Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
The FAT Chronicles
- Thread starter p0ink
- Start date
Robert Jan
New member
I dont see any reason at all why fat people should get more than one seat.
im a ball player and none of my 7"+ friends get extra space and they dont fit well either, and they dont expect people to pay for their shit. AND THEY CANT EVEN HELP IT WHILE YOU CAN.
im a ball player and none of my 7"+ friends get extra space and they dont fit well either, and they dont expect people to pay for their shit. AND THEY CANT EVEN HELP IT WHILE YOU CAN.
ATrollFromTheFatBoard
New member
Jennifer Portnik is my hero!
I know this will make not the least impression on the person who posted it (nothing ever does), but for everyone else's edification:
I finally saw Jennifer Portnik's picture in a recent issue of People magazine. And was unpleasantly surprised at the negative tone with which some of you describe someone who is not even all that fat.
To hear you people talk she is as big as a house. I have news for you, in the overall size range of fat people she is almost as small as you can get and still be called "plus-size." This is about the amount of body fat that most of us overweight Americans have. This means she looks like the average Joe (or Josephine). If she can look the way she does and still do the amount of work that she can do, that ought to send a wake up call to those sitting around the house who look just like her, thinking they can't do stuff because they look fat. Telling people that no matter what they can achieve in terms of lifting a weight into the air or running any distance or speed, it is all meaningless unless they also LOOK LIKE YOU not only demoralizes people into doing absolutely nothing, it's just plain incorrect.
We have gotten to a point where "normal" is defined as a size 2-6. Has anyone really LOOKED at any size 2-6 clothing lately?? It's TEENTSY!! When we start defining a *healthy,* normal size 10 as "too fat," there is a big problem in this country. And then, of course, someone who looks like Jennifer gets labeled as being much fatter than she really is. Stop listening to Hollywood and get real.
To me, inches are cosmetic. Circumference is cosmetic. This bump, that ridge, that ripple, is something someone else is looking at. I feel no benefit from what someone else is looking at, whether they approve or disapprove. (Physically speaking, that is. Emotionally, when dealing with certain butt-heads, that is another matter.)
However, when I have the stamina to go faster on the treadmill, that directly benefits me. When I can pick up and move things I never used to be able to, I can feel that difference, and it is useful to me, inside my body, in MY life.
I don't care nearly as much what is cosmetically appealing to you as I care about how my body feels and works for me. As long as it works the way I want it to, it can look any way it wants, thank you. I am just grateful that I DO have a body that works as well as it does. In my condition, I could well be in the hospital, or curled up in pain for days out of every month.
A person who can teach hours of aerobics every week is a person who can teach hours of aerobics every week. She has to be fit in *some* way to be capable of doing this. It is not something that most people who look like her can do for even ten minutes, let alone earn their living at. This is heartening, because if she can do it, I can do it, too. Even if I NEVER look like whatever you stipulate I should look like.
Those who stipulate that it doesn't matter what something/someone can DO if it doesn't look the way you think it should have their priorities in the wrong place.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Q: If the body works the way it is supposed to, who cares what it LOOKS like??
A: Somebody *shallow.*
I know this will make not the least impression on the person who posted it (nothing ever does), but for everyone else's edification:
I finally saw Jennifer Portnik's picture in a recent issue of People magazine. And was unpleasantly surprised at the negative tone with which some of you describe someone who is not even all that fat.
To hear you people talk she is as big as a house. I have news for you, in the overall size range of fat people she is almost as small as you can get and still be called "plus-size." This is about the amount of body fat that most of us overweight Americans have. This means she looks like the average Joe (or Josephine). If she can look the way she does and still do the amount of work that she can do, that ought to send a wake up call to those sitting around the house who look just like her, thinking they can't do stuff because they look fat. Telling people that no matter what they can achieve in terms of lifting a weight into the air or running any distance or speed, it is all meaningless unless they also LOOK LIKE YOU not only demoralizes people into doing absolutely nothing, it's just plain incorrect.
We have gotten to a point where "normal" is defined as a size 2-6. Has anyone really LOOKED at any size 2-6 clothing lately?? It's TEENTSY!! When we start defining a *healthy,* normal size 10 as "too fat," there is a big problem in this country. And then, of course, someone who looks like Jennifer gets labeled as being much fatter than she really is. Stop listening to Hollywood and get real.
To me, inches are cosmetic. Circumference is cosmetic. This bump, that ridge, that ripple, is something someone else is looking at. I feel no benefit from what someone else is looking at, whether they approve or disapprove. (Physically speaking, that is. Emotionally, when dealing with certain butt-heads, that is another matter.)
However, when I have the stamina to go faster on the treadmill, that directly benefits me. When I can pick up and move things I never used to be able to, I can feel that difference, and it is useful to me, inside my body, in MY life.
I don't care nearly as much what is cosmetically appealing to you as I care about how my body feels and works for me. As long as it works the way I want it to, it can look any way it wants, thank you. I am just grateful that I DO have a body that works as well as it does. In my condition, I could well be in the hospital, or curled up in pain for days out of every month.
A person who can teach hours of aerobics every week is a person who can teach hours of aerobics every week. She has to be fit in *some* way to be capable of doing this. It is not something that most people who look like her can do for even ten minutes, let alone earn their living at. This is heartening, because if she can do it, I can do it, too. Even if I NEVER look like whatever you stipulate I should look like.
Those who stipulate that it doesn't matter what something/someone can DO if it doesn't look the way you think it should have their priorities in the wrong place.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Q: If the body works the way it is supposed to, who cares what it LOOKS like??
A: Somebody *shallow.*
ATrollFromTheFatBoard
New member
Campos: Fat 'fact' takes on life of its own
June 18, 2002
An abiding weakness of the conventional wisdom is that, once a supposed fact has become part of that wisdom, it becomes almost impossible to dislodge it. Contemporary journalism contributes to this problem by relying on technologies that help ensure an assertion, once it is repeated enough times, will never be checked against the actual evidence. Consider for example the claim that fat kills 300,000 Americans per year, and is thus the nation's second-leading cause of premature death, trailing only cigarettes. A Lexis database search reveals that this "fact" has been repeated in more than 1,000 news stories over the past three years alone. Yet the evidence for this claim is so slim as to be practically nonexistent.
As University of Virginia professor Glen Gaesser points out in the forthcoming revised edition of his book Big Fat Lies, the supposed source for this claim was a 1993 medical study that made no such assertion. That study attributed around 300,000 extra deaths per year to sedentary lifestyle and poor dietary habits, not to weight, which was not even evaluated as a risk factor. Indeed the authors of the study, Michael McGinnis and William Foege, became so frustrated by the chronic miscitation of their data that in 1998 they published a letter in the New England Journal of Medicine, objecting to the misuse of their study.
A year later the journal published an article which actually did assert that obesity causes approximately 300,000 deaths annually. This article, "Annual Deaths Attributable to Obesity in the United States," is a classic example of junk science at its worst. After calculating the death risk associated with various weight levels derived from six epidemiological studies, the authors employed the following assumption: "Our calculations assume that all excess mortality in obese people is due to their obesity" (emphasis added). That was, to put it mildly, a remarkable assumption. As Gaesser points out, "the authors made no attempt to determine whether other factors -- such as physical inactivity, low fitness levels, poor diet, risky weight loss practices, and less-than-adequate access to health care, just to name a few -- could have explained some, or all, of the excess mortality in fat people."
In fact there is a great deal of evidence that such factors are far more relevant to mortality than weight. Indeed, long-term studies conducted at Dallas' Cooper Institute, involving tens of thousands of subjects tracked for a decade or more, have concluded that all of the excess mortality associated with increasing weight is accounted for by activity levels, not weight. These studies show moderately active fat people have far lower mortality rates than thin sedentary people, and essentially the same mortality rates as thin active people. In other words, adding just one variable to the mix -- activity levels -- eliminates fat as a risk factor (the activity levels associated with optimum mortality rates are quite modest -- a brisk daily half-hour walk will by itself put a person in these categories).
Furthermore the 300,000-deaths-per-year figure was derived without taking into account factors such as yo-yo dieting and diet drug use, both of which have been shown to have devastating effects on health. Nor were variables such as class -- poor people die sooner than the well-off -- and social discrimination, which has been shown to have a very negative impact on health, taken into account. In short, the claim that fat causes 300,000 deaths per year should be dismissed as an assertion for which there is essentially no evidence. Journalists in particular ought to start noticing that fact, rather than endlessly reprinting the same piece of junk science.
Paul Campos is a professor of law at the University of Colorado. He can be contacted at [email protected].
June 18, 2002
An abiding weakness of the conventional wisdom is that, once a supposed fact has become part of that wisdom, it becomes almost impossible to dislodge it. Contemporary journalism contributes to this problem by relying on technologies that help ensure an assertion, once it is repeated enough times, will never be checked against the actual evidence. Consider for example the claim that fat kills 300,000 Americans per year, and is thus the nation's second-leading cause of premature death, trailing only cigarettes. A Lexis database search reveals that this "fact" has been repeated in more than 1,000 news stories over the past three years alone. Yet the evidence for this claim is so slim as to be practically nonexistent.
As University of Virginia professor Glen Gaesser points out in the forthcoming revised edition of his book Big Fat Lies, the supposed source for this claim was a 1993 medical study that made no such assertion. That study attributed around 300,000 extra deaths per year to sedentary lifestyle and poor dietary habits, not to weight, which was not even evaluated as a risk factor. Indeed the authors of the study, Michael McGinnis and William Foege, became so frustrated by the chronic miscitation of their data that in 1998 they published a letter in the New England Journal of Medicine, objecting to the misuse of their study.
A year later the journal published an article which actually did assert that obesity causes approximately 300,000 deaths annually. This article, "Annual Deaths Attributable to Obesity in the United States," is a classic example of junk science at its worst. After calculating the death risk associated with various weight levels derived from six epidemiological studies, the authors employed the following assumption: "Our calculations assume that all excess mortality in obese people is due to their obesity" (emphasis added). That was, to put it mildly, a remarkable assumption. As Gaesser points out, "the authors made no attempt to determine whether other factors -- such as physical inactivity, low fitness levels, poor diet, risky weight loss practices, and less-than-adequate access to health care, just to name a few -- could have explained some, or all, of the excess mortality in fat people."
In fact there is a great deal of evidence that such factors are far more relevant to mortality than weight. Indeed, long-term studies conducted at Dallas' Cooper Institute, involving tens of thousands of subjects tracked for a decade or more, have concluded that all of the excess mortality associated with increasing weight is accounted for by activity levels, not weight. These studies show moderately active fat people have far lower mortality rates than thin sedentary people, and essentially the same mortality rates as thin active people. In other words, adding just one variable to the mix -- activity levels -- eliminates fat as a risk factor (the activity levels associated with optimum mortality rates are quite modest -- a brisk daily half-hour walk will by itself put a person in these categories).
Furthermore the 300,000-deaths-per-year figure was derived without taking into account factors such as yo-yo dieting and diet drug use, both of which have been shown to have devastating effects on health. Nor were variables such as class -- poor people die sooner than the well-off -- and social discrimination, which has been shown to have a very negative impact on health, taken into account. In short, the claim that fat causes 300,000 deaths per year should be dismissed as an assertion for which there is essentially no evidence. Journalists in particular ought to start noticing that fact, rather than endlessly reprinting the same piece of junk science.
Paul Campos is a professor of law at the University of Colorado. He can be contacted at [email protected].
Norman Bates
New member
People in the fitness industry are selling the image of being slim.
If Jennifer Portnik isn´t slim and at the same times claim that her aerobics work to get slim people won´t believe her.
So an aerobic instructor that is not slim is bad for business.
The management believed that and wouldn´t want to hire her.
Than Ms. Portnik sued them and forced them to do a not favorable business decision.
It doesn´t matter if her looks actually are bad for the business, only if the management believed that it would.
It should be their right to decide if they wanted her in their company or not and since looks seems to be important in that industry it is a criterium for hiring people.
It´s the same as if i sued Karl Lagerfeld for not hiring me as model. I can walk up and down a catwalk ,too. But i´m not looking good enough for that job.
For some jobs looks are important and for some not.If she gets descriminated in a job where looks don´t matter i think she has the right to sue, but not in that case with a job where looks are very important.
If Jennifer Portnik isn´t slim and at the same times claim that her aerobics work to get slim people won´t believe her.
So an aerobic instructor that is not slim is bad for business.
The management believed that and wouldn´t want to hire her.
Than Ms. Portnik sued them and forced them to do a not favorable business decision.
It doesn´t matter if her looks actually are bad for the business, only if the management believed that it would.
It should be their right to decide if they wanted her in their company or not and since looks seems to be important in that industry it is a criterium for hiring people.
It´s the same as if i sued Karl Lagerfeld for not hiring me as model. I can walk up and down a catwalk ,too. But i´m not looking good enough for that job.
For some jobs looks are important and for some not.If she gets descriminated in a job where looks don´t matter i think she has the right to sue, but not in that case with a job where looks are very important.
circusgirl
New member
That's interesting. I've read in a few places that it is now thought that it is not actually FAT that cuases the problems, it is INACTIVITY and POOR DIET. If you eat well, exercise and are still fat, that's not bad for you.
Eating nothing to stay skinny and not exercising, otoh, is a good way into an early grave.
BTW one of my ex-housemates was a big guy, he was also on the unversity soccer team. (Over ehre, soccer is most definitely a man's sport, unlike Canada, where it eems to be mainly women who play). OK, so he could have stood to lose at least 50 pounds, but he was active, exercised every day, jogged, ran, trained, and ate burritos a lot.... I wouldn't consider him unhealthy. His view was that he was a good enough player without going on a diet, and dieting hindered his performance on the field, as he had less energy...
Eating nothing to stay skinny and not exercising, otoh, is a good way into an early grave.
BTW one of my ex-housemates was a big guy, he was also on the unversity soccer team. (Over ehre, soccer is most definitely a man's sport, unlike Canada, where it eems to be mainly women who play). OK, so he could have stood to lose at least 50 pounds, but he was active, exercised every day, jogged, ran, trained, and ate burritos a lot.... I wouldn't consider him unhealthy. His view was that he was a good enough player without going on a diet, and dieting hindered his performance on the field, as he had less energy...
Robert Jan
New member
"it is INACTIVITY and POOR DIET. If you eat well, exercise and are still fat, that's not bad for you.
"
this would only possibly apply to those who are not extremely heavy. most people on NAAFA seem to be 400+. you cant exercise and eat well and weigh 400+ unless you are a huyge, tall lifter or so. it just mutually rules each other out.
"As Gaesser points out, "the authors made no attempt to determine whether other factors -- such as physical inactivity, low fitness levels, poor diet, risky weight loss practices, and less-than-adequate access to health care"
you seem to be so sure that people can eat well, exercise a lot and still be really overweight. some people can live a healthy life at some higher bf% than a BB would like to have but not over 35 let alone over 50 or 60
"
this would only possibly apply to those who are not extremely heavy. most people on NAAFA seem to be 400+. you cant exercise and eat well and weigh 400+ unless you are a huyge, tall lifter or so. it just mutually rules each other out.
"As Gaesser points out, "the authors made no attempt to determine whether other factors -- such as physical inactivity, low fitness levels, poor diet, risky weight loss practices, and less-than-adequate access to health care"
you seem to be so sure that people can eat well, exercise a lot and still be really overweight. some people can live a healthy life at some higher bf% than a BB would like to have but not over 35 let alone over 50 or 60
circusgirl
New member
Aggreed - my housemate was certainly not over 35%bf.
However, from a woman's point of view -
A LOT of people (including my mother) are very quick to comment on any woman who is over 130 pounds (c. 60kg). I KNOW a lot of folks consider me to be grossly fat, although I am within the medical norms for my height (5ft6, that's 1m66) at 148 pounds.
Although I do not suffer as much crap as, say, someone who is 200 pounds, I know snide comments are made about my stomach etc when I hit the cardio machines by the gym bunnies and that's irritating. I find the health benefits of lifting and martial arts etc to be far more useful than any weight loss, yet it seems as though, as a woman, I should be making weight loss my number one priority. In fact my priorities, are, in order, marriage, family, work, health and fitness, and looks are a bit further down that list.
I know that folks on this board are not like that, they are more interested in how my lifts are progressing etc, but the world in general sees me as somehow less of a person (well, the female world in general) because I am not SLIM. I am not FAT, but I am not SLIM.
It is possible for a fit and healthy woman to be a bit bulky, dammit, cf Russian shotputters and weightlifters at Olympic level...
There is INTENSE pressure on women in society in general to obsess over their looks and hate their bodies and I resent that pressure. I think a lot of the responses here from guys do not pick up on that pressure - Troll pointed out that 20 extra pounds can weigh on the mind as much as 150, and she's right. Even though most guys will not even NOTICE those extra 20 pounds on a woman unless they are your trainer or athletics coach.
However, from a woman's point of view -
A LOT of people (including my mother) are very quick to comment on any woman who is over 130 pounds (c. 60kg). I KNOW a lot of folks consider me to be grossly fat, although I am within the medical norms for my height (5ft6, that's 1m66) at 148 pounds.
Although I do not suffer as much crap as, say, someone who is 200 pounds, I know snide comments are made about my stomach etc when I hit the cardio machines by the gym bunnies and that's irritating. I find the health benefits of lifting and martial arts etc to be far more useful than any weight loss, yet it seems as though, as a woman, I should be making weight loss my number one priority. In fact my priorities, are, in order, marriage, family, work, health and fitness, and looks are a bit further down that list.
I know that folks on this board are not like that, they are more interested in how my lifts are progressing etc, but the world in general sees me as somehow less of a person (well, the female world in general) because I am not SLIM. I am not FAT, but I am not SLIM.
It is possible for a fit and healthy woman to be a bit bulky, dammit, cf Russian shotputters and weightlifters at Olympic level...
There is INTENSE pressure on women in society in general to obsess over their looks and hate their bodies and I resent that pressure. I think a lot of the responses here from guys do not pick up on that pressure - Troll pointed out that 20 extra pounds can weigh on the mind as much as 150, and she's right. Even though most guys will not even NOTICE those extra 20 pounds on a woman unless they are your trainer or athletics coach.
ATrollFromTheFatBoard
New member
In light of all of the above, I feel that concern about LOOKS should not be as important in the fitness industry as it is.
The person who pointed out that looks are very important and that is why the whole controversy is correct, but SHOULD it be that way??
I don't think so.
What's wrong with looking average? whether it be modeling, fitness, or what have you? Why must every human being's looks be in the top 95% or else? What exactly is so bad about NOT looking like a movie star or a fitness model?
The emphasis on looks has gotten to the point where it is counterproductive and HARMFUL to most people in this country. Some sanity would be appreciated by those of us who ARE about 200 lbs, ARE exercising and making an effort to eat better, but don't seem to be able to lose a whole lot of weight or be successful at keeping it off.
I have not really taken a survey of NAAFA folks to see what percentage are super-size. I know a lot are, but there are as many who are my size. We also, believe it or not, have a few skinny folks.
If we can get the 300 lb people down to a more healthy 200 or so, isn't that a worthwhile goal? But who will want to do it if they believe that all that work to lose 100 lbs doesn't matter if they do not/can not look like the more buff members here or reach a size 4???
The person who pointed out that looks are very important and that is why the whole controversy is correct, but SHOULD it be that way??
I don't think so.
What's wrong with looking average? whether it be modeling, fitness, or what have you? Why must every human being's looks be in the top 95% or else? What exactly is so bad about NOT looking like a movie star or a fitness model?
The emphasis on looks has gotten to the point where it is counterproductive and HARMFUL to most people in this country. Some sanity would be appreciated by those of us who ARE about 200 lbs, ARE exercising and making an effort to eat better, but don't seem to be able to lose a whole lot of weight or be successful at keeping it off.
I have not really taken a survey of NAAFA folks to see what percentage are super-size. I know a lot are, but there are as many who are my size. We also, believe it or not, have a few skinny folks.
If we can get the 300 lb people down to a more healthy 200 or so, isn't that a worthwhile goal? But who will want to do it if they believe that all that work to lose 100 lbs doesn't matter if they do not/can not look like the more buff members here or reach a size 4???
Similar threads
