I believe there are those with a genetic disposition towards weight gain. Though I wouldn't use that as an excuse in my personal situation, I do think the idea had merit. I've seen whole families that were hugely overweight.
Anyway, I don't see it being used as a basis for discrimination other than health care premiums--fat people are being charged more for their health insurance.
Yes, even if genetics plays a role in some overweight people that's still generally no more than an excuse. Playing a role isn't the same as being determinative.
Being shorter means it's harder to play basketball. It doesn't mean that you can't be a better basketball player than you currently are.
Just about everyone will be fit if they don't eat junk food. Virtually no one overeats meat and vegetables. It's when you add in sugar and carbs that overeating kicks in. If the only foods available to us were meat and vegetables almost no one would be overweight.
Of course as long as you are running a caloric deficit you will lose weight, even if you are eating junk although I wouldn't call eating junk a "smart, science based diet".I was in total agreement with you over the first two points, but with the last point I take the completely opposite view. You can easily get fat on a diet of meat and vegetables, or a fruit-based diet, or any diet where you're taking in more calories than your body burns. Vice-versa, I have previously lost copious amounts of weight eating mostly just empty calories like potato chips, fried foods and tubs of ice cream, with a massive net calorie deficit resulting in rapid weight loss (an unhealthy combination of both fat and muscle), although I couldn't mentally handle it over extended periods (i.e. more than a year) because of the willpower involved and the lack of nutrients. Also, the definitions for "healthy" food have been changing lately under rigorous testing, and are starting to make things like brown rice and whole wheat look no better or arguably even worse than their largely shunned, far tastier refined counterparts (except in cases where you feed them in isolation to starving rats, of course).
As I said, for the last 4 years and especially in the last 2, I have eaten a smart, science-based diet, not some nonsense or "broscience" advocated by superstitious health nuts and/or steroid-pumping meatheads. I eat tons of both "junk" food and "healthy" food, both are capable of providing me with useful nutrients and/or calories under the right circumstances, and I burn off thousands of extra calories per week through exercise which must be largely replenished with ample carbs in order to avoid muscle loss through starvation-induced ketosis from low liver glycogen levels. I don't subscribe to the "bulking and cutting" philosophies widely advocated in the bodybuilding and general fitness communities, nor to the myth that extended bouts of cardio burn off precious muscle gains even when you're properly refueling.
I've been eating generous portions from a huge variety of delicious foods on a daily basis, all in sufficient moderation so as to maintain a net calorie deficit while providing ample carbohydrate energy, high protein levels for muscle growth, all the vitamins and nutrients my body seems to need, fibre for my gut and dietary fat for my hormones. For my own fat ass the result has been steady, consistent fat loss and muscle gain over the past 4 years without those widely feared loose skin issues, to the point where I'm on the verge of having 8-pack abs, you can practically see each individual muscle group at work when it's moving, and I'm frequently asked if I'm taking any magical "supplements" or "vitamins" (the irony is that I believe in 99% of cases that all supplements are worthless, unnecessary wastes of money with extremely marginal benefits at best, and that the negative side-effects of steroids and growth hormone injections make them completely worthless except to idiots in general, and to materialistic athletes whose $50 million contracts depend on them).
Of course as long as you are running a caloric deficit you will lose weight, even if you are eating junk although I wouldn't call eating junk a "smart, science based diet".
If someone can continuously exercise (body builder) then you can eat anything and you will burn it off. For most people this isn't sustainable. That's why most people, after 5 years, are back where they started.
Most people won't gain weight (even though it's possible) from eating only meat and vegetables because nature kicks in and we just don't crave excessive quantities of that kind of food. Just as there is no end to our craving for chips and cookies.
As far as general health is concerned, eating a calorie deficient with chips and donuts isn't healthy long-term and isn't giving the body all it needs. Giving it all the calories it needs isn't the same as giving it all the nutrients that it needs.
Besides lacking in many nutrients junk food just has too many calories. I saw a package of 4 blueberry muffins in the grocery store. Each muffin was 450 calories. This is enough calories for a meal but there aren't enough nutrients in one blueberry muffin for a meal.
Without intention of rancor: who are you (or anyone) to decide that the person should be "doing something about it"?On a slightly different point, I have a hard time with the concept of promoting "Fat is Beautiful" when the person speaking is fat and is spending more effort rationalizing being fat than doing something about it.
Without intention of rancor: who are you (or anyone) to decide that the person should be "doing something about it"?
Or assigning priorites for them:
First: get thin, by my standards.
Only then should you worry about having convictions and speaking out about bullying behavior.
The point of life is not be shamed into contorting onesself into the narrow, distorted conformation of what strangers think about us, the point of life is to be comfortable with who one is.
I don't disagree in large measure with what you are saying as I said something similar. However, if someone is unhealthy it's good to try to get healthy rather than to being content with being unhealthy.Without intention of rancor: who are you (or anyone) to decide that the person should be "doing something about it"?
Or assigning priorites for them:
First: get thin, by my standards.
Only then should you worry about having convictions and speaking out about bullying behavior.
The point of life is not be shamed into contorting onesself into the narrow, distorted conformation of what strangers think about us, the point of life is to be comfortable with who one is.
And there's the other shoe dropping.... if someone is unhealthy ...
Overweight is unhealthy. I'm not talking about over the weight of some normalized index. If you weight too much for your frame it's unhealthy for you. It's not a normal thing to be overweight.And there's the other shoe dropping.
You substituted unhealthy for overweight.
Overweight and unhealthy are not synonyms.
There are healthy average-weight people and unhealthy average-weight people.
There are healthy over-weight people and unhealthy over-weight people.
Average weight is simply a finding, turned into an index that frames the average person, but is applied unilaterally. It is not, by itself, symptomatic of poor health.
False. Generalization.Overweight is unhealthy.
Then how do you determine what the threshold is for 'overweight'?I'm not talking about over the weight of some normalized index.
And how does one determine how much is "too much"?If you weight too much for your frame it's unhealthy for you.
False. The human body has a very wide range of normal. What you are describing is mean.It's not a normal thing to be overweight.
False. Generalization.
Then how do you determine what the threshold is for 'overweight'?
And how does one determine how much is "too much"?
False. The human body has a very wide range of normal. What you are describing is mean.
The gold standard for whether one is healthy is ... if one is healthy.