|
|
Mommy I Want Plus Size Barbie
 Lakshmi.Flavin
サーバ: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 18466
By Lakshmi.Flavin 2014-01-10 16:14:13
You've done no such thing. You've blabbed a lot and said over and over that fat people are lazy and need to take personal responsibility. Stop eating that Iced cream you fat ***!
I didn't take a dig at a gay guy, would you think it was odd if a vegan had that kind of obsession with how you seasoned your steak? I wouldn't. Are you trying to say that it is unnatural for a gay man to have a child or that they are incapabable of having children? That they do not have surrogates or adopt?
I could ask you why you care about someone elses weight. Why do you take such a stern stance on making sure that even someone even 10 pounds over your "ideal weight" Know that they are a fatty prone to die just a little bit earlier than the ideal man/woman?
Hey guy! you wanna find a way to cope with something or get your self esteem up a bit? Well too *** bad fatty! Stop eating that pint "iced cream" every night and get up off your ***.
There is nobody demonizing fat or attacking fat people, grow up. Maybe you're personally not meaning to but it definitely comes off as such. But if you really believe that statement to be true you really haven't read many posts in this thread or visited social media.[/quote] I don't spend much time on social media, I couldn't even remember my facebook password if prompted, but I was talking about this thread, not the world or the internet.[/quote]
As I also stated, there has been in this thread yourself included.
VIP
サーバ: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2014-01-10 16:26:01
You've done no such thing. You've blabbed a lot and said over and over that fat people are lazy and need to take personal responsibility. Stop eating that Iced cream you fat ***!
I didn't take a dig at a gay guy, would you think it was odd if a vegan had that kind of obsession with how you seasoned your steak? I wouldn't. Are you trying to say that it is unnatural for a gay man to have a child or that they are incapabable of having children? That they do not have surrogates or adopt?
I could ask you why you care about someone elses weight. Why do you take such a stern stance on making sure that even someone even 10 pounds over your "ideal weight" Know that they are a fatty prone to die just a little bit earlier than the ideal man/woman?
Hey guy! you wanna find a way to cope with something or get your self esteem up a bit? Well too *** bad fatty! Stop eating that pint "iced cream" every night and get up off your ***.
There is nobody demonizing fat or attacking fat people, grow up. Maybe you're personally not meaning to but it definitely comes off as such. But if you really believe that statement to be true you really haven't read many posts in this thread or visited social media. Quote: I don't spend much time on social media, I couldn't even remember my facebook password if prompted, but I was talking about this thread, not the world or the internet. As I also stated, there has been in this thread yourself included.
Since when are vegetarians incapable of eating a steak? It's outside of their general arena.
I've never tried to shame overweight people or said anything like your hyperbolic quotes. Weight is such a hot point with people, its impossible to talk about it without someone being offended, even if you say nothing particularly offensive.
Being overweight doesn't mean anything besides being overweight. being grossly overweight, like the proposed Barbie doll, has serious and well documented negative health aspects. Being that overweight isn't "just fine" or "beautiful too", it's obese, unhealthy, and an equally bad example for children as a super skinny Barbie.
Some people are attacking overweight/fat people, I'm not, I'm attacking the justification and misinformation campaign from both sides.
Lakshmi.Flavin
サーバ: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 18466
By Lakshmi.Flavin 2014-01-10 16:27:47
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »In America, you're *** if you're too skinny or too fat. Anything to sell more weight loss pills or CD packages where some cut guy screams at you for not being able to do 100 curls off the bat. The women are laughing at you. Your mom would be ashamed. You're a complete failure now conform... for 3 easy payments of 39.95. Which I honestly think is where a lot of the shaming and perceived persecution is derived. Advertisers have become masters of exploiting insecurities that people have about themselves and giving them hope through spending. It has to go deeper than a kid on the playground calling you fat. Perceived persecution? People recently dubbed a week national fat shaming week.
Lakshmi.Flavin
サーバ: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 18466
By Lakshmi.Flavin 2014-01-10 16:31:25
How is caring for a child outside a gay mans general arena?
VIP
サーバ: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2014-01-10 16:34:36
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »In America, you're *** if you're too skinny or too fat. Anything to sell more weight loss pills or CD packages where some cut guy screams at you for not being able to do 100 curls off the bat. The women are laughing at you. Your mom would be ashamed. You're a complete failure now conform... for 3 easy payments of 39.95. Which I honestly think is where a lot of the shaming and perceived persecution is derived. Advertisers have become masters of exploiting insecurities that people have about themselves and giving them hope through spending. It has to go deeper than a kid on the playground calling you fat. Perceived persecution? People recently dubbed a week national fat shaming week.
That's absolutely terrible. But I wasn't talking about the real persecution, I'm talking about suggesting that parent's encourage their kids to drink water when thirsty instead of soda or eating a granola bar instead of a candy bar as a snack. When those kinds of programs or more in-depth nutrition and physical education initiatives were proposed, there was an uproar from parents about how they were targeting and shaming fat kids. As if good eating and exercise habits are only going to affect or help people who are already overweight...
How is caring for a child outside a gay mans general arena?
Caring for a child isn't, having enough emotional investment in parenting to be "genuinely offended" when they are questioned is. And I'm not the kind of person to question sexuality as it pertains to parenting, but his reaction was over the top even for a person with children.
サーバ: Shiva
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3621
By Shiva.Onorgul 2014-01-10 17:05:48
I'm not judging anyone, i stated a few facts. you are a professional victim, there is nobody demonizing fat or attacking fat people, grow up. I said you are demonizing fat cells, not fat people. You keep making medical claims that are wrong, too. At least it finally makes sense why you've been on such a tirade: you used to be fat.
Do you have any grasp of what that does to your perceptions? You've been railing about this so loudly that I should've suspected it a long time ago. People who are accidentally thin just don't care.
Caring for a child isn't, having enough emotional investment in parenting to be "genuinely offended" when they are questioned is. And I'm not the kind of person to question sexuality as it pertains to parenting, but his reaction was over the top even for a person with children. I was genuinely offended because someone whom I thought was better than the average contributor turned out to be no different. I was and remain deeply disappointed in Zahrah's behavior. It had nothing to do with parental investment.
Meanwhile, though, you're an ***. I have every bit the same parental instincts as any other man regardless of my sexuality. I've spent years of my life working with children, which is not something you do if you have no interest in their welfare. What the *** makes you think you're even remotely better than me just because you have a slightly better chance of accidentally impregnating someone? You really have some ***-up views.
VIP
サーバ: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2014-01-10 17:33:58
I'm not judging anyone, i stated a few facts. you are a professional victim, there is nobody demonizing fat or attacking fat people, grow up. I said you are demonizing fat cells, not fat people. You keep making medical claims that are wrong, too. At least it finally makes sense why you've been on such a tirade: you used to be fat.
Do you have any grasp of what that does to your perceptions? You've been railing about this so loudly that I should've suspected it a long time ago. People who are accidentally thin just don't care.
Caring for a child isn't, having enough emotional investment in parenting to be "genuinely offended" when they are questioned is. And I'm not the kind of person to question sexuality as it pertains to parenting, but his reaction was over the top even for a person with children. I was genuinely offended because someone whom I thought was better than the average contributor turned out to be no different. I was and remain deeply disappointed in Zahrah's behavior. It had nothing to do with parental investment.
Meanwhile, though, you're an ***. I have every bit the same parental instincts as any other man regardless of my sexuality. I've spent years of my life working with children, which is not something you do if you have no interest in their welfare. What the *** makes you think you're even remotely better than me just because you have a slightly better chance of accidentally impregnating someone? You really have some ***-up views.
What medical facts have I given that are false? Please enlighten me.
And when did I EVER say anything about parenting instincts or being better than anyone?
I was never obese, I was overweight, and I made the choice to be healthy, not the choice to be thin.
If you don't like what I have to say, that's your right, but don't pretend I'm the person who treated you badly in junior high.
[+]
サーバ: Shiva
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3621
By Shiva.Onorgul 2014-01-10 17:46:08
You have repeatedly said that being 10-20 lbs. overweight will have negative health consequences. This is categorically false. You keep ignoring it. You're over-sensitive because you used to be a little overweight and have been on a tear to suggest that any amount of fat is necessarily dangerous and ugly.
Maybe you're completely unaware of how you present yourself, though, since you just made a comment on my ability to be a parent and immediately claim to have never done so. Do you type without your brain turning on?
Also, you said that most people who are overweight aren't just 10 lbs. overweight. That's fundamentally wrong. The definition of overweight is exactly in that ballpark. More to the point, the "obesity epidemic" talking point relies on using the widest possible definition of obesity, which necessarily takes in a lot of people like me who are heavily muscled. I have about 20 lbs. of unnecessary fat to lose but, even when I lose it, I will solidly be "overweight" according to those statistics and I am far from unique. Granted, I mostly socialize with young people (I live near a major university) and blue collar workers, but the majority of men I know are fairly well-muscled and, if not already overweight or obese by the BMI, are one lazy month away from it.
Perhaps I haven't been clear about what has me so annoyed in this: it's the manipulation of ideas so as to create a panic. There has been an explosion of morbid obesity, the kind that no amount of muscle will push you into. That's the dangerous one. But in order to make the numbers appear more frightening and to claim that 40% of Americans may be obese by 2020 (or whatever the number is), they have to use a very narrow definition that necessarily includes perfectly healthy people. It's not dissimilar to how reports of autism incidence have been deliberately manipulated after the definition of autism was expanded.
The numbers around morbid obesity should be frightening enough. Using an athlete's numbers under a bad metric to pad them is irritating. Using a 70-year-old with a spare tire to pad them is irritating. I suppose my annoyance is strictly semantic because so-called "obese class I" is still "obese," a word that I associate with being spherical rather than pudgy.
VIP
サーバ: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2014-01-10 18:01:25
You have repeatedly said that being 10-20 lbs. overweight will have negative health consequences. This is categorically false. You keep ignoring it. You're over-sensitive because you used to be a little overweight and have been on a tear to suggest that any amount of fat is necessarily dangerous and ugly.
I never said that 10 lbs overweight has negative health consequences, I said being unhealthy has negative health consequences and that 10 lbs overweight is still overweight. Also, a little thing with rootwords, but being 100 lbs overweight is overweight, being 10 lbs overweight is overweight.
I'm not on a tear at all, not using anyone's talking points, have no investment in someone else's weight, and have no psychosis about my weight now or in the past. I lost weight as a result of changing my diet and exercising, weight was never a major factor in the decision.
I also agreed that the current standards of weight are imperfect and that there will be people, even a fairly significant amount of people, who don't fit into those categories.
Quote: Maybe you're completely unaware of how you present yourself, though, since you just made a comment on my ability to be a parent and immediately claim to have never done so. Do you type without your brain turning on?
I never said a word about your ability to be a parent, I compared your overreaction to a vegetarian pitching a fit when you question their suggestions about steak seasoning. You are once again putting words in my mouth and playing the victim.
Some people in this thread HAVE said virtually what you are accusing me of, but I have not.
サーバ: Shiva
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3621
By Shiva.Onorgul 2014-01-10 18:16:08
Also, a little thing with rootwords, but being 100 lbs overweight is overweight, being 10 lbs overweight is overweight. A little thing about medical terms: 100 lbs. overweight is obese (class II, I think). Overweight is a specific medical category. Since you have repeatedly referred to medical matters and issues of public health, I have not been resorting to colloquial usage. On that note:
I never said that 10 lbs overweight has negative health consequences Really?
nobody is saying that being 10-20 lbs over your ideal weight means you're going to die of fat cancer, it means you are more predisposed to many health conditions. That's from page 10. Unlike you, I don't pull things out of my imagination and pretend someone has said them. And on that note:
Caring for a child isn't, having enough emotional investment in parenting to be "genuinely offended" when they are questioned is. You wrote this less than an hour ago. At the time, you weren't aware that you were completely misinterpreting what you'd read, but you are straight-up saying that a gay man is less capable of caring about children than a straight one. Do you have no grasp of what you're saying or are you just willing to peddle any lie you can to wriggle out of what you've said?
VIP
サーバ: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2014-01-10 18:21:07
Also, a little thing with rootwords, but being 100 lbs overweight is overweight, being 10 lbs overweight is overweight. A little thing about medical terms: 100 lbs. overweight is obese (class II, I think). Overweight is a specific medical category. Since you have repeatedly referred to medical matters and issues of public health, I have not been resorting to colloquial usage. On that note:
I never said that 10 lbs overweight has negative health consequences Really?
nobody is saying that being 10-20 lbs over your ideal weight means you're going to die of fat cancer, it means you are more predisposed to many health conditions. That's from page 10. Unlike you, I don't pull things out of my imagination and pretend someone has said them. And on that note:
Caring for a child isn't, having enough emotional investment in parenting to be "genuinely offended" when they are questioned is. You wrote this less than an hour ago. At the time, you weren't aware that you were completely misinterpreting what you'd read, but you are straight-up saying that a gay man is less capable of caring about children than a straight one. Do you have no grasp of what you're saying or are you just willing to peddle any lie you can to wriggle out of what you've said?
Obese is an elevated level of overweight, it is like overweight +, since you seem to be unable to read the definitions of the words you are questioning. Being 10 lbs overweight does put a person at a higher predisposition, that is different than having negative health consequences. It means they are more likely to develop weight related conditions than people who are not overweight. Again, missing the actual meaning of words because you think you know what they mean.
And, once again reading too far into things, as I never questioned your ability to be a parent, I questioned your intense overreacting to a comment on the basis that a gay couple is far less likely to have children than a straight couple.
If you want to take offense at something, it doesn't mean it's offensive, and i'm done indulging your little pity party.
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 5381
By Bahamut.Baconwrap 2014-01-10 19:55:30
Obesity is strictly defined by BMI by the CDC. The logic is that BMI is directly proprtional to body fat%.
The CDC classes of obesity(i,ii,iii) do not apply to athletes and pregnant woman.
+10 lbs =/= health problems it depends on numerous factors. You can't create this sweeping generalization for +10 lbs, CDC guidelines don't work like that. It also doesn't equate a greater disposition to develop "weight related diseases." You see people drinking hard liquor every day and it doesn't always result in hepatitis or cirrhosis.
You look at the full blood panel in addition to weight to determine likelihood of developing conditions.
サーバ: Shiva
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3621
By Shiva.Onorgul 2014-01-10 20:04:06
If you want to take offense at something, it doesn't mean it's offensive If you claim something isn't offensive, that doesn't stop it being offensive. I would express disbelief that you wrote something as stupid as that, but you've been writing ridiculous things throughout this entire thread.
[+]
VIP
サーバ: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2014-01-10 20:12:42
Bahamut.Baconwrap said: »Obesity is strictly defined by BMI by the CDC. The logic is that BMI is directly proprtional to body fat%.
The CDC classes of obesity(i,ii,iii) do not apply to athletes and pregnant woman.
+10 lbs =/= health problems it depends on numerous factors. You can't create this sweeping generalization for +10 lbs, CDC guidelines don't work like that. It also doesn't equate a greater disposition to develop "weight related diseases." You see people drinking hard liquor every day and it doesn't always result in hepatitis or cirrhosis.
You look at the full blood panel in addition to weight to determine likelihood of developing conditions.
That's a little oversimplified, both AMA and ADA have basically identical definitions of obesity.
There are MANY factors and many that are more important than weight in determining risk factors for diseases. Obviously someone who is in overall great health and is 10 lbs overweight is at far lower risk than a drug addict daredevil who is dead center in their ideal range. You're doing the equivalent of comparing sportscars on the basis of how many dwarves they'd crush when dropped from 20 feet. All things being equal, the overall risks are greater for someone who is overweight, however, some risks are lower for those who are overweight. Those have been shown by study after study.
Pretty much everyone in that category can benefit from adjusting their diet and doing low impact exercise 2-3 days per week. There would be significant health benefits, losing weight would be a bonus.
I'm starting to think we're saying very nearly the same thing.
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 5381
By Bahamut.Baconwrap 2014-01-10 20:28:40
Body fat% isn't a standard measure at the primary care physician. One reason is because there are a variety if methods for determining fat%. Each method isn't perfect, the most accurate is water displacement(I believe...). So BMI acts as a standardized unit of measure for determining fat which reduces ambiguity amongst physicians and RNs.
My point is that it's difficult, and impractical, to determine if that +10 lbs is adipose, skeletal muscle or water. That's why you can't create this sweeping generalization of "+10 lbs." You'd be factoring in, menstrual cycle(in women), sodium levels, water retention, fluid intake etc...
Edit: That isn't to say that a 10lb weight gain wouldn't be addressed/investigated by one's physician. Another thing not mentioned in this thread so far is medication side effects. Numerous medications cause uncontrollable food cravings, little interesting fact!
VIP
サーバ: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2014-01-10 20:36:34
Bahamut.Baconwrap said: »Body fat% isn't a standard measure at the primary care physician. One reason is because there are a variety if methods for determining fat%. Each method isn't perfect, the most accurate is water displacement(I believe...). So BMI acts as a standardized unit of measure for determining fat which reduces ambiguity amongst physicians and RNs.
My point is that it's difficult, and impractical, to determine if that +10 lbs is adipose, skeletal muscle or water. That's why you can't create this sweeping generalization of "+10 lbs." You'd be factoring in, menstrual cycle(in women), sodium levels, water retention, fluid intake etc...
It's not +10 lbs from a single number, its +10 lbs outside of the range, the range already factors those things in.
For males, 106 lbs for the first 60" and 6 lbs per inch over.
For females, 100 lbs for the first 60" and 5 lbs per inch over.
Then, + or - 10%. Overweight, as it's being defined, is more than 10 lbs outside of that ideal weight range. So, for many, that 10 lbs line could be 15-40 lbs over THEIR ideal weight. Other than the most extreme circumstances, a person more than 10 lbs outside of their ideal weight range is above their recommended body fat % as well.
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 5381
By Bahamut.Baconwrap 2014-01-10 21:17:51
BMI = weight/height
Because density isn't factored into BMI things like fluid intake, sodium etc make a difference.
[+]
 Garuda.Chanti
サーバ: Garuda
Game: FFXI
Posts: 11402
By Garuda.Chanti 2014-01-10 21:23:31
It's not +10 lbs from a single number, its +10 lbs outside of the range, the range already factors those things in.
For males, 106 lbs for the first 60" and 6 lbs per inch over.
For females, 100 lbs for the first 60" and 5 lbs per inch over.
Then, + or - 10%. Overweight, as it's being defined, is more than 10 lbs outside of that ideal weight range. So, for many, that 10 lbs line could be 15-40 lbs over THEIR ideal weight. Other than the most extreme circumstances, a person more than 10 lbs outside of their ideal weight range is above their recommended body fat % as well. Yeah well but....
Some people have more bone density. All else being equal they weigh a bit more.
Some people have greater muscle density. All else being equal they weigh a tiny bit more.
Some people have fluffier fat cells. All else being equal they weigh a bit less.
And people may have any two or all three of the above.
[+]
VIP
サーバ: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2014-01-10 21:31:14
It's not +10 lbs from a single number, its +10 lbs outside of the range, the range already factors those things in.
For males, 106 lbs for the first 60" and 6 lbs per inch over.
For females, 100 lbs for the first 60" and 5 lbs per inch over.
Then, + or - 10%. Overweight, as it's being defined, is more than 10 lbs outside of that ideal weight range. So, for many, that 10 lbs line could be 15-40 lbs over THEIR ideal weight. Other than the most extreme circumstances, a person more than 10 lbs outside of their ideal weight range is above their recommended body fat % as well. Yeah well but....
Some people have more bone density. All else being equal they weigh a bit more.
Some people have greater muscle density. All else being equal they weigh a tiny bit more.
Some people have fluffier fat cells. All else being equal they weigh a bit less.
And people may have any two or all three of the above.
hence the range, it's imperfect of course, but far more flexible than a specific weight or BMI.
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 5381
By Bahamut.Baconwrap 2014-01-10 22:05:31
It's too flexible is the problem. Water displacement, electric current, Navy method, pincer method etc...There is no standard among physicians since the CDC and AMA still use BMI. That's a big problem.
VIP
サーバ: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2014-01-10 22:32:49
Bahamut.Baconwrap said: »It's too flexible is the problem. Water displacement, electric current, Navy method, pincer method etc...There is no standard among physicians since the CDC and AMA still use BMI. That's a big problem.
Completely agree
サーバ: Shiva
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3621
By Shiva.Onorgul 2014-01-10 23:40:11
So I finally got around to pulling out some of that nasty data I keep alluding to.
This is from earlier this year, a meta-analysis published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. Study author is Katherine Flegal. She and three assistants combined the data of 97 separate studies for a total sample size of 2.88 million people. Numbers as follows are the hazard rate (HR) of mortality as tied to BMI where "normal weight" HR is 1.00.
Overweight (BMI 25-29.9): 0.94 (95% confidence interval, .91-.96)
All obese (BMI ≥30): 1.18 (95% confidence interval, 1.12-1.25)
Obesity class I (BMI 30-34.5): 0.95 (95% confidence interval, 0.88-1.01)
Obesity class II & III combined (BMI ≥35): 1.29 (95% confidence interval, 1.18-1.41)
I could name half a dozen reasons why this is. For one, extra weight provides a nutrient buffer for those sick or injured, thereby reducing the likelihood of mortality when compared to someone who has less body to lose during a wasting period. Odd fact, but self-reported height-weight tended to skew towards a higher HR than objectively measured numbers.
Then, of course, there's the huge difference in how fat distributes, which was analyzed a few years back for the International Journal of Obesity by Konstantinos Manopoulos. It's largely academic as there is no known mechanism by which one can change which of the two major fat depots is used, but central fat storage (in and around the organs of the gut) is strongly associated with increased risk of chronic diseases and their mortality, whereas the gluteofemoral fat depot (subcutaneous fat of the buttocks and thighs) actually provides an apparent protective element against chronic diseases and mortality thereby. The former style of fat storage is how men tend to store, the latter is more common among women. The former is also easier to lose as it metabolizes more readily (it's basically a camel's hump -- that is, an instant-access energy store).
The failure of the BMI and most of the conclusions to be drawn from it is that it generalizes to only one part of the population (low muscle density/sedentary people) and completely fails to even start addressing a host of more telling factors. It's not even a good first step because it is so flawed.
Waist-to-height ratio is not a bad place to start, though, because waist-oriented fat storage is the dangerous one. Having a waist that is 50% or less of your height strongly indicates good health. Many athletes float in the 40% range, for instance. Barbie at 25%, Ken at about 36%, so they're both freakish, but we knew that.
Waist-to-hip is a good way to sort out fat distribution in someone who may not be obvious.
The US military has a couple equations that they use to estimate body fat percentage (as do a host of other organizations), though I tend to take simple equations with a grain of salt. They have variously estimated me everywhere from 13% BF to about 23%, often with no obvious correlation between the variety of measurements taken and where on that ridiculously wide spectrum the guess ends up. Skinfold tests are allegedly only accurate when performed well, but they are cheap. Electrical resistance, such as one can get in some bathroom scales, is not very reliable. Even though recommendations on body fat percentage are quite inconsistent (I've seen some suggest men should be between 6% and 25%, the latter number seems far too high, especially with male central fat storage), it does seem to be one of the better numbers to know and I rather wish we had some reliable and cheap way to get it.
Incidentally, Jassik, your little "Men should have 6 lbs. per inch over 5'" metric is the BMI. Where do you think they came up with those numbers? It's just BMI seen from the back instead of the front. If you agree the BMI is twaddle, then so must be that calculation.
So if we accept that, at minimum, medical science is less than certain how to generalize populations and provide reliable advice (this should not be a controversial statement to make), how does this relate to the dolls we provide to children? Strong evidence suggests that disproportionately small but otherwise human-looking dolls like Barbie do have an impact on girls' self-concept which may prove damaging.
I'd personally argue that the worse problem with Barbie and other dolls for girls is how they tend to emphasize things like materialism and "looking pretty" over being active and successful, though I'll admit that Barbie at least has held a variety of professions down the years and there's probably a few physicians who got a Dr. Barbie when they were young.
Promoting activity of some kind among girls and boys is certainly something we desperately need to do, especially with the increased prevalence of sedentary video games (am I the only one who has noticed the irony that we're discussing this on a gaming forum, by the by?) and the death of phys ed in school. Could that be done by altering a few toys like Barbie? Giving her more accurate proportions and emphasizing the sports she does to maintain that, for instance? Although I'd personally want a kibosh on both Cheerleader Barbie and Gridiron Barbie, since those are both blood sports that get kids killed or maimed every year.
It'd take me a little time to track down a citation, but marketing gurus in the '80s noticed that girls tend a certain way when it comes to the media they consume and boys trend a different way. What was missed, probably because these were MBAs rather than Ph.Ds, is that those trends were culturally programmed by what had been marketed to boys and girls prior to any focus-group testing. We model an idea to kids, who necessarily want to learn what our culture values, and then act surprised when their plastic little minds adhere to the mold presented. It's why older girls have lousy math scores: they're told that girls are bad at math and lo it becomes so. Telling girls that their mission is to be inhumanly thin, materialistic, and viciously manipulative, seems rather insane. The lies we feed to little boys, like that they should be "big and strong" (which, these days, tends more towards the former and not the latter) are no better. I personally like skinny guys and they frequently like me because we each represent what the other will never be. I am not convinced that is a healthy state of affairs.
Lakshmi.Saevel
サーバ: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 2228
By Lakshmi.Saevel 2014-01-11 01:57:59
I know I am correct in this, weight is 100% under our own control. It is willpower plain and simple, people just have a deep fear of taking responsibility and thus make hundred's of excuse's. Every argument to date has been about efficiency of energy storage / usage and not about the biological fact that fat (the kind we're discussing) is just stored carbohydrates. Nobody in the world has yet presented a valid explanation of how excess fat gets on someone that isn't first orally ingested.
Weight gain, just like weight loss, can be due to metabolic disease ( that has nothing to do with excess oral intake), and Cushing's was an excellent example. In such cases, you will treat the underlying cause, you won't preach the patient about willpower. It's as simple as that.
I wonder how you view psychiatric patients with mood disorders.
Absolute bullsh!t.
Excess fat weight doesn't just magically appear from the fat fairy. It has to get there somehow and there is only one way in.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basal_metabolic_rate#BMR_estimation_formulas
Everything, and I mean everything, mentioned so far is about appetite control vs basal metabolic rate. Your body is signaling you to eat more then your BMR can burn which creates a positive average daily caloric balance. That builds up and you gain weight, the larger the difference the larger the weight gain. Conversely if your taking in less caloric content then your BMR you end up with negative average daily caloric balance which is 100% guaranteed to result in weight loss. You would have to defy physics in regards to the universal conservation of energy to not lose body mass. Or are you people suggesting "special" humans have nuclear reactors in their gut that spontaneously produce excess mass.
Everything else is just how fast your actually using those stored calories, naturally some people have a lower BMR then others. Lower BMR means they absolutely must eat less or result in the ballooning effect. You can't eat 2000~2500 calories a day with a BMR of 1500 and not experience sudden dramatic weight gain. BMR can also change throughout your life, sometimes dramatically, which results in sudden weight gain if your not constantly monitoring your lifestyle. Which goes back to my original point, weight gain is 100% under our control. If someone has a lower BMR then they must eat less even if their body is screaming for them not to. Most diets fail because the fat *** are too lazy to stick with it and constantly cheat while rationalizing away all forms of responsibility.
They act exactly like the addicts they are, and you don't ask an addict whether they are an addict or not nor do you take anything they say in regards to their addiction seriously.
Hell diet pills are just attempts at chemically reducing appetite, and gastric bypass surgery pretty much eliminates any counters to the above.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gastric_bypass_surgery#Living_with_gastric_bypass
Quote: Weight loss of 65–80% of excess body weight is typical of most large series of gastric bypass operations reported. The medically more significant effects are a dramatic reduction in comorbid conditions:
Hyperlipidemia is corrected in over 70% of patients.
Essential hypertension is relieved in over 70% of patients, and medication requirements are usually reduced in the remainder.
Obstructive sleep apnea is markedly improved with weight loss and bariatric surgery may be curative for sleep apnea. Snoring also improves in most patients.
Type 2 diabetes is reversed in up to 90% of patients[19] usually leading to a normal blood sugar without medication, sometimes within days of surgery.[20][21] Furthermore, Type 2 diabetes is prevented by more than 30-fold in patients with pre-diabetes.[22]
Gastroesophageal reflux disease is relieved in almost all patients.
Venous thromboembolic disease signs such as leg swelling are typically alleviated.
Lower back pain and joint pain are typically relieved or improved in nearly all patients.
A study in a large comparative series of patients showed an 89% reduction in mortality over the five years following surgery, compared to a non-surgically treated group of patients.
Yeah ... being overweight is beyond a doubt a bad thing and being obese is a serious health issue.
Quote: Gastric bypass surgery has an emotional and physiological impact on the individual. Many who have undergone the surgery suffer from depression in the following months as a result of a change in the role food plays in their emotional well-being.[23] Strict limitations on the diet can place great emotional strain on the patient. Energy levels in the period following the surgery can be low, both due to the restriction of food intake and negative changes in emotional state.[24] It may take as long as three months for emotional levels to rebound. Muscular weakness in the months following surgery is also common. This is caused by a number of factors, including a restriction on protein intake, a resulting loss in muscle mass and decline in energy levels. Muscle weakness may result in balance problems, difficulty climbing stairs or lifting heavy objects, and increased fatigue following simple physical tasks. Many of these issues pass over time as food intake gradually increases. However, the first months following the surgery can be very difficult, an issue not often mentioned by physicians suggesting the surgery.[citation needed] The benefits and risks of this surgery are well established; however, the psychological effects are not well understood.
Yep take the crack away from the crack head and they respond exactly the same way. No more constant dopamine hits from overeating, no more sick emotional attachment to food intake. Excess weight gain from food is taken away from the patient after the surgery which, no surprise, results in depression and withdrawal like effects.
Can't spell it out any clearer. Anyhow who's arguing for "fat acceptance", "fat isn't bad", or "being fat isn't under my control" is just bullsh!ting themselves and everyone around them while enabling the addicts. Your passively killing people by promoting their sick life styles and preventing them from getting the treatment they actually need. It's a sick addiction and it needs to be treated like one.
Leviathan.Kincard
サーバ: Leviathan
Game: FFXI
Posts: 1442
By Leviathan.Kincard 2014-01-11 06:51:21
Once again you're just reading the most basic of information, using a ton of selection and confirmation bias and tunnel visioning onto things that agree with your preformed world view. You're trying to apply a law in physics used to describe how energy and mass is conserved in the universe as a whole to biological processes, which means you actually don't really know how that law works. That law of physics isn't being violated when the body stores fat/burns energy in the wrong order or the wrong places due to hormonal changes. People with metabolic disorder don't just get disrupted in changes to BMR (IE even if they ate things that matched their BMR exactly they'd still have unhealthy fat stores because their body is screwed up).
You're proposing that people with metabolic disorders should be cured with starvation, which would technically work for weight loss, but is also *** stupid.
Feel free to ***on people with eating disorders/psychological problems/crappy self-control if that's what you need to do to feel better about yourself, but stop talking about stuff you're not willing to do more than read trashy health magazines and listen to broscience for.
[+]
VIP
サーバ: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2014-01-11 08:43:41
Incidentally, Jassik, your little "Men should have 6 lbs. per inch over 5'" metric is the BMI. Where do you think they came up with those numbers? It's just BMI seen from the back instead of the front. If you agree the BMI is twaddle, then so must be that calculation.
It's not BMI, It's ideal weight range. It's the system used by doctors and dietitians to help determine care plans and therapeutic diets. We're not talking about people with a 3 month cert in personal training, that is the way MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS determine who is under and over weight. It's imperfect, but it allows them to get a reasonable grasp on a person's physical condition with few metrics. More accurate scales require further testing, some of it very expensive.
[+]
Lakshmi.Saevel
サーバ: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 2228
By Lakshmi.Saevel 2014-01-11 09:11:39
Leviathan.Kincard said: »Once again you're just reading the most basic of information, using a ton of selection and confirmation bias and tunnel visioning onto things that agree with your preformed world view. You're trying to apply a law in physics used to describe how energy and mass is conserved in the universe as a whole to biological processes, which means you actually don't really know how that law works. That law of physics isn't being violated when the body stores fat/burns energy in the wrong order or the wrong places due to hormonal changes. People with metabolic disorder don't just get disrupted in changes to BMR (IE even if they ate things that matched their BMR exactly they'd still have unhealthy fat stores because their body is screwed up).
You're proposing that people with metabolic disorders should be cured with starvation, which would technically work for weight loss, but is also *** stupid.
Feel free to ***on people with eating disorders/psychological problems/crappy self-control if that's what you need to do to feel better about yourself, but stop talking about stuff you're not willing to do more than read trashy health magazines and listen to broscience for.
Randomly spouting stuff doesn't make it true. Your horrifically wrong about your reference to metabolism and hormonal changes vs energy balance. Ultimately it doesn't matter, less energy intake then BMR results in weight less, more energy intake then BMR results in weight gain, everything else is just the efficiency involved and how the person feels.
Seriously tell me how else does the base carbohydrates get into your body unless you eat them? Fat tissue is predominately stored carbohydrates, stored because you weren't using them and your body is saving for a food-less day.
You can't argue around that, you try to blame everything else but there is nothing special about the population of western nations vs the rest of the world. If other nations can have low overweight / obesity rates then there is absolutely ZERO reason why the western countries can't. 60%+ of American's don't have a rare metabolic disease, 30%+ aren't genetically unlucky. The entire argument reeks of victim mentality and I make it a point of calling anyone out who tries to hide behind it.
VIP
サーバ: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2014-01-11 09:44:08
Leviathan.Kincard said: »Once again you're just reading the most basic of information, using a ton of selection and confirmation bias and tunnel visioning onto things that agree with your preformed world view. You're trying to apply a law in physics used to describe how energy and mass is conserved in the universe as a whole to biological processes, which means you actually don't really know how that law works. That law of physics isn't being violated when the body stores fat/burns energy in the wrong order or the wrong places due to hormonal changes. People with metabolic disorder don't just get disrupted in changes to BMR (IE even if they ate things that matched their BMR exactly they'd still have unhealthy fat stores because their body is screwed up).
You're proposing that people with metabolic disorders should be cured with starvation, which would technically work for weight loss, but is also *** stupid.
Feel free to ***on people with eating disorders/psychological problems/crappy self-control if that's what you need to do to feel better about yourself, but stop talking about stuff you're not willing to do more than read trashy health magazines and listen to broscience for.
Randomly spouting stuff doesn't make it true. Your horrifically wrong about your reference to metabolism and hormonal changes vs energy balance. Ultimately it doesn't matter, less energy intake then BMR results in weight less, more energy intake then BMR results in weight gain, everything else is just the efficiency involved and how the person feels.
Seriously tell me how else does the base carbohydrates get into your body unless you eat them? Fat tissue is predominately stored carbohydrates, stored because you weren't using them and your body is saving for a food-less day.
You can't argue around that, you try to blame everything else but there is nothing special about the population of western nations vs the rest of the world. If other nations can have low overweight / obesity rates then there is absolutely ZERO reason why the western countries can't. 60%+ of American's don't have a rare metabolic disease, 30%+ aren't genetically unlucky. The entire argument reeks of victim mentality and I make it a point of calling anyone out who tries to hide behind it.
Different ethnicities treat calories and fat storage slightly differently on a genetic level, but not to the extremes people like to think.
The biggest issue is that humans (really all animals) are programmed genetically to consume and store. The advent of agriculture when humans were no longer nomadic hunter/gatherers changed the availability of food but it never changed our genetics.
Now that food is rarely scarce, people have to consciously pay attention to what they eat because their body WILL store any EXCESS calories they ingest. That's not a metabolic disease, that's biology.
People misunderstand fundamental aspects of their biology and say things like "If I eat a cupcake, it goes straight to my thighs". Well, DUH, that's what your body is supposed to do when you have extra calories, save it for a day when you don't.
Edit: one other thing to note, is that different parts of your body metabolize different things, your brain for example cannot run correctly off burning stores of fat, it uses straight glucose (sugar) which is not metabolized backward when accessing stored energy. How you eat directly effects how your body treats it as well, eating a few large meals a day puts your body in starvation mode. It locks up everything it doesn't need right now. Eating many small meals of varying substance throughout the day puts your body in a more active mode because it knows it will have food again soon. It also has a huge impact on insulin production, large spikes in blood sugar from large meals or excessively sugary foods have been linked to greater risk of diabetic conditions.
That's an example of why we need to put a much heavier focus on nutrition and physical education.
[+]
VIP
サーバ: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2014-01-11 09:52:57
If you want to take offense at something, it doesn't mean it's offensive If you claim something isn't offensive, that doesn't stop it being offensive. I would express disbelief that you wrote something as stupid as that, but you've been writing ridiculous things throughout this entire thread. Nothing to do with the topic, but I agree with both of you; more-so with Jassik because nonliving entities have no sequence or purpose and thus the user/creator/receiver is the one who gave it definition or meaning.
It really all boils down to perception. You bring to anything your past experiences, and that influences how you take what is presented to you. I'm sure I am offended regularly by things that are either not intended to be or just plain aren't offensive.
[+]
Plus Size Barbie On Modeling Site Sparks Debate Over Body Image
Quote: "Plus-size" models (or any models above the super-skinny norm, for that matter) serve a dual purpose: They showcase plus-size clothing for a growing market... and they also provide women with a more diverse range of bodies to look up to.
So if we have plus-size women modeling clothes, why not have plus-size Barbies? That's the question posed recently by Plus-Size-Modeling.com on Facebook, when the group posted an illustration of a plus-size Barbie-like doll: 
|
|
