Post: #1

That's the quote from this model agent out of this article.
I think she has a point!
Some of the models are rake thin,which is not my thing, but most are just in good shape and take a lot of flak for it....from other women!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/the-mo...12076.html

Post: #2

Glad the hot girls are fighting back.


It's really fucked up that people will defend a woman's right to have a disease (being fat).

Post: #3

Technically being overweight isn't a disease (neither is obesity), but both can contribute to diseases such as heart / diabetes.

http://news.discovery.com/human/obesity-...11017.html

The WHO definition is:

a BMI greater than or equal to 25 is overweight.
a BMI greater than or equal to 30 is obese.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs311/en/

That said, no one should ever look at being overweight as a positive trait. That is why fat acceptance is such a huge problem. People are openly and publicly endorsing (and in some instances promoting) an unhealthy lifestyle that has been proven to be detrimental to human health.

What we need is a cultural shift of norms in our society. In the 80s and 90s government groups finally made a push to highlight the dangers of unhealthy diets. We've made great strides in creating healthy options, the problem is that people are still making poor choices when it comes to their daily diet (what they eat and how much). It doesn't help that a large percentage of the country relies on food stamps, which is spent on unhealthier (but cheaper) alternatives. Why get fresh produce when you can get twice as many junk food meals for the same price? -- That's the kind of reasoning you see out there... that and many people just don't have the discipline.

Until such shift occurs (whether by some kind of enforcement or gradually), America is going to eat itself to death.

Post: #4

Quote:weighing in at just 61/2 stone

Can someone explain what this means? This is pissing me off. Do they mean 6 and a half stone (91 pounds, 41 kilos)?

I wonder if they could just set a minimum BMI for models, eg 15-16, or make an equation based on bone size that sets a minimum allowable BMI. Or mandate that X% of models on the books be above Y BMI.

Post: #5

(03-12-2012 11:31 AM)basilransom Wrote:  

Quote:weighing in at just 61/2 stone

Can someone explain what this means? This is pissing me off. Do they mean 6 and a half stone (91 pounds, 41 kilos)?

I believe a stone = 14 pounds, so that would be 91 pounds.

Post: #6

(03-12-2012 11:38 AM)Timoteo Wrote:  

(03-12-2012 11:31 AM)basilransom Wrote:  

Quote:weighing in at just 61/2 stone

Can someone explain what this means? This is pissing me off. Do they mean 6 and a half stone (91 pounds, 41 kilos)?

I believe a stone = 14 pounds, so that would be 91 pounds.

Yeah, there was just no space between the 6 and the 1/2.

Post: #7

(03-12-2012 11:17 AM)Gmac Wrote:  Left-wing babble

Gmac, think for youself. Is being fat healthy? No. Does it hurt you? Yes.


It's a disease. You don't need to follow what a bunch of politically correct scientists say.

These guys are mostly spineless cowards who cannot admit the truth in fear of losing funding.


However, some are speaking out (from your article):

Quote:Ambiguity surrounding the condition's causes and a lack of evidence-based medical treatments are likely to blame. But given what researchers know -- and the costs associated with the condition -- should obesity be considered a disease? Should it gain some health care coverage from insurers?

A growing number of researchers think so.

I don't give a shit what anyone says on this, being fat is a disease.

Post: #8

(03-12-2012 11:43 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(03-12-2012 11:17 AM)Gmac Wrote:  Left-wing babble

Gmac, think for youself. Is being fat healthy? No. Does it hurt you? Yes.


It's a disease. You don't need to follow what a bunch of politically correct scientists say.

These guys are mostly spineless cowards who cannot admit the truth in fear of losing funding.


However, some are speaking out (from your article):

Quote:Ambiguity surrounding the condition's causes and a lack of evidence-based medical treatments are likely to blame. But given what researchers know -- and the costs associated with the condition -- should obesity be considered a disease? Should it gain some health care coverage from insurers?

A growing number of researchers think so.

I don't give a shit what anyone says on this, being fat is a disease.

You're like a little kid arguing against scientific fact. Definitions are important, not what you say it "should be."

The only reason it is even up for debate is because lobbyists are rallying to have obesity included in healthcare programs, which would be a disaster.

-1

Post: #9

(03-12-2012 11:43 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(03-12-2012 11:17 AM)Gmac Wrote:  Left-wing babble

Gmac, think for youself. Is being fat healthy? No. Does it hurt you? Yes.


It's a disease. You don't need to follow what a bunch of politically correct scientists say.

These guys are mostly spineless cowards who cannot admit the truth in fear of losing funding.

Honestly, I wouldn't give a fuck if it weren't a disease, if fat people suffered no health consequences at all. It's ugly. You don't need any other reason.

Why do we have to couch everything in terms of health, and ascribe no value to aesthetics? Why isn't looking good and presentable a virtue? This is why we have people walking around in sweatpants. We, Americans, suck at appreciating aesthetics. We feel downright shameful about liking pretty things. And when someone is fat, we feel guilty about noticing. If we do object, we object on bullshit non-aesthetic grounds. That's a total copout. Because we believe that an argument promoting la bella figura just isn't good enough.

I'm not attacking you, but we have this stupid puritanical notion in America that looking good has no value, that trying to look good is slightly shameful. So the only socially acceptable argument against being fat is 'it's bad for your health,' because looking good isn't worth obsessing over, because a good figure isn't a compelling enough reason to lose weight.

Post: #10

(03-12-2012 12:04 PM)basilransom Wrote:  

(03-12-2012 11:43 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(03-12-2012 11:17 AM)Gmac Wrote:  Left-wing babble

Gmac, think for youself. Is being fat healthy? No. Does it hurt you? Yes.


It's a disease. You don't need to follow what a bunch of politically correct scientists say.

These guys are mostly spineless cowards who cannot admit the truth in fear of losing funding.

Honestly, I wouldn't give a fuck if it weren't a disease, if fat people suffered no health consequences at all. It's ugly. You don't need any other reason.

Why do we have to couch everything in terms of health, and ascribe no value to aesthetics? Why isn't looking good and presentable a virtue? This is why we have people walking around in sweatpants. We, Americans, suck at appreciating aesthetics. We feel downright shameful about liking pretty things. And when someone is fat, we feel guilty about noticing. If we do object, we object on bullshit non-aesthetic grounds. That's a total copout. Because we believe that an argument promoting la bella figura just isn't good enough.

I'm not attacking you, but we have this stupid puritanical notion in America that looking good has no value, that trying to look good is slightly shameful. So everyone just claims that being fat is 'bad for your health,' because looking good isn't worth obsessing over, because it isn't a compelling enough reason to lose weight.

It's important because if it is classified as a disease, American taxpayers end up funding it.

What does that mean for you and me? More $$ to Uncle Sam, and more fat people playing the "disease" card. It's a losing strategy and doesn't promote responsible behavior or incentive to lose weight.

Post: #11

(03-12-2012 12:04 PM)basilransom Wrote:  Why do we have to couch everything in terms of health, and ascribe no value to aesthetics? Why isn't looking good and presentable a virtue? This is why we have people walking around in sweatpants. We, Americans, suck at appreciating aesthetics. We feel downright shameful about liking pretty things. And when someone is fat, we feel guilty about noticing. If we do object, we object on bullshit non-aesthetic grounds. That's a total copout. Because we believe that an argument promoting la bella figura just isn't good enough.

I'm always preaching this sermon. Beauty and elegance are worthwhile for their own sake.

Post: #12

(03-12-2012 12:07 PM)Gmac Wrote:  It's important because if it is classified as a disease, American taxpayers end up funding it.

What does that mean for you and me? More $$ to Uncle Sam, and more fat people playing the "disease" card. It's a losing strategy and doesn't promote responsible behavior or incentive to lose weight.

Another downside of living in DC: you start seeing everything in terms of government policy.

I get in those moods sometimes despite not living in DC though.

Post: #13

I think in SOME cases obesity can be considered a disease in and of itself, while in other cases obesity is the result of perhaps a mental illness. If obesity is the result of some sort of glandular issue, you could classify it as a disease. If it's the result of a person continually overeating and refusing to engage in physical activity in any form, I would say they have some type of underlying mental issue, with obesity being the by-product. We could classify overeating as an addiction, but then it comes full circle because many believe that addiction is a disease.

My very own brother is obese (he's 6' 3," and conservatively somewhere between 350 and 400 lbs). Throughout his life he's been a voracious overeater. When we were younger, we were active, so he didn't gain a lot of weight (he played basketball through high school, but an injury prevented him from playing in college). Once he got out of school, he ceased all physical activity, but his appetite not only remained the same, it increased. All he's ever done is go to work, come home, and eat. He'll eat a massive dinner, then late at night is back in the fridge for a sandwich. If he goes downstairs to put his plate from the previous meal in the sink, he comes back upstairs with something. As long as he's awake, he's eating constantly. He polishes off liters of soda at a time (diet of course...HA HA!). He demolishes junk food by the carton and bag. Being on medication for high blood pressure, cholesterol, and most recently, diabetes has not curtailed his habits. Any attendant conditions or diseases are a result of his gluttony and laziness. He has mental issues, but in his case his obesity is not a disease.

Post: #14

The real problem is the easy accessibility and abundance of food. We waste so much food in this country it is staggeringly unbelievable.

To get back on topic though, of course the thin girls look out of place when they are in the minority. It's part of the bigger problem we were just discussing.

Post: #15

(03-12-2012 12:04 PM)basilransom Wrote:  Why do we have to couch everything in terms of health, and ascribe no value to aesthetics? Why isn't looking good and presentable a virtue? This is why we have people walking around in sweatpants. We, Americans, suck at appreciating aesthetics. We feel downright shameful about liking pretty things. And when someone is fat, we feel guilty about noticing. If we do object, we object on bullshit non-aesthetic grounds. That's a total copout. Because we believe that an argument promoting la bella figura just isn't good enough.

Every culture holds what is healthy to be beautiful.

It's really one in the same.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18141550/ns/...14z4jES1m0

Quote:In Mauritania, to make a girl big and plump, ‘gavage’ — a borrowed French word from the practice of fattening of geese for foie gras — starts early. Obesity has long been the ideal of beauty, signaling a family’s wealth in a land repeatedly wracked by drought.

Quote:Isselmou Ould Mohamed says he loves his wife’s 200-pound body and was pleased when she began adding even more weight during pregnancy. When he learned she had started walking around the soccer stadium to try to shed the extra pounds, he was revolted.

“I don’t like skinny women. I want to be able to grab her love handles,” said the 32-year-old. “I told her that if she loses a lot of weight, I’ll divorce her.”

Why would a culture promote fatness if being fat is a disease?

Quote:Although Mauritania is the only culture known to force-feed girls, obesity is popular across much of the Arab world. Nomadic peoples struggling to survive the harsh desert came to prize fatness as a sign of health.

Because to them, fatness is healthy. And health = beauty, across every culture I've studied or lived in.

Post: #16

(03-12-2012 11:59 AM)Gmac Wrote:  

(03-12-2012 11:43 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(03-12-2012 11:17 AM)Gmac Wrote:  Left-wing babble

Gmac, think for youself. Is being fat healthy? No. Does it hurt you? Yes.


It's a disease. You don't need to follow what a bunch of politically correct scientists say.

These guys are mostly spineless cowards who cannot admit the truth in fear of losing funding.


However, some are speaking out (from your article):

Quote:Ambiguity surrounding the condition's causes and a lack of evidence-based medical treatments are likely to blame. But given what researchers know -- and the costs associated with the condition -- should obesity be considered a disease? Should it gain some health care coverage from insurers?

A growing number of researchers think so.

I don't give a shit what anyone says on this, being fat is a disease.

You're like a little kid arguing against scientific fact. Definitions are important, not what you say it "should be."

The only reason it is even up for debate is because lobbyists are rallying to have obesity included in healthcare programs, which would be a disaster.

-1

Dude, I'm not going to be embroiled in a debate over what we can define or not.

But I will say your worship of science is a typical, if not depressing, attitude of most people today. You think these scientists are smarter than you? Because they work in a lab? Come on dude, have some more respect for yourself.

Definitions aren't important, and the problem is that our government wants to provide universal healthcare, not the definition.

The great thinkers have never cared for anyone else's definitions, and they end up becoming the ones who redefine words.

Being fat is unhealthy. Something that keeps your unhealthy is a disease.



By the way, I get the opportunity to speak with doctors every now and then. They consider fatness (at least obesity) to be a disease.

Post: #17

National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance

Can't make this shit up.

Post: #18

(03-12-2012 12:39 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Every culture holds what is healthy to be beautiful.

It's really one in the same...

Because to them, fatness is healthy. And health = beauty, across every culture I've studied or lived in.

That's beside the point. Our friend Mohamed is actually closer in spirit to me than most Americans. He's telling girls to be fat for the same reason I'm telling girls to be skinny - because that's what's beautiful.

If you like a car because it's fast, you want it to be as fast as possible. If you value a woman for her looks, you want her at her prettiest. We don't preach having a beautiful figure, whether that's obese or svelte, because we fundamentally believe valuing a woman for her looks is wrong. We're supposed to value her for other things, like her ability to be a wage slave and her talent at expressing her independence by reading Us Weekly. (But definitely do not value her for her skills in child-rearing, cooking, or cleaning. Or her femininity.) This is a sign that we live in a sick, emasculated society. Aesthetically, I prefer ours to Mauritania's, of course. But mentally, I respect men like Mohamed, for demanding his woman look a certain way because that's what appeals to him.

And apparently these women are fatter than ours:

Quote:Fifty-two percent of women over 15 in Kuwait are obese, as are 46 percent in Egypt and approximately a third of women in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, according to the WHO. That contrasts sharply with most sub-Saharan countries, including Mauritania’s neighbors, Senegal and Mali, where only 9 and 6 percent of women are obese.

Post: #19

Here's one definition of disease:

"A disease is an abnormal condition affecting the body of an organism. It is often construed to be a medical condition associated with specific symptoms and signs..... In humans, 'disease' is often used more broadly to refer to any condition that causes pain, dysfunction, distress, social problems, and/or death to the person afflicted, or similar problems for those in contact with the person."

Why isn't being fat a disease under that definition?

Post: #20

(03-12-2012 03:12 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  Here's one definition of disease:

"A disease is an abnormal condition affecting the body of an organism. It is often construed to be a medical condition associated with specific symptoms and signs..... In humans, 'disease' is often used more broadly to refer to any condition that causes pain, dysfunction, distress, social problems, and/or death to the person afflicted, or similar problems for those in contact with the person."

Why isn't being fat a disease under that definition?

Technically speaking, accumulating "fat" isn't an abnormal condition. All organisms have fat.

The problem with the term when it is often used "more broadly" is that it can basically apply to everything and anything if you want it to. Where does it end? Your imagination.

Post: #21

(03-12-2012 03:12 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  Here's one definition of disease:

"A disease is an abnormal condition affecting the body of an organism. It is often construed to be a medical condition associated with specific symptoms and signs..... In humans, 'disease' is often used more broadly to refer to any condition that causes pain, dysfunction, distress, social problems, and/or death to the person afflicted, or similar problems for those in contact with the person."

Why isn't being fat a disease under that definition?

I think the reason why the medical establishment has chosen to call obesity a risk factor for many other conditions rather than a separate disease is because there isn't actually anything wrong with the physiology of most people who become obese. The body is designed to store excess energy whenever possible because we evolved in circumstances where we didn't know when our next meal would be coming. You can have absolutely nothing wrong with the physiologic regulation of your appetite and metabolism and still become obese because the surrounding environment provides you with too much food and too little need to be active.

That said, you're right that it's kind of an arbitrary line, and ultimately it doesn't matter whether you call it a disease or a risk factor because you try to treat it just as aggressively either way. Tobacco smoking is considered a risk factor instead of a disease too, but that doesn't make smoking any less serious of a risk for developing lung cancer, COPD, heart disease, pancreatitis, etc etc. Obesity is the same way.

Gmac: smoking isn't called a disease either and there's plenty of government funding for anti-smoking programs. You're going to see a lot of taxpayer money directed at curbing obesity in the future (in my opinion a good thing) because all of the money spent on treating the health conditions that obese people develop is making the healthcare system go bankrupt.

Post: #22

(03-12-2012 12:51 PM)assman Wrote:  National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance

Can't make this shit up.

1) Obesity is contagious. If you have fat friends you are more likely to become fat.

2) Obesity leads to sickness and disease. Taxpayers and insurance policy holders must pay for the damage.

3) Obesity is the result of overeating. Overeating results in the overproduction of food and the wanton destruction of the natural environment.

4) The diseases and illnesses resulting from obesity results in a shorter lifespan.

Anything that shortens human lives, encourages illness, incurs forced costs on third parties, and destroys the environment is evil. Thus, we must conclude that The National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance is a hate group. I hope the SPLC has alerted everyone of the danger.

Post: #23

(03-12-2012 05:46 PM)babelfish669 Wrote:  

(03-12-2012 12:51 PM)assman Wrote:  National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance

Can't make this shit up.

1) Obesity is contagious. If you have fat friends you are more likely to become fat.

2) Obesity leads to sickness and disease. Taxpayers and insurance policy holders must pay for the damage.

3) Obesity is the result of overeating. Overeating results in the overproduction of food and the wanton destruction of the natural environment.

4) The diseases and illnesses resulting from obesity results in a shorter lifespan.

Anything that shortens human lives, encourages illness, incurs forced costs on third parties, and destroys the environment is evil. Thus, we must conclude that The National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance is a hate group. I hope the SPLC has alerted everyone of the danger.

[]

That was tight my friend. You summed it all up.

Post: #24

(03-12-2012 11:17 AM)Gmac Wrote:  Technically being overweight isn't a disease
The WHO definition is:

a BMI greater than or equal to 25 is overweight.
a BMI greater than or equal to 30 is obese.

So, one needs to be 1/4 lard to be considered fat?

Post: #25

I'd say it's a disease, it just happens to be a disease people are self-inflicting by poisoning themselves with sugary starchy processed crap. Regardless of what fat acceptance people claim, it is simply not possible to be seriously overweight and healthy at the same time. Type 2 Diabetes is really a spectrum disorder, for some reason doctors only diagnose it once a person has gotten so bad that their body has to start pissing sugar to keep their blood from turning to acid, but prior to that point you get rollercoaster blood sugar causing severe food cravings, which is the primary reason so many innocent people have been crushed in stampedes in recent years through no fault of their own beyond accidentally standing in front of the fried shrimp tray at Indian casino buffets across the U.S.