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

331–340 of 397 posts

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

#331

Post by scoofy »

sorenjan wrote: post #249
Symmetry wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. BMI is your weight divided by height squared. Which is really weird when you consider that humans are 3D objects! So you should naturally expect that a taller person will have a higher BMI than a shorter person even with the exact same proportions. In practice humans who are taller tend to be skinnier so we'd ideally use something close to the 2.5th power but that math would have been impractical for the 19th ce…

A few years ago I read a paper where they checked the correlation between CT measured body fat percentage and a lot of easily measured and calculated figures, in the same style of BMI (w/h²). I haven't been able to find it again, but if I remember correctly BMI was actually pretty good, although worse for women than for men, and the best measurement included waist circumference.

Why do we assume that fat is bad for you, but muscle is always good for you. The blood necessary to maintain excessive muscle is still excessive to normal humans, and may put strain on the heart. Only our skin grows with our muscles, other organs do not grow in tandem.

I've always thought that while BMI is crude, it still is reasonable for measuring metabolic syndrome, considering that many of the things associated with heart problems involve the needing a powerful heart, when adding any mass whatsoever will necessarily increase the work the heart must do.

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

#332

Post by kennywinker »

throw_pm23 wrote: post #320
kennywinker wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's likely the result of genetic, epigenetic, cultural, economic, and food system factors combined. As for how it went from 10% to 60% (your numbers, idk if they're right) one piece of the puzzle is that in 1998 the definition of obesity was changed, which made MANY more people fall into the obese category who did not previously: http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9806/17/weight.guidelines/

Definitions aside, look at the video from woodstock 69 -- not even one fat person. Look at a video of a current event in the US.

Ahh for sure, that’s a demographically representative sample of the american population. /s

Yes people have gotten fatter. That’s a thing that’s happening. To me that’s evidence of systemic problems in our food supply, economic factors like poverty. None of which are reason to treat someone poorly for being impacted by that.

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

#333

Post by itqwertz »

stametseater wrote: post #5

What interests me is how anybody could ever come to believe otherwise. The contrary belief flies in the face of all common sense, popular experience and medical science. It seems to come entirely from propaganda on social media telling fat people what they want to believe.

Obesity is a hot market.

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

#334

Post by BirdieNZ »

gruez wrote: post #290
jodrellblank wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment unpacks into a whole world of ideas around obesity which get pushed under the rug by just saying it's "your choice" and you need "discipline" and "diets" to fix it. Most thin people don't stay thin by discipline - or not much discipline. Most thin people don't stay thin by team sports and weightlifting. Most thin people aren't going on diets, ever. Most thin people aren't "choosing" to be thin, they have…

>1950 had 10% of Americans being obese. Now 35% are. Has there been a decrease in weightlifting since then? A paucity of dieting? No, surely both of those are on record highs with gym memberships and Weightwatchers being so profitable. What about a collapse of discipline - through one of the most productive times in human history, today with lowest unemployment in 20 years? >[...] >Like: car dependent suburbia It see…

1950s coincides with the post-war building boom (mostly suburbs), along with projects like the USA's interstate highways and similar highway building projects around the Western world. Car dependent suburbia definitely got worse around that time, from a combination of factors.

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

#335

Post by itqwertz »

_gabe_ wrote: post #226
dudul wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Just some anecdata here, but I was toeing the line between overweight and obese about a year ago. I read David Goggins book Can't Hurt Me , and one of the things he talked about was having a note in the mirror reminding you of your goals (real novel concept ikr?). Anyways, the way he phrased it was something like, "If you're fat and don't want to be, right down the raw truth on that note and read it every morning, th…

Constant reminders are great, just make sure to put some positive ones up, too.

On a related note, find yourself in a woman’s house and notice the inspirational text artwork. “Eat, Love, Pray”, “Worrying works because it never happens”, etc. These little signs are powerful.

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

#336

Post by bobthepanda »

damascus wrote: post #310
bobthepanda wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How exactly would you advertise these clothes in a not-normal way? What kind of ads make their customers feel dismissed or treat them like shit? The average American is "normal." that's where we are now. > normal adjective : conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern : characterized by that which is considered usual, typical, or routine

It seems the parent comments are inquiring into the morality of the ad campaign. An effective ad shows the potential consumer some desired 'other state' which they could also have by purchasing this good or service. The advertiser is therefore giving some weight to the idea that the obese person in a desirable state. Whereas more traditional ads would show the same clothing on a traditionally attractively weighted pe…

How many ad campaigns are there consisting of only obese people?

There is still plenty of work for conventionally attractive people in advertising.

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

#337

Post by DangitBobby »

kennywinker wrote: post #242
throw_pm23 wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The genetic cause doesn't explain why ratio of obesity went from 10% to 60% in one generation. Fat people didn't have that much more kids.

It's likely the result of genetic, epigenetic, cultural, economic, and food system factors combined. As for how it went from 10% to 60% (your numbers, idk if they're right) one piece of the puzzle is that in 1998 the definition of obesity was changed, which made MANY more people fall into the obese category who did not previously: http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9806/17/weight.guidelines/

According to that article, fully 50% of Americans were already considered obese at the time.

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

#338

Post by dudul »

wkat4242 wrote: post #99
max47 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> this is why I will never get behind socialized healthcare...I'm not footing the bill for the increasing number of people who push these beliefs Sadly, the US is paying as much per capita for healthcare as countries with free healthcare. A private system costs a lot more to run even when they are managed by people with good intentions.

When I hear that in the US health insurance can cost upwards of $1000 a month, I really think something is severely broken in the system there. In the Netherlands it costs around 150 with good services. In Spain it's free but no way the tax expenditure is that high because most people don't even make much more than 1000 euro.

A grand sounds a bit high. I have a family of 4 and can't remember ever paying more than 400 a month. Granted, my employer picks up part of the tab but that's just how it works in the US (and it's dumb).

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

#339

Post by docandrew »

chitowneats wrote: post #68
somenameforme wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A general rule is that you burn about 100 calories in a mile jog. A 12oz can of Coke has about 140 calories, a quarter of a cup of nuts has about 200 calories, an apple has about 100 calories. Exercise is important for many reasons, but not for preventing obesity. Unless you're running marathons, or exercising like somebody who is, the amount of calories you will burn from exercising will in no way whatsoever compare…

The critical piece you're missing is that building and maintaining muscle mass increases your metabolism greatly. Michael Phelps eats 10,000 calories a day. This an extreme example, but the principle is true for all of us.

I think it has more to do with the time spent in cold water and calories burnt from his training. Having said that, I’ve read that muscle mass is the main driver of a “high metabolism.”

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

#340

Post by docandrew »

justinator wrote: post #137
chitowneats wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The critical piece you're missing is that building and maintaining muscle mass increases your metabolism greatly. Michael Phelps eats 10,000 calories a day. This an extreme example, but the principle is true for all of us.

It may actually not. The hypothesis may be that building and maintaining muscle simply increases linearly with the increase of lean muscle mass. If (and these are made up numbers) one lb of lean muscle mass takes 10 cals to maintain, adding 5lbs of muscle would only increase your caloric needs be 50 cals. At 190lb, my BMI is 26.5, but I'm relatively muscular with a body fat % of around 15%. I have more than 5lbs more…

Over the course of a year that’s a pretty significant advantage in overall calories burned, though.
Post reply on HN