Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Feminism

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
118 replies to this topic
LeVelocar
  • LeVelocar

    Punk-ass Bitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Feb 2013
  • Vietnam

#31

Posted 08 April 2013 - 04:02 PM

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Monday, Apr 8 2013, 15:17)

I grow pretty much all the fruit and vegetables I require in a 2m x 2m patch in my garden. I purchase meat largely from local butchers, usually hunted game rather than farmed, at a price far below that of supermarkets. Practically the only things i need to buy from stores are seasonings, cooking oil and cleaning supplies. And if we still had small-scale agriculture in the UK like they do in the Med- around normal working lives I might add- I'd probably be able to get two of those as well.

Both me and my partner work full time.

I'm sure buying Pheasent from a shotgun toting man in your hot-fuzz Village is much cheaper than buying it in Waitrose. Unfortunately that's got nothing to do with Tesco Value brand "This meets the minimum regulation to be sold as Meat" burgers which are what a lot of people are stuck with.

It takes between two and four months to grow a carrot, 2m squared is not enough room to stagger growth to be sustainable, nor is it even enough room to produce two meals a day for so much as a week out of one growth cycle. You're playing gardener and occasionally have some produce ready to have with your tea. That's not the same thing as living on it.

Again. The amount of time, space, and money required to grow enough crops to permanently sustain yourself and your dependents is much greater then you are claiming.

Do not backpedal. You said this:

QUOTE
Your argument is that people are obese because access to unhealthy food is cheaper than to healthy. This is patently false when growing food is so much cheaper than buying it.


So do not try to claim you meant as a supplement to the diet, or any other nonsense. You put it forward as a viable alternative to utra cheap supermarket gruel.

Irviding
  • Irviding

    No bed crew

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#32

Posted 08 April 2013 - 05:30 PM Edited by Irviding, 08 April 2013 - 05:33 PM.

Sorry but no. Fat people do not need liberation, end of story. It is so ridiculously easy to control your weight, even if you don't have a lot of money. I think sivis hit the nail on the head - it's more because of convenience that fast foods are commonly eaten by poorer people. They work all these hours so they don't have the time to make these meals. As someone who was once fat, I know for a fact it's by personal choice. Don't forget by the way that McDonald's and other fast food places are offering some pretty damn healthy alternatives as of the past 2-3 years and its only getting better.

As for feminism, I think we are going too far off the deep end. Why are males the protagonists on TV/movies? Because they're masculine and that's what people want to see. But it's not as if there are no female protagonists on TV who are strong - look at Ziva from NCIS or Carrie from Homeland - the former being strong physically and the latter strong mentally.

And women's sports... How about because THEY SUCK. Go watch a woman's basketball game. They suck. End of story. This isn't because of misogyny... it's because women's sports for the most part are not as entertaining as men's sports. Women's volleyball is pretty good but that's about it.

Lets be brutally honest here... are there issues like wage discrepancies and position bias towards women? Sure. Is the solution to give women extra rights like these third wave feminists want? Hire a woman over a man because the quota says so? That's not the solution. It only creates further animosity in the long run. Lets focus on equal pay for equal work and other common sense issues. Not play games with women's sports and female protagonists.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Look at his little spots!

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#33

Posted 08 April 2013 - 06:14 PM

QUOTE (LeVelocar @ Monday, Apr 8 2013, 17:02)
Do not backpedal. You said this:

QUOTE
Your argument is that people are obese because access to unhealthy food is cheaper than to healthy. This is patently false when growing food is so much cheaper than buying it.


So do not try to claim you meant as a supplement to the diet, or any other nonsense. You put it forward as a viable alternative to utra cheap supermarket gruel.

Which isn't a claim that people would current be capable of entirely replacing their entire food purchasing with growing their own. Read what I said again. And then read it again. I used my own experiences as an example but nowhere have I said that in the current situation or circumstance it is a viable alternative for everyone.

It is a statement of fact that growing food is cheaper than purchasing it. The question of whether a family can produce enough to live on is a subjective one based on circumstance and environment. You've implied that my statement about growing my own fruit and vegetables are a suggestion that everyone could live solely by doing so. This is not what I said, not what I implied. I simply responded to your assertion that it's impossible for working people to dedicate a small physical area and a small amount of their time to produce some home-grown produce.

All this is relatively immaterial to the main point I've made that you've chosen to gloss over. That is, that many societies which still have small-scale agriculture and haven't urbanised their working classes are capable of providing a high level of nutrition and an excellent diet for all those in their societies- to the point at which in some cases the working poor suffer from obesity less than the middle classes. Which directly goes against your claim that obesity is solely a product of poverty; it isn't, pure and simple. Like I said, societal factors- like the shift in population- play a role in it. But even the basic assertion that it's cheaper to stuff your face with McDonalds than it is to buy fruit and veg is idiotic. It has been demonstrated time and time again that it's cheaper to feed a family of four on freshly made, home cooked food than it is to feed them on inequivalent junk.

LeVelocar
  • LeVelocar

    Punk-ass Bitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Feb 2013
  • Vietnam

#34

Posted 08 April 2013 - 07:21 PM Edited by LeVelocar, 08 April 2013 - 07:23 PM.

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Monday, Apr 8 2013, 18:14)
Which directly goes against your claim that obesity is solely a product of poverty

I have never claimed this.

I have already pointed out I have never claimed this.

I know you're not really reading, and I know that you just backpedaled from "lazy fats lol" to "in certain areas, the poor can afford to be healthy" (thus abandoning the point you were originally trying to make), but you could at least pretend you're trying.

Honestly I have to wonder how you managed "forum leader" pesudomod status when your reading comprehension is this bad.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Look at his little spots!

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#35

Posted 08 April 2013 - 08:34 PM Edited by sivispacem, 08 April 2013 - 08:37 PM.

QUOTE (LeVelocar @ Monday, Apr 8 2013, 20:21)
I know you're not really reading, and I know that you just backpedaled from "lazy fats lol" to "in certain areas, the poor can afford to be healthy" (thus abandoning the point you were originally trying to make), but you could at least pretend you're trying.

I do love the delightful irony of you complaining about my reading comprehension when you've both tried to straw man my arguments, and completely failed to grasp what the crux of my argument is, in one single post. You've even quite handily quoted me- a single line, no less- and then decided that this line means something entirely different from what it actually says.

Your primary argument is "nutritious food is expensive". This is empirically false, because it isn't. Even if you don't factor in the ability to produce decent quantities of food for next to no cost by just growing the stuff, and even if you ignore the fact that eating poorly has a far greater lifetime cost in terms of lost working hours, expensive medical care, et cetera, it still isn't cheaper to feed a family of four on junk than it is to cook proper nutritious meals.

LeVelocar
  • LeVelocar

    Punk-ass Bitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Feb 2013
  • Vietnam

#36

Posted 08 April 2013 - 10:08 PM

Okay, you're actually lying now. You're claiming I have said things I've not, when the proof otherwise is here in this very thread. You are a liar. The end.

Irviding
  • Irviding

    No bed crew

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#37

Posted 09 April 2013 - 03:37 AM

????????

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Look at his little spots!

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#38

Posted 09 April 2013 - 06:41 AM

QUOTE (LeVelocar @ Monday, Apr 8 2013, 23:08)
Okay, you're actually lying now. You're claiming I have said things I've not, when the proof otherwise is here in this very thread. You are a liar. The end.

Really?

QUOTE (LeVelocar @ Monday, Apr 8 2013, 13:03)
Here's a protip: Healthy food is expensive. Most people eating awful food that makes them fat do it because they have no other choice.

Yes, I'm lying.

Melchior
  • Melchior

    come on and tell me twice

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Unknown

#39

Posted 09 April 2013 - 08:08 AM

QUOTE (Stefche @ Monday, Apr 8 2013, 20:51)
Do you genuinely believe that people prefer watching males play AFL over watching females play netball as a result of subversive and subtle misogyny? Why do women follow male-played sports?

No, I believe that male sports occupy a special place in our culture (rugby and football down here and in the UK, NFL, basketball and baseball in the US) that women's sports don't.

QUOTE
most ardent feminists would probably believe that the former issues concerning improving the economic position of women within society are far more important and deserve far more thought than the latter.

I'm not sure where you got that impression. Do you think having a culture that centers around men isn't just as repulsive as having less female managers and paying them less for the same work?

Apparently advocating and fighting for a culture that values men and women equally is a "waste of time."

QUOTE
Not to derail the debate (we can save that for another topic perhaps...), but I find the whole idea regarding the "fat liberation movement" to be laughable. Sorry.

So it's okay for society to hold up thinness as an ideal standard of beauty? Eating disorders, poor body image... that's all okay to you?

As for the "fat people being poor" discussion that's going on: thinness is a status symbol, whether or not poor people actually weigh more is besides the point.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Look at his little spots!

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#40

Posted 09 April 2013 - 08:24 AM

I don't think anyone is encouraging thinness as a body ideal. More questioning the motivation behind any movement that is not only detrimental to its members but to society as a whole.

Melchior
  • Melchior

    come on and tell me twice

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Unknown

#41

Posted 09 April 2013 - 08:32 AM

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Tuesday, Apr 9 2013, 18:24)
I don't think anyone is encouraging thinness as a body ideal. More questioning the motivation behind any movement that is not only detrimental to its members but to society as a whole.

If you're talking about the size acceptance movement, then I can't imagine what you mean.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Look at his little spots!

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#42

Posted 09 April 2013 - 09:53 AM Edited by sivispacem, 09 April 2013 - 09:56 AM.

QUOTE (Melchior @ Tuesday, Apr 9 2013, 09:32)
QUOTE (sivispacem @ Tuesday, Apr 9 2013, 18:24)
I don't think anyone is encouraging thinness as a body ideal. More questioning the motivation behind any movement that is not only detrimental to its members but to society as a whole.

If you're talking about the size acceptance movement, then I can't imagine what you mean.

I'm talking about the normalisation of clinical obesity. I have no issue with people addressing public perceptions of health and body image. I have no issue with people rallying against discrimination and prejudice. What I object to is the element of the movement which actively encourages people to make individually and societally damaging lifestyle choices. It's as much of an example of the "greed is good", socially ignorant attitude as any other selfish practice.

The same way I would object to an organisation dedicated to promoting self-harm, or eating disorders, or glorifying violence, or encouraging dangerous sexual practices or needle sharing.

LeVelocar
  • LeVelocar

    Punk-ass Bitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Feb 2013
  • Vietnam

#43

Posted 09 April 2013 - 09:58 AM

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Tuesday, Apr 9 2013, 06:41)
QUOTE (LeVelocar @ Monday, Apr 8 2013, 23:08)
Okay, you're actually lying now. You're claiming I have said things I've not, when the proof otherwise is here in this very thread. You are a liar. The end.

Really?

QUOTE (LeVelocar @ Monday, Apr 8 2013, 13:03)
Here's a protip: Healthy food is expensive. Most people eating awful food that makes them fat do it because they have no other choice.

Yes, I'm lying.

Yes, you are. Because "Most" does not mean "all". So I've never claimed anything to be the sole cause of anything.

This is the last you're getting out of me. You aren't worth the effort.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Look at his little spots!

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#44

Posted 09 April 2013 - 10:05 AM Edited by sivispacem, 09 April 2013 - 10:14 AM.

QUOTE (LeVelocar @ Tuesday, Apr 9 2013, 10:58)
QUOTE (sivispacem @ Tuesday, Apr 9 2013, 06:41)
QUOTE (LeVelocar @ Monday, Apr 8 2013, 23:08)
Okay, you're actually lying now. You're claiming I have said things I've not, when the proof otherwise is here in this very thread. You are a liar. The end.

Really?

QUOTE (LeVelocar @ Monday, Apr 8 2013, 13:03)
Here's a protip: Healthy food is expensive. Most people eating awful food that makes them fat do it because they have no other choice.

Yes, I'm lying.

Yes, you are. Because "Most" does not mean "all". So I've never claimed anything to be the sole cause of anything.

This is the last you're getting out of me. You aren't worth the effort.

You claimed "healthy food is expensive". This remains factually untrue. That's the primary crux of my argument. Not only is it myth but it is incredibly harmful. It absolves people of the responsibility for maintaining their own health by blaming something beyond their control. It's effectively saying "my ability to lead a healthy life has been impeded and it is society's fault". Which isn't to negate the societal and anthropological impact to changes in human lifestyle, but the blanket statement "eating well is expensive" is simply not correct. You've not even made the smallest attempt to justify it and have completely ignored every material rebuttal.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Melchior
  • Melchior

    come on and tell me twice

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Unknown

#45

Posted 09 April 2013 - 10:17 AM

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Tuesday, Apr 9 2013, 19:53)
QUOTE (Melchior @ Tuesday, Apr 9 2013, 09:32)
QUOTE (sivispacem @ Tuesday, Apr 9 2013, 18:24)
I don't think anyone is encouraging thinness as a body ideal. More questioning the motivation behind any movement that is not only detrimental to its members but to society as a whole.

If you're talking about the size acceptance movement, then I can't imagine what you mean.

I'm talking about the normalisation of clinical obesity. I have no issue with people addressing public perceptions of health and body image. I have no issue with people rallying against discrimination and prejudice. What I object to is the element of the movement which actively encourages people to make individually and societally damaging lifestyle choices. It's as much of an example of the "greed is good", socially ignorant attitude as any other selfish practice.

The same way I would object to an organisation dedicated to promoting self-harm, or eating disorders, or glorifying violence, or encouraging dangerous sexual practices or needle sharing.

There's no element of the movement which encourages people to inhale big macs. It focuses on "intuitive eating", that is: eating when hungry, not eating too little to lose weight, or eating too much for comfort.

Most people that are considered "fat" are at an objectively healthy weight, as long as someone isn't doing their back damage, they can be perfectly healthy without watching their weight.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Look at his little spots!

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#46

Posted 09 April 2013 - 10:30 AM

QUOTE (Melchior @ Tuesday, Apr 9 2013, 11:17)
Most people that are considered "fat" are at an objectively healthy weight, as long as someone isn't doing their back damage, they can be perfectly healthy without watching their weight.

Twenty nine percent of the UK's adult population are clinically obese. I don't think being clinically obese qualifies as an objectively healthy weight.

Melchior
  • Melchior

    come on and tell me twice

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Unknown

#47

Posted 09 April 2013 - 10:37 AM

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Tuesday, Apr 9 2013, 20:30)
QUOTE (Melchior @ Tuesday, Apr 9 2013, 11:17)
Most people that are considered "fat" are at an objectively healthy weight, as long as someone isn't doing their back damage, they can be perfectly healthy without watching their weight.

Twenty nine percent of the UK's adult population are clinically obese. I don't think being clinically obese qualifies as an objectively healthy weight.

I call medical bias. I seriously doubt 29% of the population are having back problems because of their weight. People who are overweight may also have issues with cholesterol but correlation is not causation, there's not inherently unhealthy about being overweight.

Irviding
  • Irviding

    No bed crew

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#48

Posted 09 April 2013 - 10:48 AM Edited by Irviding, 09 April 2013 - 10:54 AM.

Well, if Melchior is referring to body image then I assume there are some people out there, mainly women, who although at a "healthy" weight per BMI standards (I think BMI is a bad way to measure but it does work for generalizing an entire population) view themselves or others view them as fat. But from a health stand point any visceral belly fat for example is inherently harmful, though it isn't really seen cosmetically. I do think the idea propagates more with women though. Women tend to want to be skinnier than they should. But again, lets zoom out - does that have anything to do with the trends being discussed here? With food costs amongst the poor? From a physiological standpoint there's really nothing healthful about carrying around extra fat. Women need some on their lower body for reproductive purposes, but men really don't "need" anymore than 5 percent bodyfat. Carrying around extra fat, and more importantly neglecting to exercise, is inexcusable and should not be encouraged because people's feelings are hurt


QUOTE

I call medical bias. I seriously doubt 29% of the population are having back problems because of their weight. People who are overweight may also have issues with cholesterol but correlation is not causation, there's not inherently unhealthy about being overweight.

Well I call bullsh*t. Back problems are caused many times by sedentary lifestyles. Low back pain especially happens from muscles atrophying to a point where pain is experienced nonstop due to sitting in a chair all day. You can, in my opinion, attribute back pain indirectly to being overweight due to sedentary lifestyle and lack of exercise. Just look at the fat and lazy people who go to the chiropractor for "adjustments" (playing games with gas bubbles) versus those who take initiative and go to physical therapy and get on exercise program - I guarantee you I know which group will fare better in terms of their pain and general health. Stop defending poor lifestyle choices. As for cholesterol, look up visceral fat and cholesterol in google then come back and tell us there's no causation.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Look at his little spots!

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#49

Posted 09 April 2013 - 10:53 AM

QUOTE (Melchior @ Tuesday, Apr 9 2013, 11:37)
QUOTE (sivispacem @ Tuesday, Apr 9 2013, 20:30)
QUOTE (Melchior @ Tuesday, Apr 9 2013, 11:17)
Most people that are considered "fat" are at an objectively healthy weight, as long as someone isn't doing their back damage, they can be perfectly healthy without watching their weight.

Twenty nine percent of the UK's adult population are clinically obese. I don't think being clinically obese qualifies as an objectively healthy weight.

I call medical bias. I seriously doubt 29% of the population are having back problems because of their weight. People who are overweight may also have issues with cholesterol but correlation is not causation, there's not inherently unhealthy about being overweight.

Do you have any evidence to substantiate your claim of medical bias? There are a huge number of additional problems caused by obesity, not just back pain. Coronary heart disease, hypertension, diabetes, respiratory conditions, sleep apnea and infertility to name a few. The UK has higher instances of these than just about anywhere else in Europe, along with higher average weights and a higher instance of clinical obesity. I find it very surprising you dismiss major health problems empirically demonstrated to be caused or contributed to by obesity as a case of correlation when there is a wealth of scientific evidence demonstrating causality.

Melchior
  • Melchior

    come on and tell me twice

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Unknown

#50

Posted 09 April 2013 - 11:59 AM

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Tuesday, Apr 9 2013, 20:53)
QUOTE (Melchior @ Tuesday, Apr 9 2013, 11:37)
QUOTE (sivispacem @ Tuesday, Apr 9 2013, 20:30)
QUOTE (Melchior @ Tuesday, Apr 9 2013, 11:17)
Most people that are considered "fat" are at an objectively healthy weight, as long as someone isn't doing their back damage, they can be perfectly healthy without watching their weight.

Twenty nine percent of the UK's adult population are clinically obese. I don't think being clinically obese qualifies as an objectively healthy weight.

I call medical bias. I seriously doubt 29% of the population are having back problems because of their weight. People who are overweight may also have issues with cholesterol but correlation is not causation, there's not inherently unhealthy about being overweight.

Do you have any evidence to substantiate your claim of medical bias? There are a huge number of additional problems caused by obesity, not just back pain. Coronary heart disease, hypertension, diabetes, respiratory conditions, sleep apnea and infertility to name a few. The UK has higher instances of these than just about anywhere else in Europe, along with higher average weights and a higher instance of clinical obesity. I find it very surprising you dismiss major health problems empirically demonstrated to be caused or contributed to by obesity as a case of correlation when there is a wealth of scientific evidence demonstrating causality.

Studies have shown that healthy obese people- that is, people who don't eat overly-processed junk food and remain active despite "excessive" food intake- see zero health benefits from losing weight.

QUOTE (Irvding)
Back problems are caused many times by sedentary lifestyles. Low back pain especially happens from muscles atrophying to a point where pain is experienced nonstop due to sitting in a chair all day. You can, in my opinion, attribute back pain indirectly to being overweight due to sedentary lifestyle and lack of exercise.

Being overweight =/= having a sedentary lifestyle. It's more than possible to eat healthy food and exercise regularly (it's not like there are not fat people that swim and jog, or just walk to work for that matter) but still eat an amount of food that'll keep them overweight. So why should somebody who stays active and eats the right foods be encouraged to lose weight? Moreover, why should they be lead to believe that losing weight will make them healthier irrespective of other factors when this is a blatant falsehood, and in fact, the inverse is true?

QUOTE
any visceral belly fat for example is inherently harmful

I fail to see how. As I've already outlined, it's possible to live a healthy lifestyle while remaining overweight. In such individuals, the factor making them overweight is appetite, which is beginning to look like it's purely biological.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Look at his little spots!

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#51

Posted 09 April 2013 - 12:39 PM

QUOTE (Melchior @ Tuesday, Apr 9 2013, 12:59)
QUOTE (sivispacem @ Tuesday, Apr 9 2013, 20:53)
QUOTE (Melchior @ Tuesday, Apr 9 2013, 11:37)
QUOTE (sivispacem @ Tuesday, Apr 9 2013, 20:30)
QUOTE (Melchior @ Tuesday, Apr 9 2013, 11:17)
Most people that are considered "fat" are at an objectively healthy weight, as long as someone isn't doing their back damage, they can be perfectly healthy without watching their weight.

Twenty nine percent of the UK's adult population are clinically obese. I don't think being clinically obese qualifies as an objectively healthy weight.

I call medical bias. I seriously doubt 29% of the population are having back problems because of their weight. People who are overweight may also have issues with cholesterol but correlation is not causation, there's not inherently unhealthy about being overweight.

Do you have any evidence to substantiate your claim of medical bias? There are a huge number of additional problems caused by obesity, not just back pain. Coronary heart disease, hypertension, diabetes, respiratory conditions, sleep apnea and infertility to name a few. The UK has higher instances of these than just about anywhere else in Europe, along with higher average weights and a higher instance of clinical obesity. I find it very surprising you dismiss major health problems empirically demonstrated to be caused or contributed to by obesity as a case of correlation when there is a wealth of scientific evidence demonstrating causality.

Studies have shown that healthy obese people- that is, people who don't eat overly-processed junk food and remain active despite "excessive" food intake- see zero health benefits from losing weight.

QUOTE (Irvding)
Back problems are caused many times by sedentary lifestyles. Low back pain especially happens from muscles atrophying to a point where pain is experienced nonstop due to sitting in a chair all day. You can, in my opinion, attribute back pain indirectly to being overweight due to sedentary lifestyle and lack of exercise.

Being overweight =/= having a sedentary lifestyle. It's more than possible to eat healthy food and exercise regularly (it's not like there are not fat people that swim and jog, or just walk to work for that matter) but still eat an amount of food that'll keep them overweight. So why should somebody who stays active and eats the right foods be encouraged to lose weight? Moreover, why should they be lead to believe that losing weight will make them healthier irrespective of other factors when this is a blatant falsehood, and in fact, the inverse is true?

QUOTE
any visceral belly fat for example is inherently harmful

I fail to see how. As I've already outlined, it's possible to live a healthy lifestyle while remaining overweight. In such individuals, the factor making them overweight is appetite, which is beginning to look like it's purely biological.

I don't think anyone is denying that it is possible to be both obese and healthy. The same way that some lifelong smokers never really have any substantive adverse effects. The link to your top article does not work currently, and your summary of it seems to be at odds with other merit-worthy articles that do find a direct correlation between obesity and various ill health effects.

Also the physical quantity of food eaten has much less to do with obesity than the type of food and the absence of exercise.

Melchior
  • Melchior

    come on and tell me twice

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Unknown

#52

Posted 09 April 2013 - 12:56 PM

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Tuesday, Apr 9 2013, 22:39)
The link to your top article does not work currently, and your summary of it seems to be at odds with other merit-worthy articles that do find a direct correlation between obesity and various ill health effects.

What I took from that article was that people with major health complications due to their lifestyle saw those health complications reduced or eradicated when they changed their lifestyle. It doesn't show that losing weight is always healthy.

I don't know why the link didn't work, but the first result here should take you to a PDF from a Cambridge journal. (typing in the URL of the page doesn't seem to work)

QUOTE
The same way that some lifelong smokers never really have any substantive adverse effects.

Not the same at all. Smokers who never see their health deteriorate get lucky, but overweight people who stay active and eat right aren't at risk at all. It's right there in that study, if you eat right and stay active, losing weight won't help you, your only going to damage yourself with excessive exercise.

QUOTE
Also the physical quantity of food eaten has much less to do with obesity than the type of food and the absence of exercise.

Not really, if you consume more energy than you expend you're going to be chubby (thanks, fitness thread!), I mean I'm sure you know at least one person who eats healthy and exercises as much as possible without losing any weight. It's therefore possible to stay active but consume enough food to stay overweight. Ergo, it's inappropriate and misleading to hold thinness up as an ideal and associate fatness with poor health.

LeVelocar
  • LeVelocar

    Punk-ass Bitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Feb 2013
  • Vietnam

#53

Posted 09 April 2013 - 01:36 PM Edited by LeVelocar, 09 April 2013 - 01:58 PM.

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Tuesday, Apr 9 2013, 10:05)

You claimed "healthy food is expensive". This remains factually untrue. That's the primary crux of my argument. Not only is it myth but it is incredibly harmful. It absolves people of the responsibility for maintaining their own health by blaming something beyond their control. It's effectively saying "my ability to lead a healthy life has been impeded and it is society's fault". Which isn't to negate the societal and anthropological impact to changes in human lifestyle, but the blanket statement "eating well is expensive" is simply not correct. You've not even made the smallest attempt to justify it and have completely ignored every material rebuttal.

Yes I have, I thoroughly pointed out that your 2m^ vegetable patch isn't a viable alternative to buying food. Two meters square is not enough land to sustain one human being, and it's deeply telling that you ignore that.

Minimum wage is 6.19. With a forty hour week you're taking home 13137.60 after tax, or 237. Rent for a three bedroom house in merseyside is 100/week, leaving 137. Bus ticket for one week, 18, leaving 119. Council tax 16 per week, leaving 103. So you've got to pay your gas, leccy, water, phone on a ton a week, then go scrape the coppers together.

Your answer in this situation? Don't go to tesco and buy really cheapo food! Get two meters square of land, buy some seeds, buy some top soil because the soil in your small council house yard is dead, buy a trowel, then wait until the warmer months. Then you can plant some vegetable seeds, wait another three months, and have about a week's worth of food.

Of course. This is a totally viable alternative to just buying the food you can afford. Clearly if you don't toil like a literal serf after your 40h week minimum wage job it's your fault you're eating badly. Bootstraps.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Look at his little spots!

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#54

Posted 09 April 2013 - 02:07 PM

QUOTE (LeVelocar @ Tuesday, Apr 9 2013, 14:36)
QUOTE (sivispacem @ Tuesday, Apr 9 2013, 10:05)

You claimed "healthy food is expensive". This remains factually untrue. That's the primary crux of my argument. Not only is it myth but it is incredibly harmful. It absolves people of the responsibility for maintaining their own health by blaming something beyond their control. It's effectively saying "my ability to lead a healthy life has been impeded and it is society's fault". Which isn't to negate the societal and anthropological impact to changes in human lifestyle, but the blanket statement "eating well is expensive" is simply not correct. You've not even made the smallest attempt to justify it and have completely ignored every material rebuttal.

Yes I have, I thoroughly pointed out that your 2m^ vegetable patch isn't a viable alternative to buying food. Two meters square is not enough land to sustain one human being, and it's deeply telling that you ignore that.

Do you know what really is telling? Your complete ignorance of the fact that I never claimed a small vegetable patch alone was enough to sustain someone entirely. I never claimed it was, hence my numerous references to the value of communal agriculture as you see frequently in Southern Europe. I merely used it as an example of how it was perfectly possible to grow your own food whilst working a 40 hour week. I see you are making absolutely no effort to produce evidence to back up your assertion that eating well is expensive, instead ignoring the fact that the entire crux of your argument remains unsupported to get bogged down in chasing your tail over what I've actually said as opposed to what you've interpreted my statements as meaning.

I thought you were too exasperated to continue, anyway?

Melchior
  • Melchior

    come on and tell me twice

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Unknown

#55

Posted 09 April 2013 - 02:22 PM

Even if you could grow your own vegetables, you aren't going to give your kids veggie curry every night (assuming poor working parents have actually learned how to cook), so if you can't afford to take them out to eat, fast food is a good option. I've known families who seem to exclusively eat fast food.

LeVelocar
  • LeVelocar

    Punk-ass Bitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Feb 2013
  • Vietnam

#56

Posted 09 April 2013 - 02:25 PM

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Tuesday, Apr 9 2013, 14:07)

Do you know what really is telling? Your complete ignorance of the fact that I never claimed a small vegetable patch alone was enough to sustain someone entirely. I never claimed it was, hence my numerous references to the value of communal agriculture as you see frequently in Southern Europe.

Oh cool, so clearly the answer is to pull acres of land out your ass and get everyone on your street together to help you farm it.

Pro tip from the master: Communal agriculture in southern europe is not relevant because we are not in southern europe, and we do not have communal agriculture!

It's that simple. It's just not relevant. It's not even an idea that is feasible for someone living on low cost mystery meat to try and implement, because they'd have to go out and buy some land, pay to get everyone trained, pay for needed equipment, then find the time to do it. Where does it fit in the 8/8/8 time split, clever cloggs? Where to they get the money for the initial outlay?

It's bollocks. It's just bollocks.

QUOTE
I merely used it as an example of how it was perfectly possible to grow your own food whilst working a 40 hour week. I see you are making absolutely no effort to produce evidence to back up your assertion that eating well is expensive,


I've done so repeatedly.

QUOTE
instead ignoring the fact that the entire crux of your argument remains unsupported to get bogged down in chasing your tail over what I've actually said as opposed to what you've interpreted my statements as meaning.


I've given you a cost breakdown. I've pointed out the time, money and space requirements. And all you've done is put your fingers in your ears.

Irviding
  • Irviding

    No bed crew

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#57

Posted 09 April 2013 - 02:29 PM

QUOTE (Melchior @ Tuesday, Apr 9 2013, 08:56)


QUOTE
Being overweight =/= having a sedentary lifestyle. It's more than possible to eat healthy food and exercise regularly (it's not like there are not fat people that swim and jog, or just walk to work for that matter) but still eat an amount of food that'll keep them overweight. So why should somebody who stays active and eats the right foods be encouraged to lose weight? Moreover, why should they be lead to believe that losing weight will make them healthier irrespective of other factors when this is a blatant falsehood, and in fact, the inverse is true?

I'm sorry but I really doubt that. By BMI standards I am overweight at 200 lbs and 6 1 but I am also 11 percent bodyfat. There are people like me who have a lot of muscle mass from weight training but are considered overweight or even obese by BMI standards. Dorian Yates for example who competed in the high 200 lbs was completely shredded at maybe 3-4% BF but he would be considered morbidly obese by those scales. But these people who exercise daily with great effort are the outliers. I'm sorry but can you honestly sit here and tell me that most overweight people live active lifestyles? You're kidding yourself. How many overweight people are out there jogging everyday? Weight training? Swimming? The list goes on and yet we see a very small number. Of course there are fat people like that but they are few and far between. They shouldn't be encouraged to lose weight for the sake of losing weight. Do I have to lose weight when I am 11% bf but considered overweight? No. Does someone in the mid 30s bodyfat need to lose weight? Damn right.

QUOTE


I fail to see how. As I've already outlined, it's possible to live a healthy lifestyle while remaining overweight. In such individuals, the factor making them overweight is appetite, which is beginning to look like it's purely biological.

Visceral fat increases cholesterol levels, end of story. It leads to higher instances of heart attack. This is not disputed. Carrying more than 26% or so bodyfat is not healthy for men. The number increases somewhat for women.

http://www.webmd.com...rous-hidden-fat

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/21793822

QUOTE

Not really, if you consume more energy than you expend you're going to be chubby (thanks, fitness thread!), I mean I'm sure you know at least one person who eats healthy and exercises as much as possible without losing any weight. It's therefore possible to stay active but consume enough food to stay overweight. Ergo, it's inappropriate and misleading to hold thinness up as an ideal and associate fatness with poor health.

No, it's not. Look at the above links. Fatness = more health problems. Higher weight = not necessarily more health problems - is that better for you?

QUOTE

I mean I'm sure you know at least one person who eats healthy and exercises as much as possible without losing any weight.

Sure. I tell them to get their diet in check and stop screwing around because it's more than likely their fault for not properly counting their calories.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Look at his little spots!

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#58

Posted 09 April 2013 - 02:30 PM Edited by sivispacem, 09 April 2013 - 02:37 PM.

QUOTE (Melchior @ Tuesday, Apr 9 2013, 15:22)
Even if you could grow your own vegetables, you aren't going to give your kids veggie curry every night (assuming poor working parents have actually learned how to cook), so if you can't afford to take them out to eat, fast food is a good option. I've known families who seem to exclusively eat fast food.

The point I'm trying to make is that the argument that it is cheaper to eat badly than healthy is simply wrong. It is a great shame that we lack a culture in which communal agriculture takes place- though the allotment movement is a good start- but this isn't the main issue. What does a McDonalds meal for two adults and two children cost? Over a tenner, easily. Even being unbelievably stingy it would be over 5. So, given you can comfortably feed a family of four using bought produce for 5 a decent, hot, nutritious meal, how is it cheaper to survive solely on junk food?

QUOTE (LeVelocar @ Tuesday, Apr 9 2013, 15:25)
I've done so repeatedly.

QUOTE
instead ignoring the fact that the entire crux of your argument remains unsupported to get bogged down in chasing your tail over what I've actually said as opposed to what you've interpreted my statements as meaning.


I've given you a cost breakdown. I've pointed out the time, money and space requirements. And all you've done is put your fingers in your ears.

You have not once provided a single piece of evidence demonstrating that eating badly is cheaper than eating well. Not one external link, discussion or article. Nothing. You've claimed it repeatedly and continued to chase your tail about entirely trivial things but you haven't once demonstrated this. Why? A simple Google search produces numerous articles dispelling the myth that eating well is more expensive than eating badly. I can even link several of these for you if you wish, not that i
I really have to given that it is you whose made an unverified statement. Go on then; show me empirical proof that eating badly is cheaper than eating well.

Melchior
  • Melchior

    come on and tell me twice

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Unknown

#59

Posted 09 April 2013 - 03:01 PM

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Wednesday, Apr 10 2013, 00:30)
Even being unbelievably stingy it would be over 5. So, given you can comfortably feed a family of four using bought produce for 5 a decent, hot, nutritious meal, how is it cheaper to survive solely on junk food?

Because they may not have the time, energy or skills to prepare it, because the kids will winge if they eat something bland every night. Maybe they just care less about healthy eating than higher income families.

I don't know all the factors, but there's definitely a reason the less well-off get by on junk food, while you can't even find a McDonalds in richer neighbourhoods. The link between poor diet and low socioeconomic status is undeniable, whatever the cause.

QUOTE (Irving)
Visceral fat increases cholesterol levels, end of story.  [...] No, it's not. Look at the above links. Fatness = more health problems. Higher weight = not necessarily more health problems - is that better for you?

Those articles refers to fat intake, as in: eating fatty foods. Having a high percentage of body fat =/= high cholesterol.

QUOTE
Sure. I tell them to get their diet in check and stop screwing around because it's more than likely their fault for not properly counting their calories.

If by "stop screwing around" you mean give up all their commitments so they can schedule in the excessive amount of exercise it would take to become thin considering the amount of food they eat... it's probably best not to tell them to do that.

QUOTE
I'm sorry but can you honestly sit here and tell me that most overweight people live active lifestyles?

I made no such claim. The biggest factors obviously are poor diet and a lack of exercise. But there are a huge number of individuals who simply eat a lot (of not necessarily unhealthy foods), they exercise but can't burn off the fat because they eat so much that they'd have to exercise for hours everyday to slim down, and aren't unhealthy at all. Therefore I contend that thinness shouldn't be presented as the ideal healthy build because there's nothing inherently unhealthy about being fat- people are fat for different reasons. All I'm saying is that society shouldn't psychologically punish people for being fat.

Society shouldn't encourage people to be thin, and I think I've adequately demonstrated why doing so is arbitrary and nonsensical. Should society encourage people to eat right and be active? Sure, whatever, I'm not fussed, but encouraging thinness for its own sake is wrong. I'm not sure how anyone can disagree with that.

LeVelocar
  • LeVelocar

    Punk-ass Bitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Feb 2013
  • Vietnam

#60

Posted 09 April 2013 - 03:08 PM

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Tuesday, Apr 9 2013, 14:30)
QUOTE (Melchior @ Tuesday, Apr 9 2013, 15:22)
Even if you could grow your own vegetables, you aren't going to give your kids veggie curry every night (assuming poor working parents have actually learned how to cook), so if you can't afford to take them out to eat, fast food is a good option. I've known families who seem to exclusively eat fast food.

The point I'm trying to make is that the argument that it is cheaper to eat badly than healthy is simply wrong. It is a great shame that we lack a culture in which communal agriculture takes place- though the allotment movement is a good start- but this isn't the main issue. What does a McDonalds meal for two adults and two children cost? Over a tenner, easily. Even being unbelievably stingy it would be over 5. So, given you can comfortably feed a family of four using bought produce for 5 a decent, hot, nutritious meal, how is it cheaper to survive solely on junk food?

QUOTE (LeVelocar @ Tuesday, Apr 9 2013, 15:25)
I've done so repeatedly.

QUOTE
instead ignoring the fact that the entire crux of your argument remains unsupported to get bogged down in chasing your tail over what I've actually said as opposed to what you've interpreted my statements as meaning.


I've given you a cost breakdown. I've pointed out the time, money and space requirements. And all you've done is put your fingers in your ears.

You have not once provided a single piece of evidence demonstrating that eating badly is cheaper than eating well. Not one external link, discussion or article. Nothing. You've claimed it repeatedly and continued to chase your tail about entirely trivial things but you haven't once demonstrated this. Why? A simple Google search produces numerous articles dispelling the myth that eating well is more expensive than eating badly. I can even link several of these for you if you wish, not that i
I really have to given that it is you whose made an unverified statement. Go on then; show me empirical proof that eating badly is cheaper than eating well.

Why are you suddenly using precooked fast food, a luxury item, as your baseline for unhealthy cheap food, when the conversation has repeatedly referenced nasty tesco frozen food?

Do you not understand that this is junk food?

Why have you gone from "growing food is cheaper than buying it" to "bought produce is cheaper than the luxury that is precooked fast food"?




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users