If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   The woman who sparked a debate on beauty after Facebook picture in her underwear. Warning: Picture might be considered obscene because subject is not thin. And we all know that only skinny people can show their stomachs and celebrate themselves   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 439
    More: Asinine, Stella Boonshoft, Facebook  
•       •       •

23849 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Oct 2012 at 9:04 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



439 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-23 08:31:10 PM
Man, I would jump on that and ride the waves like a waterbed. Those pillows sure look comfy, too!
 
2012-10-23 08:31:19 PM

peachfish: Here's the interesting thing to me: you say you just have to "get used to being hungry" in order to be thin. Everyone I know who is thin or average eats food, often more than I do, and they are not "hungry" all the time. So, if one is physically experiencing hunger in what should be a normal amount if food, how is it that we do not accept that some process within them isn't working quite right?
Hunger is a very strong motivator; without it a species would quickly die out as it would lack the motivation to seek food when food was scarce. Yet, we expect that those who experience more hunger than others should simply be able to ignore it because somehow the desire to conform to a social norm should be stronger. Does no one see the idiocy if that idea?


In general, healthier food makes you feel more full for less calories. For example, a can of beans has 300-420 calories (depending on bean, size, etc). That will fill you up due to the amount of fiber. Vegetables will fill you up with very low amount of calories. Try to eat 300 calories worth of broccoli without anything added -- I bet you cannot. This versus a serving of fries (~400 calories?). Or cake (900ish per slice?). Those will not fill you up.

You don't have to go hungry to lose weight -- just eat more foods that are less calorie dense (beans, vegetables, fruit, etc) rather than foods that are more calorie dense.
 
2012-10-23 08:33:44 PM

dragonchild: If you hate yourself, that's your brain telling you to do better.


Smarted and QFT.
 
2012-10-23 08:35:06 PM
Obesity will definitely be cured by pharmaceuticals in less than 15 years. I wonder what will be the next ugly feature to discriminate others on.
 
2012-10-23 08:47:27 PM
Unless you are putting your poop in a calorimeter to see how much wasted nutrition is there, the "Calories in
 
2012-10-23 09:00:59 PM

Leopold Stotch: Unless you are putting your poop in a calorimeter to see how much wasted nutrition is there, the "Calories in


brb, waiting for you to finish typing
 
2012-10-23 09:01:00 PM

SanjiSasuke: dragonchild: If you hate yourself, that's your brain telling you to do better.

Smarted and QFT.


*shakes head sadly*
 
2012-10-23 09:36:34 PM

Leopold Stotch: Unless you are putting your poop in a calorimeter to see how much wasted nutrition is there, the "Calories in versus calories out" equation can't really be solved. And the efficiency of people's digestive systems varies widely.


WHOOPS!
 
2012-10-23 09:52:57 PM

machoprogrammer: peachfish: Here's the interesting thing to me: you say you just have to "get used to being hungry" in order to be thin. Everyone I know who is thin or average eats food, often more than I do, and they are not "hungry" all the time. So, if one is physically experiencing hunger in what should be a normal amount if food, how is it that we do not accept that some process within them isn't working quite right?
Hunger is a very strong motivator; without it a species would quickly die out as it would lack the motivation to seek food when food was scarce. Yet, we expect that those who experience more hunger than others should simply be able to ignore it because somehow the desire to conform to a social norm should be stronger. Does no one see the idiocy if that idea?

In general, healthier food makes you feel more full for less calories. For example, a can of beans has 300-420 calories (depending on bean, size, etc). That will fill you up due to the amount of fiber. Vegetables will fill you up with very low amount of calories. Try to eat 300 calories worth of broccoli without anything added -- I bet you cannot. This versus a serving of fries (~400 calories?). Or cake (900ish per slice?). Those will not fill you up.

You don't have to go hungry to lose weight -- just eat more foods that are less calorie dense (beans, vegetables, fruit, etc) rather than foods that are more calorie dense.


So if I'm an average sized person, I'm allowed to eat what I want when I'm hungry, but if I'm fat you really think I will be a happy dieter eating my 1200 calories of steamed broccoli and boiled chicken forever? Because in order to maintain weight loss, the change you make has to be something you're willing to do for the rest of your life. This is why "diets" fail for 98% of people. If you don't find a way of eating that you are comfortable maintaining forever, you will simply regain anything you lose.
 
2012-10-23 10:02:10 PM

peachfish: machoprogrammer: peachfish: Here's the interesting thing to me: you say you just have to "get used to being hungry" in order to be thin. Everyone I know who is thin or average eats food, often more than I do, and they are not "hungry" all the time. So, if one is physically experiencing hunger in what should be a normal amount if food, how is it that we do not accept that some process within them isn't working quite right?
Hunger is a very strong motivator; without it a species would quickly die out as it would lack the motivation to seek food when food was scarce. Yet, we expect that those who experience more hunger than others should simply be able to ignore it because somehow the desire to conform to a social norm should be stronger. Does no one see the idiocy if that idea?

In general, healthier food makes you feel more full for less calories. For example, a can of beans has 300-420 calories (depending on bean, size, etc). That will fill you up due to the amount of fiber. Vegetables will fill you up with very low amount of calories. Try to eat 300 calories worth of broccoli without anything added -- I bet you cannot. This versus a serving of fries (~400 calories?). Or cake (900ish per slice?). Those will not fill you up.

You don't have to go hungry to lose weight -- just eat more foods that are less calorie dense (beans, vegetables, fruit, etc) rather than foods that are more calorie dense.

So if I'm an average sized person, I'm allowed to eat what I want when I'm hungry, but if I'm fat you really think I will be a happy dieter eating my 1200 calories of steamed broccoli and boiled chicken forever? Because in order to maintain weight loss, the change you make has to be something you're willing to do for the rest of your life. This is why "diets" fail for 98% of people. If you don't find a way of eating that you are comfortable maintaining forever, you will simply regain anything you lose.


I would also say to you, your suggestions of "eat less, exercise more, eat less calorie dense food" that you put forth as though somehow you think an overweight person has simply never heard of these concepts before just makes you look as though you equate fatness with stupidity. Maybe there's a person or two left in the world that might be amazed and stunned to discover that they can eat more broccoli than French fries for the same calories, but I wager those people are few and far between. You also clearly display your bias when you suggest that I simply need to get my calories from veggies instead of cake and French fries. How do you know what I eat?? You don't! You only THINK you do because I say I'm overweight.
 
2012-10-23 10:18:09 PM

dragonchild: Beta Tested: Adipose is fat, your fat cells make leptin, then they use it to signal your brain to store more in them.

Um, leptin is the satiety hormone. The rats were obese because they couldn't make leptin. Second, leptin is not a simple hormone. It interacts with other hormones like insulin and melatonin. You can't track the effects of the body by following just one hormone.


However, a study of 51 humans, 30 morbidly obese (>40 BMI) and 31 healthy (
Both groups of subjects had blood sampled again 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after the surgeries. They found that the obese subjects showed a drastic decrease in Leptin levels as early as 3 months after their bodies were placed into a forced starvation state of restricted calories. Levels continued to decrease in subjects for the 12 months and the 12 month showed a 8:1-12:1 ratio of Leptin/sLR levels.

The conclusion of the study has determined that in humans, unlike rats, can exhibit a genetic resistance to Leptin in the same way that they show resistance to insulin. They concluded that the correlation between insulin resistance and Leptin resistance was very strong in obese individuals. This is also linked to recent genetic discoveries of the adipose gene and how insulin and other metabolic hormones react to certain genetic types.

In 2001 the discovery of the "Adipose Gene" also known as WDTC1 or ADP, found that obesity can be directly linked to how active or more specifically, how inactive, that gene is. They discovered that when they treated specimens with higher ADP proteins, they ate as much or more than normal specimens, however they were leaner, had diabetes resistant fat cells, and were better able to control insulin and blood-sugar metabolism. Conversely, those who were manipulated to have lower ADP activity ate the same as normal subjects but were obese, less healthy, and easily susceptible to diabetes... These experiments were performed on various animal subjects from flies, to worms, to mice, to bovine. Using a tetratricopeptide antibody protein derived from e coli to deliver the adp on a cellular level.

So, this calorie in / calorie out isn't quite so simple... It's a matter of calorie efficiency, and directly linked to a person's genetic make up. Yes, it can be overcome, an obese person could enter into a starvation state where hormone levels and production are drastically altered, and they may have a better caloric efficiency during that state, but because of the activity of specific genes is directly tied to that efficiency, the moment they are no longer in that state of starvation, they will suffer the same effects of inefficiency.

It's not always how many calories you take in, it's how your body will use them that matters. There are fat people outside of the US that are ultimately very healthy individuals and capable, and do, perform a large amount of activity, yet they remain fat because they are simply not starving. The problem in America lies with our activity levels, and other dietary factors that contribute to the dulling of adp activity...
 
2012-10-23 10:21:01 PM
What the hell happened to my post? why did fark eat my data??
 
2012-10-23 10:23:37 PM
Dear god... it took forever to write up that information...

Ok, in short, blood levels showed a 1:1-2:1 ratio of Leptin to sLR in normal subject, but a 25:1 ratio in the obese subjects... The obese were given a gastric restrictive surgery which forced them into caloric deprivation and their bodies entered a starvation state...

That sums up the crap ton of data i put in that fark ate
 
2012-10-23 10:34:48 PM
Just admit you like fat chicks cause it's all you can get.

/off to the gym
//gotta be there in 26 minutes
 
2012-10-23 11:11:24 PM

CeroX: Dear god... it took forever to write up that information...

Ok, in short, blood levels showed a 1:1-2:1 ratio of Leptin to sLR in normal subject, but a 25:1 ratio in the obese subjects... The obese were given a gastric restrictive surgery which forced them into caloric deprivation and their bodies entered a starvation state...

That sums up the crap ton of data i put in that fark ate


Damn. Don't suppose you could just post a link? Or was this from a print journal?
 
2012-10-23 11:27:22 PM
Gross.
 
2012-10-24 12:19:11 AM
the distance = calories burned argument is wrong and discounts how much more energy you need to burn to make tiny gains in time once over LT. Granted power out versus energy used is linear until LT
 
2012-10-24 01:50:09 AM

Uchiha_Cycliste: the distance = calories burned argument is wrong and discounts how much more energy you need to burn to make tiny gains in time once over LT. Granted power out versus energy used is linear until LT


How does that work? Particularly, why does it take more calories to go the same distance once one is over the lactate threshold? Does generating lact

/seriously, I have no idea
 
2012-10-24 02:08:24 AM

abhorrent1: This picture is for all the f****** stupid advertising agents who are selling us cream to get rid of our stretch marks, a perfectly normal thing most people have (I got mine during puberty)

Um, no. Most people do not have them. Only fatties and women who have had babies. Not 9-11 year-olds.


I have stretch marks on my back from a huge growth spurt. So it can happen. Not saying it was what happened in her case, but hormones can cause a lot of shiat.

/not a fatty
//gym rat
 
2012-10-24 02:41:43 AM

blahpers: Uchiha_Cycliste: the distance = calories burned argument is wrong and discounts how much more energy you need to burn to make tiny gains in time once over LT. Granted power out versus energy used is linear until LT

How does that work? Particularly, why does it take more calories to go the same distance once one is over the lactate threshold? Does generating lact

/seriously, I have no idea


So, imagine this, you chart out Power output versus Heart rate. What you get is a linear curve up until LT and an exponential curve afterwards. Let's say the curve initially gives you 15 watts/Beat (over rest). Then at around 300 watts and 185 bpm it takes more and more beats for a little more power. So you have to work much harder to go just a little faster. Then much, much, much harder to go just a little faster. In this range you are dumping tons of energy to make minor gains in covering distance.

Power output is approximately also calorie output (it's a pretty neat to see the correlation on a bike).

does that help?
 
2012-10-24 02:57:09 AM
Well, this topic ended up being quite depressing.

/is overweight
//trying to use my new job to turn a corner
///one day at a time, I guess...
 
2012-10-24 04:39:13 AM
So I sort of mislead you when I said exponential instead of asymptotic.

Here's a rough, rough GIMP sketch:
i451.photobucket.comhula-hooping

You'll notice that after LT your body has to work a lot harder to go just a little bit faster.
In this respect, you don't always burn the same energy for the same distance. If you keep the whole distance, whether riding, or running or hula-hooping, under LT and always stay aerobic there is a good chance you will always use the same amount of power to cover the distance. However, in trying to shave off a few seconds by going all out the entire time you have the potential to burn a lot more energy because your gains in speed and time are not linear with you increase in exertion.

Sorry for the confusion.
 
2012-10-24 06:59:12 AM

CeroX: They found that the obese subjects showed a drastic decrease in Leptin levels as early as 3 months after their bodies were placed into a forced starvation state of restricted calories. . . They concluded that the correlation between insulin resistance and Leptin resistance was very strong in obese individuals.


That is a HELLA flawed study, and conclusion. You don't determine resistance by just measuring the hormone level! Gah, no wonder the public sphere of nutritional science is such a mess.
 
2012-10-24 07:31:13 AM

peachfish: I would also say to you, your suggestions of "eat less, exercise more, eat less calorie dense food" that you put forth as though somehow you think an overweight person has simply never heard of these concepts before just makes you look as though you equate fatness with stupidity. Maybe there's a person or two left in the world that might be amazed and stunned to discover that they can eat more broccoli than French fries for the same calories, but I wager those people are few and far between. You also clearly display your bias when you suggest that I simply need to get my calories from veggies instead of cake and French fries. How do you know what I eat?? You don't! You only THINK you do because I say I'm overweight.


I wasn't saying that was what you eat (was just saying you don't have to go hungry to be at a caloric deficit). However, I guarantee you that you are eating more than what you think.

For a week, calculate the calories of everything you put in your mouth. Weigh it and calculate the calories.
 
2012-10-24 08:10:42 AM

peachfish: I would also say to you, your suggestions of "eat less, exercise more, eat less calorie dense food" that you put forth as though somehow you think an overweight person has simply never heard of these concepts before just makes you look as though you equate fatness with stupidity. Maybe there's a person or two left in the world that might be amazed and stunned to discover that they can eat more broccoli than French fries for the same calories, but I wager those people are few and far between. You also clearly display your bias when you suggest that I simply need to get my calories from veggies instead of cake and French fries. How do you know what I eat?? You don't! You only THINK you do because I say I'm overweight


How dare he give eating advice to someone who is admittedly overweight.
 
2012-10-24 11:11:48 AM

liam76: PsiChick: Actually, I care because people will usually post some variant of 'I hope you die' at least three times in any given internet conversation about weight. It's one thing to have a rational discussion. America does not have a rational discussion. It has irrational hatred.

So because some people will post a variant of "I hope you die" you want to challenge me for saying something that isn't even remotely related to that. That makes sense.


PsiChick: This woman has had to deal with that hatred her entire life, and is now standing up to it. What part of that, exactly, are you mocking?

First off I want to reiterate "that hatred" you are talking about has nothing to do with my comments. Pointing out I really doubt she has made a serious effort at healthy eating and a regular exercise program doesn't amount to "hatred". Even among a fatty whiteknight-er such as yourself.

Second, we don't know how much hatred she had to deal with.

To you posting a picture of how fat you are in a bathing suit in order to confront people who think it is unattractive and know it is unhealthy is sanding up to something? Because it looks like attention whoring to me.

Or do you think fat people don't have the right to say that they deserve as much respect as anyone else?

I gave her as much respect as I would to anyone who complained about a health problem they could probably fix and instead of fixing it drew attention to it and biatched about how people didn't like them for it.

As for deserving of respect? I respect people who fix their problems over people who expect the world to change fro them.


So just because some people say Jewish people should go and die, I can't mock Jews for being Jews? And actually, I give them as much respect as anyone else who has a religious faith they can change.


FTFY. And yes, when you're mocking her for saying 'I'm fat and that doesn't give people the right to be assholes', you are talking about a topic entirely related to people who call her things like a beached whale. RTFA. Her statement sums up the connection very nicely.
 
2012-10-24 12:19:59 PM

PsiChick: So just because some people say Jewish people should go and die, I can't mock Jews for being Jews? And actually, I give them as much respect as anyone else who has a religious faith they can change.


That especially stupid, even coming from you, and has been adressed numerous times in this very thread.

Your choice in religion isn't really comparable to your choice in food.

That flash of stupidity has earned you a favorite tag.

PsiChick: FTFY. And yes, when you're mocking her for saying 'I'm fat and that doesn't give people the right to be assholes', you are talking about a topic entirely related to people who call her things like a beached whale. RTFA. Her statement sums up the connection very nicely


Except that isn't why I am mocking here. Not suprised you are too dense to get that as you think your choice of religion is on par with your choices on food and activity level.

I am mocking here for flaunting a picture of her showing off how fat she is while complaining that it is nobody's business how fat she is.
 
2012-10-24 12:27:13 PM

machoprogrammer: peachfish: I would also say to you, your suggestions of "eat less, exercise more, eat less calorie dense food" that you put forth as though somehow you think an overweight person has simply never heard of these concepts before just makes you look as though you equate fatness with stupidity. Maybe there's a person or two left in the world that might be amazed and stunned to discover that they can eat more broccoli than French fries for the same calories, but I wager those people are few and far between. You also clearly display your bias when you suggest that I simply need to get my calories from veggies instead of cake and French fries. How do you know what I eat?? You don't! You only THINK you do because I say I'm overweight.

I wasn't saying that was what you eat (was just saying you don't have to go hungry to be at a caloric deficit). However, I guarantee you that you are eating more than what you think.

For a week, calculate the calories of everything you put in your mouth. Weigh it and calculate the calories.


I've been calculating the calories of everything I eat for about 3 years.
 
2012-10-24 12:34:36 PM
As this thread tapers off, do we get to vote on who was most sanctimonious?
 
2012-10-24 12:43:18 PM

liam76: PsiChick: So just because some people say Jewish people should go and die, I can't mock Jews for being Jews? And actually, I give them as much respect as anyone else who has a religious faith they can change.

That especially stupid, even coming from you, and has been adressed numerous times in this very thread.

Your choice in religion isn't really comparable to your choice in food.

That flash of stupidity has earned you a favorite tag.

PsiChick: FTFY. And yes, when you're mocking her for saying 'I'm fat and that doesn't give people the right to be assholes', you are talking about a topic entirely related to people who call her things like a beached whale. RTFA. Her statement sums up the connection very nicely

Except that isn't why I am mocking here. Not suprised you are too dense to get that as you think your choice of religion is on par with your choices on food and activity level.

I am mocking here for flaunting a picture of her showing off how fat she is while complaining that it is nobody's business how fat she is.


So a girl takes a photo in a bikini, and her Facebook friends, who presumably include her real friends, treat her like shiat for it. She responds by saying 'it is not okay to treat people like shiat'.

And you join in on the side of the people who have been tormenting her.

If I were you, I'd be ashamed to show my face in public, let alone try to claim other people are stupid. Building a strawman and insisting your strawman has no connection to the pure hate people spew isn't an argument. It's just willful ignorance and malice.
 
2012-10-24 01:06:35 PM

PsiChick: So a girl takes a photo in a bikini, and her Facebook friends, who presumably include her real friends, treat her like shiat for it. She responds by saying 'it is not okay to treat people like shiat'.



Where are her facebook friends treating her like shiat?
FTA She decided to leave the picture online, where the overwhelming majority of comments have been supportive.



PsiChick: Building a strawman



You tried to interchange Jews and fat people, you came up with this gem in response to me "

people will usually post some variant of 'I hope you die' at least three times in any given internet conversation about weight, you made up claims about here friends attacking her over the picture, and you are going to gring up strawmen?


PsiChick: And you join in on the side of the people who have been tormenting her.


And you join in on the side of people who think there is absolutely nothing wrong with being a 500lb ham beast (that wass a strawman, but fair play given your past comments, especially the one above), and anyone who says anything negative about that is joining the side of peopel who torment people (that bitisn't a strawman).

PsiChick: It's just willful ignorance and malice


What would you call conflating religion and being fat?
 
2012-10-24 01:37:47 PM

pagstuff: As this thread tapers off, do we get to vote on who was most sanctimonious?


Just who are you to come into this thread and DARE to presume that someone has acted sanctimonious?! Maybe it's just me, but I was raised better than that. If you don't have the moral upbringing to behave like a someone with common decency on the Internet, then perhaps you should stay out of threads where adults are trying to have a reasoned and thoughtful conversation. If you insist upon acting like a pompous git, then perhaps 4chan would be more appropriate for your drivel.

(mikedrop.jpg)
 
2012-10-24 01:53:24 PM

liam76: PsiChick: So a girl takes a photo in a bikini, and her Facebook friends, who presumably include her real friends, treat her like shiat for it. She responds by saying 'it is not okay to treat people like shiat'.


Where are her facebook friends treating her like shiat?
FTA She decided to leave the picture online, where the overwhelming majority of comments have been supportive.



PsiChick: Building a strawman


You tried to interchange Jews and fat people, you came up with this gem in response to me "people will usually post some variant of 'I hope you die' at least three times in any given internet conversation about weight, you made up claims about here friends attacking her over the picture, and you are going to gring up strawmen?


PsiChick: And you join in on the side of the people who have been tormenting her.

And you join in on the side of people who think there is absolutely nothing wrong with being a 500lb ham beast (that wass a strawman, but fair play given your past comments, especially the one above), and anyone who says anything negative about that is joining the side of peopel who torment people (that bitisn't a strawman).

PsiChick: It's just willful ignorance and malice

What would you call conflating religion and being fat?


RTFA. The original FB comments were what prompted her to write that letter.

In another thread I actually went through and listed some of the things said on Fark, let alone the rest of the 'net. That ain't a strawman, buddy. That's called 'what I found when I naively went out and read comments, thinking I might find hope in humanity'.

And yeah. I'd rather be on the side of someone who's fat. Because notice how when she's fat, it affects me not in the slightest, but when you're supporting the idea that it's okay to be rude to fat people because 'criticism', you're helping support a group of hateful assholes?

Also, if you don't understand 'analogy', you might want to stop posting and go back to middle school.
 
2012-10-24 02:07:29 PM

PsiChick: RTFA. The original FB comments were what prompted her to write that letter.


I read the article. It doesn't say that, and what I quoted from the article contradicts what you said.


PsiChick: In another thread I actually went through and listed some of the things said on Fark, let alone the rest of the 'net. That ain't a strawman, buddy. That's called 'what I found when I naively went out and read comments, thinking I might find hope in humanity'.


The strawman is you holding me accountable for what others have said.


PsiChick: And yeah. I'd rather be on the side of someone who's fat. Because notice how when she's fat, it affects me not in the slightest, but when you're supporting the idea that it's okay to be rude to fat people because 'criticism', you're helping support a group of hateful assholes?


If some attention whore goes to the media with a picture of heerself in a bikini saying how she looks is none of their business, yes it is fine to be "rude" to her.

At no point did I say it was ok to go up to her on the street and berate her.

But you have never let what I say get in the way of what you imagine, so why start now.

PsiChick: Also, if you don't understand 'analogy', you might want to stop posting and go back to middle school


For an analogy to work they have to be similiar. Your choice of faith is in no way related to your decision to be an attention whore about your unhealthy life choices. You might as well be saying special rules for smokers is like making black peopel sit in the back of the bus. It is stupid. It shows a fundamental failure to understand the situation.
 
2012-10-24 02:11:03 PM

liam76: At no point did I say it was ok to go up to her on the street and berate her simply because she is over weight.


FTFM
 
2012-10-24 03:40:13 PM

liam76: PsiChick:

If some attention whore goes to the media with a picture of heerself in a bikini saying how she looks is none of their business, yes it is fine to be "rude" to her.


This is your fundamental misunderstanding of this entire situation. She's not saying 'ZOMG want attention want attention', she's saying 'there is a serious problem with how America treats fat people'. Just like when bullying victims come forward and talk about bullying, it's not about attention. It's about a real problem.

Understandably, when you start talking about her farking weight after that and calling her an attention whore...yeah, no, that's not healthy criticism. That's just being an ass.
 
2012-10-24 03:42:21 PM

Super_pope: I hate this shiat. You are NOT hot because you say so, and every body is not beautiful.


And nobody is absolutely unattractive just because you say so, Internet Beauty Judge. Nobody's saying you have to like everyone's appearance. What they're saying is that your opinion is not fact.
 
2012-10-24 03:46:05 PM

PsiChick: liam76: PsiChick:

If some attention whore goes to the media with a picture of heerself in a bikini saying how she looks is none of their business, yes it is fine to be "rude" to her.

This is your fundamental misunderstanding of this entire situation. She's not saying 'ZOMG want attention want attention', she's saying 'there is a serious problem with how America treats fat people'. Just like when bullying victims come forward and talk about bullying, it's not about attention. It's about a real problem.

Understandably, when you start talking about her farking weight after that and calling her an attention whore...yeah, no, that's not healthy criticism. That's just being an ass.


Really, she doesn't have a blog talking about how fat people are treated with a picture of her in her bikini?
 
2012-10-25 11:32:37 AM

peachfish: peachfish: machoprogrammer: peachfish: Here's the interesting thing to me: you say you just have to "get used to being hungry" in order to be thin. Everyone I know who is thin or average eats food, often more than I do, and they are not "hungry" all the time. So, if one is physically experiencing hunger in what should be a normal amount if food, how is it that we do not accept that some process within them isn't working quite right?
Hunger is a very strong motivator; without it a species would quickly die out as it would lack the motivation to seek food when food was scarce. Yet, we expect that those who experience more hunger than others should simply be able to ignore it because somehow the desire to conform to a social norm should be stronger. Does no one see the idiocy if that idea?

In general, healthier food makes you feel more full for less calories. For example, a can of beans has 300-420 calories (depending on bean, size, etc). That will fill you up due to the amount of fiber. Vegetables will fill you up with very low amount of calories. Try to eat 300 calories worth of broccoli without anything added -- I bet you cannot. This versus a serving of fries (~400 calories?). Or cake (900ish per slice?). Those will not fill you up.

You don't have to go hungry to lose weight -- just eat more foods that are less calorie dense (beans, vegetables, fruit, etc) rather than foods that are more calorie dense.

So if I'm an average sized person, I'm allowed to eat what I want when I'm hungry, but if I'm fat you really think I will be a happy dieter eating my 1200 calories of steamed broccoli and boiled chicken forever? Because in order to maintain weight loss, the change you make has to be something you're willing to do for the rest of your life. This is why "diets" fail for 98% of people. If you don't find a way of eating that you are comfortable maintaining forever, you will simply regain anything you lose.

I would also say to you, your suggestions of "eat less, exercise more, eat less calorie dense food" that you put forth as though somehow you think an overweight person has simply never heard of these concepts before just makes you look as though you equate fatness with stupidity. Maybe there's a person or two left in the world that might be amazed and stunned to discover that they can eat more broccoli than French fries for the same calories, but I wager those people are few and far between. You also clearly display your bias when you suggest that I simply need to get my calories from veggies instead of cake and French fries. How do you know what I eat?? You don't! You only THINK you do because I say I'm overweight.


I believe it was you who stated that it was impossible to experience "healthy" and sustainable satiety and weight loss on a calorie deficit. The likelihood is that if you are not achieving any measurable weight loss over three years your brain is making you cheat because you are scared of being hungry. I can let you in on a small secret that I think is the basis of your confusion...hunger isn't some sort of biological monstrosity. Our bodies are built to deal with short periods of hunger. Recent research even shows that we can benefit from intermittent fasting. We have difficulties with long periods of fasting and anorexia is not good. However, anyone trying diligently to lose weight should get used to the echo chamber feeling in their stomach. It's not the end of the freakin' world! Only in modern times is food so cheap and prevalent that we have the luxury of eating all that we want and stretching out our stomachs to obscene sizes. When most people have desk jobs, this is not a biological advantage.

Eat when your blood sugar gets low and you need the food to be active. Eat when your body needs the nutrition. Don't eat just because "my belly ain't full". Most skinny people most assuredly do not eat every time they feel rumbling in their bellies or else they would not be skinny. In fact, most thin people work very hard to stay that way. You are very likely seeing a very small snippet of a skinny person's behavior. Oftentimes I go out with friends and eat more than they do, but it is usually from a healthier part of the menu and then I go to the gym and work out for over an hour...so it evens out. Eat to fuel your activity not your hunger...because in this society, hunger hormones are way out of whack for most people.

Anyone who is having difficulties with portions and keeping within the confines of their target calories (which is sounds like you might be), should attempt one or more of the following: 1) exercise more so that you can adjust your diet counts up by a few hundred calories and your deficit should not change because of the exercise expenditure offest (you can eat your processed/cheat foods immediately after exercise to avoid blood sugar fluctuations), 2) eat more healthy fats and lean proteins in your diet and try for larger breakfasts and lunches instead of large dinners, 3) eat fresh fruit any time you get hungry (choose fruits with high water content/seeds/pith/fiber for greater results), and finally 4) unless you prepare every single meal you eat at home with measuring cups and a scale, assume your calories counts are off against your favor by like 100 calories because the chances are you are cheating on all your calorie logs and you don't even know it because it is human nature.
 
Displayed 39 of 439 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report