Page 12 of 57 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 566

Thread: fat acceptance movement page 12

  1. #111
    magnolia1973's Avatar
    magnolia1973 is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    4,073
    I don't think people the size of Fat Acceptance people were ever revered as beauties. The "old fat" was the woman with a small belly and larger hips/thighs. They were shapely, but soft, and not blob shaped with rolls of fat. Most of the time, people are not judging the "old fat" to be unhealthy/bad/unattractive.

    Now, our new standard for beauty is thin with big boobs, unattainable for most without an airbrush.... even models. However, women who don't fit that standard are very acceptable as long as they aren't blobby with rolls of fat. Some try and get there, and honestly, it would be better for their health if they just accepted their body with some fat on the hips and thighs.

    I feel like it should be relatively easy to eliminate the blob/fat rolls, and I think it is easy enough to diet to "old fat" for most people, but damn it is hard to go from "old fat" to something better. And unfortunately, I feel like for some people, especially women who have dieted from a young age, it is next to impossible to even get from blob to "old fat". Just to stay at 200-210 lbsfor me- just to maintain.... required hours of exercise a week and careful monitoring of diet. One injury, or an inability to cook or watch calories and I'd have been 300 lbs. like that.

  2. #112
    ChocoTaco369's Avatar
    ChocoTaco369 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Narberth, PA
    Posts
    5,627
    Quote Originally Posted by magicmerl View Post
    For most of recorded history being fat was a sign of health and social status. Thin is fashionable in our culture. It is not a universal truth for the human species.
    No, having an extra 10-15 lbs could be considered "healthy" because you'd be more likely to survive the winter. That I understanding, and if you want to make the argument that "relatively lean" is healthier than "ripped" I just might support you. Being "fat" was never a sign of health, which is made clear by modern science.
    Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

  3. #113
    Jiigigaw's Avatar
    Jiigigaw is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Lansing, MI
    Posts
    151
    Quote Originally Posted by magnolia1973 View Post

    Even Primal people have trouble sticking to it, and still for many of us it isn't exactly easy to lose the weight even on primal. The last two months I have been less focused and maintained, which makes me happy.... but I need to comply pretty tightly to lose pounds which is hard when life intervenes. It's not so much "ooo McDonalds and pizza"... more like "oh, I want a drink with friends" or "shoot, no time to lift" or just eating a bit too much primal foods because I'm tired of measuring and carefully balancing...
    I was vegetarian for 6 years (one of which was vegan). I did 6 months as a raw foodist (not vegetarian, ate many forms of fermented meats) and I did VLC and several other diets before going paleo. I find the Primal Blueprint by far to be the easiest to stick to. Yes, there was an adjustment period. I still want a big plate of nachos occasionally, but I choose not to eat it. At this time, I'm down 70 pounds (with a 10 pound gain in hard mass), and I find, as long as I always make time for sprints and workouts, that even if I drink in the evening with friends, I recover REALLY FAST.

    Not saying this is true for everyone, but it is what I find.

    Quote Originally Posted by magnolia1973 View Post
    So I get it when people don't believe primal will work for them- they've been failed again and again by many different diet plans. Why should they trust it is any better than veganism, south beach or Jenny Craig? Why should they ditch olive oil for coconut oil? You can find evidence for and against anything. And honestly, this forum.... is discouraging on how much people complicate this way of life. OK, take iodine, until your hair falls out, then sit in ice water, NEVER EAT FRUIT, eat coffee blended with butter, OMG DON'T JOG but do tabata sprints.... SUGAR KILLS, live a little have some haagen das, and while you are at it, eat a pizza, NO NUTS EVER but here is a recipe for a cupcake that has 800 calories of almonds in it, but that apple is what makes you fat.....
    I find that I don't discuss what lifestyle I've chosen to live. I also try to never call it a diet, and prefer lifestyle. What I found is that everyone wants to discuss it. I blow it off and make funny comments like "I'm not actually Jerry, I'm a pod person" or some such things. It occasionally irritates people, but what I found is that when I finally start divulging what I've been doing, they are very receptive. The first thing I share, and what I think is likely the biggest part of everything Mark lays out is that I point out that I eat no sugar. None at all. This is the one thing that I stick 100% to. YEs, I eat naturally occurring sugar in tomatoes and apples, but no sweeteners or products with sweeteners added. When they insist that can't be the only thing I'm doing, I agree but insist that is a good place to start.

    Every wants what you are unwilling to give freely.

  4. #114
    ChocoTaco369's Avatar
    ChocoTaco369 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Narberth, PA
    Posts
    5,627
    Quote Originally Posted by cori93437 View Post
    Doesn't that depend on the individual persons version of "weightist"?

    There are people out there who would assume that a woman of average build, 5'6", and 110 lbs is "healthier" than a similar average build woman, same height at 150 lbs. Because they think skinny = healthy.
    Statistically, in that instance the 110lb woman is the unhealthy one, as she would be below the normal weight range according to BMI. And low weight individuals have nearly as many health problems as a group as the obese group does.
    The 150lb woman may look a bit soft, and is near the top of the normal weight range, but is probably the healthiest.

    Culture and media is skewing "weightist" views to favor those with very low body fat, or who are under weight... this is NOT the healthiest segment of our society. And I'd argue that it's not very natural that our preferences are skewed that way either.

    That said... I'm not arguing for people to STAY heavy.
    But I do understand a bit of the "love thyself" message behind the fat acceptance words.
    IMO a heavy person needs a good deal of self love in order to make the changes necessary to stick to dietary and lifestyle changes long term, which is what it takes to lose weight and keep it off.
    Sometimes fat loss is SLOW and difficult, and loving yourself AS YOU ARE makes it easier to see the positive no matter how little the increments are.
    Self loathing, or only loving the idea of a smaller you, leads to crash and burn cycles of loss and gain.(Or unhealthy levels of struggle and obsession without results... sound familiar Choco? I think I've read that post from even YOU.)
    For many obese people this leads to eventually giving up completely. Not healthy at all...
    A female that is 5'6" and 150 lbs probably isn't fat. That might be slightly overweight, but it's not necessarily unhealthy. You can easily be that weight eating primally on high fat. It would depend how that weight is distributed. If that 150 lb person is active, lifts some heavy things every now and than and is solid, that weight could look pretty good. IF that person is completely sedentary, has a poor diet and all the extra weight is body fat, well, that's not so good. For that height, optimal weight is probably more like 130 lbs, right in the middle of your range. There is a lot more to health than weight.
    Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

  5. #115
    ChocoTaco369's Avatar
    ChocoTaco369 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Narberth, PA
    Posts
    5,627
    Quote Originally Posted by bloodorchid View Post
    is this going along the same lines of thinking that say 'everyone can eat 3 lbs of potatoes a day because *I* can eat 3 lbs of potatoes a day'?

    because maybe i'm remembering wrongily, but visual cues for health and fertility change about every 50 years or so. because now it's skinny. 60 years ago it was marilynesque curvy, in the 20s it was tomboyishly curveless, before then it was wasp waisted corsets, before that it was bustles (butt illusions) the size of a volkswagon, before that it was white powder and ridiculous wigs. and that's just sticking with north america and europe

    i mean even now across the world at least one country has the status quo as the bigger the better for their women

    to bash someone for calling overweight people landwhales is perfectly fine in my world. if they want to call me or other people like me landwhales well then, i guess i'll happily whip out my handy dandy insult notebook and start off sweet with just 'dumbass'

    because for some reason, some people are just dumb enough to think their opinion on how everyone should look or what everyone should like is cause enough for assholery

    also, this is just me scratching my head here, but what about all the people who like fat partners? or very fat partners? or partners with very large legs and hips?

    because for every condescending remark you make, as if i don't live in the real world too, i can remark that what YOU like is not what EVERYONE likes. do i really have to say that? that everyone likes different things?

    the primal blueprint is about health, btw. if weightloss happens then great
    What you're alluding to is fashion drilled into your head by the media. People 100,000 years ago weren't wearing corsets. None of this makes any sense. There are always outliers that have a skewed perception. There is a reason why the people that are attracted to the very obese are a tiny minority - there was probably something that occurred in their past that lead them down that path. It's definitely not a typical natural attraction for sure.

    Exactly what in my statement is condescending? You may be offended by natural human attraction, but I'm not. If you want to make decisions based on emotion, go for it. I prefer to be realistic.
    Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

  6. #116
    Nicator's Avatar
    Nicator is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    137
    We may, perhaps, never be rid of obesity as we may never be rid of congenital heart defects or cancer or what have you. To accept these things, though, is folly. Lean is a more optimal expression of the human phenotype than obese.

    The problem with this 'movement' is the very same problem with all leftist movements. It begins innocently, with an emotional plee to increase acceptance and tolerance of a newly defined 'oppressed class'. News articles, scholarly discourses, a Netflix documentary, perhaps a TED talk...and the empathy button of politically active women is pushed and before you know it, the movement is hijacked entirely by power agendas.

    The attempt to change your natural bias against obesity will be multi-faceted, as usual. There will be legislation to change your conduct, and educational attempts to tinker with your childrens' minds from a young age. Subtle messages in coloring books and children's TV shows. On women's talk shows, it will become taboo to applaud or congratulate someone for losing weight, as this 'might offend our large friends'. Airlines will no longer be permitted to charge extra for obese passengers. And so on.

    The root problem is that, oftentimes, people don't have a very deep well of personal power to draw from. An infant, incapable of feeding itself or providing it's own needs in any way will do what it can do...cry and signal others to see to it's needs. 'Movements' for 'oppressed classes' consist mostly of people who cannot find it within themselves to accept or change themselves and so cry to society to do all of the accepting for them.
    Last edited by Nicator; 06-15-2012 at 06:41 AM.

  7. #117
    RitaRose's Avatar
    RitaRose is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    3,952
    Quote Originally Posted by spacey47 View Post
    As for the you don't do what I do comments don't make assumptions about me, my work and responsibilities.
    So are you saying you DO walk 15-20 miles each day in direct sunlight in 45C weather... in London???

    I'm only making assumptions because what you're implying is ridiculous and you haven't stated otherwise.

    It's called "empathy", along with the knowledge that everyone's lives do not work the exact same way yours does. And no, I'm not lashing out in defense of my obesity. I'm only 15 pounds over my ideal weight right now.

    I just hate the whole "I can do it [at this one point in my life under my exact circumstances] so everyone else [under completely different circumstances] can too, and if you can't, you're just not trying hard enough" attitude.
    My sorely neglected blog - http://ThatWriterBroad.com

  8. #118
    Leida's Avatar
    Leida is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Calgary, AB
    Posts
    5,783
    A female that is 5'6" and 150 lbs probably isn't fat. That might be slightly overweight, but it's not necessarily unhealthy. You can easily be that weight eating primally on high fat. It would depend how that weight is distributed. If that 150 lb person is active, lifts some heavy things every now and than and is solid, that weight could look pretty good. IF that person is completely sedentary, has a poor diet and all the extra weight is body fat, well, that's not so good. For that height, optimal weight is probably more like 130 lbs, right in the middle of your range. There is a lot more to health than weight.
    The problem is that getting solid bit. It is just hellishly hard to look firm when fat coats up even larger muscles. The huge problem that women face trying to become fit is with being programmed to carry more fat, while the muscle are not growing as big as men's. Our 'good' fat % is in excess of 20%. A man at 20% looks pudgy even if he has huge upper body muscle. So does a woman, only she doesn't have the structure to pop out from under that fat showing her athleticism even if she lifts heavy. And the lower body is a nightmare. That's why the whole concept of 'toning up' is so laughable for women. It leads to the starvation in the attempts to remove the fat and get some firmness, while most muscle is lost in the process.

    If you have ever seen an advertisement for something like Insanity Workouts, you can see how men look great and muscular in their 'afters', and women look like dry fish. And those are most likely the fit individuals that were paid to go fat and then do workouts and get back into shape quick using the muscle memory.

    IF was supposed to provide a miracle cure for this phenomenon, but in my experience, it is, unfortunately, not effective.
    Last edited by Leida; 06-15-2012 at 07:07 AM.
    My Journal: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum/thread57916.html
    When I let go of what I am, I become what I might be.

  9. #119
    fiercehunter's Avatar
    fiercehunter is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    the world
    Posts
    1,940
    What I don't like is how it's dumbing the culture down ie with things like the Biggest Losers having to exercise 2 hours a day and all this nonsense. There are elements of the large people culture that are inhumane imo.

  10. #120
    KimInGA's Avatar
    KimInGA is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    284
    Primal Blueprint Expert Certification
    Quote Originally Posted by Leida View Post
    The problem is that getting solid bit. It is just hellishly hard to look firm when fat coats up even larger muscles. The huge problem that women face trying to become fit is with being programmed to carry more fat, while the muscle are not growing as big as men's. Our 'good' fat % is in excess of 20%. A man at 20% looks pudgy even if he has huge upper body muscle. So does a woman, only she doesn't have the structure to pop out from under that fat showing her athleticism even if she lifts heavy. And the lower body is a nightmare. That's why the whole concept of 'toning up' is so laughable for women. It leads to the starvation in the attempts to remove the fat and get some firmness, while most muscle is lost in the process.

    If you have ever seen an advertisement for something like Insanity Workouts, you can see how men look great and muscular in their 'afters', and women look like dry fish. And those are most likely the fit individuals that were paid to go fat and then do workouts and get back into shape quick using the muscle memory.

    IF was supposed to provide a miracle cure for this phenomenon, but in my experience, it is, unfortunately, not effective.
    I just read an interesting article on Free The Animal ("No One's Power But Our Own...") that opened with a discussion about IF. Apparently the IF studies that have been referenced here on MDA specifically say that a lot of the improvements were seen ONLY in men. For women, there was no improvement in insulin sensitivity and a NEGATIVE effect on glucose tolerance! Apparently the great majority of studies are only done on men, and the results can be totally different for women. I always figured it would be about the same, because we're all human beings, right? But no, it's just not the case. So the next time some guy goes on and on about how he eats 80-85% primal and effortlessly dropped to 15% BF, and you're wondering why you're eating 95% and stuck at 25% BF ... well, you two are more different than you know. What works for one gender does NOT necessarily work for the other - - and can even be detrimental. How interesting.

    Personally, I'm 140 lbs but stuck at ~25% BF. I would REALLY like to get down to more like 20%, but eating primal for 9 solid months has not changed it by even 1% (or 1 inch, or 1 lb, however you want to measure!). This is why I have a lot of empathy for women who are carrying 50 or 100 lbs extra weight. Even going primal is NO guarantee that you're going to lose weight. And no, it does not mean you're "doing it wrong" - - at least according to the "rules" we know now. But maybe, just maybe, a lot of those "rules" are right for men but wrong for women ... and maybe, just maybe, a little higher BF % is where we're SUPPOSED to be. I'm not saying 40%, but 25%? Maybe.

Page 12 of 57 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •