I think the fact that it's an epidemic actually highlights how futile it is to focus on the problem at an individual level. If a handful of people are struggling with something that seems like a...
Exemplary
I think the fact that it's an epidemic actually highlights how futile it is to focus on the problem at an individual level. If a handful of people are struggling with something that seems like a result of their individual choices, maybe it is, but if most of the population is struggling with the same issue, maybe it's not just their choices, but the options that they have to choose from.
Obesity is an epidemic, but there are so many structural changes that we need to discuss before focusing on the individual.
Infrastructure needs to be addressed. Car-centric city planning reduces opportunities for walking as part of a daily lifestyle. More walkable cities means more walking, less being sedentary. Walking shouldn't just be safer, but also more pleasant. Green spaces and less concrete in a walkable city means that choosing to walk isn't a sacrifice you make for your health (or the environment), it's just a nice way to get places, which is how it should be.
Work-life balance needs to be improved. This impacts both diet and exercise. Cooking, grocery shopping and exercising are all far more difficult when you're already exhausted (physically, emotionally or mentally) from work. "Don't go to the gym, join a team or find an activity you actually enjoy" is great advice for people who struggle to get moving, but it doesn't take into account how little time people have to actually do that. When getting active means likely removing an activity that you enjoy more from your life, of course it's going to be a struggle. We should have the time to do the things we need to do, AND the things that we enjoy.
Probably the biggest factor is the food industry. Profit motives incentivize making the most dopamine-triggering, hyper-palatable food possible, and of course it's extremely abundant. It's creating generations of addicts who cannot possibly quit cold-turkey, which is the most effective way to quit an addiction. You can't avoid addiction triggers. Try to go a week without seeing any advertisements for, walking past a display of, or even smelling any highly-processed "junk" food. It's almost impossible.
Yes, it's possible to overcome these obstacles. It's possible to make healthy choices. But why are we okay with living in a world where eating and moving, two of the most natural, basic things, are extremely difficult intellectual challenges? For some it comes easy. Just like some people can drink alcohol freely but never get addicted, some people will never struggle to say no to a bag of potato chips. Some people don't have to give up the things they enjoy in order to exercise, because exercise is the thing they enjoy. But shouldn't we want to live in a world where even when it isn't easy, it's at least like, medium?
To focus on the individual before any of these things is addressed is futile and cruel.
Not to disagree with your points, but I would like to emphasize that on a personal level rooted in kindness and empathy, encouraging healthy choices to overcome obesity is neither cruel nor...
Not to disagree with your points, but I would like to emphasize that on a personal level rooted in kindness and empathy, encouraging healthy choices to overcome obesity is neither cruel nor futile. The word is rigged against them, but at the same time it is both possible and admirable to push back on an individual level.
Changing the world is extremely important, especially for those with power. But I would never suggest that an alcoholic should accept alcoholism until the world changes around him. Likewise supporting and encouraging someone to overcome the obstacles and benefit their health can be a positive and impactful endeavor.
If you personally know the person on a fairly close level - if you know what their days are like and their habits and disposition - then yes, you're right, so long as you're not nagging them about...
If you personally know the person on a fairly close level - if you know what their days are like and their habits and disposition - then yes, you're right, so long as you're not nagging them about things they are already aware of. If they're receptive to the message, then bonus points - you did a good deed for the day.
This video was not made to address that situation. It's meant to address when this happens in every other context, including those where it's intentionally disparaging. Random health advice put into the void doesn't help anyone, and can actually cause harm.
Context is very important here. My content was speaking in the context of obesity as an epidemic. I don't think it's useful to discuss it on an individual level when discussing it as an epidemic....
Context is very important here. My content was speaking in the context of obesity as an epidemic. I don't think it's useful to discuss it on an individual level when discussing it as an epidemic. If you're talking to an individual who has requested your help or you are otherwise in a place to know enough about them and their individual obstacles to help them? Sure. But that won't stop the epidemic.
I also think a lot of people think that losing weight is so important that they kid themselves into thinking that anything they do to make this person lose weight is an act of kindness, even when it's clearly cruel. It's extremely important to steer away from that thinking.
I do generally agree with you, though. It makes sense to have an addiction in a world that is literally designed to get you addicted, but your life will be better if you're able to at least reduce the harm, and having someone help you do that can be invaluable.
Preach! Our transportation, food, work, and community systems are out of whack! To emphasize your point, I have a good friend who always makes it a point to bring up that all of these food...
Preach! Our transportation, food, work, and community systems are out of whack!
Probably the biggest factor is the food industry. Profit motives incentivize making the most dopamine-triggering, hyper-palatable food possible, and of course it's extremely abundant. It's creating generations of addicts who cannot possibly quit cold-turkey, which is the most effective way to quit an addiction. You can't avoid addiction triggers. Try to go a week without seeing any advertisements for, walking past a display of, or even smelling any highly-processed "junk" food. It's almost impossible.
To emphasize your point, I have a good friend who always makes it a point to bring up that all of these food companies: Unilever, Nestle, Doritos, PepsiCo.... they all have behavioral scientists on staff. People who can devise flavors that create behavior for individuals to over consume and crave their specific snacks. They literally optimize for addiction.
I agree that we are in an epidemic and we need to change system level problems, not blame individual action. There are so many parallels between this and climate action.
This video is not denying that weight can lead to health problems or that obesity is a growing statistic. They make that clear at multiple points. The problem it is addressing is the way these...
This video is not denying that weight can lead to health problems or that obesity is a growing statistic. They make that clear at multiple points.
The problem it is addressing is the way these problems are framed in society, the messaging used to convey them, and how those are causing even more problems, including causing eating disorders which make obesity an even bigger problem.
Edit: I did want to thank you for actually watching it before commenting on it, though.
I dunno, I think most viewers are able to grasp that the point of the sentence was to point out the guys lack of science pondus and his eugenicist tendecies, and the quirb was just, well, a quirb....
I dunno, I think most viewers are able to grasp that the point of the sentence was to point out the guys lack of science pondus and his eugenicist tendecies, and the quirb was just, well, a quirb.
Also, mocking someone for having ugly sideburns is completely harmless. Unlike fat shaming, which reinforces a world wide dehumanization campain where the targets entire personality is reduced to someone who is lazy and greedy. Equalizing both under the label "bullying people for their apperence" is flawed, I think. (is there a term for this flaw?)
That said, I find the humor in "Some More News" to be a bit too childish. A bit like what I expect from a 10 year old who rely on his childish cuteness. One episode where I felt the humor spoke more to me was A Brief Look at Jordan Peterson
I categorically reject this. Shaving off your sideburns may be a simple solution to conform to an externally desired beauty ideal, but in the end whether someone has sideburns, or a bushy beard,...
Also, mocking someone for having ugly sideburns is completely harmless.
I categorically reject this.
Shaving off your sideburns may be a simple solution to conform to an externally desired beauty ideal, but in the end whether someone has sideburns, or a bushy beard, or a mohawk, or shaved head, or a mullet, or some other hairdo is fundamentally only an aesthetic choice which does not materially affect anyone else.
(If used as a symbol to represent belief or action, that's another matter.)
If the person themselves enjoys it, mocking them is to attack their personality, which absolutely can hurt them, for instance by making them hide or deny what they would like to look like.
Even if they also think it looks a bit silly, there could be additional circumstances. Maybe they have the sideburns because shaving makes their skin irritated and itchy. Maybe a now deceased relative or friend had the same look and it's an homage to them. Maybe they are just exhausted from work and depression, and can't be bothered to shave?
You may think they look silly, and there's nothing wrong with thinking that, but you're not the one who determines if the subject is hurt by your mockery, they do.
I meant that it was relatively harmless in comparison with fat shaming, which if feel is a more hostile form of mockery. It doesn't even looks like she actually have any negative feeling towards...
I meant that it was relatively harmless in comparison with fat shaming, which if feel is a more hostile form of mockery. It doesn't even looks like she actually have any negative feeling towards his sideburns, it's just a silly joke.
Errare humanum est. It's easy to make mistakes. Sometimes it's fortunately also easy to correct them. I'm not sure that you mean relatively harmless either. Perhaps effectively harmless - only at...
I meant that it was relatively harmless in comparison with fat shaming, which [I] feel is a more hostile form of mockery. It doesn't even looks like she actually [has] any negative feeling towards his sideburns, it's just a silly joke.
Errare humanum est. It's easy to make mistakes. Sometimes it's fortunately also easy to correct them.
I'm not sure that you mean relatively harmless either. Perhaps effectively harmless - only at worst potentially causing so little harm that it is insignificant in all meaningful ways - is what you are looking for?
In either case, I wouldn't necessarily agree with the characterizations of it, but at least it can be read as subjective interpretation rather than an absolute.
Still, even if I were to agree that considering the scope, subject, prevalence, pervasiveness etc. of the joke that it is effectively harmless, I would still argue it is counterproductive as presented in this video.
If part of their argument is that a focus on appearance (in their case as opposed to the more material concern of health) is a significant detriment in current times, then shouldn't they, at least with this video, try to embody that argument?
That is, even if no one who is directly or indirectly exposed to the joke suffers from it, the credibility of the creators certainly does (in my view).
Read the immediate context of the joke as presented in the video:
And much like Adolphe Quetelet, I am not a scientist; but unlike Adolphe I'm also not a eugenicist, nor do I have stupid sideburns, so I support proactively looking at the situation without stigmatization.
Compare it to making a small modification:
And much like Adolphe Quetelet, I am not a scientist; but unlike Adolphe I'm also not a eugenicist, nor do I have stupid sideburns. Wait, now I'm judging people by their appearance instead of what actually matters?! So anyway, I support proactively looking at the situation without stigmatization.
Now the joke is included, but in a way to actually drive home some of the arguments and implicitly argue for empathy;
Just as before, they get to make the joke.
Just as before, they use a less prevalent example than fat shaming (mocking sideburns) and do so on a long dead person to reduce harm.
They now explicitly call out how the joke is in the same vein as some aspects of what they are discussing in the video, reinforcing that focus on appearance can be misdirected.
They also make some effort in a scripted environment to implicitly show that it may be easy to make these jokes without thinking of it; thus, if people do so but are open to genuinely try better we should not vilify them.
Consider then also that this is in fact the second time in the video they joke about his sideburns. Earlier in the video they have the following (from the transcript of the video someone linked, or at 22:19 in the video):
In fact, [Quetelet] was best known for his work aimed at identifying the characteristics of the average man, who, to Quetelet, wasn't average at all.
The average man represented a social ideal of the perfect - big, big quotes - "normal man", based on an average of human measurements, which, honestly, is always ripe coming from guys whose sideburns are clearly trying to strangle them.
Maybe their intent is that it should be no mistake that the jokes are to be taken that way - that they are so obvious examples of the same type of damaging misdirected attention on appearance that any reasonable viewer would take them as such. That the fact that they say they are for looking at the situation without stigmatization, while just then having stigmatized the sideburns, is context enough to make the purpose of that joke clear: what they did is exactly what we should not do.
If that is their intent, I think the fact that we're having this discussion is an indicator that they failed.
I've always taken SMN to be following the formula "What if Charlie from Always Sunny stopped huffing glue and found his way to the Left." In that light, I think it mostly works. Quality of humor...
That said, I find the humor in "Some More News" to be a bit too childish
I've always taken SMN to be following the formula "What if Charlie from Always Sunny stopped huffing glue and found his way to the Left." In that light, I think it mostly works.
Quality of humor aside, they are incredibly well-sourced and are able to rapid fire many complex issues in short order with stunning accuracy. I have yet to find anybody who can falsify SMN remotely the way say InfoWars could be.
They're right up there with Adam Ruins Everything, whose new channel is also doing some quality work.
Coincidentally I posted the last episode of his podcast at about the same time I posted this. Well, the video version: for some reason he doesn't seem to have a website link for Factually since it...
Coincidentally I posted the last episode of his podcast at about the same time I posted this. Well, the video version: for some reason he doesn't seem to have a website link for Factually since it left Earwolf, and I didn't want to link any specific third party page for it.
But what does it accomplish? For me, a script making a point to bully a figure that will be unfamiliar to most only fosters doubt. If they're this uncharitable during their delivery, how...
the point of the sentence was to point out the guys lack of science pondus and his eugenicist tendecies, and the quirb was just, well, a quirb.
But what does it accomplish? For me, a script making a point to bully a figure that will be unfamiliar to most only fosters doubt. If they're this uncharitable during their delivery, how uncharitable were they during their research? Should I trust anything they have to say about the subject?
Of course there is, and I admit I feel a bit silly having to point it out: anyone alive has the capacity to be offended by it. If a dead person is being mocked for an aspect of their appearance...
Of course there is, and I admit I feel a bit silly having to point it out: anyone alive has the capacity to be offended by it. If a dead person is being mocked for an aspect of their appearance and someone's own appearance was similar, or it reminded them of similar issues they've experienced, do you not think that'd bother them? Or, to put it another way, would you see no issue with hate speech being directed toward the dead?
I don't really understand why you feel so strongly about the sideburn thing, to the point where you're ready to dismiss the entire one hour video over it. To me it felt kind of good-natured. To...
I don't really understand why you feel so strongly about the sideburn thing, to the point where you're ready to dismiss the entire one hour video over it. To me it felt kind of good-natured. To quote it in it's entirety:
"And much like Adolphe Quetelet, I am not a scientist, but unlike Adolphe, I am also not a eugenicist, nor do I have stupid sideburns."
Can we take a moment to just enjoy how well-composed that sentence is? Anyhows, she first criticize him for the lack of science, then reveals his tendency towards eugenics, and then spoils it by going on about his sideburns. This looks like irony to me. The punchline is not as much that he has stupid sideburns, but that she is silly enough to go on about it.
Frankly I think the fact that an obvious joke makes you ignore the entire point of a video where the main purpose was to increase the amount of empathy people have with real living people says...
Frankly I think the fact that an obvious joke makes you ignore the entire point of a video where the main purpose was to increase the amount of empathy people have with real living people says much more about you personally than it does about the people who made the video.
So rather than argue with you, I challenge you to find anything - an article, a video, a podcast, whatever - that expresses the ideas in the video without offending your sensibilities and share that with us. That would be a very constructive way to demonstrate empathy.
Sideburns aren't really equivalent to obesity. Sideburns are a matter of taste, and that's all that's being mocked. There's no lack of ability or access, no non-voluntary factor in having...
Sideburns aren't really equivalent to obesity. Sideburns are a matter of taste, and that's all that's being mocked. There's no lack of ability or access, no non-voluntary factor in having sideburns. That's not true of obesity. It's much more complex and less voluntary. I don't disagree that arguments are generally stronger when avoiding attacking the opposition's looks, but I do disagree that it reveals any logical flaw.
Alright, I have watched the video! As someone else has pointed out, it's difficult to initially see this as a springboard for earnest discourse when it comes right out of the gate with a comedy...
Exemplary
Alright, I have watched the video! As someone else has pointed out, it's difficult to initially see this as a springboard for earnest discourse when it comes right out of the gate with a comedy skit. Subjectively I'm not a fan of this delivery but to be objective: throughout it seems to prioritize witty commentary/ entertainment over being informative.
That being said, it does make some valid points. They aren't anything new or novel, but it is irritating how society continually obsesses over weight and weight loss for aesthetics as opposed to actual health and wellbeing.
Things I found frustrating:
The video only touches lightly on issues like food deserts and the financial cost of eating healthily and spends more time criticising the short term band-aids (1200 calorie diets, weight loss drugs) instead of exploring real potential solutions for the challenges modern people face in achieving and maintaining a healthy body.
Glossing over the fact that the obesity epidemic is a very real thing. Over time we've seen a global trend in average weight for men and women increasing significantly and this does have serious health implications. People who are genuinely obese with high levels of subcutaneous and/ or visceral fat are at greater risk of developing comorbidities and having reduced mobility, and neither of those things sound great for mental health either. It feels disingenuous to shy away from that.
Dismissing BMI as "bogus" is too extreme of a viewpoint. I agree it holds far too much value though and it's infuriating that health insurance providers only rely on this for their policies when they ask for height and weight. It's lazy and bodyfat percentage or body composition are much more useful indicators.
Something I appreciated:
The brief discussion of eating disorders through a male lens and in particular the emergence of clueless techbros rebranding it as "biohacking". It's the same problem from a very different angle. Touching on the complexity around athlete health was also good.
Sorry, this has grown into a huge comment! Wrapping up: I agree with the overall sentiment that there are more important things than weight, but a lot of those things are bodyfat percentage and mental wellbeing, and strategies for addressing the improvement of both probably have a lot of overlap. They're also dead right that the current neuroticism and shame culture around obesity just exacerbates the problem, but I wish they'd skipped some of the wisecracking to cover that in more depth; it's an extremely surface level discussion.
I would have liked to hear more about promotion of walkable cities and urban areas, community gardens and food distribution to help tackle food deserts, liveable wages and sensible work/life balance, etc. I recognise those things extremely feel like blue sky thinking (which is profoundly sad in its own way) but it's valuable to have acknowledgement that a lot of the best solutions are more closely tied to overall quality of life improvement rather than just variations of CICO.
To be fair, they have hundreds of hours of other content which addresses these sorts of other social problems directly. I'm a big fan of How Racism and Greed Prevent us from Solving Problems.
The video only touches lightly on issues like food deserts and the financial cost of eating healthily and spends more time criticising the short term band-aids (1200 calorie diets, weight loss drugs) instead of exploring real potential solutions for the challenges modern people face in achieving and maintaining a healthy body.
That's good to know, thanks! I probably won't sink the time into these ones since it's not a format I particularly enjoy, but I'm glad they do cover it more somewhere. On some level I still wish...
That's good to know, thanks! I probably won't sink the time into these ones since it's not a format I particularly enjoy, but I'm glad they do cover it more somewhere. On some level I still wish they'd focused more on these solutions in this particular video, but I may also have to accept that I'm just not the target audience.
Hey nice, this is a topic I've gotten more and more interested in since listening to the podcast Maintenance Phase. I was a big /r/LoseIt /r/1200isplenty subscriber so I know intimately the types...
Hey nice, this is a topic I've gotten more and more interested in since listening to the podcast Maintenance Phase.
I was a big /r/LoseIt/r/1200isplenty subscriber so I know intimately the types of views the video is talking about. But especially speaking to the 1200 calories limit that got thrown around A LOT really is what caused me to have a lot of disordered eating patterns. The video is right that these weight loss-mindsets really are not healthy. People would talk about eating a bag of potato chips which then forced them to skip meals in order to still be under 1200 calories and people would empathize and laugh and kind of root for them? And don't get me started on how most people talking about having 1200 calorie diets were for sure not sedentary women. That number almost became a catch-all for people dieting despite the occasional warnings.
I really started to dislike /r/LoseIt after a while. People would throw out phrases like "CICO" and "crabs in a bucket" like it was gospel. Even though I'm at a higher weight than I was before, I have a much healthier connection to eating and my body than I did while I was actively dieting.
I was in the same boat as you and had a similar observation. The more I took a step back from loseit and similar subreddits or social media accounts, the more I've noticed that - altough the...
I was in the same boat as you and had a similar observation. The more I took a step back from loseit and similar subreddits or social media accounts, the more I've noticed that - altough the intentions are often not bad ones - they basically advertise disordered eating as a way of dieting and living. A few years back, I was eating 1500 kcal a day as a 6'1" adult man that weighed 230 pounds or so, just to get under 200. I was cycling and lifting back then too, in hindsight it's absolutely crazy that I was able to function and not really a surprise, nothing was really happening. I was not getting fitter, I was not getting stronger, I just lost more weight aka. fat and muscle.
I have the same findings with the whole intermittent fasting thing. Not that IF itself is bad, but things like OMAD (one meal a day) really make me question how healthy that can be. The whole trend of not eating or barely eating is a bit worrisome to me, because it teaches the wrong attitude towards food and general health. You sometimes have the feeling, people want to be skinny, not healthy.
Yes I agree wholeheartedly about the "skinny, not healthy" idea! There was a common sentiment of "Calories are calories" didn't matter if it was 1200 calories of oreos or veggies. Or the fasting...
Yes I agree wholeheartedly about the "skinny, not healthy" idea! There was a common sentiment of "Calories are calories" didn't matter if it was 1200 calories of oreos or veggies. Or the fasting as long as you got your "weekly calories." Because the goal isn't being healthy it's losing weight and skinny = healthy anyways.
It's crazy how much you don't realize something is wrong when you're in the moment. During that time I'd have multiple days where I'd eat 2 tablespoons of peanut butter for dinner. Never had I ever craved just peanut butter before, and never have I craved it since. My body was for sure going crazy with my constant restriction and the days I'd "cheat" I would inevitably binge and feel guilty. These kinds of weight loss habits are not just physically unhealthy they really mess with people's minds.
I mentioned the "crabs in a bucket" mentality but I really do think it's insidious. Everyone in a commenter's life who would question them on their weight loss tactics/goals was presumably 1. fat and 2. jealous. That is such a horrible and dangerous mindset to have. And I think it contributes to people staying in these toxic cycles. I know it did for me.
This really hits close to home. I had evenings were I had only eaten a bit above 1000 calories across the day and my dinner was 200 grams of cottage cheese and that's it - and that was good or...
It's crazy how much you don't realize something is wrong when you're in the moment. During that time I'd have multiple days where I'd eat 2 tablespoons of peanut butter for dinner. Never had I ever craved just peanut butter before, and never have I craved it since.
This really hits close to home. I had evenings were I had only eaten a bit above 1000 calories across the day and my dinner was 200 grams of cottage cheese and that's it - and that was good or even amazing for me. And of course the binging also followed. I fucked up my eating habits so much in that time that I still struggle with binge eating all the time, even with psychological help.
No one becomes fat in six months (well maybe the YouTube binge eaters), no one should go from obese to skinny in the same timeframe. Setting up actual healthy habits is the most important part.
No one becomes fat in six months (well maybe the YouTube binge eaters), no one should go from obese to skinny in the same timeframe.
Setting up actual healthy habits is the most important part.
Operative word is should. Unfortunately a lot of weightloss places are very much a "race" mentality. Of those who share progress pictures the ones who lose the most weight the fastest get the most...
Operative word is should. Unfortunately a lot of weightloss places are very much a "race" mentality. Of those who share progress pictures the ones who lose the most weight the fastest get the most attention. They get the most attention and then that's all you ever see are the ones who do it so quickly.
And that's another thing. I was never obese. Probably never even technically overweight by BMI standards. I just wanted to be thin for aesthetic purposes. This kind of stuff affects everyone but I feel like it's even worse for fat folks because no one ever believes them when they say they might have an eating disorder. Most people expect anorexic or bulimic people to be skinny.
I think it depends on the person. I was OMAD for a while, lost 60 lbs (I went from almost obese by BMI to the top end of normal weight), and have only gotten healthier since. I recognized at the...
I think it depends on the person. I was OMAD for a while, lost 60 lbs (I went from almost obese by BMI to the top end of normal weight), and have only gotten healthier since. I recognized at the time that it was not the healthiest way to lose weight, but I was impatient and young and figured even if it was harmful my youth would absorb that. My weight has fluctuated a bit since then, but recently that's mostly due to increased muscle mass. I was able to get really into cycling and now also weight-lifting, in addition to (mostly) eating healthy food for three meals per day.
But I think there are people who could start on that kind of diet and it would turn into anorexia, or some other kind of eating disorder. I saw it more like an endurance effort with a clear end goal.
First off all grats on your amazing progress! It shows that it does work, together with discipline and some hard work. :) It's also great that you found a way to naturally progress through that...
First off all grats on your amazing progress! It shows that it does work, together with discipline and some hard work. :) It's also great that you found a way to naturally progress through that change of diet and find a plan that helps, that's basically the best case scenario one can hope for. My worry stems from seeing people that couldn't make that jump and basically fell from one eating disorder right into the next one. But it's gladly not all black and white so I didn't want to overly criticise these eating habits / diet habits. Hope it didn't come off that way.
Like so many things related to health, things like IF and OMAD are highly individualized. As modern humans with unprecedented food convenience, it's easy to forget that we are in the bodies of...
Like so many things related to health, things like IF and OMAD are highly individualized. As modern humans with unprecedented food convenience, it's easy to forget that we are in the bodies of hunter gatherers who would have to hunt and forage for their meals. Some people are naturally adapted to eat larger meals less frequently, others the opposite. What's important is being able to find what is best for yourself, without judgement. If you are eating whole, minimally processed foods, staying hydrated and moderately active, then when you feel hungry is the right time to eat. When you feel satisfied is the time to stop. If that only happens once a day there's nothing wrong with that. One of the problems is that there are so many external forces messing with this natural rhythm, from life stressors to food quality or social pressures that it's easy to be thrown off of it. IF and OMAD aren't for everyone but for the people who might need the reminder to check in and listen to their body instead of boredom snacking it can be very useful.
I see your points, definitely. I didn't want to overly criticise the ideas behind stuff like OMAD and IF, just critizise the "one fits all" approach of many people that tried these ways of living...
I see your points, definitely. I didn't want to overly criticise the ideas behind stuff like OMAD and IF, just critizise the "one fits all" approach of many people that tried these ways of living and now use them as a blueprint for everyone they can reach. That's what is worrisome to me, not the approach itself :)
This kind of mentality - more specifically the excessive CICO stuff - was precisely the reason why I wanted to post this video. If I had found a better written article that covered everything this...
This kind of mentality - more specifically the excessive CICO stuff - was precisely the reason why I wanted to post this video.
If I had found a better written article that covered everything this did, I would have posted it instead.
The best success I've had with losing weight then keeping it off was to completely forsake counting calories and instead focus on eating healthy. My health insurance gave me access to a program...
The best success I've had with losing weight then keeping it off was to completely forsake counting calories and instead focus on eating healthy. My health insurance gave me access to a program called Omada which is where I first came across this as a method for weight loss, but I really don't think a program is necessary to be successful with it. I let myself eat unhealthy here and there, and I think everyone should because it can be good for your mental health, but focusing on healthy food has been effective for me. I'm not quite as thin as I might like to be but I'm definitely healthier than I would be if I were 10 lbs lighter but eating processed food with every meal. It can be more expensive to eat healthy which is really unfortunate for people on a limited income.
At this point I meal prep my workday dinners on Sunday, eat yogurt with fruit for breakfast, a big bowl of veggies with some hummus is often lunch, then I'll have a small healthy snack later. You don't need to count calories when you eat a big pile o' vegetables and if you focus entirely on finding foods you're happy with that are good for you, you're treating your body well and you'll see benefits even if you don't drop a bunch of weight right off the bat. When you do want to have a piece of cake or whatever, go for it because totally denying it can lead to issues. You just need to be good to yourself and eat less, and experiment with eating more slowly and savoring it more so you can be satisfied with less.
I went through a similar program and it's having pretty fantastic results. If you've read some of my comments about the whole food plant based diet, it's the thing that got me on it and helped me...
I went through a similar program and it's having pretty fantastic results. If you've read some of my comments about the whole food plant based diet, it's the thing that got me on it and helped me stick with it.
I can speak for personal experience, which is fully anecdotal but still valid, that when I've been on a "diet" I've been incredibly unhealthy. Whether it was because an app told me to eat 1200...
Exemplary
I can speak for personal experience, which is fully anecdotal but still valid, that when I've been on a "diet" I've been incredibly unhealthy. Whether it was because an app told me to eat 1200 calories, because calorie counting itself led to obsessive and unhealthy behavior, or because Atkins literally gave me migraines. I became fat while being an active athlete because my body said it was time to develop secondary sex characteristics. And then when I stopped being an athlete in college, my body had learned different lessons about holding onto calories. With ADHD, I struggle to be as attentive to my hunger cues as I'd like because my meds make me not want food, but if I don't eat something I'll get sick.
But having gone through a huge amount of stress lately, not eating much, doing increased physical labor as a caretaker... I've not lost a pound. (I don't weigh myself anymore, but had a doctor's appt). I've had less time than usual for my long walks that I love, I've gotten way less sleep and it's been worse, and I'm emotionally drained from everything I'm doing daily. Those things are worse for mu health than the numbers on a scale. Those are things I'm working on with a therapist and my doctors. Health At Any Size is about addressing health holistically no matter the patient's weight. It's about whether your labs come back fine, or you're getting enough movement, or your pain is managed so you actually can move. It's not "oh hey any size is equally healthy" but "we will address your health at any size"
Obesity predominantly relates to risk factors - some obese people run marathons, or play the flute while twerking in heels, or win those competitions where people throw logs and stuff. I'm not in that latter category, yet (ok maybe not a marathon, even the idea is exhausting) but I'm pretty active through work and home. Risk factors don't guarantee outcomes, they nudge them. It'd be nice not to be reduced to a single risk factor in people's eyes, or be accused of being "insane" for not focusing on the one that lacks long term methods of addressing jt and results in some of the greatest social stigma. Mostly we just want to be treated as people instead of (often badly interpreted) statistics.
Idk that's what watching this made me think. I'm not done yet but the comments here were a real bummer.
Thank you so much for this. I have found myself frustrated by the reception this topic has garnered, and I am glad to see someone who appears to have actually understood the concepts the video...
Thank you so much for this. I have found myself frustrated by the reception this topic has garnered, and I am glad to see someone who appears to have actually understood the concepts the video covered.
I'm really passionate about the topic. Being yelled at and shamed or told how it's all my fault has never been helpful and I just think we should treat others as people, and be kind to each other....
I'm really passionate about the topic. Being yelled at and shamed or told how it's all my fault has never been helpful and I just think we should treat others as people, and be kind to each other. Like this is my life philosophy even when I don't always live up to it.
The whole "I tell you how fat you are and why that's bad out of love" thing is right up there with hating the sin and loving the sinner or praying the gay away for disingenuous caring acts. And it's far more cruel than "letting" someone remain fat.
Having watched the video, I am surprised by a lot of the comments. Its not making particularly big or new claims; holy shit is 1200 Calories a day not enough food for anyone. No, it cannot be...
Having watched the video, I am surprised by a lot of the comments. Its not making particularly big or new claims; holy shit is 1200 Calories a day not enough food for anyone. No, it cannot be boiled down to 'Fat Shaming Bad'; Fat Shaming is one part of it, but by no means the whole picture. Also, their style is comedic news, its not intended to be a reading of an academic paper.
Its cool if you don't want to watch an hour long video. Just don't comment about a thing you haven't seen. If you want to talk about health, this is posted in the health sub-tilde, so make a post about something you want to talk about. The reason I like Tildes is that its about INFORMED discussion and generally good-faith arguments.
Yeah, the top posts criticizing the contents of the video clearly didn’t watch it, based on what they’re saying. And that’s fine. It’s long, and the humour isn’t for everyone. You don’t need to...
Yeah, the top posts criticizing the contents of the video clearly didn’t watch it, based on what they’re saying.
And that’s fine. It’s long, and the humour isn’t for everyone. You don’t need to watch it if it’s not to your taste. But maybe save your critism for something you care to invest time in (or leave your critism at “I don’t have time for that/I don’t think their humour is funny”).
As for me, I think they buried the lead to hard in this video. The went on for the first 30 minutes about how obesity isn’t a big deal, nor unhealthy which is just untrue. When really what they were trying to say is that the way we approach treating obesity is the real problem, which doesn’t help with solving the issue.
For me, this is one of the worst organized videos they’ve done, and I think they’re going to lose lots of people who actually agree with what they have to say, because they didn’t say it soon enough in the video.
Also, the heartfelt moment at the last second could have been used to greater effect near the start of the episode if they wanted to get people to invest in the message.
Automatically generated transcript I forget where I first saw this used on Fildes, but it seems useful for a long video. Line breaks are a bit wonky, but reading through most of it looks like the...
I forget where I first saw this used on Fildes, but it seems useful for a long video. Line breaks are a bit wonky, but reading through most of it looks like the correct words were transcribed.
Main content seems to start with the line “ Our obsession with weight hurts everyone.” around 3:35.
Some More News actually uploads subtitles on their videos, so that actually is the transcript in effect. YouTube actually has a feature to view these as a transcript but it’s fairly well hidden.
Some More News actually uploads subtitles on their videos, so that actually is the transcript in effect.
YouTube actually has a feature to view these as a transcript but it’s fairly well hidden.
Ah, good to know! I’m on mobile Safari and I can’t find the CC on/off button that’s normally easy to spot on the desktop player. I’m sure it’s there somewhere.
Ah, good to know! I’m on mobile Safari and I can’t find the CC on/off button that’s normally easy to spot on the desktop player. I’m sure it’s there somewhere.
Ugh. I really hate this stuff. Bunch of people who barely (if ever) hit the gym commenting on media stereotypes. You either have fat shaming or PED shaming, and no in between. Everyone who...
Ugh. I really hate this stuff. Bunch of people who barely (if ever) hit the gym commenting on media stereotypes.
You either have fat shaming or PED shaming, and no in between. Everyone who actually lifts and spends time learning more about it knows that media pics are usually of PEDed up, photoshopped celebrities. It's not reality. People who make these body shaming articles/videos are basically concern trolls in my book.
The problem isn't the media, the problem is a lack of emphasis on lifting programs/programming in secondary school, and too much focus on team sports/games and cardio. In addition to physical education (kickball shenanigans), the final year of secondary education should have a mandatory gym-as-in-actual-lifting class. It's a lot easier to maintain one's health if one is comfortable in a commercial gym setting:
You aren't shy
You know vaguely what to do as far as a program is concerned (even if it's just some 5x3 program)
You can always find a gym, finding a team for a sport is a bit more difficult outside of football (soccer), basketball, and maybe volleyball.
You don't need anyone else except your self to maintain a healthy lifting regimen throughout your entire life (yes even into your 70s/80s barring health difficulties).
Overall lifting has been proven to have massively more health benefits than pure cardio. Ideally one does both, but if you had to pick one, lifting pretty much wins out every time. Cardio you basically burn calories while you do it, lifting you burn them during and after (post workout metabolism is higher, and muscles burn more calories even at rest). It has additional benefits such as reducing likelihood of injuries, and increasing bone density (which also reduces chances of "help I've fallen and can't get up" when you are older).
Finally, lift more = you can eat more, or at least eat the same without gaining massive amounts of fat [edited] and gives you confidence so you don't even worry about fat shamers, or concern trolls.
There's basically no downsides to a natural lifting program.
Tl;dr: These people video producers need to stop making a mountain out of a mole hill [edited] , hit the gym, and stop worrying about this non-issue.
Edit: Clarifying that the video producers need to shut up, not Tildes users, since a few users seem to have taken this as a personal attack. It's not, it just drives me mad that the most obvious solution is almost entirely ignored unless you happen to have played high school varsity football.
Tl;dr2: I think everyone should get a one semester chance to learn about lifting, and how to use gym equipment before they are sent off to uni/trade school/work, rather than it being mostly ignored almost entirely.
Making sure everyone knows how to manage their finances, cook a few decent meals, and lift some heavy shit before they finish mandatory secondary education would make everyone's lives better.
Edit 2: Removed some phrases that were offending people's sensibilities.
I don't think there is an obesity epidemic because people have forgotten how to go to the gym. That seems very simplistic. The availability of quick and easier calories in combination with busier...
The problem isn't the media, the problem is a lack of emphasis on lifting programs/programming in secondary school, and too much focus on team sports/games and cardio. In addition to physical education (kickball shenanigans), the final year of secondary education should have a mandatory gym-as-in-actual-lifting class. It's a lot easier to maintain one's health if one is comfortable in a commercial gym setting
I don't think there is an obesity epidemic because people have forgotten how to go to the gym. That seems very simplistic. The availability of quick and easier calories in combination with busier lives and more sedentary work environments/leisure activities seems like an obvious place to start. Going to the gym is certainly part of a good answer to this, but in my opinion people are working against these societal factors in a way they never had to 50 years ago and addressing that is probably a much better place to start.
Tl;dr: These people need to stfu, hit the gym, and stop worrying about this non-issue.
I'm not really sure this kind of statement is a fit for Tildes. Perfectly reasonable to disagree with someone or an article, but telling someone to shut the fuck up on a discussion platform isn't conducive to a great discussion.
I agree that the stfu is against the spirit of tildes, but I understand the sentiment. So many people focus on different techniques, supplements, and equipment to get in shape when in reality, the...
Exemplary
I agree that the stfu is against the spirit of tildes, but I understand the sentiment. So many people focus on different techniques, supplements, and equipment to get in shape when in reality, the only way to get in shape is to put in the work.
One of the reasons for this is there is a lot of money riding on people not getting in shape. If people realized that the best way to get in shape was to walk more and do a few sessions of vigorous exercise a week for the rest of their life, the fitness industry would lose money. People wouldn't be buying different supplements to find the best one, buying strange gimmicky exercise gadgets, or watching fitness influencers religiously.
Diet is important for losing weight and feeling good, but exercise is the only way to get into shape. People argue too much about how to get the last few percent of performance out of their body without doing the obvious part that will get you 80% of the way to the body you want.
One of the phrases that gets thrown out a lot is "Weight loss happens in the kitchen." I agree with you that excercise is a crucial part in improving mental wellbeing. I never felt good after...
One of the phrases that gets thrown out a lot is "Weight loss happens in the kitchen." I agree with you that excercise is a crucial part in improving mental wellbeing. I never felt good after saying no to food. But I usually felt good after walking, running, hiking etc. However assuming that fat people don't "realize" that excercise is good, actually is treating them like they're idiots. I really do feel like people in this thread could benefit from listening to the podcast Maintenance Phase or reading Aubrey Gordon's What We Don't Talk About When We talk About Fat.
There has been way too much emphasis in this thread about individual actions. It's the same old blame and shams that gets us nowhere. But every new fad whether it be low-fat, Keto, no-sugar, Pilates, now weight training always seems to be the miracle cure if only people would "realize."
Just saying "oh people should be taught it in school and it'll be fine" is so simplistic and doesn't work. We are taught so many subjects in school that we do not carry over into our adult lives. How many people can still do geometry or algebra in their daily lives? How many people can analyze a literature text and talk about the author's intent?
That argument only shifts the blame. First it's we should teach it in school to oh well you should have paid attention, it's your fault.
This whole thread is disheartening and I am baffled this comment got an exemplary.
I’m not saying that overweight people are stupid and should just set the Twinkie down. I’m saying that weight loss is hard because there are so many people trying to sell miracle cures that it can...
I’m not saying that overweight people are stupid and should just set the Twinkie down. I’m saying that weight loss is hard because there are so many people trying to sell miracle cures that it can be hard to see through the fog to what actually matters.
Even dieting is hard because you can go to a restaurant and the salads are higher calorie options than the hamburger which is unintuitive to most people.
Food is also a weird addiction to kick because it’s not like cigarettes where you know you don’t need them. It’s hard to tell what feelings are true hunger and what is food addiction.
Being healthy is hard though and there’s no fast way to get there. The only way is consistency and slow gains, but if you’ve been feeling bad about yourself for years it’s hard to hear that it will take years before you reach your goals.
I never told anyone here to shut up, it was a comment directed at the producers of this over the top video. I also never said people had "forgotten how to go to the gym". However, many people may...
I never told anyone here to shut up, it was a comment directed at the producers of this over the top video.
I also never said people had "forgotten how to go to the gym". However, many people may never have been taught. Most secondary schools don't have any sort of weight training program unless you are on a sports team. This was my main point, it's a huge problem because it basically makes people scared or shy of going to the gym, and they shouldn't be. There are so many benefits to be had, but the simple idea of lifting vaguely heavy shit is often overlooked because more focus is placed on fad diets, eating less, wearing (read buying) the right clothes, buying makeup/skincare products, and just generally feeling bad about oneself rather than weight lifting which has been proven to improve one's self image.
If they had actual education about it (and it doesn't take much, maybe 1 semester), then they wouldn't be as afraid (or shy), and would be set up literally for the rest of their gym life knowledge wise.
All it takes is ~3 hours a week, and sticking to a program, of which there are plenty of good free ones online, along with apps for helping you manage/understand each workout.
I hate statistics and studies like this when it comes to fitness. There will be a study that shows that 87% or 94% or some really high number of people feel this way, and then when you look for...
which has been proven to improve one's self image.
I hate statistics and studies like this when it comes to fitness. There will be a study that shows that 87% or 94% or some really high number of people feel this way, and then when you look for advice or help as someone who falls into the minority that doesn't experience that benefit, it's impossible to find. People have told me directly that I'm lying about not feeling good after exercise despite doing lots of research and following all of the reasonable seeming advice that I can find.
Yeah I have a friend like that. He seems to be enjoying it more now that he has set a schedule up that works for him. I think part of it is finding something that one really enjoys that can also...
Yeah I have a friend like that. He seems to be enjoying it more now that he has set a schedule up that works for him. I think part of it is finding something that one really enjoys that can also be included in the workout. From what I understand for him the lifting part is kinda meh, but he really looks forward to a few cool down laps in the pool at the end.
For me I have found doing the exercises I don't like at very low weights until I feel comfortable has helped me enjoy them more, e.g. front squats, tried doing them for real and hated every second, switched them to the end of my workout with just the bar to get used to the movement, and then worked the weight up to what I expected (based on back squat), and actually started to enjoy them.
For me it's just the actual experience of being in a gym. I feel vulnerable and anxious and get horrible intrusive thoughts. I feel terrified and on edge and I want so badly to be invisible, which...
For me it's just the actual experience of being in a gym. I feel vulnerable and anxious and get horrible intrusive thoughts. I feel terrified and on edge and I want so badly to be invisible, which makes it feel extremely terrible when someone tries to talk to me. I've had men pull my headphones out to talk to me, which thankfully can't happen anymore but the added anxiety that came from it never went away. I don't really feel like this in other contexts. Sometimes I'll have mild social anxiety, but it's never to that degree. I typically feel depressed for 3-4 days to a week after going to the gym, depending on the experience. Kind of a funny anecdote, one time this guy ended up being on the station next to me three times, and all three times he told me my shoelaces were untied, which they were. I wanted to tell him that I'd rather just be strangled to death by the shoelaces than be forced to acknowledge that I'm being perceived at that moment.
I actually don't hate the picking up and putting down part, I don't really feel strongly about it in any way. The psychological side effects are unsurmountable for me, though. I wish it had all those positive affects for me that people talk about, but I've never experienced that. The absolute best case scenario for me is I just feel shitty for the rest of the day.
Have you been able to try working out by yourself? I’d be curious to see if there’s much a difference if you’re able to avoid the issues you face going to the gym.
Have you been able to try working out by yourself? I’d be curious to see if there’s much a difference if you’re able to avoid the issues you face going to the gym.
Not with weights. I've done some yoga and cardio alone, sometimes some bodyweight exercises. I still get the intrusive thoughts and some mild depression afterwards, but not the anxiety and the...
Not with weights. I've done some yoga and cardio alone, sometimes some bodyweight exercises. I still get the intrusive thoughts and some mild depression afterwards, but not the anxiety and the depression isn't nearly as severe.
That does sound like an awful experience. I can see how that would ruin any good feelings about going to the gym. It also sounds like it may be an issue with the culture at that "kind" of gym. It...
That does sound like an awful experience. I can see how that would ruin any good feelings about going to the gym.
It also sounds like it may be an issue with the culture at that "kind" of gym. It sounds like a chain where there are more "randos" than recognizable regulars... Maybe a small newer one would be better (I know I am assuming).
That wanting to be invisible thing is kind of related to what I was getting in my original post, perhaps if everyone had the gym normalized as an experience when they were young, that sort of feeling wouldn't pop up as much, and people would be more likely to go. It would also give everyone a standard idea of gym etiquette, e.g. don't walk up to strangers and pull their headphones out.
The first time the headphone thing happened was at the gym in my apartment complex. Residents only, like 5 machines plus a few weight stations. Couldn't have been smaller. I think you're partially...
The first time the headphone thing happened was at the gym in my apartment complex. Residents only, like 5 machines plus a few weight stations. Couldn't have been smaller.
I think you're partially right, I might be more comfortable at the gym had it been formally introduced to be earlier, but I got my first membership when I was 13 or 14. It's just always been a place where I'm thinking about my body, which I have a very bad relationship with, I'm surrounded by mirrors, I'm definitely being looked at by people - even if everyone online insists that no one is looking at other people, I can see them looking, and I hate it - and the progress takes so long to become visible that it's weeks of negative experiences before even a sliver of positive reinforcement. I don't know how to undo any of that or even begin to work on it. I tried to talk to a therapist about it once and he said "men in my culture like women with large behinds".
Ah gotcha. Sorry for the assumption. Small apartment gym kinda fits my preconceptions too. Maybe to clarify more, categories of gyms: Chains: Lots of members. Obviously has regulars, but hard to...
Ah gotcha. Sorry for the assumption. Small apartment gym kinda fits my preconceptions too.
Maybe to clarify more, categories of gyms:
Chains: Lots of members. Obviously has regulars, but hard to pick out because of how many members there are, which leads to everyone feeling like a rando, which seems to lead to possible weird interactions.
Apartment/Hotel: Small, not many members, obvious regulars...But possible weirdo neighbors ruining it (your case).
Sole proprietor/family gym: Not too many members, but most are absolute regulars that stick to a schedule. Everybody may not know everybody, but for the most part every face is familiar. Most importantly everyone is chill because the actual owner is there ~everyday. This is the type of gym I thought might work for you.
Also, dunno if it helps, but I don't know many serious lifters who would actually judge someone for being fat in the gym. You're still there improving yourself, and what people do notice is dedication and the plates increasing in size. People who have been training for years respect that massively. Usually if there is any judgement it's from bizarre silly exercises that use equipment dangerously, or that involve moving weight perpendicular to gravity (incredibly inefficient, since you aren't doing work directly against gravity). That's it.
For myself if I see a newbie regularly over a long period at the gym, no matter their size, I always kinda want to randomly go up to them and say "Good job, keep it up, you're doing fuckin awesome!"
...I never do though, because one of the best things to do at the gym is leave people alone, and let them do the work.
Jeez this is a fantastically bad take. I genuinely can't even begin to take you seriously. Id say this is a meathead comment but i have plenty of meathead friends who would find this just as...
Jeez this is a fantastically bad take. I genuinely can't even begin to take you seriously. Id say this is a meathead comment but i have plenty of meathead friends who would find this just as silly. The notion that cardio and team sports should be replaced with a weight lifting regimen... gyms readily available... shaming people in their choice of exercise... jesus you are so privileged to be this ignorant, this whole comment makes my head spin.
Really, are there rules against that? I didn't think it was offensive, and it wasn't meant to be. What would an acceptable alternative term for fattass be? The reason I am asking is because I have...
Really, are there rules against that? I didn't think it was offensive, and it wasn't meant to be.
What would an acceptable alternative term for fattass be?
The reason I am asking is because I have been overweight once, pudgy quite often, and skinny only once in my adult life. I am not shy at all to tell people "yup I was a super fatass in undergrad, here look at this pic."
Maybe it's the redditor in me, but I honestly didn't see anything wrong with that term.
I honestly have a hard time believing that you think the word "fatass" isn't a pejorative term, or that "stfu" is even remotely respectful language. Tildes has a Code of Conduct with only three...
I honestly have a hard time believing that you think the word "fatass" isn't a pejorative term, or that "stfu" is even remotely respectful language.
Tildes has a Code of Conduct with only three rules, but the primary one is this:
Don't act like an asshole and routinely make other people's experiences—or lives—worse.
But in terms of moderation there are no hard-and-fast rules.
I actually don't think it's a pejorative term in the context I used it, I never insulted any individual or group. It was used in the same context as a casual conversation like "What'd you do this...
I actually don't think it's a pejorative term in the context I used it, I never insulted any individual or group. It was used in the same context as a casual conversation like "What'd you do this weekend?", "Oh I was a fatass, skipped the gym, ate a whole pizza and played video games all weekend". Is that really that terrible?
As for stfu, that seems overly sensitive, it's a common term used all over the internet. Is RTFM from the days of Doom and shareware also too insensitive? Again, not straight up telling someone to rtfm, but for example, someone links to a tech video about some tech problem that has an easy fix.... Is it wrong to say "YouTuber probably didn't rtfm?".
Anyway. I really don't get it, I will be more careful with what words I use here. I really didn't think I was making "other people's experiences—or lives—worse" with my comment.
Okay, let's engage in good faith. A key difference is that in your example, they are labeling themselves that in a self-deprecating manner, while you are using it to label others. Another key...
I actually don't think it's a pejorative term in the context I used it, I never insulted any individual or group. It was used in the same context as a casual conversation like "What'd you do this weekend?", "Oh I was a fatass, skipped the gym, ate a whole pizza and played video games all weekend". Is that really that terrible?
Anyway. I really don't get it,
Okay, let's engage in good faith.
A key difference is that in your example, they are labeling themselves that in a self-deprecating manner, while you are using it to label others.
Another key point is that it definitely carries negative connotations, in this case of "moral failure", of laziness and sloth.
I assume that the following quote is where you used it before editing
Finally, lift more = you can eat more, or at least eat the same without gaining massive amounts of fat [edited]
It does not help that your argument is reductive. By stating it as above, you not only imply that people don't understand that exercise helps, but also that there is nothing more to consider to keep a healthy weight.
In essence, you are calling people who are at an unhealthy weight stupid and lazy, and show no understanding for the complexities of the situation.
If you want to talk about a group of people based on their weight, then there are more objective terms. Overweight and obese are common classifications, but generally tied to BMI which may be met with resistance on individual level. Using unhealthy weight would get rid of that connection, and connect it to the core issue of health, without implying where those limits are in general or for any given individual.
Personally I don't think the simple fat is categorically bad, but I wouldn't be surprised if for others it has taken on similar negative connotation.
Consider, would this response have been better if it was something along the lines of
Just think more = understand stuff, or at least more without being a tinybrain scraphead
Jesus christ. I never called anyone a fatass. I said something like this: This was in reference to my own fucking experience and applying it generally, but people took it completely out of...
Jesus christ. I never called anyone a fatass. I said something like this:
Finally, lift more = you can eat more, or at least eat the same without worrying about being a fatass.
This was in reference to my own fucking experience and applying it generally, but people took it completely out of context.
Here's a nicer example version for the sensitive Tilderinos:
Finally, lifting more means you can eat more (or at least eat the same amount) without worrying as much about fat gain, or becoming overweight.
I also never called anyone stupid and lazy, again you are just summoning a bunch of perceived malice on my part out of nowhere, and twisting my words to fit into some pointless argument.
Off topic, I can't believe you think couching a bunch of insulting thoughts and assumptions in "fancy" words is any better than telling someone to stfu. Look at yourself and others who have basically attacked me over this. You all are actual bullies.
I think somehow you decided to get angry at my comment rather than actually understand the points I was making. I didn't say replaced, I said added on to the last year, since usually no phys ed is...
I think somehow you decided to get angry at my comment rather than actually understand the points I was making.
I didn't say replaced, I said added on to the last year, since usually no phys ed is required at that point, but it is a perfect time to teach people how to train themselves before they go off to uni.
I am not sure why you are implying gyms are hard to find? Many countries have free or cheap open air/un-airconditioned mom n pop style gyms that are very affordable. I have always been able to find one across multiple countries, the biggest issue has been chain gyms that demand a 6-12 month membership in order to get a reasonable rate... But usually you can find smaller gyms that have reasonable daily rates (like 0.50-2.00 USD in developing to middle income countries).
I never shamed anyone in their choice of exercise either, unless you are getting upset about the cardio thing:
I did not watch the video. I was on r slash keto (they get no linkbacks from me) and some of the other subs and the comments here about them focusing more on being skinny than healthy is true. Not...
I did not watch the video.
I was on r slash keto (they get no linkbacks from me) and some of the other subs and the comments here about them focusing more on being skinny than healthy is true. Not everyone, but enough that it was the prevailing theme, even though they didn't necessarily realize it. I lost about 60 pounds over a three-month period doing keto and tracking everything on myfitnesspal as part of a bet with a friend.
I won the bet, but slowly stopped tracking everything and the weight came back on. Losing 60 pounds changed nothing for me. I didn't feel physically better, I didn't sleep better or have less fatigue issues. I still struggled with waking up sometimes and then staying awake during the day. My doctor was supportive at first, but as the weight came back he kind of belittled the weight loss since I had so much more to lose. He specifically mentioned BMI in context of my weight. Which, like others above-mentioned, isn't really a good individual measure.
After listening to Adam Ragusea's podcast video and then reading about these medicines, I'm going to have him put his money where his mouth is. The world's weight gain is an epidemic, and one way to fight it is to use medicine, along with other medical and mental supports.
I've watched the video now, and I don't think she's entirely right, or wrong. Food is so much easier to get and denser than it was. Combine that with most people not needing to spend days/nights...
I've watched the video now, and I don't think she's entirely right, or wrong.
Food is so much easier to get and denser than it was. Combine that with most people not needing to spend days/nights hunting for food, and you get heavier people. So the idea that the weight loss medicines, not the fads/starving/fasting, is wrong or bad is a bad take, in my opinion.
I've done low-carb before and lost a lot of weight and kept it off for a while. When I won my bet, I practically lived on myfitnesspal. Inputting foods, weights, figuring out how to put foods in, weighing food. When it went down for a week, I felt lost. It wasn't healthy or sustainable, and the weight trickled back on. I had more than one day when I was under 1200 calories too, on top of already being on a deficit based on the calculator given my height/weight and exercise.
In my situation, with my other health and mental conditions, I think a medicine to help with weight loss is a good idea. Not forever, but if it can help me get going, then it's a good thing.
Ozempic and the newer generation medications work via blood sugar and insulin stabilization for folks with type 2 diabetes. The details of how are different for each of them, but that's basically...
Not forever, but if it can help me get going, then it's a good thing.
Ozempic and the newer generation medications work via blood sugar and insulin stabilization for folks with type 2 diabetes. The details of how are different for each of them, but that's basically how they work. Articles like this one have sections like "How does Ozempic work for diabetes?" and "How does Ozempic work for weight loss?" as though it can somehow tell if you have a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes and do one thing, but do something different if you don't.
So while all of the documentation I've been able to find related to these medications talk about their effect on appetite and weight for folks who are overweight, I'd like to point out that none of them are studying the effect they have on blood sugar and insulin for non diabetics. It's true that hypoglycemia is listed as a side effect in Ozempic in all of the documentation, but that's in the context of studying it with diabetics. ALL of the pre-obesity/weight loss studies I can find used patients with type 2 diabetes as both the control and test subjects. As far as I can tell, nobody has written a paper yet on what happens to blood sugar and insulin for someone who does not have type 2 diabetes. It's possible someone is working on that now.
Anyway, my point is that when medications like this work, the reasons why they work can be a little murky. Appetite control could very well be a side effect of blood sugar control, or some other adjustment that's happening in the metabolic cycle. Could fixing low blood sugar help with obesity? What about insulin resistance? These aren't things that are really of concern to doctors right now on their own. Realistically, people do gain some of the weight back after going off of these medications. I don't believe anyone has really looked into why the weight comes back beyond losing the appetite control effect.
All we know right now is what someone has chosen specifically to study. In this case, the outcome that pharmaceutical companies have been interested in is weight loss; there's a fortune to be made in weight loss. Folks in the studies report that they feel less hungry, so that's what they looked into. But there's an entire other mechanism that we know is happening which they're completely ignoring for a whole swath of people.
"Make sure you watch until the end because there is a pretty big bombshell" Comments like this are exactly why I would never watch a 1 hour video like this. How invested in the narrative are you...
"Make sure you watch until the end because there is a pretty big bombshell"
Comments like this are exactly why I would never watch a 1 hour video like this.
How invested in the narrative are you that you posit such a click-bait description of it?
The "watch until the end" sense of urgency in any posted video of the last few years, carries a desperate need for attention without the substance. No thank you.
You’re right. So I deleted the comment. But I didn’t make this video. I have no investment in whether you watch it or not. I would like you to since I think it’s got a message that I think people...
You’re right. So I deleted the comment.
But I didn’t make this video. I have no investment in whether you watch it or not. I would like you to since I think it’s got a message that I think people need to hear. But I take umbrage that you would call me desperate.
I am extremely disappointed that you and apparently everyone else is willing to pass judgement on this without bothering to actually engage with it in any meaningful capacity. I understand not willing to spend the time to watch it, but these kinds of comments are not helpful in any way.
My comment was not a description of the contents, merely a suggestion to not stop watching until the end.
Forgive my presumptions, friend. I just hoped that Tildes wouldn't be ridden with posts ordering us to "watch until the end." For all I knew, your post was just lacking a slew of "crying/laughing"...
Forgive my presumptions, friend.
I just hoped that Tildes wouldn't be ridden with posts ordering us to "watch until the end."
For all I knew, your post was just lacking a slew of "crying/laughing" cartoon faces.
If you post me your link, I'll check it out, but we don't need to ge told how to consume our media.
Is it not compelling enough to watch through? Why would we need to be told to watch until the end if it is not clickbait?
I sincerely didn't mean to insult you and I gather you didn't mean to insult us, but we would both be forgiven to have felt insulted.
Have a better day, friend, let's make tildes better than reddit. Starting with us!
I made a longer reply elsewhere in this topic, but when your video starts with about three and a half minutes of a comedy bit that feels at best tangentially related to the topic, can you really...
I am extremely disappointed that you and apparently everyone else is willing to pass judgement on this without bothering to actually engage with it in any meaningful capacity.
I made a longer reply elsewhere in this topic, but when your video starts with about three and a half minutes of a comedy bit that feels at best tangentially related to the topic, can you really expect the people who are coming in to hear an argument for the topic as presented to assume that the content will be worth engaging with?
Compare this to Last Week Tonight. I looked up the latest available episode on youtube and it breaks down like this:
00:00 - 00:04 intro sequence
00:04 - 00:06 mention the overarching topic
00:06 - 00:15 related joke
00:15 - 00:19 scope content to more specific topic
00:19 - 00:30 related joke
00:30 - 01:03 presenting information on the topic
The topic is the first thing mentioned, because the comedy flows from the topic, not the other way around. The initial jokes are short, because they punctuate the information; they provide a brief respite from the onslaught of information.
If this had been written content, and the article started with a few pages worth of a joke with no seemingly relevant context to the argument itself, I would likely have disengaged as well.
To add more context, "Make sure you watch until the end because there is a pretty big bombshell" means a lot more to regular viewers of the channel who know the presenter and will have more of a...
To add more context, "Make sure you watch until the end because there is a pretty big bombshell" means a lot more to regular viewers of the channel who know the presenter and will have more of a connection to the personal story.
To those who aren't regular viewers, it isn't a particularly meaningful bombshell and definitely sounds more like clickbait.
That's fair! It should be expressed as such by OP or be posted in a forum where said Implication is a given. I'm in my 40s, I don't need to be told how to consume media that should be able to...
That's fair! It should be expressed as such by OP or be posted in a forum where said Implication is a given.
I'm in my 40s, I don't need to be told how to consume media that should be able to stand on its own legs.
We will inevitably not all like or consume the same things, and that's a good thing, but to say "watch until the end" in 2023 is one of the fastest ways to forever lose my attention on any topic.
I hope Tildes isn't overrun with this kind of click bait content going forward.
I very much agree. If the source is making a reasonable argument, there should be no need for an element of surprise to make the point. It is not media for entertainment. If one wants to highlight...
I very much agree.
If the source is making a reasonable argument, there should be no need for an element of surprise to make the point. It is not media for entertainment. If one wants to highlight a line of reasoning, or a point of view, why hide it in the first place if the goal is to convincingly argue for something?
If you try to draw people in just by the subject alone and a vague promise that it will be worth it, you're most likely to get engagement from people who are already interested in the topic. You may very well end up preaching to the choir.
What could convince me it's worthwhile to watch it, is an overview. Explain the gist or the direction of their persuasive arguments. There's a reason scientific papers tend to have long descriptive titles and abstracts that explain very broadly what they are about.
Consider the difference between
Make sure you watch until the end because there is a pretty big bombshell.
and
[The video] does a good job of explaining why our social views on weight are harmful to everyone.
Both of the above are quotes from the OP in this thread. The latter isn't much information, but it is at least the broadest of context for what the video argues, which is far more than the first quote.
For a good faith effort, I did open the video. The first three and a half minutes or so are a comedy bit which is at best tangentially related to the topic but doesn't really further the understanding of it.
During this is where I would have turned off the video normally. I don't mind edutainment, but I much prefer when the entertainment flows from the education, not vice versa.
The next minute and a half is spent in the very broadest sense outlining the topic of the video and the theses argued for. This information should have been front and center.
The argument seems not to be well encapsulated by the title. It is not just general "weight obsession", but rather they are specifically talking about how social media (mentioning instagram, tiktok, facebook) gives contradicting messaging by showing/favoring content for
health, fitness, and desirable body shape
self confidence and body positivity
healthy at any size
perfect skin, no cellulite
high self-esteem and loving yourself
These are not contradictions.
Yes, there may be body features (shape, skin, etc.) which are more physically attractive to a larger part of the population. You are still human and worthy of respect and compassion regardless of your looks, unless your actions change that.
If you are a good person, you should not shy away from valuing yourself appropriately (have high self-esteem), but the goodness of you as a person is not determined by your appearance or your health. Disease, sickness, injury, and other unhealthy conditions are not god's punishment of the wicked.
Your appearance and your health can be connected. Being too heavy is generally speaking not physically healthy, and if you are too heavy then it would generally speaking (all else being equal) be healthy for you to lose weight.
No, this weight limit is not the same BMI for everyone; it's not even hard limits for any individual. Chronic disease and mental health aspects can complicate things, but that doesn't mean there's no causative relationship between at some point being heavier and health concerns.
Maybe they argue better for it than they present it, but I've spent five minutes watching it and longer writing this response, so at this point I am not inclined to keep watching.
Well said. I never meant to insult OP, and perhaps my words were a bit harsh, but you put it more eloquently than I and I thank you for your good faith efforts. Perhaps this form of media can help...
Well said. I never meant to insult OP, and perhaps my words were a bit harsh, but you put it more eloquently than I and I thank you for your good faith efforts.
Perhaps this form of media can help some people, but I'd agree that it is mostly preaching to the choir, and not really pulling in many new people and changing their views on weight/body positivity.
Basically all of the points the presenter make culminate into a deeply personal story that demonstrate the the damage that fat shaming can do to a person. I realize in retrospect that that...
Basically all of the points the presenter make culminate into a deeply personal story that demonstrate the the damage that fat shaming can do to a person.
I realize in retrospect that that “bombshell” comment was probably unintentionally misleading….
The video title implies that it's about "weight obsession", but the video comments focus on fat shaming. Which is it? I think most decent people would agree that fat shaming is cruel, but I'm...
The video title implies that it's about "weight obsession", but the video comments focus on fat shaming. Which is it? I think most decent people would agree that fat shaming is cruel, but I'm hoping this video isn't falsely pushing a "healthy at any weight" narrative. Obesity (and the other extreme, anorexia) kills.
I find it disparaging that you and apparently five others so far just assume this video has a narrative you don’t like instead of actually watching it and finding out what the points actually are....
I find it disparaging that you and apparently five others so far just assume this video has a narrative you don’t like instead of actually watching it and finding out what the points actually are.
I get that it’s a long watch so you may not want to invest the time, but I’d think one would assume a video that is an hour long might have a little more to say than “fat shaming is bad”.
Some More News generally carries a bit more nuance than that.
That's exactly why I posed a question in my original comment. You are correct, I'm not spending an hour watching this, so I was trying to glean the content from comments in this thread and the...
That's exactly why I posed a question in my original comment. You are correct, I'm not spending an hour watching this, so I was trying to glean the content from comments in this thread and the YouTube comments, which all seemed to focus on "fat shaming bad". And I absolutely agree with that. People deserve compassion, not ridicule.
But the title of the video implies something different - "weight obsession". Not sure what that is, but if a person is anorexic or above 30 BMI, they absolutely should be obsessing over their weight if they want a decent lifespan and healthspan.
Part of the video is specifically debunking the idea that BMI is an indicator of health. I don’t think this video is perfect by any measure, but it does a good job of explaining why our social...
Part of the video is specifically debunking the idea that BMI is an indicator of health.
I don’t think this video is perfect by any measure, but it does a good job of explaining why our social views on weight are harmful to everyone.
Do you have an approximate minute mark on the BMI discussion? I'd be interested in hearing how they recommend diagnosing obesity if not via BMI. If they are focused more on purely the social views...
Do you have an approximate minute mark on the BMI discussion? I'd be interested in hearing how they recommend diagnosing obesity if not via BMI.
If they are focused more on purely the social views of weight, then I'd probably agree with much of it. It's when people start pushing this fiction that obesity is not dangerous to those that suffer from it that I bristle. Obesity kills, and we should all actively be helping the loved ones in our lives get back to a healthier weight, not pushing nonsense that it's nothing to worry about.
I don't think anyone is arguing BMI is a good indicator of health. Its just the only real way we have to measure average weights at a population level. I'm technically "overweight" by BMI...
I don't think anyone is arguing BMI is a good indicator of health. Its just the only real way we have to measure average weights at a population level. I'm technically "overweight" by BMI standards because I go to the gym and work out, resulting in a high weight from muscles. That being said I'm far from the average person in America.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_mass_index#History: Later: If medical professionals are using BMI as a diagnostic tool for a single person, then you may want to start getting second...
Quetelet himself never intended for the index, then called the Quetelet Index, to be used as a means of medical assessment.
Later:
Keys explicitly judged BMI as appropriate for population studies and inappropriate for individual evaluation.
If medical professionals are using BMI as a diagnostic tool for a single person, then you may want to start getting second opinions. It has its uses when looking at populations en masse, but has limited if any use for an individual.
As a specific example, when I was at my fittest I was about 32 years old, 5'-6" tall, and 165 lbs. I had clear, well-defined abs, I was floating around 10% body fat, I could run a half marathon in 2:25 (not super fast I know), I could squat >400 lbs; I was in tremendously good shape. According to my BMI, I was obese. In order to be on the high-end of "normal", I would have had to have had negative body fat.
Extremely high or low is bad, but it has quite a few issues closer to the center where it doesn't take muscle mass in to account. There are quite a few people that get slotted in to Overweight or...
Extremely high or low is bad, but it has quite a few issues closer to the center where it doesn't take muscle mass in to account. There are quite a few people that get slotted in to Overweight or Obese that don't, from a medical standpoint, belong there.
I’m kind of tired of these responses that don’t actually add to the conversation so I’ll just ask you two questions. What is the basis of your assertion and why do you think that all of the...
I’m kind of tired of these responses that don’t actually add to the conversation so I’ll just ask you two questions.
What is the basis of your assertion and why do you think that all of the reasons brought up for why BMI is not a good measurement of health - in the video and in these comments - are wrong?
But then in another comment you state: So... isn't is correct to say the hour-long video can be summarized as "fat shaming is bad"?
I’d think one would assume a video that is an hour long might have a little more to say than “fat shaming is bad”.
But then in another comment you state:
Basically all of the points the presenter make culminate into a deeply personal story that demonstrate the the damage that fat shaming can do to a person.
So... isn't is correct to say the hour-long video can be summarized as "fat shaming is bad"?
I suppose in the same way you can say that Moby Dick is about a guy fighting a whale. Technically accurate but absent of all the nuance or any of the reason why it might be worth consuming.
So... isn't is correct to say the hour-long video can be summarized as "fat shaming is bad"?
I suppose in the same way you can say that Moby Dick is about a guy fighting a whale. Technically accurate but absent of all the nuance or any of the reason why it might be worth consuming.
How would you then summarize the nuances and reasons of why the linked video is worth watching? What, in broad terms, are the arguments, reasoning, context, presentation, considerations, or such...
How would you then summarize the nuances and reasons of why the linked video is worth watching?
What, in broad terms, are the arguments, reasoning, context, presentation, considerations, or such which makes the video informative and persuasive regarding this topic?
YouTube has 11-hour videos that can be summed up with "The Last Jedi is bad." I'm sure there are longer videos about other movies; I assure you there are longer videos than this one that don't...
I’d think one would assume a video that is an hour long might have a little more to say than “fat shaming is bad”.
YouTube has 11-hour videos that can be summed up with "The Last Jedi is bad." I'm sure there are longer videos about other movies; I assure you there are longer videos than this one that don't just say "fat shaming is bad," but indeed boil down to "obesity is not bad." I will never make assumptions about what a video has to say based on its length alone. Most video essays on YouTube are just people padding runtime with loads of crap.
It doesn't appear that you provided any context in the comments about why this video or channel is worthwhile, so I think the default assumption is that a video is just being posted because OP likes what it has to say regardless of its actual value.
Seeing as we live in an attention economy I feel that asking about the content of a one hour long video is entirely fair. Of course it's hard to compress an in depth discussion of a complex topic...
Seeing as we live in an attention economy I feel that asking about the content of a one hour long video is entirely fair. Of course it's hard to compress an in depth discussion of a complex topic into a few sentences, but so far people only complain about the question and don't really try to answer it.
Sorry to jump in on this comment with an off-topic tangent (feel to label as such), but this has reminded me of a concept about tildes that I really liked when I first joined. Its the idea that...
Sorry to jump in on this comment with an off-topic tangent (feel to label as such), but this has reminded me of a concept about tildes that I really liked when I first joined. Its the idea that tildes was the kind of place where people would read the article (or in this case, watch the video) before commenting, unlike reddit where most people would only read the headline and the top comments tended to completely miss several key points. In my head, anyone who was unable to read the article would generally avoid comments (and especially top-level comments).
Now that I go back and search though, I can't find that sentiment as a rule or suggestion. So this is an open question - is there such a rule/suggestion or was I simply just getting a "vibe"? Should there be a suggestion to that affect?
(Also to be clear - I'm not trying to single you out here PaiMei. Your comment just happens to be a very clear example case that invites discussion.)
Reading the article first is definitely encouraged and should be the default. Videos, especially with long runtimes, have been much less common topics and people have much stronger personal...
Reading the article first is definitely encouraged and should be the default. Videos, especially with long runtimes, have been much less common topics and people have much stronger personal feelings about “investing their time” or not, so it hasn’t been as solidly established.
RTFA before you comment is great. But (as a newcomer) I don't think it should be a rule. There are a lot of crap articles. You can still take information away from bad articles without realizing...
RTFA before you comment is great. But (as a newcomer) I don't think it should be a rule. There are a lot of crap articles. You can still take information away from bad articles without realizing it.
Plus, it would be a bit like saying that you have to have read anything anyone is talking about before engaging in a conversation:
"I read an article about how 600 migrants drowned when their overcrowded ship rolled over and the entire thing was preventable but the local authorities didn't want to help."
"I'm sorry, I haven't read that."
The question is whether you want high-quality discussions or a high-level book club. Tangents are great. Asking questions about the value of an article before reading it is great. Figuring out if something is clickbait is great. Reading the article can be great, but it can also be a total waste of time (or worse).
I think theres also some nuance about whether you are making a top-level comment or replying to an existing comment. This type of conversation is more similar to responding to an existing comment....
I think theres also some nuance about whether you are making a top-level comment or replying to an existing comment.
Plus, it would be a bit like saying that you have to have read anything anyone is talking about before engaging in a conversation:
"I read an article about how 600 migrants drowned when their overcrowded ship rolled over and the entire thing was preventable but the local authorities didn't want to help."
"I'm sorry, I haven't read that."
This type of conversation is more similar to responding to an existing comment. Perhaps you have outside knowledge from other articles or some relevant life experience, and it can make sense to jump into that conversation.
But for top-level comments, I don't think that analogy holds. It would be more similar to asking a question at the end of a presentation, except you came in 59 minutes late and didn't get to watch the presentation. Its not really helpful or beneficial to the conversation to stand up with a question and start with "Hey, I didn't actually watch the presentation". Unlike responding to something said to you in conversation where you are expected to reply, it would probably be considered wasting people's time to do that. In that situation, the right call is to simply not ask (comment) at all.
The question is whether you want high-quality discussions or a high-level book club. Tangents are great. Asking questions about the value of an article before reading it is great. Figuring out if something is clickbait is great. Reading the article can be great, but it can also be a total waste of time (or worse).
I definitely like "suggestion" rather than a rule. Without even touching the ability to enforce said rule, there are many valid (top-level) comments that don't require reading the article. A tangent like this one on how tildes works is an example. Or even something along the lines of "Hey, I'm at work and can't watch this full video - can someone give a short summary so I can better parse the existing comments." But the spirit of the suggestion would be not starting discussions on the media that you haven't fully consumed.
It is mostly a vibe. For articles, hot takes on titles are frowned upon. It doesn't foster useful discussion. In this case its "I'm not going to spend an hour learning, I'm going to spout my...
It is mostly a vibe. For articles, hot takes on titles are frowned upon. It doesn't foster useful discussion.
In this case its "I'm not going to spend an hour learning, I'm going to spout my current opinions instead." And that usually just leads to reactionary, frustrating conversations.
Its fine not to want to spend an hour listening to a lecture...move on and don't post a counter-lecture for a video you didn't watch.
Thanks for posting this video. It's great when people take the time to share things that interest them. But, I haven't watched it, and, since it's over an hour long, I am not certain that I am...
Thanks for posting this video. It's great when people take the time to share things that interest them.
But, I haven't watched it, and, since it's over an hour long, I am not certain that I am going to. Even at double-speed, that's a half hour of my (quite limited) free time to devote to a video that is only described with a quick link.
I do enjoy people posting links to video content. I just wish that those links could be accompanied by a few sentences describing the author's thesis, and maybe the bullet points that they use to bolster their argument, something to help me decide whether I should invest the time to dive deeper into the topic by watching the video.
The video has a description on it, but I will copy and paste the relevant portions here: Chapters: 00:00 - Intro 03:31 - Social Media Has Made Our Body Issues Worse 07:23 - Our Society Has Always...
The video has a description on it, but I will copy and paste the relevant portions here:
Hi. In today's episode, Katy Stoll looks at America's obsession with weight, how social media has made this obsession worse, and how we can be more empathetic and mindful of the pressure our peers feel to maintain a specific weight.
Chapters:
00:00 - Intro
03:31 - Social Media Has Made Our Body Issues Worse
07:23 - Our Society Has Always Emphasized Weight Loss
16:42 - 1,200 Calories Is Not Enough Calories
19:49 - BMI Is Bogus
27:12 - Obesity: An Epidemic?
35:13 - Beauty Standards Have Changed Over Time
38:14 - Fat Shaming Doesn't Work
43:21 - There Are No Miracle Weight Loss Drugs
47:08 - Why People Develop Eating Disorders
59:24 - Katy Gets Real
1:02:12 – There Are More Important Things Than Weight
BMI is an attempt to estimate the distribution of mass. Any article or guide on BMI worth their salt will say it's meant as a guide, so calling it bogus doesn't even make sense.. To be honest...
BMI is an attempt to estimate the distribution of mass. Any article or guide on BMI worth their salt will say it's meant as a guide, so calling it bogus doesn't even make sense..
To be honest though maybe he pivots to another point in the actual vid but like the other guy said I'm not watching an hour of that lol
I'm not sure how much I agree. It perhaps has some utility as a rough indicator but I'm by no means an athlete or a bodybuilder (professional or otherwise) and trying to get within range purely...
I'm not sure how much I agree. It perhaps has some utility as a rough indicator but I'm by no means an athlete or a bodybuilder (professional or otherwise) and trying to get within range purely based on BMI would be disastrous for me. I'm 175cm, my skeleton is approximately 10.5kg and I have 70kg of muscle mass. Not even taking fat into account, I'm already classed as overweight.
If I got within my allegedly healthy range of 56.7kg - 76.6kg, I'd have to sacrifice muscle tissue to be "healthier" which sounds like madness. Looking at body composition or at least bodyfat percentage is far more useful.
If you’re 175 and 80.5 kg your BMI is 26.3, which while in the overweight category is not obese or morbidly obese. And it’s also barely above 25. If you’ve got defined muscles rather than a dad...
If you’re 175 and 80.5 kg your BMI is 26.3, which while in the overweight category is not obese or morbidly obese. And it’s also barely above 25. If you’ve got defined muscles rather than a dad bod then it’s highly unlikely you have any health issues.
While negative health impacts are seen in BMI over 25 in studies, the actually poor health outcomes come from bmis over 30 and 35. Those with BMI in that range, are either competing in bodybuilding competitions, or they have a bunch of excess fat.
The further you get from the normal BMI range, the more likely it is that you are actually overweight.
I'm not 80.5, the numbers I gave don't account for fat. I'm definitely overweight and could stand to lose some (it's a work in progress!) but my visceral fat levels are within a healthy range and...
I'm not 80.5, the numbers I gave don't account for fat. I'm definitely overweight and could stand to lose some (it's a work in progress!) but my visceral fat levels are within a healthy range and I'm mobile and very active :) the point still stands that even if I was somehow 0% bf I would be just outside of what is considered the healthy range for BMI.
The important part to keep in mind is that BMI is not just a proxy for body fat, the BMI range and categories exist because they correlate with various health outcomes - regardless of reason. On...
The important part to keep in mind is that BMI is not just a proxy for body fat, the BMI range and categories exist because they correlate with various health outcomes - regardless of reason.
On average, those with BMIs outside the optimum range experience worse health outcomes as a population.
I think the fact that it's an epidemic actually highlights how futile it is to focus on the problem at an individual level. If a handful of people are struggling with something that seems like a result of their individual choices, maybe it is, but if most of the population is struggling with the same issue, maybe it's not just their choices, but the options that they have to choose from.
Obesity is an epidemic, but there are so many structural changes that we need to discuss before focusing on the individual.
Infrastructure needs to be addressed. Car-centric city planning reduces opportunities for walking as part of a daily lifestyle. More walkable cities means more walking, less being sedentary. Walking shouldn't just be safer, but also more pleasant. Green spaces and less concrete in a walkable city means that choosing to walk isn't a sacrifice you make for your health (or the environment), it's just a nice way to get places, which is how it should be.
Work-life balance needs to be improved. This impacts both diet and exercise. Cooking, grocery shopping and exercising are all far more difficult when you're already exhausted (physically, emotionally or mentally) from work. "Don't go to the gym, join a team or find an activity you actually enjoy" is great advice for people who struggle to get moving, but it doesn't take into account how little time people have to actually do that. When getting active means likely removing an activity that you enjoy more from your life, of course it's going to be a struggle. We should have the time to do the things we need to do, AND the things that we enjoy.
Probably the biggest factor is the food industry. Profit motives incentivize making the most dopamine-triggering, hyper-palatable food possible, and of course it's extremely abundant. It's creating generations of addicts who cannot possibly quit cold-turkey, which is the most effective way to quit an addiction. You can't avoid addiction triggers. Try to go a week without seeing any advertisements for, walking past a display of, or even smelling any highly-processed "junk" food. It's almost impossible.
Yes, it's possible to overcome these obstacles. It's possible to make healthy choices. But why are we okay with living in a world where eating and moving, two of the most natural, basic things, are extremely difficult intellectual challenges? For some it comes easy. Just like some people can drink alcohol freely but never get addicted, some people will never struggle to say no to a bag of potato chips. Some people don't have to give up the things they enjoy in order to exercise, because exercise is the thing they enjoy. But shouldn't we want to live in a world where even when it isn't easy, it's at least like, medium?
To focus on the individual before any of these things is addressed is futile and cruel.
Not to disagree with your points, but I would like to emphasize that on a personal level rooted in kindness and empathy, encouraging healthy choices to overcome obesity is neither cruel nor futile. The word is rigged against them, but at the same time it is both possible and admirable to push back on an individual level.
Changing the world is extremely important, especially for those with power. But I would never suggest that an alcoholic should accept alcoholism until the world changes around him. Likewise supporting and encouraging someone to overcome the obstacles and benefit their health can be a positive and impactful endeavor.
If you personally know the person on a fairly close level - if you know what their days are like and their habits and disposition - then yes, you're right, so long as you're not nagging them about things they are already aware of. If they're receptive to the message, then bonus points - you did a good deed for the day.
This video was not made to address that situation. It's meant to address when this happens in every other context, including those where it's intentionally disparaging. Random health advice put into the void doesn't help anyone, and can actually cause harm.
Context is very important here. My content was speaking in the context of obesity as an epidemic. I don't think it's useful to discuss it on an individual level when discussing it as an epidemic. If you're talking to an individual who has requested your help or you are otherwise in a place to know enough about them and their individual obstacles to help them? Sure. But that won't stop the epidemic.
I also think a lot of people think that losing weight is so important that they kid themselves into thinking that anything they do to make this person lose weight is an act of kindness, even when it's clearly cruel. It's extremely important to steer away from that thinking.
I do generally agree with you, though. It makes sense to have an addiction in a world that is literally designed to get you addicted, but your life will be better if you're able to at least reduce the harm, and having someone help you do that can be invaluable.
Preach! Our transportation, food, work, and community systems are out of whack!
To emphasize your point, I have a good friend who always makes it a point to bring up that all of these food companies: Unilever, Nestle, Doritos, PepsiCo.... they all have behavioral scientists on staff. People who can devise flavors that create behavior for individuals to over consume and crave their specific snacks. They literally optimize for addiction.
I agree that we are in an epidemic and we need to change system level problems, not blame individual action. There are so many parallels between this and climate action.
This video is not denying that weight can lead to health problems or that obesity is a growing statistic. They make that clear at multiple points.
The problem it is addressing is the way these problems are framed in society, the messaging used to convey them, and how those are causing even more problems, including causing eating disorders which make obesity an even bigger problem.
Edit: I did want to thank you for actually watching it before commenting on it, though.
I dunno, I think most viewers are able to grasp that the point of the sentence was to point out the guys lack of science pondus and his eugenicist tendecies, and the quirb was just, well, a quirb.
Also, mocking someone for having ugly sideburns is completely harmless. Unlike fat shaming, which reinforces a world wide dehumanization campain where the targets entire personality is reduced to someone who is lazy and greedy. Equalizing both under the label "bullying people for their apperence" is flawed, I think. (is there a term for this flaw?)
That said, I find the humor in "Some More News" to be a bit too childish. A bit like what I expect from a 10 year old who rely on his childish cuteness. One episode where I felt the humor spoke more to me was A Brief Look at Jordan Peterson
I categorically reject this.
Shaving off your sideburns may be a simple solution to conform to an externally desired beauty ideal, but in the end whether someone has sideburns, or a bushy beard, or a mohawk, or shaved head, or a mullet, or some other hairdo is fundamentally only an aesthetic choice which does not materially affect anyone else.
(If used as a symbol to represent belief or action, that's another matter.)
If the person themselves enjoys it, mocking them is to attack their personality, which absolutely can hurt them, for instance by making them hide or deny what they would like to look like.
Even if they also think it looks a bit silly, there could be additional circumstances. Maybe they have the sideburns because shaving makes their skin irritated and itchy. Maybe a now deceased relative or friend had the same look and it's an homage to them. Maybe they are just exhausted from work and depression, and can't be bothered to shave?
You may think they look silly, and there's nothing wrong with thinking that, but you're not the one who determines if the subject is hurt by your mockery, they do.
I meant that it was relatively harmless in comparison with fat shaming, which if feel is a more hostile form of mockery. It doesn't even looks like she actually have any negative feeling towards his sideburns, it's just a silly joke.
Errare humanum est. It's easy to make mistakes. Sometimes it's fortunately also easy to correct them.
I'm not sure that you mean relatively harmless either. Perhaps effectively harmless - only at worst potentially causing so little harm that it is insignificant in all meaningful ways - is what you are looking for?
In either case, I wouldn't necessarily agree with the characterizations of it, but at least it can be read as subjective interpretation rather than an absolute.
Still, even if I were to agree that considering the scope, subject, prevalence, pervasiveness etc. of the joke that it is effectively harmless, I would still argue it is counterproductive as presented in this video.
If part of their argument is that a focus on appearance (in their case as opposed to the more material concern of health) is a significant detriment in current times, then shouldn't they, at least with this video, try to embody that argument?
That is, even if no one who is directly or indirectly exposed to the joke suffers from it, the credibility of the creators certainly does (in my view).
Read the immediate context of the joke as presented in the video:
Compare it to making a small modification:
Now the joke is included, but in a way to actually drive home some of the arguments and implicitly argue for empathy;
Consider then also that this is in fact the second time in the video they joke about his sideburns. Earlier in the video they have the following (from the transcript of the video someone linked, or at 22:19 in the video):
Maybe their intent is that it should be no mistake that the jokes are to be taken that way - that they are so obvious examples of the same type of damaging misdirected attention on appearance that any reasonable viewer would take them as such. That the fact that they say they are for looking at the situation without stigmatization, while just then having stigmatized the sideburns, is context enough to make the purpose of that joke clear: what they did is exactly what we should not do.
If that is their intent, I think the fact that we're having this discussion is an indicator that they failed.
I've always taken SMN to be following the formula "What if Charlie from Always Sunny stopped huffing glue and found his way to the Left." In that light, I think it mostly works.
Quality of humor aside, they are incredibly well-sourced and are able to rapid fire many complex issues in short order with stunning accuracy. I have yet to find anybody who can falsify SMN remotely the way say InfoWars could be.
They're right up there with Adam Ruins Everything, whose new channel is also doing some quality work.
Coincidentally I posted the last episode of his podcast at about the same time I posted this. Well, the video version: for some reason he doesn't seem to have a website link for Factually since it left Earwolf, and I didn't want to link any specific third party page for it.
But what does it accomplish? For me, a script making a point to bully a figure that will be unfamiliar to most only fosters doubt. If they're this uncharitable during their delivery, how uncharitable were they during their research? Should I trust anything they have to say about the subject?
Bully, really? It’s a stupid joke for sure but the man is dead; there is nobody to offend.
Of course there is, and I admit I feel a bit silly having to point it out: anyone alive has the capacity to be offended by it. If a dead person is being mocked for an aspect of their appearance and someone's own appearance was similar, or it reminded them of similar issues they've experienced, do you not think that'd bother them? Or, to put it another way, would you see no issue with hate speech being directed toward the dead?
I don't really understand why you feel so strongly about the sideburn thing, to the point where you're ready to dismiss the entire one hour video over it. To me it felt kind of good-natured. To quote it in it's entirety:
Can we take a moment to just enjoy how well-composed that sentence is? Anyhows, she first criticize him for the lack of science, then reveals his tendency towards eugenics, and then spoils it by going on about his sideburns. This looks like irony to me. The punchline is not as much that he has stupid sideburns, but that she is silly enough to go on about it.
Frankly I think the fact that an obvious joke makes you ignore the entire point of a video where the main purpose was to increase the amount of empathy people have with real living people says much more about you personally than it does about the people who made the video.
So rather than argue with you, I challenge you to find anything - an article, a video, a podcast, whatever - that expresses the ideas in the video without offending your sensibilities and share that with us. That would be a very constructive way to demonstrate empathy.
Sideburns aren't really equivalent to obesity. Sideburns are a matter of taste, and that's all that's being mocked. There's no lack of ability or access, no non-voluntary factor in having sideburns. That's not true of obesity. It's much more complex and less voluntary. I don't disagree that arguments are generally stronger when avoiding attacking the opposition's looks, but I do disagree that it reveals any logical flaw.
Alright, I have watched the video! As someone else has pointed out, it's difficult to initially see this as a springboard for earnest discourse when it comes right out of the gate with a comedy skit. Subjectively I'm not a fan of this delivery but to be objective: throughout it seems to prioritize witty commentary/ entertainment over being informative.
That being said, it does make some valid points. They aren't anything new or novel, but it is irritating how society continually obsesses over weight and weight loss for aesthetics as opposed to actual health and wellbeing.
Things I found frustrating:
The video only touches lightly on issues like food deserts and the financial cost of eating healthily and spends more time criticising the short term band-aids (1200 calorie diets, weight loss drugs) instead of exploring real potential solutions for the challenges modern people face in achieving and maintaining a healthy body.
Glossing over the fact that the obesity epidemic is a very real thing. Over time we've seen a global trend in average weight for men and women increasing significantly and this does have serious health implications. People who are genuinely obese with high levels of subcutaneous and/ or visceral fat are at greater risk of developing comorbidities and having reduced mobility, and neither of those things sound great for mental health either. It feels disingenuous to shy away from that.
Dismissing BMI as "bogus" is too extreme of a viewpoint. I agree it holds far too much value though and it's infuriating that health insurance providers only rely on this for their policies when they ask for height and weight. It's lazy and bodyfat percentage or body composition are much more useful indicators.
Something I appreciated:
The brief discussion of eating disorders through a male lens and in particular the emergence of clueless techbros rebranding it as "biohacking". It's the same problem from a very different angle. Touching on the complexity around athlete health was also good.
Sorry, this has grown into a huge comment! Wrapping up: I agree with the overall sentiment that there are more important things than weight, but a lot of those things are bodyfat percentage and mental wellbeing, and strategies for addressing the improvement of both probably have a lot of overlap. They're also dead right that the current neuroticism and shame culture around obesity just exacerbates the problem, but I wish they'd skipped some of the wisecracking to cover that in more depth; it's an extremely surface level discussion.
I would have liked to hear more about promotion of walkable cities and urban areas, community gardens and food distribution to help tackle food deserts, liveable wages and sensible work/life balance, etc. I recognise those things extremely feel like blue sky thinking (which is profoundly sad in its own way) but it's valuable to have acknowledgement that a lot of the best solutions are more closely tied to overall quality of life improvement rather than just variations of CICO.
To be fair, they have hundreds of hours of other content which addresses these sorts of other social problems directly. I'm a big fan of How Racism and Greed Prevent us from Solving Problems.
That's good to know, thanks! I probably won't sink the time into these ones since it's not a format I particularly enjoy, but I'm glad they do cover it more somewhere. On some level I still wish they'd focused more on these solutions in this particular video, but I may also have to accept that I'm just not the target audience.
Hey nice, this is a topic I've gotten more and more interested in since listening to the podcast Maintenance Phase.
I was a big /r/LoseIt /r/1200isplenty subscriber so I know intimately the types of views the video is talking about. But especially speaking to the 1200 calories limit that got thrown around A LOT really is what caused me to have a lot of disordered eating patterns. The video is right that these weight loss-mindsets really are not healthy. People would talk about eating a bag of potato chips which then forced them to skip meals in order to still be under 1200 calories and people would empathize and laugh and kind of root for them? And don't get me started on how most people talking about having 1200 calorie diets were for sure not sedentary women. That number almost became a catch-all for people dieting despite the occasional warnings.
I really started to dislike /r/LoseIt after a while. People would throw out phrases like "CICO" and "crabs in a bucket" like it was gospel. Even though I'm at a higher weight than I was before, I have a much healthier connection to eating and my body than I did while I was actively dieting.
I was in the same boat as you and had a similar observation. The more I took a step back from loseit and similar subreddits or social media accounts, the more I've noticed that - altough the intentions are often not bad ones - they basically advertise disordered eating as a way of dieting and living. A few years back, I was eating 1500 kcal a day as a 6'1" adult man that weighed 230 pounds or so, just to get under 200. I was cycling and lifting back then too, in hindsight it's absolutely crazy that I was able to function and not really a surprise, nothing was really happening. I was not getting fitter, I was not getting stronger, I just lost more weight aka. fat and muscle.
I have the same findings with the whole intermittent fasting thing. Not that IF itself is bad, but things like OMAD (one meal a day) really make me question how healthy that can be. The whole trend of not eating or barely eating is a bit worrisome to me, because it teaches the wrong attitude towards food and general health. You sometimes have the feeling, people want to be skinny, not healthy.
Yes I agree wholeheartedly about the "skinny, not healthy" idea! There was a common sentiment of "Calories are calories" didn't matter if it was 1200 calories of oreos or veggies. Or the fasting as long as you got your "weekly calories." Because the goal isn't being healthy it's losing weight and skinny = healthy anyways.
It's crazy how much you don't realize something is wrong when you're in the moment. During that time I'd have multiple days where I'd eat 2 tablespoons of peanut butter for dinner. Never had I ever craved just peanut butter before, and never have I craved it since. My body was for sure going crazy with my constant restriction and the days I'd "cheat" I would inevitably binge and feel guilty. These kinds of weight loss habits are not just physically unhealthy they really mess with people's minds.
I mentioned the "crabs in a bucket" mentality but I really do think it's insidious. Everyone in a commenter's life who would question them on their weight loss tactics/goals was presumably 1. fat and 2. jealous. That is such a horrible and dangerous mindset to have. And I think it contributes to people staying in these toxic cycles. I know it did for me.
This really hits close to home. I had evenings were I had only eaten a bit above 1000 calories across the day and my dinner was 200 grams of cottage cheese and that's it - and that was good or even amazing for me. And of course the binging also followed. I fucked up my eating habits so much in that time that I still struggle with binge eating all the time, even with psychological help.
No one becomes fat in six months (well maybe the YouTube binge eaters), no one should go from obese to skinny in the same timeframe.
Setting up actual healthy habits is the most important part.
Operative word is should. Unfortunately a lot of weightloss places are very much a "race" mentality. Of those who share progress pictures the ones who lose the most weight the fastest get the most attention. They get the most attention and then that's all you ever see are the ones who do it so quickly.
And that's another thing. I was never obese. Probably never even technically overweight by BMI standards. I just wanted to be thin for aesthetic purposes. This kind of stuff affects everyone but I feel like it's even worse for fat folks because no one ever believes them when they say they might have an eating disorder. Most people expect anorexic or bulimic people to be skinny.
I think it depends on the person. I was OMAD for a while, lost 60 lbs (I went from almost obese by BMI to the top end of normal weight), and have only gotten healthier since. I recognized at the time that it was not the healthiest way to lose weight, but I was impatient and young and figured even if it was harmful my youth would absorb that. My weight has fluctuated a bit since then, but recently that's mostly due to increased muscle mass. I was able to get really into cycling and now also weight-lifting, in addition to (mostly) eating healthy food for three meals per day.
But I think there are people who could start on that kind of diet and it would turn into anorexia, or some other kind of eating disorder. I saw it more like an endurance effort with a clear end goal.
First off all grats on your amazing progress! It shows that it does work, together with discipline and some hard work. :) It's also great that you found a way to naturally progress through that change of diet and find a plan that helps, that's basically the best case scenario one can hope for. My worry stems from seeing people that couldn't make that jump and basically fell from one eating disorder right into the next one. But it's gladly not all black and white so I didn't want to overly criticise these eating habits / diet habits. Hope it didn't come off that way.
Like so many things related to health, things like IF and OMAD are highly individualized. As modern humans with unprecedented food convenience, it's easy to forget that we are in the bodies of hunter gatherers who would have to hunt and forage for their meals. Some people are naturally adapted to eat larger meals less frequently, others the opposite. What's important is being able to find what is best for yourself, without judgement. If you are eating whole, minimally processed foods, staying hydrated and moderately active, then when you feel hungry is the right time to eat. When you feel satisfied is the time to stop. If that only happens once a day there's nothing wrong with that. One of the problems is that there are so many external forces messing with this natural rhythm, from life stressors to food quality or social pressures that it's easy to be thrown off of it. IF and OMAD aren't for everyone but for the people who might need the reminder to check in and listen to their body instead of boredom snacking it can be very useful.
I see your points, definitely. I didn't want to overly criticise the ideas behind stuff like OMAD and IF, just critizise the "one fits all" approach of many people that tried these ways of living and now use them as a blueprint for everyone they can reach. That's what is worrisome to me, not the approach itself :)
This kind of mentality - more specifically the excessive CICO stuff - was precisely the reason why I wanted to post this video.
If I had found a better written article that covered everything this did, I would have posted it instead.
The best success I've had with losing weight then keeping it off was to completely forsake counting calories and instead focus on eating healthy. My health insurance gave me access to a program called Omada which is where I first came across this as a method for weight loss, but I really don't think a program is necessary to be successful with it. I let myself eat unhealthy here and there, and I think everyone should because it can be good for your mental health, but focusing on healthy food has been effective for me. I'm not quite as thin as I might like to be but I'm definitely healthier than I would be if I were 10 lbs lighter but eating processed food with every meal. It can be more expensive to eat healthy which is really unfortunate for people on a limited income.
At this point I meal prep my workday dinners on Sunday, eat yogurt with fruit for breakfast, a big bowl of veggies with some hummus is often lunch, then I'll have a small healthy snack later. You don't need to count calories when you eat a big pile o' vegetables and if you focus entirely on finding foods you're happy with that are good for you, you're treating your body well and you'll see benefits even if you don't drop a bunch of weight right off the bat. When you do want to have a piece of cake or whatever, go for it because totally denying it can lead to issues. You just need to be good to yourself and eat less, and experiment with eating more slowly and savoring it more so you can be satisfied with less.
I went through a similar program and it's having pretty fantastic results. If you've read some of my comments about the whole food plant based diet, it's the thing that got me on it and helped me stick with it.
I can speak for personal experience, which is fully anecdotal but still valid, that when I've been on a "diet" I've been incredibly unhealthy. Whether it was because an app told me to eat 1200 calories, because calorie counting itself led to obsessive and unhealthy behavior, or because Atkins literally gave me migraines. I became fat while being an active athlete because my body said it was time to develop secondary sex characteristics. And then when I stopped being an athlete in college, my body had learned different lessons about holding onto calories. With ADHD, I struggle to be as attentive to my hunger cues as I'd like because my meds make me not want food, but if I don't eat something I'll get sick.
But having gone through a huge amount of stress lately, not eating much, doing increased physical labor as a caretaker... I've not lost a pound. (I don't weigh myself anymore, but had a doctor's appt). I've had less time than usual for my long walks that I love, I've gotten way less sleep and it's been worse, and I'm emotionally drained from everything I'm doing daily. Those things are worse for mu health than the numbers on a scale. Those are things I'm working on with a therapist and my doctors. Health At Any Size is about addressing health holistically no matter the patient's weight. It's about whether your labs come back fine, or you're getting enough movement, or your pain is managed so you actually can move. It's not "oh hey any size is equally healthy" but "we will address your health at any size"
Obesity predominantly relates to risk factors - some obese people run marathons, or play the flute while twerking in heels, or win those competitions where people throw logs and stuff. I'm not in that latter category, yet (ok maybe not a marathon, even the idea is exhausting) but I'm pretty active through work and home. Risk factors don't guarantee outcomes, they nudge them. It'd be nice not to be reduced to a single risk factor in people's eyes, or be accused of being "insane" for not focusing on the one that lacks long term methods of addressing jt and results in some of the greatest social stigma. Mostly we just want to be treated as people instead of (often badly interpreted) statistics.
Idk that's what watching this made me think. I'm not done yet but the comments here were a real bummer.
Thank you so much for this. I have found myself frustrated by the reception this topic has garnered, and I am glad to see someone who appears to have actually understood the concepts the video covered.
I'm really passionate about the topic. Being yelled at and shamed or told how it's all my fault has never been helpful and I just think we should treat others as people, and be kind to each other. Like this is my life philosophy even when I don't always live up to it.
The whole "I tell you how fat you are and why that's bad out of love" thing is right up there with hating the sin and loving the sinner or praying the gay away for disingenuous caring acts. And it's far more cruel than "letting" someone remain fat.
Having watched the video, I am surprised by a lot of the comments. Its not making particularly big or new claims; holy shit is 1200 Calories a day not enough food for anyone. No, it cannot be boiled down to 'Fat Shaming Bad'; Fat Shaming is one part of it, but by no means the whole picture. Also, their style is comedic news, its not intended to be a reading of an academic paper.
Its cool if you don't want to watch an hour long video. Just don't comment about a thing you haven't seen. If you want to talk about health, this is posted in the health sub-tilde, so make a post about something you want to talk about. The reason I like Tildes is that its about INFORMED discussion and generally good-faith arguments.
Yeah, the top posts criticizing the contents of the video clearly didn’t watch it, based on what they’re saying.
And that’s fine. It’s long, and the humour isn’t for everyone. You don’t need to watch it if it’s not to your taste. But maybe save your critism for something you care to invest time in (or leave your critism at “I don’t have time for that/I don’t think their humour is funny”).
As for me, I think they buried the lead to hard in this video. The went on for the first 30 minutes about how obesity isn’t a big deal, nor unhealthy which is just untrue. When really what they were trying to say is that the way we approach treating obesity is the real problem, which doesn’t help with solving the issue.
For me, this is one of the worst organized videos they’ve done, and I think they’re going to lose lots of people who actually agree with what they have to say, because they didn’t say it soon enough in the video.
Also, the heartfelt moment at the last second could have been used to greater effect near the start of the episode if they wanted to get people to invest in the message.
Automatically generated transcript
I forget where I first saw this used on Fildes, but it seems useful for a long video. Line breaks are a bit wonky, but reading through most of it looks like the correct words were transcribed.
Main content seems to start with the line “ Our obsession with weight hurts everyone.” around 3:35.
Some More News actually uploads subtitles on their videos, so that actually is the transcript in effect.
YouTube actually has a feature to view these as a transcript but it’s fairly well hidden.
Ah, good to know! I’m on mobile Safari and I can’t find the CC on/off button that’s normally easy to spot on the desktop player. I’m sure it’s there somewhere.
If it helps, it’s also a podcast.
Ugh. I really hate this stuff. Bunch of people who barely (if ever) hit the gym commenting on media stereotypes.
You either have fat shaming or PED shaming, and no in between. Everyone who actually lifts and spends time learning more about it knows that media pics are usually of PEDed up, photoshopped celebrities. It's not reality. People who make these body shaming articles/videos are basically concern trolls in my book.
The problem isn't the media, the problem is a lack of emphasis on lifting programs/programming in secondary school, and too much focus on team sports/games and cardio. In addition to physical education (kickball shenanigans), the final year of secondary education should have a mandatory gym-as-in-actual-lifting class. It's a lot easier to maintain one's health if one is comfortable in a commercial gym setting:
Overall lifting has been proven to have massively more health benefits than pure cardio. Ideally one does both, but if you had to pick one, lifting pretty much wins out every time. Cardio you basically burn calories while you do it, lifting you burn them during and after (post workout metabolism is higher, and muscles burn more calories even at rest). It has additional benefits such as reducing likelihood of injuries, and increasing bone density (which also reduces chances of "help I've fallen and can't get up" when you are older).
Finally, lift more = you can eat more, or at least eat the same without gaining massive amounts of fat [edited] and gives you confidence so you don't even worry about fat shamers, or concern trolls.
There's basically no downsides to a natural lifting program.
Tl;dr: These
peoplevideo producers need to stop making a mountain out of a mole hill [edited] , hit the gym, and stop worrying about this non-issue.Edit: Clarifying that the video producers need to shut up, not Tildes users, since a few users seem to have taken this as a personal attack. It's not, it just drives me mad that the most obvious solution is almost entirely ignored unless you happen to have played high school varsity football.
Tl;dr2: I think everyone should get a one semester chance to learn about lifting, and how to use gym equipment before they are sent off to uni/trade school/work, rather than it being mostly ignored almost entirely.
Making sure everyone knows how to manage their finances, cook a few decent meals, and lift some heavy shit before they finish mandatory secondary education would make everyone's lives better.
Edit 2: Removed some phrases that were offending people's sensibilities.
I don't think there is an obesity epidemic because people have forgotten how to go to the gym. That seems very simplistic. The availability of quick and easier calories in combination with busier lives and more sedentary work environments/leisure activities seems like an obvious place to start. Going to the gym is certainly part of a good answer to this, but in my opinion people are working against these societal factors in a way they never had to 50 years ago and addressing that is probably a much better place to start.
I'm not really sure this kind of statement is a fit for Tildes. Perfectly reasonable to disagree with someone or an article, but telling someone to shut the fuck up on a discussion platform isn't conducive to a great discussion.
I agree that the stfu is against the spirit of tildes, but I understand the sentiment. So many people focus on different techniques, supplements, and equipment to get in shape when in reality, the only way to get in shape is to put in the work.
One of the reasons for this is there is a lot of money riding on people not getting in shape. If people realized that the best way to get in shape was to walk more and do a few sessions of vigorous exercise a week for the rest of their life, the fitness industry would lose money. People wouldn't be buying different supplements to find the best one, buying strange gimmicky exercise gadgets, or watching fitness influencers religiously.
Diet is important for losing weight and feeling good, but exercise is the only way to get into shape. People argue too much about how to get the last few percent of performance out of their body without doing the obvious part that will get you 80% of the way to the body you want.
One of the phrases that gets thrown out a lot is "Weight loss happens in the kitchen." I agree with you that excercise is a crucial part in improving mental wellbeing. I never felt good after saying no to food. But I usually felt good after walking, running, hiking etc. However assuming that fat people don't "realize" that excercise is good, actually is treating them like they're idiots. I really do feel like people in this thread could benefit from listening to the podcast Maintenance Phase or reading Aubrey Gordon's What We Don't Talk About When We talk About Fat.
There has been way too much emphasis in this thread about individual actions. It's the same old blame and shams that gets us nowhere. But every new fad whether it be low-fat, Keto, no-sugar, Pilates, now weight training always seems to be the miracle cure if only people would "realize."
Just saying "oh people should be taught it in school and it'll be fine" is so simplistic and doesn't work. We are taught so many subjects in school that we do not carry over into our adult lives. How many people can still do geometry or algebra in their daily lives? How many people can analyze a literature text and talk about the author's intent?
That argument only shifts the blame. First it's we should teach it in school to oh well you should have paid attention, it's your fault.
This whole thread is disheartening and I am baffled this comment got an exemplary.
I’m not saying that overweight people are stupid and should just set the Twinkie down. I’m saying that weight loss is hard because there are so many people trying to sell miracle cures that it can be hard to see through the fog to what actually matters.
Even dieting is hard because you can go to a restaurant and the salads are higher calorie options than the hamburger which is unintuitive to most people.
Food is also a weird addiction to kick because it’s not like cigarettes where you know you don’t need them. It’s hard to tell what feelings are true hunger and what is food addiction.
Being healthy is hard though and there’s no fast way to get there. The only way is consistency and slow gains, but if you’ve been feeling bad about yourself for years it’s hard to hear that it will take years before you reach your goals.
I never told anyone here to shut up, it was a comment directed at the producers of this over the top video.
I also never said people had "forgotten how to go to the gym". However, many people may never have been taught. Most secondary schools don't have any sort of weight training program unless you are on a sports team. This was my main point, it's a huge problem because it basically makes people scared or shy of going to the gym, and they shouldn't be. There are so many benefits to be had, but the simple idea of lifting vaguely heavy shit is often overlooked because more focus is placed on fad diets, eating less, wearing (read buying) the right clothes, buying makeup/skincare products, and just generally feeling bad about oneself rather than weight lifting which has been proven to improve one's self image.
If they had actual education about it (and it doesn't take much, maybe 1 semester), then they wouldn't be as afraid (or shy), and would be set up literally for the rest of their gym life knowledge wise.
All it takes is ~3 hours a week, and sticking to a program, of which there are plenty of good free ones online, along with apps for helping you manage/understand each workout.
I hate statistics and studies like this when it comes to fitness. There will be a study that shows that 87% or 94% or some really high number of people feel this way, and then when you look for advice or help as someone who falls into the minority that doesn't experience that benefit, it's impossible to find. People have told me directly that I'm lying about not feeling good after exercise despite doing lots of research and following all of the reasonable seeming advice that I can find.
Yeah I have a friend like that. He seems to be enjoying it more now that he has set a schedule up that works for him. I think part of it is finding something that one really enjoys that can also be included in the workout. From what I understand for him the lifting part is kinda meh, but he really looks forward to a few cool down laps in the pool at the end.
For me I have found doing the exercises I don't like at very low weights until I feel comfortable has helped me enjoy them more, e.g. front squats, tried doing them for real and hated every second, switched them to the end of my workout with just the bar to get used to the movement, and then worked the weight up to what I expected (based on back squat), and actually started to enjoy them.
For me it's just the actual experience of being in a gym. I feel vulnerable and anxious and get horrible intrusive thoughts. I feel terrified and on edge and I want so badly to be invisible, which makes it feel extremely terrible when someone tries to talk to me. I've had men pull my headphones out to talk to me, which thankfully can't happen anymore but the added anxiety that came from it never went away. I don't really feel like this in other contexts. Sometimes I'll have mild social anxiety, but it's never to that degree. I typically feel depressed for 3-4 days to a week after going to the gym, depending on the experience. Kind of a funny anecdote, one time this guy ended up being on the station next to me three times, and all three times he told me my shoelaces were untied, which they were. I wanted to tell him that I'd rather just be strangled to death by the shoelaces than be forced to acknowledge that I'm being perceived at that moment.
I actually don't hate the picking up and putting down part, I don't really feel strongly about it in any way. The psychological side effects are unsurmountable for me, though. I wish it had all those positive affects for me that people talk about, but I've never experienced that. The absolute best case scenario for me is I just feel shitty for the rest of the day.
Have you been able to try working out by yourself? I’d be curious to see if there’s much a difference if you’re able to avoid the issues you face going to the gym.
Not with weights. I've done some yoga and cardio alone, sometimes some bodyweight exercises. I still get the intrusive thoughts and some mild depression afterwards, but not the anxiety and the depression isn't nearly as severe.
That does sound like an awful experience. I can see how that would ruin any good feelings about going to the gym.
It also sounds like it may be an issue with the culture at that "kind" of gym. It sounds like a chain where there are more "randos" than recognizable regulars... Maybe a small newer one would be better (I know I am assuming).
That wanting to be invisible thing is kind of related to what I was getting in my original post, perhaps if everyone had the gym normalized as an experience when they were young, that sort of feeling wouldn't pop up as much, and people would be more likely to go. It would also give everyone a standard idea of gym etiquette, e.g. don't walk up to strangers and pull their headphones out.
The first time the headphone thing happened was at the gym in my apartment complex. Residents only, like 5 machines plus a few weight stations. Couldn't have been smaller.
I think you're partially right, I might be more comfortable at the gym had it been formally introduced to be earlier, but I got my first membership when I was 13 or 14. It's just always been a place where I'm thinking about my body, which I have a very bad relationship with, I'm surrounded by mirrors, I'm definitely being looked at by people - even if everyone online insists that no one is looking at other people, I can see them looking, and I hate it - and the progress takes so long to become visible that it's weeks of negative experiences before even a sliver of positive reinforcement. I don't know how to undo any of that or even begin to work on it. I tried to talk to a therapist about it once and he said "men in my culture like women with large behinds".
Ah gotcha. Sorry for the assumption. Small apartment gym kinda fits my preconceptions too.
Maybe to clarify more, categories of gyms:
Chains: Lots of members. Obviously has regulars, but hard to pick out because of how many members there are, which leads to everyone feeling like a rando, which seems to lead to possible weird interactions.
Apartment/Hotel: Small, not many members, obvious regulars...But possible weirdo neighbors ruining it (your case).
Sole proprietor/family gym: Not too many members, but most are absolute regulars that stick to a schedule. Everybody may not know everybody, but for the most part every face is familiar. Most importantly everyone is chill because the actual owner is there ~everyday. This is the type of gym I thought might work for you.
Also, dunno if it helps, but I don't know many serious lifters who would actually judge someone for being fat in the gym. You're still there improving yourself, and what people do notice is dedication and the plates increasing in size. People who have been training for years respect that massively. Usually if there is any judgement it's from bizarre silly exercises that use equipment dangerously, or that involve moving weight perpendicular to gravity (incredibly inefficient, since you aren't doing work directly against gravity). That's it.
For myself if I see a newbie regularly over a long period at the gym, no matter their size, I always kinda want to randomly go up to them and say "Good job, keep it up, you're doing fuckin awesome!"
...I never do though, because one of the best things to do at the gym is leave people alone, and let them do the work.
Jeez this is a fantastically bad take. I genuinely can't even begin to take you seriously. Id say this is a meathead comment but i have plenty of meathead friends who would find this just as silly. The notion that cardio and team sports should be replaced with a weight lifting regimen... gyms readily available... shaming people in their choice of exercise... jesus you are so privileged to be this ignorant, this whole comment makes my head spin.
Frankly I'm amazed that language like "massive fat ass" and "stfu" wasn't reason enough to remove that comment by itself.
Really, are there rules against that? I didn't think it was offensive, and it wasn't meant to be.
What would an acceptable alternative term for fattass be?
The reason I am asking is because I have been overweight once, pudgy quite often, and skinny only once in my adult life. I am not shy at all to tell people "yup I was a super fatass in undergrad, here look at this pic."
Maybe it's the redditor in me, but I honestly didn't see anything wrong with that term.
I honestly have a hard time believing that you think the word "fatass" isn't a pejorative term, or that "stfu" is even remotely respectful language.
Tildes has a Code of Conduct with only three rules, but the primary one is this:
But in terms of moderation there are no hard-and-fast rules.
I actually don't think it's a pejorative term in the context I used it, I never insulted any individual or group. It was used in the same context as a casual conversation like "What'd you do this weekend?", "Oh I was a fatass, skipped the gym, ate a whole pizza and played video games all weekend". Is that really that terrible?
As for stfu, that seems overly sensitive, it's a common term used all over the internet. Is RTFM from the days of Doom and shareware also too insensitive? Again, not straight up telling someone to rtfm, but for example, someone links to a tech video about some tech problem that has an easy fix.... Is it wrong to say "YouTuber probably didn't rtfm?".
Anyway. I really don't get it, I will be more careful with what words I use here. I really didn't think I was making "other people's experiences—or lives—worse" with my comment.
Okay, let's engage in good faith.
A key difference is that in your example, they are labeling themselves that in a self-deprecating manner, while you are using it to label others.
Another key point is that it definitely carries negative connotations, in this case of "moral failure", of laziness and sloth.
I assume that the following quote is where you used it before editing
It does not help that your argument is reductive. By stating it as above, you not only imply that people don't understand that exercise helps, but also that there is nothing more to consider to keep a healthy weight.
In essence, you are calling people who are at an unhealthy weight stupid and lazy, and show no understanding for the complexities of the situation.
If you want to talk about a group of people based on their weight, then there are more objective terms. Overweight and obese are common classifications, but generally tied to BMI which may be met with resistance on individual level. Using unhealthy weight would get rid of that connection, and connect it to the core issue of health, without implying where those limits are in general or for any given individual.
Personally I don't think the simple fat is categorically bad, but I wouldn't be surprised if for others it has taken on similar negative connotation.
Consider, would this response have been better if it was something along the lines of
?
Jesus christ. I never called anyone a fatass. I said something like this:
This was in reference to my own fucking experience and applying it generally, but people took it completely out of context.
Here's a nicer example version for the sensitive Tilderinos:
I also never called anyone stupid and lazy, again you are just summoning a bunch of perceived malice on my part out of nowhere, and twisting my words to fit into some pointless argument.
Off topic, I can't believe you think couching a bunch of insulting thoughts and assumptions in "fancy" words is any better than telling someone to stfu. Look at yourself and others who have basically attacked me over this. You all are actual bullies.
Sincerely,
Your neighborhood tiny brain scraphead
I think somehow you decided to get angry at my comment rather than actually understand the points I was making.
I didn't say replaced, I said added on to the last year, since usually no phys ed is required at that point, but it is a perfect time to teach people how to train themselves before they go off to uni.
I am not sure why you are implying gyms are hard to find? Many countries have free or cheap open air/un-airconditioned mom n pop style gyms that are very affordable. I have always been able to find one across multiple countries, the biggest issue has been chain gyms that demand a 6-12 month membership in order to get a reasonable rate... But usually you can find smaller gyms that have reasonable daily rates (like 0.50-2.00 USD in developing to middle income countries).
I never shamed anyone in their choice of exercise either, unless you are getting upset about the cardio thing:
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/24/well/move/cardio-strength-training-benefits.html
I did not watch the video.
I was on r slash keto (they get no linkbacks from me) and some of the other subs and the comments here about them focusing more on being skinny than healthy is true. Not everyone, but enough that it was the prevailing theme, even though they didn't necessarily realize it. I lost about 60 pounds over a three-month period doing keto and tracking everything on myfitnesspal as part of a bet with a friend.
I won the bet, but slowly stopped tracking everything and the weight came back on. Losing 60 pounds changed nothing for me. I didn't feel physically better, I didn't sleep better or have less fatigue issues. I still struggled with waking up sometimes and then staying awake during the day. My doctor was supportive at first, but as the weight came back he kind of belittled the weight loss since I had so much more to lose. He specifically mentioned BMI in context of my weight. Which, like others above-mentioned, isn't really a good individual measure.
After listening to Adam Ragusea's podcast video and then reading about these medicines, I'm going to have him put his money where his mouth is. The world's weight gain is an epidemic, and one way to fight it is to use medicine, along with other medical and mental supports.
I've watched the video now, and I don't think she's entirely right, or wrong.
Food is so much easier to get and denser than it was. Combine that with most people not needing to spend days/nights hunting for food, and you get heavier people. So the idea that the weight loss medicines, not the fads/starving/fasting, is wrong or bad is a bad take, in my opinion.
I've done low-carb before and lost a lot of weight and kept it off for a while. When I won my bet, I practically lived on myfitnesspal. Inputting foods, weights, figuring out how to put foods in, weighing food. When it went down for a week, I felt lost. It wasn't healthy or sustainable, and the weight trickled back on. I had more than one day when I was under 1200 calories too, on top of already being on a deficit based on the calculator given my height/weight and exercise.
In my situation, with my other health and mental conditions, I think a medicine to help with weight loss is a good idea. Not forever, but if it can help me get going, then it's a good thing.
Ozempic and the newer generation medications work via blood sugar and insulin stabilization for folks with type 2 diabetes. The details of how are different for each of them, but that's basically how they work. Articles like this one have sections like "How does Ozempic work for diabetes?" and "How does Ozempic work for weight loss?" as though it can somehow tell if you have a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes and do one thing, but do something different if you don't.
So while all of the documentation I've been able to find related to these medications talk about their effect on appetite and weight for folks who are overweight, I'd like to point out that none of them are studying the effect they have on blood sugar and insulin for non diabetics. It's true that hypoglycemia is listed as a side effect in Ozempic in all of the documentation, but that's in the context of studying it with diabetics. ALL of the pre-obesity/weight loss studies I can find used patients with type 2 diabetes as both the control and test subjects. As far as I can tell, nobody has written a paper yet on what happens to blood sugar and insulin for someone who does not have type 2 diabetes. It's possible someone is working on that now.
Anyway, my point is that when medications like this work, the reasons why they work can be a little murky. Appetite control could very well be a side effect of blood sugar control, or some other adjustment that's happening in the metabolic cycle. Could fixing low blood sugar help with obesity? What about insulin resistance? These aren't things that are really of concern to doctors right now on their own. Realistically, people do gain some of the weight back after going off of these medications. I don't believe anyone has really looked into why the weight comes back beyond losing the appetite control effect.
All we know right now is what someone has chosen specifically to study. In this case, the outcome that pharmaceutical companies have been interested in is weight loss; there's a fortune to be made in weight loss. Folks in the studies report that they feel less hungry, so that's what they looked into. But there's an entire other mechanism that we know is happening which they're completely ignoring for a whole swath of people.
I am verging on type 2 unfortunately.
I'm sorry to hear that. It's at least good that there are all these great new medications now.
"Make sure you watch until the end because there is a pretty big bombshell"
Comments like this are exactly why I would never watch a 1 hour video like this.
How invested in the narrative are you that you posit such a click-bait description of it?
The "watch until the end" sense of urgency in any posted video of the last few years, carries a desperate need for attention without the substance. No thank you.
You’re right. So I deleted the comment.
But I didn’t make this video. I have no investment in whether you watch it or not. I would like you to since I think it’s got a message that I think people need to hear. But I take umbrage that you would call me desperate.
I am extremely disappointed that you and apparently everyone else is willing to pass judgement on this without bothering to actually engage with it in any meaningful capacity. I understand not willing to spend the time to watch it, but these kinds of comments are not helpful in any way.
My comment was not a description of the contents, merely a suggestion to not stop watching until the end.
Forgive my presumptions, friend.
I just hoped that Tildes wouldn't be ridden with posts ordering us to "watch until the end."
For all I knew, your post was just lacking a slew of "crying/laughing" cartoon faces.
If you post me your link, I'll check it out, but we don't need to ge told how to consume our media.
Is it not compelling enough to watch through? Why would we need to be told to watch until the end if it is not clickbait?
I sincerely didn't mean to insult you and I gather you didn't mean to insult us, but we would both be forgiven to have felt insulted.
Have a better day, friend, let's make tildes better than reddit. Starting with us!
I made a longer reply elsewhere in this topic, but when your video starts with about three and a half minutes of a comedy bit that feels at best tangentially related to the topic, can you really expect the people who are coming in to hear an argument for the topic as presented to assume that the content will be worth engaging with?
Compare this to Last Week Tonight. I looked up the latest available episode on youtube and it breaks down like this:
00:00 - 00:04 intro sequence
00:04 - 00:06 mention the overarching topic
00:06 - 00:15 related joke
00:15 - 00:19 scope content to more specific topic
00:19 - 00:30 related joke
00:30 - 01:03 presenting information on the topic
The topic is the first thing mentioned, because the comedy flows from the topic, not the other way around. The initial jokes are short, because they punctuate the information; they provide a brief respite from the onslaught of information.
If this had been written content, and the article started with a few pages worth of a joke with no seemingly relevant context to the argument itself, I would likely have disengaged as well.
To add more context, "Make sure you watch until the end because there is a pretty big bombshell" means a lot more to regular viewers of the channel who know the presenter and will have more of a connection to the personal story.
To those who aren't regular viewers, it isn't a particularly meaningful bombshell and definitely sounds more like clickbait.
That's fair! It should be expressed as such by OP or be posted in a forum where said Implication is a given.
I'm in my 40s, I don't need to be told how to consume media that should be able to stand on its own legs.
We will inevitably not all like or consume the same things, and that's a good thing, but to say "watch until the end" in 2023 is one of the fastest ways to forever lose my attention on any topic.
I hope Tildes isn't overrun with this kind of click bait content going forward.
I very much agree.
If the source is making a reasonable argument, there should be no need for an element of surprise to make the point. It is not media for entertainment. If one wants to highlight a line of reasoning, or a point of view, why hide it in the first place if the goal is to convincingly argue for something?
If you try to draw people in just by the subject alone and a vague promise that it will be worth it, you're most likely to get engagement from people who are already interested in the topic. You may very well end up preaching to the choir.
What could convince me it's worthwhile to watch it, is an overview. Explain the gist or the direction of their persuasive arguments. There's a reason scientific papers tend to have long descriptive titles and abstracts that explain very broadly what they are about.
Consider the difference between
and
Both of the above are quotes from the OP in this thread. The latter isn't much information, but it is at least the broadest of context for what the video argues, which is far more than the first quote.
For a good faith effort, I did open the video. The first three and a half minutes or so are a comedy bit which is at best tangentially related to the topic but doesn't really further the understanding of it.
During this is where I would have turned off the video normally. I don't mind edutainment, but I much prefer when the entertainment flows from the education, not vice versa.
The next minute and a half is spent in the very broadest sense outlining the topic of the video and the theses argued for. This information should have been front and center.
The argument seems not to be well encapsulated by the title. It is not just general "weight obsession", but rather they are specifically talking about how social media (mentioning instagram, tiktok, facebook) gives contradicting messaging by showing/favoring content for
healthy at any size
These are not contradictions.
Yes, there may be body features (shape, skin, etc.) which are more physically attractive to a larger part of the population. You are still human and worthy of respect and compassion regardless of your looks, unless your actions change that.
If you are a good person, you should not shy away from valuing yourself appropriately (have high self-esteem), but the goodness of you as a person is not determined by your appearance or your health. Disease, sickness, injury, and other unhealthy conditions are not god's punishment of the wicked.
Your appearance and your health can be connected. Being too heavy is generally speaking not physically healthy, and if you are too heavy then it would generally speaking (all else being equal) be healthy for you to lose weight.
No, this weight limit is not the same BMI for everyone; it's not even hard limits for any individual. Chronic disease and mental health aspects can complicate things, but that doesn't mean there's no causative relationship between at some point being heavier and health concerns.
Maybe they argue better for it than they present it, but I've spent five minutes watching it and longer writing this response, so at this point I am not inclined to keep watching.
Well said. I never meant to insult OP, and perhaps my words were a bit harsh, but you put it more eloquently than I and I thank you for your good faith efforts.
Perhaps this form of media can help some people, but I'd agree that it is mostly preaching to the choir, and not really pulling in many new people and changing their views on weight/body positivity.
I'm not going to watch it, but I'm mildly curious. What did they say?
Basically all of the points the presenter make culminate into a deeply personal story that demonstrate the the damage that fat shaming can do to a person.
I realize in retrospect that that “bombshell” comment was probably unintentionally misleading….
The video title implies that it's about "weight obsession", but the video comments focus on fat shaming. Which is it? I think most decent people would agree that fat shaming is cruel, but I'm hoping this video isn't falsely pushing a "healthy at any weight" narrative. Obesity (and the other extreme, anorexia) kills.
I find it disparaging that you and apparently five others so far just assume this video has a narrative you don’t like instead of actually watching it and finding out what the points actually are.
I get that it’s a long watch so you may not want to invest the time, but I’d think one would assume a video that is an hour long might have a little more to say than “fat shaming is bad”.
Some More News generally carries a bit more nuance than that.
That's exactly why I posed a question in my original comment. You are correct, I'm not spending an hour watching this, so I was trying to glean the content from comments in this thread and the YouTube comments, which all seemed to focus on "fat shaming bad". And I absolutely agree with that. People deserve compassion, not ridicule.
But the title of the video implies something different - "weight obsession". Not sure what that is, but if a person is anorexic or above 30 BMI, they absolutely should be obsessing over their weight if they want a decent lifespan and healthspan.
Part of the video is specifically debunking the idea that BMI is an indicator of health.
I don’t think this video is perfect by any measure, but it does a good job of explaining why our social views on weight are harmful to everyone.
Do you have an approximate minute mark on the BMI discussion? I'd be interested in hearing how they recommend diagnosing obesity if not via BMI.
If they are focused more on purely the social views of weight, then I'd probably agree with much of it. It's when people start pushing this fiction that obesity is not dangerous to those that suffer from it that I bristle. Obesity kills, and we should all actively be helping the loved ones in our lives get back to a healthier weight, not pushing nonsense that it's nothing to worry about.
The description has chapter markers in it.
I don't think anyone is arguing BMI is a good indicator of health. Its just the only real way we have to measure average weights at a population level. I'm technically "overweight" by BMI standards because I go to the gym and work out, resulting in a high weight from muscles. That being said I'm far from the average person in America.
Talk to any doctor or epidemiologist, BMI is not bunk. Most people on the high or low end have health issues.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_mass_index#History:
Later:
If medical professionals are using BMI as a diagnostic tool for a single person, then you may want to start getting second opinions. It has its uses when looking at populations en masse, but has limited if any use for an individual.
As a specific example, when I was at my fittest I was about 32 years old, 5'-6" tall, and 165 lbs. I had clear, well-defined abs, I was floating around 10% body fat, I could run a half marathon in 2:25 (not super fast I know), I could squat >400 lbs; I was in tremendously good shape. According to my BMI, I was obese. In order to be on the high-end of "normal", I would have had to have had negative body fat.
Extremely high or low is bad, but it has quite a few issues closer to the center where it doesn't take muscle mass in to account. There are quite a few people that get slotted in to Overweight or Obese that don't, from a medical standpoint, belong there.
It is an indicator of health though. Just one of many.
I’m kind of tired of these responses that don’t actually add to the conversation so I’ll just ask you two questions.
What is the basis of your assertion and why do you think that all of the reasons brought up for why BMI is not a good measurement of health - in the video and in these comments - are wrong?
But then in another comment you state:
So... isn't is correct to say the hour-long video can be summarized as "fat shaming is bad"?
I suppose in the same way you can say that Moby Dick is about a guy fighting a whale. Technically accurate but absent of all the nuance or any of the reason why it might be worth consuming.
How would you then summarize the nuances and reasons of why the linked video is worth watching?
What, in broad terms, are the arguments, reasoning, context, presentation, considerations, or such which makes the video informative and persuasive regarding this topic?
YouTube has 11-hour videos that can be summed up with "The Last Jedi is bad." I'm sure there are longer videos about other movies; I assure you there are longer videos than this one that don't just say "fat shaming is bad," but indeed boil down to "obesity is not bad." I will never make assumptions about what a video has to say based on its length alone. Most video essays on YouTube are just people padding runtime with loads of crap.
It doesn't appear that you provided any context in the comments about why this video or channel is worthwhile, so I think the default assumption is that a video is just being posted because OP likes what it has to say regardless of its actual value.
Seeing as we live in an attention economy I feel that asking about the content of a one hour long video is entirely fair. Of course it's hard to compress an in depth discussion of a complex topic into a few sentences, but so far people only complain about the question and don't really try to answer it.
Sorry to jump in on this comment with an off-topic tangent (feel to label as such), but this has reminded me of a concept about tildes that I really liked when I first joined. Its the idea that tildes was the kind of place where people would read the article (or in this case, watch the video) before commenting, unlike reddit where most people would only read the headline and the top comments tended to completely miss several key points. In my head, anyone who was unable to read the article would generally avoid comments (and especially top-level comments).
Now that I go back and search though, I can't find that sentiment as a rule or suggestion. So this is an open question - is there such a rule/suggestion or was I simply just getting a "vibe"? Should there be a suggestion to that affect?
(Also to be clear - I'm not trying to single you out here PaiMei. Your comment just happens to be a very clear example case that invites discussion.)
Reading the article first is definitely encouraged and should be the default. Videos, especially with long runtimes, have been much less common topics and people have much stronger personal feelings about “investing their time” or not, so it hasn’t been as solidly established.
RTFA before you comment is great. But (as a newcomer) I don't think it should be a rule. There are a lot of crap articles. You can still take information away from bad articles without realizing it.
Plus, it would be a bit like saying that you have to have read anything anyone is talking about before engaging in a conversation:
"I read an article about how 600 migrants drowned when their overcrowded ship rolled over and the entire thing was preventable but the local authorities didn't want to help."
"I'm sorry, I haven't read that."
The question is whether you want high-quality discussions or a high-level book club. Tangents are great. Asking questions about the value of an article before reading it is great. Figuring out if something is clickbait is great. Reading the article can be great, but it can also be a total waste of time (or worse).
I think theres also some nuance about whether you are making a top-level comment or replying to an existing comment.
This type of conversation is more similar to responding to an existing comment. Perhaps you have outside knowledge from other articles or some relevant life experience, and it can make sense to jump into that conversation.
But for top-level comments, I don't think that analogy holds. It would be more similar to asking a question at the end of a presentation, except you came in 59 minutes late and didn't get to watch the presentation. Its not really helpful or beneficial to the conversation to stand up with a question and start with "Hey, I didn't actually watch the presentation". Unlike responding to something said to you in conversation where you are expected to reply, it would probably be considered wasting people's time to do that. In that situation, the right call is to simply not ask (comment) at all.
I definitely like "suggestion" rather than a rule. Without even touching the ability to enforce said rule, there are many valid (top-level) comments that don't require reading the article. A tangent like this one on how tildes works is an example. Or even something along the lines of "Hey, I'm at work and can't watch this full video - can someone give a short summary so I can better parse the existing comments." But the spirit of the suggestion would be not starting discussions on the media that you haven't fully consumed.
It is mostly a vibe. For articles, hot takes on titles are frowned upon. It doesn't foster useful discussion.
In this case its "I'm not going to spend an hour learning, I'm going to spout my current opinions instead." And that usually just leads to reactionary, frustrating conversations.
Its fine not to want to spend an hour listening to a lecture...move on and don't post a counter-lecture for a video you didn't watch.
Thanks for posting this video. It's great when people take the time to share things that interest them.
But, I haven't watched it, and, since it's over an hour long, I am not certain that I am going to. Even at double-speed, that's a half hour of my (quite limited) free time to devote to a video that is only described with a quick link.
I do enjoy people posting links to video content. I just wish that those links could be accompanied by a few sentences describing the author's thesis, and maybe the bullet points that they use to bolster their argument, something to help me decide whether I should invest the time to dive deeper into the topic by watching the video.
The video has a description on it, but I will copy and paste the relevant portions here:
Chapters:
00:00 - Intro
03:31 - Social Media Has Made Our Body Issues Worse
07:23 - Our Society Has Always Emphasized Weight Loss
16:42 - 1,200 Calories Is Not Enough Calories
19:49 - BMI Is Bogus
27:12 - Obesity: An Epidemic?
35:13 - Beauty Standards Have Changed Over Time
38:14 - Fat Shaming Doesn't Work
43:21 - There Are No Miracle Weight Loss Drugs
47:08 - Why People Develop Eating Disorders
59:24 - Katy Gets Real
1:02:12 – There Are More Important Things Than Weight
Whoever told them 1200 calories is enough should touch grass. Even the most strict health nuts know that does far more damage than good.
BMI is also very much not bogus, even on the individual level only athletes and professional body builders end up as outliers, a fraction of society.
BMI is an attempt to estimate the distribution of mass. Any article or guide on BMI worth their salt will say it's meant as a guide, so calling it bogus doesn't even make sense..
To be honest though maybe he pivots to another point in the actual vid but like the other guy said I'm not watching an hour of that lol
I'm not sure how much I agree. It perhaps has some utility as a rough indicator but I'm by no means an athlete or a bodybuilder (professional or otherwise) and trying to get within range purely based on BMI would be disastrous for me. I'm 175cm, my skeleton is approximately 10.5kg and I have 70kg of muscle mass. Not even taking fat into account, I'm already classed as overweight.
If I got within my allegedly healthy range of 56.7kg - 76.6kg, I'd have to sacrifice muscle tissue to be "healthier" which sounds like madness. Looking at body composition or at least bodyfat percentage is far more useful.
If you’re 175 and 80.5 kg your BMI is 26.3, which while in the overweight category is not obese or morbidly obese. And it’s also barely above 25. If you’ve got defined muscles rather than a dad bod then it’s highly unlikely you have any health issues.
While negative health impacts are seen in BMI over 25 in studies, the actually poor health outcomes come from bmis over 30 and 35. Those with BMI in that range, are either competing in bodybuilding competitions, or they have a bunch of excess fat.
The further you get from the normal BMI range, the more likely it is that you are actually overweight.
I'm not 80.5, the numbers I gave don't account for fat. I'm definitely overweight and could stand to lose some (it's a work in progress!) but my visceral fat levels are within a healthy range and I'm mobile and very active :) the point still stands that even if I was somehow 0% bf I would be just outside of what is considered the healthy range for BMI.
The important part to keep in mind is that BMI is not just a proxy for body fat, the BMI range and categories exist because they correlate with various health outcomes - regardless of reason.
On average, those with BMIs outside the optimum range experience worse health outcomes as a population.