be mentioned, but we can’t have an article that promoted the idea that obesity isn’t unhealthy. Christopher (talk) 13:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Please don’t start editing the article now though, wait for this to die down. Christopher (talk) 13:24, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

"Healthy at every size", for better or worse, is the name the movement chose for itself. Trying to read in a meaning that name wasn't intended to convey is engaging in unconstructive semantic quibbling. And, yes, I know RationalWiki isn't bound by NPOV principles like Wikipedia. That doesn't give users a license to use it as a platform for prejudiced and poorly-sourced nonsense. You haven't actually addressed any of the multiple points I raised, nor explained why the science pointing to complex factors influencing weight isn't to be trusted. You're just flatly asserting that you're right. And the fact that you see nothing wrong with a blatant fatphobic joke seriously calls into question whether you are approaching this topic in good faith. Splainer (talk) 13:45, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Maybe you recognise obesity is unhealthy, but a lot of people don’t, there’s a reason the movement is named what it is. The article brushes this all aside as being “a few extremists”, whilst promoting pseudoscientific bullshit like intuitive eating. I didn’t address your other points because I agree with them, a section about how “calories in, calories out” is an oversimplification due to varying metabolisms is definitely needed. Christopher (talk) 13:56, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Why didn't you modify the coverage of intuitive eating in this article to address your concerns? Or at least propose changes? None of the concerns you've raised justify the wholesale reversion of a well-sourced article that had stood for over a year to a poorly-sourced and juvenile screed. Splainer (talk) 14:25, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Repeating things you’ve already said (“stood for over a year” etc) doesn’t help anyone. I know it stood for over a year, which is why I reverted myself the second I saw there was controversy. Christopher (talk) 14:35, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Repeatedly stating that a well-sourced article is "pro-pseudoscience" and "promoting woo" because you don't like what it says doesn't make your interpretation correct. Splainer (talk) 14:48, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

You also still haven't explained why you didn't at least propose amendments to address your concerns instead of exhuming an ancient version of the article. Splainer (talk) 14:52, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

The article says a lot of true things and cites them well, none of them justify the pro-HAES POV. Christopher (talk) 15:03, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a "pro-HAES POV" in this article. I'm seeing a nuanced overview of the current scientific understanding of obesity. If I'm being honest, I do think the later sections could benefit from further polishing. I'm not fond of the heavy reliance on quotations. Do you have any suggestions for edits to the article as it currently reads? Your perception of a "pro-HAES POV" is absolutely not a justification for digging up a poorly-sourced fatphobic rant. Splainer (talk) 15:35, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

There’s pro-HAES and anti-HAES content in the article, which isn’t a good thing, despite appearing more “nuanced”. The anti-HAES stuff is mostly confined to a bit in the lede and part of the “issues” section at the end. Christopher (talk)|

I find it curious that you've switched to criticizing perceived "POV" in this article when you earlier pointed out that RW isn't Wikipedia and thus isn't bound by principles of NPOV. There is no reason in theory that this article can't present a "pro-HAES" perspective if that position is sufficiently backed by reliable sources. I never wanted this article to be "pro-HAES." I just wanted it to not be a mean-spirited and poorly-sourced rant. But it's technically not against RW policy for articles to have a POV. You seem to only take exception to POVs you personally disagree with. In any case, the goal of this article shouldn't be to present "pro-HAES" or "anti-HAES" arguments, but to present an overview of the current scientific understanding. Splainer (talk) 16:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Can you please stop posting above my comments? You're making this page even more convoluted. As for the "current scientific understanding", I doubt it's anywhere near "pro-HAES". GeeJayK (talk) 16:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

My issue with the article is that it presents an incorrect POV, why would I have an issue with articles that have a correct POV? Christopher (talk) 16:26, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

And there we have it. Your objections can be boiled down to "I don't like it." It has nothing to do with the reliability of the science in question. Splainer (talk) 16:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Everyone’s opinions on this boil down to liking one version more than the other, assuming bad faith gets no one anywhere. Christopher (talk) 16:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

You've already stated you saw nothing wrong with a cheap fat-shaming potshot in the version you restored. Forgive me if that's negatively impacted my ability to assume good faith in this discussion. Splainer (talk) 16:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ As I've said before, Regnery Publishing books have tons of sources and are usually written by people with substantial knowledge of their specific subject, but that doesn't make most of them realiable. HAES is still a fringe idea, I don't think the scientific consensus shifted as you suggested. GeeJayK (talk) 15:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, since RW focus on current relevance more than Wikipedia I believe that a section about Covid-19 should be added. GeeJayK (talk) 14:19, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

What’s definitely warranted is mention of the Association for Size Diversity and Health, which is missing from both versions despite having the term trademarked. Although I’m not too familiar with them, from what I did see they were utterly insane. Christopher (talk) 14:24, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

That's a huge false equivalence. Are you suggesting that all of the scientific research cited in this article is unreliable? Because criticizing bad science should definitely fall within RW's purview (for example, ROGD), but there needs to be more evidence establishing that those studies are flawed than another user's personal insistence. Splainer (talk) 16:26, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Who are you replying to? Christopher (talk) 16:30, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

GeeJayK's comment mentioning Regnery Publishing. Splainer (talk) 16:35, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the scientific research cited in this article is unreliable, what I'm saying that HAES is a fringe idea and the scientific consensus is critical of it. I mentioned Regnery Publishing because they also use reliable sources to back their original synthesis, but their ideas are still fringe. GeeJayK (talk) 16:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

One of the other topic areas I've edited is dispelling TERF myths. I know what Regnery Publishing is. You are drawing a false equivalence. Splainer (talk) 16:59, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

[EC]No one can be expected to pick apart every source in the article, but some easy ones to criticise are citation 42 (dead link), 27 (buzzfeed listicle), 5 (post on tumblr blog named “this is thin privilege”), and 77 (personal anecdote on a website I’ve never heard of). Christopher (talk) 17:00, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

You can see here my opinion about Regnery Publishing and their transphobia, Splainter. Again, posting a bunch of studies is easy, claiming that the paradigm has shifted... Not that much. GeeJayK (talk) 17:05, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

5: The Tumblr link is citing an idea that's been expressed. It doesn't claim to support anything beyond that said idea exists.

27. Not a "BuzzFeed listicle" but a collection of interviews with 13 dieticians on why they oppose a "diet-first" approach to health. I agree that citing primary research would be preferable here, but it's not unreasonable to characterize dieticians as "experts" on dieting.

42. Dead link =/= invalid source. Find a replacement or an archive link. Although I somewhat agree that citing the original papers would be preferable to citing a factsheet summarizing them. But this was most likely done for brevity or convenience (citing one source vs six or seven).

77: This is an article in a peer-reviewed journal. Taylor & Francis are the one of leading publishers of academic book and journals in the world.

And it's "Splainer," GeeJayK. Splainer (talk) 17:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

You’re right about 5, my bad.

27: It’s a buzzfeed listicle. I have no reason to believe that these people are qualified and even if they were they’re definitely cherry-picked.

42: Dead link = invalid source. I could technically replace it as I can edit mod-locked pages, but I’m not meant to. It needed mentioning, there may be others.

You’re right, my description of citation 77 makes no sense. I meant 75, no idea how I got them mixed up. Christopher (talk) 18:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

76: health.com link about specific piece of research, should be a direct link. Christopher (talk) 18:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

54: Similar problem, this time it’s Vox. Christopher (talk) 18:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

69: anecdote from the cosmopolitan. Christopher (talk) 18:20, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

33: another dead link. Christopher (talk) 18:21, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ You're cherry-picking the low-hanging fruit here, but:

75: Citing a quotation and nothing more. I agree the blockquote-happy sections are less-than-ideal and impede the overall structure of the article. But the implication that personal accounts should never be presented in any context is bizarre and frankly troubling.

54: Are you seriously contesting a statement that fad diets are dangerous and ineffective? The article references a number of studies.

69: It's a personal account of how fatphobia can lead to worse health outcomes for obese patients. Not an ideal source, but not an invalid one. The problem is two-fold. Patients are less likely to seek healthcare because they fear being shamed or bullied, and doctors are more likely to misdiagnose or dismiss symptoms by incorrectly attributing them to weight. This means that something like cancer might not be caught until it is advanced and possibly untreatable. This problem is compounded for women, particularly for women of color. Some studies concerning ovarian cancer specifically: [1], [2], [3]. Splainer (talk) 19:13, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I don't know what's going on here, but the "Obesity Paradox" is actually a textbook example (as in, it was literally in my textbooks) regarding statistics. The answer is quite simple; incredibly sick people tend to lose a lot of weight in the months before their deaths. Tuberculosis wasn't called "consumption" for nothing. Getting fatter to avoid death from being thin is like climbing higher to avoid being injured by the ground. It's sort of like being teetotal vs being a light drinker; teetotalers include people who are too sick to drink alcohol, thus a glass of wine a day "seems" like a healthy option but it's really just wishful thinking backed by poorly defined interpretations of stats in a grocery-store magazine. CorruptUser 18:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I’m pointing out problems with the article, not “cherry-picking”. I’m targeting “low hanging fruit” because they’re easy to fix, and I want the article to be fixed. A bad source for something true is still a bad source. I don’t think anecdotes of u have any place in the article, they don’t add anything. Christopher (talk) 19:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@Christopher. It's curious that your review of sources overlooked the two Vox sources that present perspectives more favorable to your preferred version of the article. Are you basing your assessment of sources on quality or content? Splainer (talk) 20:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I have nothing against Vox as a source inherently, I don’t like news articles that report on the results of scientific papers as it’s always better to just link to the paper itself. I’m trying to have a productive conversation about the issues with the article, and all you’re doing is trying to “win” by catching me out and making me look bad. The only bad “anti-HAES” source I could find at a glance was 79, makes an obviously valid point (anorexia isn’t the same as dieting) but it’s still just some blog. Christopher (talk) 20:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC)