Talk:Obesity

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

Here's a handy userbok

23.4	This user's body mass index is 23.4

Here's a handy userbok which calcualates your BMI. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 11:46, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

Before anyone starts complaining - I'm going to add some scales for the maps later. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 04:09, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

<snrkf>did you know that "bok" is the Turkish word for shit?</snrkf> Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 02:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Two things

Firstly, according to WP, "Portion control is understanding how much a serving size is and how many calories a serving contains." As this sounds fairly reasonable, I don't see what's particularly woo-ish about it.

Secondly, the conclusions of that JSSR article seem a little more complex than is being presented here, such as the interplay between social status, religion and obesity in the South (p. 278). --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 05:45, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

Shouldn't we also mention the Portion Control is a conservative value? (according to Andy Schaffles) Ace McWicked^whisky 05:47, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

Of course portion control isn't woo, you are imposing liberal literalism, it's snark about Andy's claim for it as a Conservative value, in opposition I suppose to liberal helpings. Do you have Athens access AK? The abstract doesn't mention anything about conclusions or social status, although I did see some references to high and low status it in newspaper coverage. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 05:58, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

Where

do the occupant of the second UK Liberal party taxi, and assorted royals nicknamed the fat fit into this?

82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Not good enough?

Why revert my addition of "Waist-to-hip ratio"? It's based on a reputable source...

http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v28/n10/abs/0802757a.html

Don't worry it was just Human. I put it back with a few changes as Human doesn't like links to WP. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 15:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll have to remember that!

What about

Those creases at the wrists and other joints of obese individuals? Is that what is meant by "pones"? Quick poking around inner tubes reveals nowt. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 02:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Atheism and obesity

I think something should be mentioned about Conservapedia's obsession with an imaginary corrolation between atheism and obesity, completely ignoring the fact that Dawkins is practically malnourished (and I'm nine-stone and that's mostly owing to my ... height). Amusingly, this is the very reason I got blocked on Conservapedia. I claimed that the portly agnostic Stephen Fry, is neither obese nor an atheist. Next thing you know "Let Them Eat Cake banned for infinity: Trolling, Liberal Trolling, Liverpool UK, troll" --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 15:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Maps

I look at them and think, "yay Colorado!" The Senate rep map should be updated, though (I'd do it if I knew how). -- Seth Peck (talk) 23:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Goats?

Why is the table talking about goats?--Umichcynic (talk) 20:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

'Cause it's from here Scream!! (talk) 20:09, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

"Praise the lard"

Am I the only one that finds this section quite questionable? It does sound fatphobic, and correlating religion and obesity is also a lot harder than what this article argues, even if the conclusion is probably right. GeeJayK (talk) 19:36, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

You're not the only one. I motion to delete it, or at least it needs a serious rewrite and renaming. — Oxyaena ^Harass 19:41, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Don’t usually buy “fatphobia” stuff but that section is smug, elitist rubbish. The demographics of obesity are worth covering, but we won’t lose anything by removing a few poorly presented graphs from the article. Christopher (talk) 19:46, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the above; demographics are worth covering, but this section is not really covering demographics. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 19:57, 27 June 2021 (UTC)