Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

“Healthy obesity” doesn’t exist. It is unequivocally bad for you

bigthink.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 397 posts

Re: “Healthy obesity” doesn’t exist. It is unequivocally bad for you

#161

Post by amon22 »

huijzer wrote: post #143
stametseater wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a popular internet myth that junk food is cheaper than veggies. Of course it isn't true; junk food is more expensive by weight than anything in the produce aisle, with possible exceptions for exotic imported fruits. How this myth survives people wandering around a grocery store looking at price stickers is beyond my comprehension. A 5lb bag of potatoes costs less than a half pound bag of potato chips.

It's probably the difference in looking at weight versus calories. A cauliflower is, on average, 0.7-0.9 kg (1.5-2 pounds) and provides about 25 calories. A McDonalds burger is, on average, 0.2 kg (0.441 pounds) with about 250 calories. The cauliflower currently costs about 3 euros (yes, you read that right) in the Netherlands while a burger costs around 7 euros. So, calories per euro is 8 for the cauliflower and 35…

A head of cauliflower is around 210 calories when cooked, similar to the cheeseburger in your example.

Re: “Healthy obesity” doesn’t exist. It is unequivocally bad for you

#162

Post by mtlmtlmtlmtl »

npalli wrote: post #131
psychphysic wrote: post #96

The old line goes > Your BMI tells me your overweight. > But rugby players BMIs are high, and they aren't overweight! > You don't play rugby though do you. I'm glad that "fat acceptance" may be turning a corner and will be banished hopefully and there can be a semblance of rational discourse. Ideally you should be a BMI 22, non smoking, non drinking, long distance runner living in the countryside eating a perfectly b…

> Ideally you should be a BMI 22, non smoking, non drinking, long distance runner living in the countryside eating a perfectly balanced diet. All good except the long distance runner part. Don't think it is equivocally good as the others and may be potentially harmful (key is the long part, short/medium is good).

Walking in inclined, rough terrain is arguably more versatile exercise, and far, far less depressing to me. Hell, it actually lifts my mood.

Jogging on asphalt just makes my joints hurt and it makes me feel like I'm administering some pathetic modern substitute to the primal need to be active and to be in nature, which just depresses me. Same with everything gym based.

Re: “Healthy obesity” doesn’t exist. It is unequivocally bad for you

#163

Post by Volundr »

max47 wrote: post #152
kennywinker wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I get to eat what I want and sit around all day? Hell yeah! I am naturally thin. That statement ("i get to eat what i want and sit around all day") is true of my body. Is it such a strange idea that there are as many people who are naturally thin as there are that are naturally fat? Those people aren't making a choice to be fat any more than i am making a choice to be thin. Why should they feel bad about their body…

Almost everyone I met (incl me when I was younger) who think that way never realized just how much food obese people eat at home. It's wayyy more than you think. They never tell the truth about it out of shame because they know how bad it looks to others.

Even at my maximum weight I was most definitely not eating like this. The idea that every obese person is just slamming junk food down their gullet is just false and needs to die.

Re: “Healthy obesity” doesn’t exist. It is unequivocally bad for you

#164

Post by stametseater »

dghlsakjg wrote: post #153
stametseater wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a popular internet myth that junk food is cheaper than veggies. Of course it isn't true; junk food is more expensive by weight than anything in the produce aisle, with possible exceptions for exotic imported fruits. How this myth survives people wandering around a grocery store looking at price stickers is beyond my comprehension. A 5lb bag of potatoes costs less than a half pound bag of potato chips.

The myth isn’t a myth. It refers to the price of calories, not the price of food by weight. You end up with the cheapest calories being lightly processed grains like rice and flour, then you end up with more processed grains like white bread and ramen, then move to things like peanut butter, before hitting junk food. The point is that the cheapest calories aren’t exactly healthy. The produce aisle tends to be pretty…

> It refers to the price of calories

See: potatoes. They're basically pure calories and they're several times cheaper than any junk food. Junk food is the most expensive food no matter how you slice it. The only metric by which junk food might win is in the lazy glutton category; if somebody is too lazy to put a potato in their oven 45 minutes before their meal, then a bag of potato chips has an advantage. But in no other sense is junk food more efficient. And even for lazy people, there are plenty of cheap as dirt veggies that require less cooking or no cooking at all. A bag of apples is a very cheap way of getting a sugar rush without any food prep, but fat people would rather spend that money on several gallons of cola a week.

Re: “Healthy obesity” doesn’t exist. It is unequivocally bad for you

#165

Post by amrocha »

frankzander wrote: post #133
kennywinker wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I get to eat what I want and sit around all day? Hell yeah! I am naturally thin. That statement ("i get to eat what i want and sit around all day") is true of my body. Is it such a strange idea that there are as many people who are naturally thin as there are that are naturally fat? Those people aren't making a choice to be fat any more than i am making a choice to be thin. Why should they feel bad about their body…

They choose it a bit. First eating all the day long some crap (sweets, processed food, fiberless industrial food), drinking sweet sodas and not walking/doing real sports is a choice. It's the choice to live unhealthy. They should feel bad the same way smokers should feel bad. It's quite a disrespect for oneself.

There's people that don't do all that and are still fat, and making them "feel bad" about it is counter productive. In fact, the research on losing weight is quite clear: once you've put on weight, losing it and keeping it off is nearly impossible, and requires life long constant effort.

Instead of focusing on individual behavior, you should be speaking out against a government that built a car society, made cities hostile to walking and biking, and made cheap unhealthy food the easiest and cheapest option for most.

Re: “Healthy obesity” doesn’t exist. It is unequivocally bad for you

#166

Post by mcphage »

dudul wrote: post #70
rhaway84773 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there are several reasons: 1. Historically being fat was considered a sign of good health. Of course, this was during times of massive food scarcity and the definition of fat was probably very different from what we consider fat today. 2. Massive amounts of money involved in telling people to eat/drink more, and then spend more money in gyms and taking pills to lose that weight. As opposed to just eating less…

I'm interested in 3. Is there any research or data about that? I do not encourage fat shaming at all, but I can also imagine that in some cases shame may be a powerful motivator for some people. Is there hard data showing that it actually makes it harder?

> Is there any research or data about that?

Well, we’re probably 70+ years into a National experiment with it, and weights are only going up.

Re: “Healthy obesity” doesn’t exist. It is unequivocally bad for you

#167

Post by coffeebeqn »

tempsy wrote: post #6

the only nuance i’ll add is that there’s a huge difference between subcutaneous fat (eg visible belly fat you can pinch) and visceral fat (the fat hugging your vital organs) visceral fat is significantly more dangerous than subcutaneous fat, and people who have a high ratio of visceral fat to subcutaneous fat can appear skinny but are as or potentially less well off that someone who has a more balanced ratio of visce…

How do I know if I have that?

Re: “Healthy obesity” doesn’t exist. It is unequivocally bad for you

#168

Post by ofcourseyoudo »

psychphysic wrote: post #96

The old line goes > Your BMI tells me your overweight. > But rugby players BMIs are high, and they aren't overweight! > You don't play rugby though do you. I'm glad that "fat acceptance" may be turning a corner and will be banished hopefully and there can be a semblance of rational discourse. Ideally you should be a BMI 22, non smoking, non drinking, long distance runner living in the countryside eating a perfectly b…

> Ideally you should be a BMI 22, non smoking, non drinking, long distance runner living in the countryside eating a perfectly balanced diet.

I wonder what the attributes of the commenter are

Re: “Healthy obesity” doesn’t exist. It is unequivocally bad for you

#169

Post by amrocha »

amon22 wrote: post #161
huijzer wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's probably the difference in looking at weight versus calories. A cauliflower is, on average, 0.7-0.9 kg (1.5-2 pounds) and provides about 25 calories. A McDonalds burger is, on average, 0.2 kg (0.441 pounds) with about 250 calories. The cauliflower currently costs about 3 euros (yes, you read that right) in the Netherlands while a burger costs around 7 euros. So, calories per euro is 8 for the cauliflower and 35…

A head of cauliflower is around 210 calories when cooked, similar to the cheeseburger in your example.

A head of cauliflower is not a meal

Re: “Healthy obesity” doesn’t exist. It is unequivocally bad for you

#170

Post by surfpel »

aeturnum wrote: post #159

IMO the fat acceptance movement is pushing more for people to think about obesity like alcohol consumption: not "healthy", but potentially part of a sustainable approach to life. Of course, each deviation from "perfect" health has impacts - but learning to order them productively is what you want. It's not really that you want to be fat, it's that weight is only one of many lifestyle choices and we'd give people bett…

> about obesity like alcohol consumption: not "healthy", but potentially part of a sustainable approach to life

I would not classify alcoholism as a sustainable approach to life. Obesity, like alcoholism, isn’t sustainable because it accelerates death and disease. I equate “sustainable” with “not unhealthy”, which does not cover obesity.

What I have witnessed isn’t that those folks call it “healthy” but that they describe it as “not unhealthy”. This is incorrect and dangerous, as it deludes others into believing the same.

Post reply on HN