This fat acceptance rant does more harm than good

[JThunder]

I came across the following statement on a variety of fat acceptance blogs.

[Y]ou do not have anything interesting to say to someone who is struggling with obesity. You do not have better willpower than they do. You do not “care about myself” more. You are not more “serious about a healthy lifestyle” because you took off the eight pounds you gained at Christmas. You are no more qualified to lecture the obese on how to lose weight than I am qualified to lecture my short friends on how to become tall. You just have a different environmental and genetic legacy than they do. You’re not superior. You’re just somewhat thinner.

What do you think?

I fully agree that overweight people are treated unfairly. However, I also think that statements like this simply damage the fat acceptance movement and accomplish nothing good.

First, there's the livid tone of the message. Instead of offering a reasonably dispassionate plea for fat acceptance or tolerance, it amounts to nothing more than an angry rant. There are times when expressing anger is appropriate, but in this case, it simply makes the author sound indignant. An author can sometimes get away with this when the rant is accompanied by some hard facts or well-reasoned logic. Because this particular posting lacks any solid facts or compelling logic though, I think that most readers would dismiss it as mere defensiveness and rationalization.

This leads to my second concern. The rant is filled with claims that are either grossly oversimplified or just plain wrong. Consider the following:

• "[Y]ou do not have anything interesting to say to someone who is struggling with obesity." Really? In other words, no matter what somebody says, it cannot possibly be of interest to someone who struggles with one's weight? Those don't sound like the words of someone who is genuinely concerned about his or her own well-being.
• "You do not have better willpower than they do." If the writer were to say that thinner people don't necessarily have more will power, then I would wholeheartedly agree. After all, a great many factors can affect one's obesity level. However, when somebody insist that thinner folks do NOT have more will power -- PERIOD -- then that's an oversimplification, to put it mildly.
• ". You do not 'care about myself' more. You are not more 'serious about a healthy lifestyle' because you took off the eight pounds you gained at Christmas." Same as above. A more dispassionate writer might claim that thinner people do not necessarily care about themselves more or take their health more seriously. To insist that they do NOT care more about themselves or their health, however, is an over the top claim that's completely devoid of any nuance.
• Finally, "You just have a different environmental and genetic legacy than they do. You’re not superior. You’re just somewhat thinner." One could chalk all the previous statements up to wild exaggerations or overly impassioned rhetoric. This last claim, however, is just plain wrong. It's true that thinner people are not inherently superior, insofar as one's waistline is not the measure of human worth. However, when somebody insists that others are only thinner due to their environment or genetics, then that's just plain wrong. It's difficult to take someone seriously when he or she flatly denies that physical activity and dietary habits do play a role in one's girth?

I know that obesity is a touchy subject, and it has certainly sparked some heated discussions here on the SDMB. However, I daresay that when people post rants like these, they don't accomplish any good. Instead of calling attention to their plight, they simply damage their credibility. They come across as petulant children who refuse to accept personal responsibility, claiming instead to be helpless victims who have no control over their conditions. That can only hurt them rather than help.

[Ferret Herder]

I was going to just complain about this until I saw the context the original quote was from:

If when eating a normal 2,000-2,500 calorie diet, you do not spend significant amounts of your day fixating on food--fantasizing about it, binging, hiding it, strategizing how to procure it--you do not have anything interesting to say to someone who is struggling with obesity. You do not have better willpower than they do. You do not "care about myself" more. You are not more "serious about a healthy lifestyle" because you took off the eight pounds you gained at Christmas. You are no more qualified to lecture the obese on how to lose weight than I am qualified to lecture my short friends on how to become tall. You just have a different environmental and genetic legacy than they do. You're not superior. You're just somewhat thinner.

This quote was after a section discussing seemingly rather harsh studies and conditions under which people were losing weight, including people on starvation diets.

I find it interesting that the first part of the quote was removed. Did whoever first edited it find that the actions listed made them look less sympathetic, especially considering that the writer noted this would be under a normal caloric intake?

The writer of the piece also notes that she's never had higher than a normal BMI.

(Me, I have a normal range BMI, and about 10 pounds to lose. I have never been more than just a point or so above the normal range of the BMI level. I attribute a whole lot of that to willpower.)

[BetsQ]

2000-2500 is a normal range? I would have guessed more like 1750.

But no, I don't think that rant does anyone any good. Not that I have any plans to talk to anyone about their weight anyway.

[JThunder]

Wow. That's interesting. I agree that the original quote is more reasonable. The quote is still filled with gross oversimplifications and unnecessary anger, but it's at least somewhat more reasonable.

However, it still bothers me that people are deliberately trimming off the first part of that quote, as though THAT were the part that they agreed with and considered to be important. If I were to read such an edited claim, I wouldn't be quick to agree, and I certainly wouldn't go around reproducing it.

Like you, I have to ask why the original editor would deliberately lop off the first part, thus removing the quote from its (slightly) more reasonable context. I'm not a mind reader, but it sounds like somebody eagerly seized on the latter half ("Aha! Thinner people DON'T have more will power than I do!") and chose to focus solely on that part.

[Todderbob]

Originally Posted by BetsQ

2000-2500 is a normal range? I would have guessed more like 1750.

But no, I don't think that rant does anyone any good. Not that I have any plans to talk to anyone about their weight anyway.

It depends on who you are.

I can eat 3000ish calories a day, and not gain a pound, throughout most of the year. But in the winter, if I eat the same amount, I'll gain a few pounds because I don't move about as much, and I never work out, I'm just a six foot tall 20 year old male.

On the other hand, I've known very small women who could eat twice what I do, and gain no weight, or very small women who could eat just over half what I do and balloon up like Gloria did after All in the Family.

[elfkin477]

Originally Posted by BetsQ

2000-2500 is a normal range?

It might be a common range, but 2500 is quite a bit above normal: the usual recommendations are that men eat 2000 calories a day, and women (like the ranter) a bit less at 1700-1800.

I don't know why the first part of the quote is cut off, though I suspect it's to make the woman sound more sympathetic, not less. The part about will-power is undermined by first couple lines when she complains about only eating 200-700 more calories than is supposed to be healthy.

[Discipline]

Originally Posted by Some fat person

You are not more “serious about a healthy lifestyle” because you took off the eight pounds you gained at Christmas.

This is correct. I am more serious about a healthy lifestyle because I didn't gain eight pounds in the first place.

Adding back the introduction to the quote makes the first portion seem a bit more reasonable and less militant. But then it all falls apart as the angry fatso goes on and on to show us she is as addicted to ranting about skinny people as she is to eating.

[Lynn Bodoni]

Originally Posted by elfkin477

It might be a common range, but 2500 is quite a bit above normal: the usual recommendations are that men eat 2000 calories a day, and women (like the ranter) a bit less at 1700-1800.

I don't know why the first part of the quote is cut off, though I suspect it's to make the woman sound more sympathetic, not less. The part about will-power is undermined by first couple lines when she complains about only eating 200-700 more calories than is supposed to be healthy.

I'm pretty sure that men are put on 2000 calories as a REDUCING diet...that is, only if they want to lose weight. It's been a while since I looked at the recommendations for men's diets, though. I remember looking at the calorie recommendations for men on a reducing diet, and feeling insanely jealous that even on a diet, they got to have 2000 calories.

"[Y]ou do not have anything interesting to say to someone who is struggling with obesity." Really? In other words, no matter what somebody says, it cannot possibly be of interest to someone who struggles with one's weight? Those don't sound like the words of someone who is genuinely concerned about his or her own well-being.

She probably means that she's heard it all before. No matter what gems of wisdom you think that you have to impart to her, she's heard it before, and it is no longer new, interesting information. It's just the same old shit that she's heard for however long she's been fat.

[Taber]

Originally Posted by elfkin477

It might be a common range, but 2500 is quite a bit above normal: the usual recommendations are that men eat 2000 calories a day, and women (like the ranter) a bit less at 1700-1800.

I don't know why the first part of the quote is cut off, though I suspect it's to make the woman sound more sympathetic, not less. The part about will-power is undermined by first couple lines when she complains about only eating 200-700 more calories than is supposed to be healthy.

Eh, 2000-2500 is what was on the back of my cereal boxes as a normal diet when I was a kid (2,500 for men, 2,000 for women). I'd forgive her for using it as a generalization.

[fluiddruid]

I think the quote resonates with a lot of people because, for whatever reason, there are a lot of smug idiots who purport to have the answer for obesity. Look at this forum -- people will walk in, say "Just eat less and exercise more!", then saunter off, the problem firmly resolved in their minds. Any attempt to make the discussion broader than this is inevitably met with disbelief or downright hostility.

It's frustrating to deal with judgemental, ignorant people who believe they know all about an issue that they really know very little about. It's along the lines of people with depression being told to just cheer up, or parents being told that their kid needs a spanking and not Ritalin. I'm sure that in some cases, either of those statements might be true, but chances are it's not some wag on the Internet that knows the best thing for you.

If people could grow up and accept a happy middle ground between "it's not my fault I'm fat, it's completely out of my hands, diets don't work" and "put down the fork and go to the gym, stupid" then we wouldn't see comments like this.

[Tristan]

Originally Posted by fluiddruid

It's frustrating to deal with judgemental, ignorant people who believe they know all about an issue that they really know very little about. It's along the lines of people with depression being told to just cheer up, or parents being told that their kid needs a spanking and not Ritalin. I'm sure that in some cases, either of those statements might be true, but chances are it's not some wag on the Internet that knows the best thing for you.

If people could grow up and accept a happy middle ground between "it's not my fault I'm fat, it's completely out of my hands, diets don't work" and "put down the fork and go to the gym, stupid" then we wouldn't see comments like this.

I just recently "discovered" the world that is Fat Acceptance. I am in awe. A friend of mine is trying to do a pro-fat blog thing, and I'm stunned by what I come across.

The problem is that ANY criticism of bigger folks, from "You know, if you didn't eat as much as you do, or if you exercised more...." to "Jesus Christ put down the Ho Ho's you cow!" will elicit the exact same "This is how I am, nothing is wrong with me, it's society that needs to adapt to me and you're a sizist jerk" response from the FA crowd. As near as I've been able to tell.

The truth, no matter how badly folks would like to not accept is, is that the vast majority of overweight American's are that way because of poor diet and lack of physical activity. I know... I'm one of them.

But that's not what FA tries to tell you. FA tries to tell you that dieting is hating yourself, and that it's up to society to accept us the way we are, no matter what (which is true) and that it's wrong to try to lose weight. That your size is in no way your fault. AS can be seen in the quote in the OP: "You just have a different genetic legacy and environment than they do".

And that's dangerous. From what I've seen, most of the FA blogoverse is more like PETA than AA.

[ENugent]

Originally Posted by fluiddruid

I think the quote resonates with a lot of people because, for whatever reason, there are a lot of smug idiots who purport to have the answer for obesity. Look at this forum -- people will walk in, say "Just eat less and exercise more!", then saunter off, the problem firmly resolved in their minds. Any attempt to make the discussion broader than this is inevitably met with disbelief or downright hostility.

It's frustrating to deal with judgemental, ignorant people who believe they know all about an issue that they really know very little about. It's along the lines of people with depression being told to just cheer up, or parents being told that their kid needs a spanking and not Ritalin. I'm sure that in some cases, either of those statements might be true, but chances are it's not some wag on the Internet that knows the best thing for you.

Quoted for truth. As a rule of thumb, you can assume that anyone who actually cares about being fat knows about the existence of diet plans and gyms.

I do think that the unredacted quote is far more compelling. The author is not "complain[ing] about only eating 200-700 more calories than is supposed to be healthy." She is, as I understand it, pointing out that most everyone has a caloric level below which they shift mentally into starvation mode: "spend[ing] significant amounts of your day fixating on food--fantasizing about it, binging, hiding it, strategizing how to procure it." If that caloric level is high for you, you are likely to be obese. We know very little about how that caloric level is determined for each person, but some contributing factors seem to be genetics and dieting history (the more your weight has cycled up and down in the past, the higher your caloric setpoint).

[Ann Onimous]

Speaking purely as a fat chick (soon to be un-fat chick):

This is no good. People are afraid to tell overweight people that they're fat. I can appreciate their thoughts, but if someone (my doctor, a friend, anyone) had sat down with me and said, "I'm worried about you and your health: how can I help you?" it would have been well-received. Tact and preserving dignity is really important: if a slender person would just come out and say, "Dang, girl: you're fat!" they may get any reaction between tears to being slugged.

I have lost weight by having the love and support of many people. Everyone at work knows how much I weigh. Heck, soon everyone in my town will know how much I weigh because of the Arrow Meltdown. But that's okay. Why? Because telling other people and sharing my goals helps me keep motivated and stay accountable. I have gone from needing support and inspiration to being the support and inspiration for someone else. It's a great feeling.

Fat acceptance, in the end, is detrimental to the general health and welfare of the person, the country and the national health care system. Being accepted for who you are is one thing: but when the behaviour can kill you, it's a whole different ball game.

[Cat Fight]

Is the Fat Acceptance movement concerned with anyone deemed fat or only the clinically obese? I've read some really intelligent stuff from bloggers who seem to be Fat Acceptance activists, but now that I think about it I'm not sure who they were targeting.

I'm somewhat thin and don't doubt that I eat more and exercise less than many women larger than me. I love food but can't help but wonder what my diet would be like if I'd grown up in a household or in a different area. I have worked with Inuit women who were easily twice my size, as were their mothers and grandmothers. They subsisted on country food: seal, whale, sometimes caribou. Put them in a magazine or bring them to a party and they will be 'the fat girls,' but they are healthy. Get them to the city and give them fast food and it's a another story, but I refuse to believe that their shape and health isn't a factor of their genes.

[Vinyl Turnip]

Originally Posted by Juliana

People are afraid to tell overweight people that they're fat. I can appreciate their thoughts, but if someone (my doctor, a friend, anyone) had sat down with me and said, "I'm worried about you and your health: how can I help you?" it would have been well-received. Tact and preserving dignity is really important: if a slender person would just come out and say, "Dang, girl: you're fat!" they may get any reaction between tears to being slugged.

My boss, an East Asian woman with no brain/mouth filter, immediately blurted "what happened, did you gain weight?" when I poked my head into her office today.

And bless her for it. I will now unquestionably be hitting the gym for some cardio this evening.

[elfkin477]

Originally Posted by Lynn Bodoni

I'm pretty sure that men are put on 2000 calories as a REDUCING diet...that is, only if they want to lose weight. It's been a while since I looked at the recommendations for men's diets, though. I remember looking at the calorie recommendations for men on a reducing diet, and feeling insanely jealous that even on a diet, they got to have 2000 calories.

Nope. Look at any food item, and it'll tell you that the daily value percentages are based on a 2000 calorie/day intake, because that's the standard for 1/2 of the adult population.

[Lynn Bodoni]

People are afraid to tell overweight people that they're fat.

I've never known ANY fat person who didn't know that they're fat. They might not talk about it, but every fat (as opposed to plump) person knows s/he's fat.

Nope. Look at any food item, and it'll tell you that the daily value percentages are based on a 2000 calorie/day intake, because that's the standard for 1/2 of the adult population.

I just took the first 10 food items with labels in my pantry and looked at them. 8 had both 2000 and 2500 calorie percentages listed, and the other two only had 2000 calorie percentages listed. The two with the 2000 calorie percentages had very small food labels, so my WAG is that the 2500 calorie percentages were left off because of space.

[Ann Onimous]

Originally Posted by Lynn Bodoni

I've never known ANY fat person who didn't know that they're fat. They might not talk about it, but every fat (as opposed to plump) person knows s/he's fat.

I will agree with this. But I feel if talking to a friend were done from a position of love and support, instead of a negative tone, it could go a lot further.

[Rigamarole]

Originally Posted by elfkin477

Nope. Look at any food item, and it'll tell you that the daily value percentages are based on a 2000 calorie/day intake, because that's the standard for 1/2 of the adult population.

No way. For any moderately active non-scrawny adult male, 2500 calories is a minimum. What they base the nutrition labels on is completely irrelevant to reality.

And don't make me bring up Michael Phelps.

[tumbleddown]

Originally Posted by Juliana

I will agree with this. But I feel if talking to a friend were done from a position of love and support, instead of a negative tone, it could go a lot further.

There's a name for this in the blogosphere: concern trolling. I don't know how many times someone in my life has "from a position of love and support" tried to "talk to me" about my weight. It all comes down to the same conclusion: you're a fatass, you should diet. As if I never have. As if I haven't ruined my metabolism with endless variations on diet after diet after diet from the time I was eight years old. And the underlying message there is "you haven't tried hard enough, fatty."

The implication that I don't care enough, haven't put in enough effort to conform to everyone else's expectations of me, that I'm wrong in a variety of ways because I don't hold those same expectations for myself or can't live up to them is writ large all over that "position of love and support."

All the love and support in the world isn't going to make Weight Watchers work the 6th time when it didn't work the first five times or get me through a tenth year (roughly) of being constantly cranky, hungry, sore and miserable from going low carb. All the love and support in the world can't insulate me from the numerous complications that could follow if I chose to have some temporary surgical fix.

If people really love and support me, they'll support the things I'm doing to maintain and improve my health despite the fact that intentional efforts at weight loss are no longer a part of the program.

[GameHat]

I had a moment of clarity about a year ago

I was reading The End of Overeating: Taking Contol of the Insatiable American Appetite

Anyways, said author put some candy on his desk. Then he interviewed some colleagues.

A few of them said, "fuck it. I can't resist it. That candy is offered to me, I'm gonna eat it. I'll feel terrible about it later, but I just want it."

A few said, "I don't really get the appeal. I like candy, but I'm full. I don't need it. no problem in saying no."

What struck me was this. I (fat) and a friend (also fat) are die-hard gourmands. But on the other hand, another friend (thin) and another co-worker (also thin) have little interest in food, good or bad.

I think there's a real difference in people that really want food and those that don't. I fall in the want category. I love food, I appreciate it; yet I'll pursue it to harm.

My other friends don't care about it; they will eat shit cardboard and call it fine; but it keeps them thin.

[Sonnenstrahl]

I read that book, too, Gamehat. I nearly cried while reading the introduction because he described my thought process about food exactly. What's weird is that I'm pretty thin. But if I had my way, I could easily be obese. Due to a combination of factors, I gained 25 pounds in a few months two years ago. (On a 5'1 woman, that's a lot. I was buying new jeans every month.) I totally understand that drive to consume food for emotional reasons, even when it's making me feel sick.

It was a bit depressing to to realize that I'll truly always need to watch what I eat, but it was helpful to understand that I respond to food differently from, say, a friend who can easily buy a box of cookies and eat one every few days. Or my roommate who can forget to eat for an entire day. I also found it helpful how the book discusses how food is manufactured to make us addicted to a certain combination of fats, salts and sugars - I'm now encouraged to cook almost everything from scratch, if for no other reason than to stick it to the man who wants me to eat sweetened meat and salty sweets.

(I realize that saying that I was 25 pounds overweight is obnoxious to people who struggle with serious obesity. But I'm saying it to point out that there aren't clear divisions between people who love food and are therefore fat, and people who hate food and are therefore anorexic, and all the normal people in the middle.)

[HazelNutCoffee]

Originally Posted by GameHat

What struck me was this. I (fat) and a friend (also fat) are die-hard gourmands. But on the other hand, another friend (thin) and another co-worker (also thin) have little interest in food, good or bad.

I think there's a real difference in people that really want food and those that don't. I fall in the want category. I love food, I appreciate it; yet I'll pursue it to harm.

My other friends don't care about it; they will eat shit cardboard and call it fine; but it keeps them thin.

While some thin people may be that way because they don't care about food, it's not the same for everyone. I know plenty of thin people that love eating as much as anyone. I don't think love of food necessarily causes obesity.

[Lynn Bodoni]

There's a name for this in the blogosphere: concern trolling. I don't know how many times someone in my life has "from a position of love and support" tried to "talk to me" about my weight. It all comes down to the same conclusion: you're a fatass, you should diet. As if I never have. As if I haven't ruined my metabolism with endless variations on diet after diet after diet from the time I was eight years old. And the underlying message there is "you haven't tried hard enough, fatty."

QFT. A fat person knows s/he's fat, unless s/he has some really serious mental health issues. I mean, I know that at least some anorexics look at themselves and see a fat person. I guess that there are some fat people who look at themselves and see a person of normal weight. But I haven't met any fat person who does this. I've also never met any fat person who hasn't had many, many people saying "You need to lose weight" with various degrees of tactfulness. Yes, most fat people should lose weight. Most rude people need to be smacked upside the head when they're rude, too.

If a fat person asks for support in losing weight, by all means, give that love and support. Otherwise, your "love and support" message, no matter how kindly and gently you think you're offering it, is perceived as an attack. Do you WANT to attack that person? Do you WANT to make him/her feel bad? Do you want that person to point out a few of YOUR flaws? Either accept your friend as s/he is, or avoid that person. Don't try to change someone else, if that someone is an adult who doesn't need to have someone else dress him/her*. That's not love, it's a way of making you feel better about yourself by pointing out a flaw in someone that YOU don't have. You probably have some faults of your own that you could work on.

No way. For any moderately active non-scrawny adult male, 2500 calories is a minimum. What they base the nutrition labels on is completely irrelevant to reality.

As I said, 2500 calories is considered a reducing diet for males. It's the MINIMUM amount that most adult males should consume. There are a few very sedentary adult males who could get by on less, but most men need more that 2500 calories a day in order to maintain their weight and stay healthy.

*DAMNIT, the English language needs neuter pronouns!

[Eats_Crayons]

May I mention a minor peeve of mine?

You just have a different environmental and genetic legacy than they do.

I find the above logic to be, well not just be wrong, but also a slap in the face to thin people who have put a lot off work into changing their lives and entire lifestyles in order to lose weight an adopt a fit frame. It is really hurtful to a friend of mine who comes from a long line of heavy ancestry to be told "Yeah, well, you're just lucky you have 'thin genes'." It completely denigrates - just pooh-poohs - all the hard work and discipline she put into shedding 80 lbs (at the last time I saw her, she'd lost 80 and was still hefty, but well on her way to being within her goal). She had to radically change her relationship with food, and she worked out three hours a day, six days a week, in intense martial arts classes. That is where I met her. She also had to re-learn everything she thought she knew about nutrition.

Don't just say: "You have a different environmental and genetic legacy, that's why you are thin." because, for a lot of people, it's a bold-faced lie. I have a rotund heritage too (edit: we are a family that looks like Winnie the Pooh, except two cousins and me who live active lifestyles). I work to maintain my health.

Edit: I agree, English needs neuter pronouns.

[Mr. Miskatonic]

A 5' 8", 160 lb. 30 year old male will burn over 1,700 calories via the basal rate alone. That is how much they would burn if they slept in bed all day. Even a sedentary desk work will burn a few hundred calories over the day. So 2000 calories is not for adult males.

[JThunder]

Originally Posted by Lynn Bodoni

I guess that there are some fat people who look at themselves and see a person of normal weight. But I haven't met any fat person who does this.

For many years, I was one of those people. Until recently, it didn't even occur to me that there was a reason why I could no longer see the veins in my forearms. The fat crept up on me and I didn't realize how badly it had done so.

I tell you, I wish that somebody had pointed out that I had been gaining fat during that time!

[Ferret Herder]

Originally Posted by Eats_Crayons

Don't just say: "You have a different environmental and genetic legacy, that's why you are thin." because, for a lot of people, it's a bold-faced lie. I have a rotund heritage too (edit: we are a family that looks like Winnie the Pooh, except two cousins and me who live active lifestyles). I work to maintain my health.

Yeah, my sister got our dad's frame and shape. She's rail-thin, narrow hips, not much of a rear. I got our mom's - wide hips, wide shoulders, bigger butt, tendency toward a pear shape. Mom has struggled with her weight all her life; dad was always slim and extremely physically active, too. Since I have a wider hip structure, weight only makes me look bigger when it does settle on. Meanwhile, my sister could stand behind me - even when I'm at my target weight - and hide completely in my silhouette.

I'm barely in the normal BMI range. When people bring in goodies to work and I try to demur - especially when I was about 10-15 lbs lighter, which is my target weight - I get comments like, "You don't need to watch your weight!" This is almost always from heavier women. I know they don't understand that I'm not overweight because I try to eat a healthy diet. At least, I hope that's the case - occasionally when I'm feeling uncharitable I might suspect it's "misery loves company" but that's a rare feeling.

[Dangerosa]

My basic metabolic rate is 1665 - http://walking.about.com/cs/calories/l/blcalcalc.htm - Sedentary 135 lb 5'6" female. Well under 2000 calories.

But anyway, I have a close friend who was morbidly obese. Who went through weight loss surgery last winter and is down to half her size with more to go (and she is looking and, more importantly FEELING, great). Its been a battle, gastric bypass doesn't solve the problem, it just helps. She thanked me last winter after surgery.

I've been accepting as I can be. I haven't encouraged her to do anything she didn't want to do, haven't made personal comments, and have tried to be as aware as I can of hurtful comments in my general conversation that might imply obese people are "lesser" or "lazy" or "undisciplined." Years ago she started considering surgery and she talked to her friends. And her friends told her she should accept herself (as they did) for what she was.

Apparently I was one of the few who said "I like you how you are, but if how you are is hurting your knees and ankles and causing you distress, I think you should consider it. And whatever you decide you have my support and I'll still like you."

The problem with "fat acceptance" is it doesn't empower change.

[Maeglin]

Originally Posted by Dangerosa

My basic metabolic rate is 1665 - http://walking.about.com/cs/calories/l/blcalcalc.htm - Sedentary 135 lb 5'6" female. Well under 2000 calories.

Your basal metabolic rate is the minimum number of calories required to sustain your basic physical functions at rest while your digestive system is inactive. If you ever plan on getting out of bed, you are going to need a few hundred extra calories per day.

[Dangerosa]

Originally Posted by Maeglin

Your basal metabolic rate is the minimum number of calories required to sustain your basic physical functions at rest while your digestive system is inactive. If you ever plan on getting out of bed, you are going to need a few hundred extra calories per day.

Well, that's the calculation for sedentary. And I tend to be pretty sedentary. But its an approximate calculation. Point being, a sedentary woman of my weight and height would gain weight on 2000 calories a day.

(And I do. I actually take in about 1500 a day when I maintain....if I want to eat more, I need to jog - which I do - irregularly. If I want to loose weight, I need to get down to about 1200 calories, exercise and loose the weight slowly)

[friedo]

Originally Posted by Dangerosa

Well, that's the calculation for sedentary. And I tend to be pretty sedentary. But its an approximate calculation. Point being, a sedentary woman of my weight and height would gain weight on 2000 calories a day.

Sedentary is not the same as completely at rest. You're burning extra calories just by sitting up in your chair.

That said, the oft-quoted 2500 cal diet for adult men is often far too high. It's fine if you're reasonably active, but most men these days are not, and should not be eating 2500 calories per day.

The assertion that 2500 is a reducing diet for males is patently absurd. For a six-foot outdoorsey laborer, sure. For a five-and-a-half foot cube farmer, most definitely not.

[Lightray]

Originally Posted by Ferret Herder

I'm barely in the normal BMI range. When people bring in goodies to work and I try to demur - especially when I was about 10-15 lbs lighter, which is my target weight - I get comments like, "You don't need to watch your weight!" This is almost always from heavier women. I know they don't understand that I'm not overweight because I try to eat a healthy diet. At least, I hope that's the case - occasionally when I'm feeling uncharitable I might suspect it's "misery loves company" but that's a rare feeling.

I get the same thing, and I'm a guy, so it's not just women who do this. About 12 years ago, I got motivated to lose the 60-lbs. to take me out of the "obese" category into an average BMI. I didn't look obese (other than my fat face), but was definitely overweight and suffering health effects from it.

At the time, all I got for comments was "Oh! You don't need to lose weight!" And now that I've kept the weight off for a decade, I get comments like "What? You don't want cake/cookies/chips/pizza/french fries/etc./etc.? What are you, a girl?"

Then these same guys turn around and tell me how lucky it is that I don't have to worry about my weight.

Baffling, utterly baffling. There is some sort of mix-up going on with self-body-image and perceptions of others' bodies that doesn't seem consistent.

[Eats_Crayons]

Originally Posted by Ferret Herder

Yeah, my sister got our dad's frame and shape. She's rail-thin, narrow hips, not much of a rear. I got our mom's - wide hips, wide shoulders, bigger butt, tendency toward a pear shape. Mom has struggled with her weight all her life; dad was always slim and extremely physically active, too. Since I have a wider hip structure, weight only makes me look bigger when it does settle on. Meanwhile, my sister could stand behind me - even when I'm at my target weight - and hide completely in my silhouette.

I'm barely in the normal BMI range. When people bring in goodies to work and I try to demur - especially when I was about 10-15 lbs lighter, which is my target weight - I get comments like, "You don't need to watch your weight!" This is almost always from heavier women. I know they don't understand that I'm not overweight because I try to eat a healthy diet. At least, I hope that's the case - occasionally when I'm feeling uncharitable I might suspect it's "misery loves company" but that's a rare feeling.

The Winnie the Pooh side of my family actually has itty-bitty frames. I have the frame of a 14 year old boy - unusually narrow hips for a woman, and long slender fingers, like Arsenio Hall. The problem is that for some reason, starting at about 30, everyone gains weight. The unhealthy kind where it's all around the middle. We look like Ernie: round pumpkin heads and round bellies, but no butt. (I' not kidding either. My uncle bears and uncanny resemblance to Ernie!)

With an active lifestyle and by eating in accordance with fueling our bodies to be active, my two cousins and I still have our small frames. Although I'm the only one well into my 30s. I also have noticed a very remarkable change in my metabolism, but in all honestly, I believe the later generations in our family have difficulty evaluating proper portion sizes. My relatives find it disconcerting how little I eat, and like you I hear the "Oh, pshaw! Why don't you eat something? You don't need to watch your weight!" but in all honesty, I just can't fit the food into me that they are offering. The foods they are eating are actually pretty good: most meals are cooked at home, most ingredients are fresh and there is not a lot processed, high-sodium foods, but they tend to cover their entire plates so all you see is the rim. I eat about half what they do and I'm sated.

My mother once expressed concern. "I'm afraid you don't eat enough." My answer was, "Well, yesterday I hiked to the top of a mountain carrying a 30 lbs pack on my back. Would I be able to do that if I didn't eat enough to thrive?" They genuinely don't know how much food they need compared to what goes on their plate. I think that if I secretly replaced their plates with a set that was 1.5" smaller in diameter, they would start losing weight. They see the size of the vessel as the prescribed portion size.

[Dangerosa]

Originally Posted by friedo

Sedentary is not the same as completely at rest. You're burning extra calories just by sitting up in your chair.

That said, the oft-quoted 2500 cal diet for adult men is often far too high. It's fine if you're reasonably active, but most men these days are not, and should not be eating 2500 calories per day.

The assertion that 2500 is a reducing diet for males is patently absurd. For a six-foot outdoorsey laborer, sure. For a five-and-a-half foot cube farmer, most definitely not.

Sure. I understand that and misused the word basal. But the number of calories I use sitting in a chair or walking to the bathroom are not huge. The number of calories between sedentary and very active is about 1000. And I would assume that a very active category would not cover Michael Phelps, but would cover someone who does eight hours of fairly physical labor a day.

When I jog, I only burn about 200 extra calories during my jog. Not really enough to go to 2000 a day. Not really even enough to justify a Snickers bar.

[Ferret Herder]

Originally Posted by Eats_Crayons

They genuinely don't know how much food they need compared to what goes on their plate. I think that if I secretly replaced their plates with a set that was 1.5" smaller in diameter, they would start losing weight. They see the size of the vessel as the prescribed portion size.

On that note, I really have to recommend the book Mindless Eating by Brian Wansink. He's a professor at Cornell who has done a lot of research into eating and food psychology. That's one of the things that has come up repeatedly, and remains true even if you know about it - in general, people's appetites expand to fit the plate and the amount of food given. They've done experiments with different sizes of plates (you eat more off a bigger plate) and with fixed soup bowls with hidden gradual-refill tubes (you eat more if you're given more). Best yet, he suggests ways to make small changes at home to help fix problems with eating.

[JThunder]

Originally Posted by Lightray

At the time, all I got for comments was "Oh! You don't need to lose weight!" And now that I've kept the weight off for a decade, I get comments like "What? You don't want cake/cookies/chips/pizza/french fries/etc./etc.? What are you, a girl?"

Then these same guys turn around and tell me how lucky it is that I don't have to worry about my weight.

Baffling, utterly baffling. There is some sort of mix-up going on with self-body-image and perceptions of others' bodies that doesn't seem consistent.

Tell me about it. I swear, I'm constantly astonished at how so many people have difficulty making the connection between dietary habits and one's waistline. They surely understand it on an intellectual level, but they don't seem to grasp the connection within their hearts.

There have been numerous occasions wherein I've been out to dinner with people who complained about their waistlines and bemoaned how much they needed to lose weight. Almost invariably, these same people were feasting on something that was fried, slathered in butter, or otherwise fattening. On occasion, they'd even top that off with a fattening dessert. The human mind is good at providing cognitive dissonance -- in this case, making people willfully oblivious to the connection between food and fatness.

[Eats_Crayons]

Oh, and if we're adding data points. In my mid-20s, I was hoping to try out for the Canadian Olympic Tae Kwon Do team. I'm 5'4" and at the time was an very lean but muscular 128 lbs. I was built like Linda Hamilton in Terminator 2. My caloric intake ranged from 1800-2000 depending on the training day which usually had 4 hours of aerobic activity in total. Consuming 2000 would have been an unusual day for me. I can give you stupidly accurate details from back then because everything was so regimented.

[Freudian Slit]

The thing I dislike about the fat acceptance in the blogosphere is that it seems so one sided. I've read Shapely Prose (Kate Harding's fat acceptance blog) and in one thread/post about fat characters in YA lit (an issue I think is fairly interesting), the conversation just got really annoying. A poster talked about how even though the representations of fat characters in lit is important, maybe we should also encourage fat kids to be healthy and basically got jumped on because this is the wrong place to ever suggest that fat people lose weight and then there was a little note at the end of her post saying that this poster is taking some time off to review our comments policy. It was kind of icky.

And then throughout the comments there was a lot of talk of privilege and oppression which got kind of eye rolly for me. Stuff like, "Is talking about reading at an early age an example of privilege" or "thin privilege." It just felt like a contest--who's more oppressed?

It seems like they want to shut their ears to anyone who disagrees with them. I get that they want to love and accept themselves, but I don't see why you can't do that and also work on making your body healthier.

[astro]

Fat people are normally extremely well aware of why they are fat. You don't have to bring in Sherlock Holmes to crack the case.

The primary difficulty is that there is brain wiring dichotomy between people who (like myself) will keep on eating even after hunger is satiated for the sheer pleasure of eating vs people who can push away and stop at the first sign of physical satiation. This is the difference between wanting food and needing food.

Perfectly rational fat people who might be able to think rings around you do not have a rational relationship with food. The fat person's relationship to food is not a product of rational consideration, but of pure emotional desire.

To be wired as a fat person, and be and able to lose weight in an environment of plenty requires meticulous monitoring and awareness of your intake level. It's mentally exhausting at a certain point, and sooner or later most people fall off the diet wagon.

[Cat Whisperer]

I don't think anyone can give a general figure of caloric intake for anyone else - if you eat 2000 calories a day and gain weight, 2000 is too much for you - adjust downward (or increase your activity level).

I also don't think that fat acceptance means you don't know you're fat, and you don't want to lose weight; it means, "This is who I am *now* - please quit hassling me about something that is very difficult for me to change. It might change some day, and I'd be thrilled, but until then, I still have to live my life."

[JThunder]

For the more reasonable fat acceptance advocates, that is what fat acceptance is about.

Unfortunately, if you look at the blogosphere, you'll also find a good number of FA advocates who insist that there's nothing wrong with being fat, who deny that excess fat carries any increased medical risks, and who flatly assert that there's nothing they can do to change their weight. Heck, the quote in the OP even goes so far as to say that thinner people are only more svelte because of their environment and genetics. Now that's some industrial strength denial at work.

[Cat Whisperer]

Originally Posted by JThunder

<snip>
Unfortunately, if you look at the blogosphere, you'll also find a good number of FA advocates who insist that there's nothing wrong with being fat, who deny that excess fat carries any increased medical risks, and who flatly assert that there's nothing they can do to change their weight. Heck, the quote in the OP even goes so far as to say that thinner people are only more svelte because of their environment and genetics. Now that's some industrial strength denial at work.

Yeah, that's not a good idea. I'm not grossly obese, but I'm still having weight-related health issues (ulcer, GERD, high blood pressure, the usual).

[Freudian Slit]

Originally Posted by JThunder

For the more reasonable fat acceptance advocates, that is what fat acceptance is about.

Unfortunately, if you look at the blogosphere, you'll also find a good number of FA advocates who insist that there's nothing wrong with being fat, who deny that excess fat carries any increased medical risks, and who flatly assert that there's nothing they can do to change their weight. Heck, the quote in the OP even goes so far as to say that thinner people are only more svelte because of their environment and genetics. Now that's some industrial strength denial at work.

I think for a lot of them it's like the first space they've had for acceptance and that's why they get so defensive. It's kind of irritating, though, because it's as though hearing anything contrary to their mantra will make them shrivel up and die--that's how vehemently they defend their views.

[astro]

Originally Posted by Cat Whisperer

I don't think anyone can give a general figure of caloric intake for anyone else - if you eat 2000 calories a day and gain weight, 2000 is too much for you - adjust downward (or increase your activity level).

I also don't think that fat acceptance means you don't know you're fat, and you don't want to lose weight; it means, "This is who I am *now* - please quit hassling me about something that is very difficult for me to change. It might change some day, and I'd be thrilled, but until then, I still have to live my life."

Actually you can within limits. while metabolisms can vary across age, sex, body type and activity level they (contrary to popular belief) are not all that wildly different unless a person is an extreme exerciser or has some metabolic disease or dysfunction. It typically lines up like this for adults past the age of 30.

Sedentary to low level activity (ie workaday running around but no sustained exercise or strenuous activity over more than few minutes at a time) - Intake = 10-12 calories per lb of maintained body weight per day. Even if you walk around the office or workplace a lot you're still in low activity mode unless it's really sustained.

Low to moderate (walking, some periodic regular exercise in addition to low level stuff) level of activity 11-13 calories per lb of maintained body weight per day. Yard work and house work does not count for much unless it's pretty intense. regular and long term.

Moderate high to high (sustained regular exercise over more than 30 minutes to an hour + at last 3-4 times a week) levels of activity - 13-15 calories per lb of maintained body weight per day

These ranges will be accurate for almost 90% + of humans. The bottom line is that past the ages of 25 to 30 or so people not engaging in sustained hard physical work need less (often far less) calories than they think.

[Zeriel]

Originally Posted by Dangerosa

My basic metabolic rate is 1665 - http://walking.about.com/cs/calories/l/blcalcalc.htm - Sedentary 135 lb 5'6" female. Well under 2000 calories.

Thanks for that link, seriously. As a formerly fat and now "husky" guy, I have had entirely too many arguments with well-meaning folks about my caloric intake. "But guys, I weigh myself EVERY DAY. I KNOW as a cold hard fact that my burn rate is something like 3500 calories a day." "No, you're just making excuses because you like dessert, do you want to get fat again?"

That link, for 6'0", 245lbs, moderately active gives 3443 calories/day.

Yeah, I still should lose some but I've had greater luck lately moving it from belly fat to leg/arm muscle. Life's good when you can powerlift a 30" TV without breathing hard.

[Swallowed My Cellphone]

Originally Posted by Lynn Bodoni

She probably means that she's heard it all before. No matter what gems of wisdom you think that you have to impart to her, she's heard it before, and it is no longer new, interesting information. It's just the same old shit that she's heard for however long she's been fat.

This is something I find interesting though. In my experience with family members (note: most of my family is from the midwest in an area where all social activities revolve around food) although they (my cushy relatives) may claim "they've heard it all before" they seem to actually be poorly educated about the basics of diet and nutrition.

For example, I have an aunt who is very overweight. She has been struggling with her weight for probably 35 years (she is 70ish now), trying all sorts of diet combinations. I think she is the reason the diet drink Tab stayed in business as long as it did. She has tried all sorts of weight-loss options, and has definitely "heard it all before."

She can not be disabused of the notion that muscle becomes fat, and fat can be converted into muscle. As in fat can literally turn into muscle fiber, and unused muscles turn into gelatinous goo. She claims this is why she has fat thighs, because she used to ride her bike a lot in her 20's.

Her knowledge about fats and carbohydrates is all backasswards, and for years, she never had any idea of what is in the foods she eats. She has no idea of what calories mean, in practical terms, and probably knows nothing about human metabolism. Yet, if there is a diet out there, she has tried it, probably based on an overview in some fashion magazine.

Now diagnosed with diabetes, she's actually reading labels and is losing weight because she is choosing different foods. She still thinks I work out too much and will "turn fat" if I stop moving, but through classes her doctor sent her to, she has learned more real facts about nutrition over the past few years than over the past 30.

[Dangerosa]

Originally Posted by astro

Fat people are normally extremely well aware of why they are fat. You don't have to bring in Sherlock Holmes to crack the case.

The primary difficulty is that there is brain wiring dichotomy between people who (like myself) will keep on eating even after hunger is satiated for the sheer pleasure of eating vs people who can push away and stop at the first sign of physical satiation. This is the difference between wanting food and needing food.

Perfectly rational fat people who might be able to think rings around you do not have a rational relationship with food. The fat person's relationship to food is not a product of rational consideration, but of pure emotional desire.

To be wired as a fat person, and be and able to lose weight in an environment of plenty requires meticulous monitoring and awareness of your intake level. It's mentally exhausting at a certain point, and sooner or later most people fall off the diet wagon.

Except that really doesn't give credit to those thin people who also have an emotional - not rational - relationship with food (and I mean, who doesn't). Or formerly heavy people who manage to stay thin.

I believe that no one (or almost no one) has a completely rational relationship with food. So much emotion is tied to it. So its a matter of if you let that constant monitoring that everyone needs to do overwhelm you or not.

[tumbleddown]

Originally Posted by Dangerosa

The problem with "fat acceptance" is it doesn't empower change.

This presumes that change has to be a fat person's ultimate goal. It does not. There is no moral imperative that a fat person change any more than there is a moral imperative that a thin person change. If and when a person chooses to change, for whatever reasons are important to him/her, that's their business.

And that is the message of the fat acceptance movement. It's not up to (generic) you to determine that (general) I need to change, or how I need to change, or to offer me "empowerment" that I haven't asked for. Call off your assumptions and presumptions about my life and my body, and I'll have the courtesy of doing likewise for you.

[pulykamell]

Originally Posted by friedo

The assertion that 2500 is a reducing diet for males is patently absurd. For a six-foot outdoorsey laborer, sure. For a five-and-a-half foot cube farmer, most definitely not.

Or if you're already pretty heavy and/or have a lot of muscle mass. Anyhow, 2500 calories is definitely not a reducing diet for me @ 5'11" 165 lbs, reasonably active (25 miles+ running a week.) I'll just about maintain with that level of activity. During winter, when I don't run or run much more infrequently, I'll definitely gain (and I have) because I'm not as active and don't ease off my normal caloric intake (which I try to keep in the 2300-2500 level). Everybody's a little different, sure, but I don't think for average height men already in a healthy BMI range that 2500 is a reducing diet for all but the most active or muscular.