I can go and try and find the exact percentage if you like, Im simply not sure why its in serious contention that the very large majority of people weighing 300lb will be obese if not morbidly obese.
A quick google shows even professional footballers only average 245lb, and they’re way above average in both height and muscle mass over your normal person.
Edit: Not sure what the sumo wrestler thing is about, they’re generally clearly obese. Obesity is simply a clinical measure of fat percentage/BMI, nothing more. It doesnt mean the person cant also be incredibly strong or whatever.
I disagree with your assertion. The health risks of obesity are well documented.
This is a more interesting assertion to me personally. Would it be fair to say that your assertion in this thread is that overweight people are not in fact attractive to less people than thinner people?
That’s an interesting position which I don’t necessarily disagree with (I’m not saying I agree with it either). It would be interesting to somehow investigate this, and to see whether a large amount of the anit-overweight sentiment is “all talk” and does not actually reflect those who people tend to find attractive.
Most of the health risks associated with obesity (a slightly higher risk of cardiovascular disease and cancer. A signifigantly higher risk of type II diabetes and osteoarthritis) do not strike until a person is 50 or older.
Many of the people most obsessed with their weight are women in their teens and 20s who aren’t even overweight anyway. So obviously health is not the prime motivator. I have a hard time believing 18 year old girls care if their rates of heart attack are 50% higher in 60 years. They are more concerned with their sexual attractiveness and ability to fit into societies mold for them so they can avoid exclusion and ridicule.
We’d still want to be skinny because the health risk is a red herring to justify our aesthetic preferences. We are a culture that likes to believe it is egalitarian and doesn’t make judgements about people due to appearance. Being neurotic about bodyfat doesn’t bode well with that ideology though. So to reduce the cognitive dissonance of claiming to care more about character than appearance vs. being a culture neurotically terrified of bodyfat we pretend we are bothered by fat due to health reasons rather than face up to the fact that we are a society that is deeply neurotic about the physical diversity it implies.
As a result women in their 20s who have perfectly normal levels of fat pretend they care that obesity (when they aren’t even obese) will slightly increase their risk of heart attacks when they are retired. Its all bunk. Many people who are terrified of being fat would have to gain 50+ pounds of it to even begin to have the health risks associated with it. Being overweight (BMI 25-29.9) is not as big a health risk as being obese. Its more the superobese BMI 35+ who have the big problems.
A better question is if we as a society couldn’t hide our neurotic revulsion of bodyfat behind phony health propaganda, would we still hate bodyfat as much as we do? If we were forced to confront the true causes of our behavior about bodyfat (unquestioned social conformity, judging people by appearances, neuroticism) would we still do it. I vote no. I’d say my neuroticism about bodyfat went down 80% after I started reading books on the sociology of the obesity wars. I’d assume for most other people the results would be fairly similar. Their obsession and fear of fat would go down if they couldn’t hide it behind health excuses.
“Incorrect. Medical weight classes are strictly by BMI.”
BMI is supposed to be a ‘good enough’ estimate of body fat percentage. Sorry if I wasnt more clear.
If an athlete turns up they arent supposed to be defined as obese for instance. A doctor might do that in practise but the exclusion criteria are fairly clear.
I definitely think fat would still carry stigma in this (American) society even if obesity wasn’t associated with bad health. I think when people judge a chubby person, they are much more apt to think “piggy slob who has let themselves go” than “type II diabetes risk”. We place a lot of value on youthfulness here, especially when it comes to women. Looking young goes hand in hand with being slim.
I know that for myself, when I’m having a self-perceived fat day, concerns about my health take a back-backseat to my vanity. My weight would probably have to be dangerously close to can’t-walk-a-block-down-the-street-without-wishing-for-a-scooter range before this balance would significantly change, and even still, I’d be more worried about how far my gut sticks out past my breasts than my health. This sounds bad, but I think it’s pretty consistent with what most people feel. Even overweight people.
I do agree with other posters who have said that “I’m concerned about your health” is often used as an excuse to shame someone into conformity by losing weight.
If by “skinny” you mean an accepted normal and fit weight, yes.
Being in shape is more than just avoiding weight-related health problems and diseases. It’s also about being strong and having endurance. Qualities that can make your life more enjoyable, and in extreme scenarios could potentially save your life or allow you to save the lives of others. Wouldn’t you like to be able to swim 500 yards, or run five miles without it feeling bad? In an emergency, wouldn’t you like to have the strength and endurance to carry a loved one out of harms way? There is a quality of life that comes with being in shape that fat people don’t enjoy. And, of course, not being fat dramatically increases your pool of potential mates, and more choices means you’re more likely to wind up with someone who has more of the qualities you are attracted to.
Being attracted to someone who is in optimal physical shape doesn’t make you shallow. Since when is it wrong to desire someone who’s kind, intelligent, and in great shape?
As a fat person who is open to and supports the fat acceptance movement (in moderation, some of their beliefs like there are no health risks to obesity aren’t true), here is my take on that.
Being aerobically and physically fit isn’t something a person can’t obtain because of an extra 30 pounds of fat. The difference between a BMI of 25 and 35 for a 6’ male is roughly 80 pounds. That isn’t a small number by any means, but it basically means being 50% heavier at BMI 35 (a weight only 8% of people are at or above) vs BMI 25 (which is the highest BMI you can get and still be within the medical normal range). For shorter people it is a smaller number.
Either way, an extra 20-70 pounds of fat can and will slow you down. But if a person actually exercises for strength and endurance, it doesn’t mean they have to be incapable of exercise or being physically fit. I think in the first few months of a weight lifting or aerobic routing, seeing your capacity increase by 50-100% is not unheard of. The most dramatic improvements to fitness seem to come in the early stages. So a woman who is 5’6 and has a BMI of 31 vs 24 (a 40 pound difference) shouldn’t let that stop her from doubling her physical strength and aerobic capacity with basic exercise.
Point is, you can be 30% heavier due to a heavier BMI. But basic exercise can increase your strength and aerobic capacity more than enough to compensate for that extra weight. That doesn’t mean you can keep up with the rail thin triathletes. But 40 pounds doesn’t and shouldn’t stop a person from being able to care for themselves and others.
2. I have terrible luck with women. However about 5 years ago I was about 30 pounds thinner than I am now. About a year ago I was about 20 pounds heavier than I am now. So at my lowest weight I was about 50-60 pounds lighter than at my heaviest weight. I am pretty muscular, so at my lowest weight I looked pretty decent (40" waist, 60" shoulders. The ideal male torso is about 0.75 ratio of shoulders to waist or lower. I was at 0.68 at that weight). However I was really insecure, needy and confused. So women blew me off. Several years later after seeing a therapist, working on myself, becoming more self confident, etc. I was also 50-60 pounds fatter. However at my old job I had several women try to hook me up with their friends or regret they didn’t have friends to hook me up with. So I was thinner and tried to meet mates and was blown off (because I was insecure and confused) vs. not trying or caring, being about 60 pounds heavier and having women want to set me up because I was more mature, kinder, more self confident and had better social skills.
So the point is that, yeah weight matters. But other things matter too when it comes to attractiveness. And more importantly, those ‘other things’ matter more to the right people. Compare the actors/actresses on Jersey Shore vs. a mate who will stay with you when you are in a hospital with cancer. Which one is going to care about a person’s weight more and which one will care about kindness and self confidence more.
While you can be fit and overweight, in my view its a lot harder, particualrly in the longer term.
Your proneness to injury can go up a lot and your exercise options can end up restricted as a result due to having to be more careful about injury. Particularly given you can often end up overweight as a result of being sedentary in the first place which means tendons can end up being a lot weaker than they were, and they take a lot longer to improve or heal than muscle.
Speaking as a very thin male, I can assure you that women do not generally value thin men.
This society’s ideal for men is stocky and muscular. I don’t see any men with my build on magazine covers, it’s all square-headed bodybuilder types, not long-headed gracile types like me. We’re comic relief, or evil criminals - we’re never the leading man.
No. My assertion in this thread is that overweight people are attractive to *some *people. So this nonsense about how you’ll “never get laid” is just that; nonsense. Some people are more attracted to larger people; some people aren’t necessarily attracted to overweight people, but will fall in love with one anyway (or just find that one curvy girl deeply sexy, or whatever), and some people flat out will never date someone who has a BMI over 16.
So?
Look, I am not well read enough to consider myself a member of the Fat Acceptance Movement, but I do support their goals for an end to discrimination of fat people, and Health At Every Size. When I read FA literature and blogs I don’t see people saying, “Get fat, eat donuts; it’s healthy!!” I see people saying, “Eat healthy food and get moving because it makes you feel good. NOT to lose weight,” because the fact is that some people are just not going to be thin.* So accept yourself as you are, stop trying to starve yourself into a shape that isn’t right for you, and start taking care of the body you have. That is a noble, worthwhile goal. Fat doesn’t equal lazy. Some people may not find you attractive, but some people will NEVER find you attractive. Move on, find the people who do, and start living your life today instead of waiting for the day you are thin, because that day might not ever come.
*Look at this. It shows evidence that some people have a gene that causes them to be “overweight” unless they get at least 3-4 hours of exercise a day.Three to Four Hours! Does that sound reasonable for the average person? And this is to be thin, NOT to be healthy. But wait… the Amish do it! Oh, well, in that case it should be easy. Just forgo all modern conveniences, then. But wait…
Huh. So the study author seems to think it might be unrealistic. He must be a lazy fatass too, huh?
Oh, well, there you go. Just take a walk! Every night… for a few hours. Yeah, ok. After eight hours in an office, people will come home and decide to go for a walk until bedtime. “See you later hon! Goodnight kids! I have to go walk for 3-4 hours! Wouldn’t want to be fat!!” That’s totally reasonable. :rolleyes:
So there you go, fatties, it’s all your fault. You just don’t value being thin enough.
I agree. My answer to the OP is that we all have our culturally derived idealizations of human beauty and they are not likely to change were we to discover that big folks carry no extra medical liability.
We can, however, learn to recognize that we are all God’s kids and equally deserving of love, respect and consideration and that the only way to achieve that for yourself is to indiscriminately offer it to others.
To answer the OP, I would say “yes”, we would still want to be skinny even if there were no health risks associated with obesity. Why? Because that is what a majority of our society has deemed to be attractive. With that said, I do not think that Viktoria and David Beckham skinny is necessarily the most attractive body type to most people. Just look around…not everyone who is in a relationship is super skinny. I do think there is some sort of limit, though. The larger you get, the less attractive you are going to be to a larger number of people. This exists with anything, though. You will be less attractive to a larger number of people if you are born without arms…that doesn’t mean you won’t be attractive to anyone, though. I think it is just a matter of being realistic in the context of the society you are in.
These debates always seem to argue the extremes, when the fact is that most of us are in the middle. If there were no health risks associated with obesity, there would be some people who would still want to loose weight to be considered more attractive, but most people already fall within the range of normal attractiveness. “skinny” means different things to different people.
Well, the thing that I object to in the FA movement online, at least, is that it’s so…defensive. Like on the blog Shapely Prose there is a comment policy where they talk about the moderators being bitchy towards out of line posters because that’s just how they are…and there are threads/posts where they’ll just out and out say, “Comments that say x won’t be approved because we don’t want to deal with them.” (There was one talking about racism in some photo shoot and anyone who said that “Well, the racism is just one interpretation” wouldn’t be allowed to speak.) A little head in the sand for my taste.
Plus there seems to be a general antipathy to weight loss–I don’t get this. I mean, I get loving your body but why does that mean that wanting to lose weight=bad? Some people genuinely do need to. I read one Shapely Prose advice column about a woman who said she wanted to do Healthy at Every Size but she still felt that since she’d recently gained about twenty pounds after letting herself go and not dieting as stringently that she wanted to lose weight and what did the columnist think of that…and pretty much everyone came up with the idea that maybe this is just her natural weight and why did she have to lose?
I hate to sound bitchy, but I just got such a misery loves company vibe from the whole thing–of course they don’t want anyone to lose weight if they’re trying to feel better about being fat.
Like I said before, I am not really a member of the FA community. I read Shapely Prose because I like the woman who writes the blog; I enjoyed her on a Feminist blog I read, and followed her when she started her own blog. So, while noting that, I’m going to say this:
Rules on blogs like this (that are about a marginalized community’s concerns and fight with discrimination) often fall into three categories; one, they make a lot of sense at the outset for anyone truly interested in the subject. What I mean is, if you aren’t there to argue or troll, you understand their purpose.
Two, (and this is the biggest) they make a lot of sense once you’ve participated in the community for a little while. I think this is why you have an issue with it, honestly. You think, “Well, what’s wrong with losing weight? It might help, maybe if they tried this…” but what you don’t see is they get a hundred comments like that every day. Every single comment thread would be bogged down with these replies. Shapely Prose is a place for people who have done the 101 work, who have tried to lose weight, and failed, and want another answer. Or who just want a break from what they hear from every other news source, friend, and ‘concerned stranger’. They know they are fat. They have tried to lose weight. It didn’t work.
And three, sometimes the comment policies are there because moderators have other things to do, and don’t want to deal with it. It may not be fair, but so what. There are plenty of places to go on the internet and worry about a fat person’s health, or come up with excuses for racism, or whatever. Every person writing and commenting on these blogs lives in the real world and knows what is out there. They know about how you think they should lose weight. They know about why this “isn’t really racist”. They know, they dismissed it, they don’t care. It’s a place for like minded individuals to meet and discuss, and frankly they don’t care if someone who disagrees doesn’t have a place. They like it that way, they do it on purpose. It might seem like “head in the sand” but people in marginalized communities have to live the rest of their lives in a sea of discrimination. They want a place where they set the rules.
I remember the letter you are talking about, with the woman who wanted to lose weight, and I think you are really misinterpreting what the response was. The letter writer basically wanted permission to diet to lose weight, and the answer was that she should eat right and take care of herself, and love her body regardless. Losing weight doesn’t equal bad, but nor does it equal good. HEALTH at every size. If you lose weight, great! But weight loss isn’t the goal, health is.
I found the letter. I just don’t see why they could have said, “Lose weight if you want to, but be healthy in the process.” I’m just not sure why you can’t accept people for who they are, but at the same time recognize that some people do want to slim down either for health or aesthetic reasons. The party line seems to be that changing yourself is bad.
Some of the comments that I thought seemed too, “No, don’t try to change–this is your natural weight” were:
It just seemed like a lot of jumping through hoops to prevent this woman from losing weight.
ETA: It’s kind of hard to take Kate Harding seriously as a writer/person, though. I see her everywhere–on Salon.com, for example, and on her own site she’ll talk about not reading the Salon.com comments because they tax her “sanity points.” It just annoys me that a lot of what she spews on Salon.com is fairly ludicrous and she takes this head in the sand, “People who disagree with me are mean and hate fat people!” attitude. The whole thing just makes me eye roll every time I see her name because she takes no notice of any dissenting opinion except to act as though any disagreement is trolling or patriarchy or rape culture.
Victorian women wore corsets that could cause health problems, and some of them ate arsenic to give themselves the right pale complexion. Women in earlier eras used lead-based makeup to look good. People tan now, even though it increases the risk of skin cancer. Some men use steroids to give them a muscular look, despite the health risks. High-heeled shoes can contribute to leg and foot problems in women.
A big or hooked nose is not a health risk, but it’s still considered unattractive. Blondes aren’t healthier than people with darker hair, but blonde hair is still fashionable in women. Tall people aren’t significantly healthier than short people, but short men in particular still get discriminated against.