First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
Thin Privilege
37230 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M
Offline
Posted 10/13/13
Dang man, you went all out didn't you?
43460 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Livingston, Louis...
Offline
Posted 10/13/13 , edited 10/13/13
Ahahahahaha...Ain't that cute and precious?

I have yet to understand this recent surge in the use of the words "privilege" and "pride". No one should feel privileged to be treated like shit. And pride is just a way fools choose to broadcast their status. Gays dislike being persecuted by the modern world and yet you have all these flamboyant morons waving their dicks around proudly. And you wonder why...Anyway...

Call me apathetic, but this just sounds like one big pity party to me. Before you flame me, Aspergers Syndrome, sexual abuse as a child, mental, emotional, and physical trauma, as well as constant moving between group homes until I turned 15 or 16. Where's my privilege?

So I've been through some shit, however detailed I decided not to be about it. If you want to stop being picked on for being skinny, eat. Too fat? Exercise. It's simple, and as someone who's experienced this kind of shit too, I have the...Right I guess...To throw in my two cents.

Also, I'm partially biased I suppose against topics like these because I see this stuff on FaceBook ALL the TIME. We know people have problems, but the fact of the matter is at least 80% of the time it is perfectly solvable by the very individual(s) or group(s) who whine and advocate it. I didn't read through the whole thing, seeing as I plan to go to bed at around 1 or 2, but if it's not genetic, it's fixable. Call me heartless, that's how I choose to spin it.
31407 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / San Antonio, TX,...
Offline
Posted 10/13/13 , edited 10/13/13
I don't want to go on a rant, it's bad for me because I will lose brain cells...man I wish I didn't have such a low tolerance for imprudent.
44366 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Alaska
Offline
Posted 10/13/13 , edited 10/13/13

Nmason wrote:



Just to start you off.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23491523
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00125-008-1038-4/fulltext.html
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00125-008-1077-x/fulltext.html
http://www.cardiology.org/projects_heart_6_30440359.pdf
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/09/the-healthy-obese-and-their-healthy-fat-cells/?_r=0
http://www.obesitymyths.com/downloads/ObesityMyths.pdf
The last one is full of references to go through.

Of course, I highly doubt you will actually take the time to read any of these. But who knows, you might prove me wrong here.


I read them, and found them pretty interesting. There are some issues though.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23491523

The conclusions in this study state that being healthy and obese is a transient state for a third of the subjects, so a third of them don't stay metabolically healthy. It also says that maintaining metabolic health while being obese was related to younger ages.

In the results of the study it says "Compared with metabolically healthy normal-weight subjects the MHO were more likely to develop metabolic risk and incident diabetes but not CVD/stroke during 5.5-10.3 years of follow-up."
So the obese were still more likely to have metabolic risk and diabetes, just not cardiovascular disease or a stroke, and that's only 5 - 10 years after. More complications are likely to set in the longer you remain obese.

The results also say "Sustained metabolic health in obese participants was associated with age ≤ 40 years and lower waist circumference."
So having a smaller waist and being younger is what helps them stay metabolically healthy. So not being more fat, and not being fat when you're over 40 is what keeps some of them metabolically healthy. I would take this to mean that being obese later in life would make them decline in metabolic health.

Also, it just says obese, and not morbidly or severely obese so we have no way of telling if these subjects are just barely making it into the obese category or if they're huge. Not knocking you for linking this one, just saying it should be more clear on that matter.


http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00125-008-1038-4/fulltext.html

I read this one too but I found it sort of an odd choice to link.

"It should be noted that our findings are limited to a small population of sedentary obese postmenopausal women without type 2 diabetes."
This one just studies a bunch of obese sedentary postmenopausal women.

"The tendency to treat obese individuals with a ‘one size fits all’ approach may be counterproductive in the MHO individual if the goal is to improve insulin sensitivity."
It only talks about improving insulin sensitivity, and the whole experiment wasn't about obese vs normal or fit. It was obese vs obese, just one was the metabolically healthy obese, and one was an 'at-risk' obese person. The results may have been quite different if it was compared with normal weight, healthy people that weren't sedentary.


http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00125-008-1077-x/fulltext.html

This one is very similar to the last one, in that it only studies obese postmenopausal women.The goal of this one is only to find out a better strategy to treat obese women that are insulin resistant.


http://www.cardiology.org/projects_heart_6_30440359.pdf

"Compared with normal weight subjects, obese subjects were younger, had higher incidences of hypercholesterolemia, hypertension, and diabetes and a lower prevalence of "high" fitness."

That's straight from the results of that study.

In the conclusion it says that "obesity can confer survival benefits in certain conditions".
So this is only in certain conditions, and only for the old (average age 58) guys they studied. It's not about every fat guy walking around town.

The conclusion also says "A combination of factors such as self-selection, meeting recruitment standards for and maintaining physical fitness during military service, obesity in later life, and even psychosocial factors might explain this phenomenon."

So it says that they think this occurs because they were so fit and maintained such good health at a young age, and only got fat later in life, along with who knows what psychosocial factors, causes this paradox.
The entire thing studied only old people, and didn't mention anything about positive effects of obesity at a young age. They were saying their findings may have to do with their high level of fitness during their youth.



http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/09/the-healthy-obese-and-their-healthy-fat-cells/?_r=1

"It is clear that obesity is tightly linked to a host of chronic illnesses, among them heart disease, hypertension and Type 2 diabetes."

"Metabolically healthy obesity is found more frequently among younger adults"

"There is growing evidence that it may be a transition state, and that if followed long enough, some, if not many, people in this category will eventually develop the expected metabolic disturbances."

“We found that about a third of these people progressed down the road to being metabolically unhealthy,” said Sarah Appleton, a research fellow at the University of Adelaide. “Metabolically healthy obesity may essentially be a transient state.”



http://www.obesitymyths.com/downloads/ObesityMyths.pdf

"While extreme obesity remains a genuine health risk, this report documents the extent to which many researchers and academics are actively questioning obesity hype."

"This report is by no means intended to dismiss the genuine health risks of obesity for the heaviest individuals."

After that it goes on to talk about BMI and how it's stupid, which it is. It talks about how a BMI calculator would count professional bodybuilders like Arnold Schwarzenegger as obese, which is true. BMI doesn't take muscle into consideration, but pretty much everyone knows that. Anyone who uses a BMI scale for everything doesn't know what they're talking about.




So what I was talking about in regards to sources to begin with was when you said my post was full of ignorance. These articles are all on the general subject at hand, but I meant specifically when I was comparing your body composition to Ronnie Coleman. You said it was ignorant but you did the math yourself and you put yourself right around his amount of lean mass, if not a little more.
You said my post was full of ignorance but didn't point anything out or explain why it was wrong, or give any reply to it really.




Ok, you proved me wrong. You did read. Great. I hope the reading brought into light some preconceived notions you had earlier.
I also hope this will open you up to what I am actually saying versus what you think I am saying.

Now, there are fat unhealthy people, and fit fat people. If fit obese people turn to unhealthy obese, they becomes just that, unhealthy obese. I specifically chose different studies that offered a broader view of the subject. Getting into details requires reading lots of the smaller studies that relate. Some studies conflict, some only focus on a certain group (like that veteran one), and some don't go too deep; so I would keep that in mind if you do choose to dig deeper.

First one: Yes, it will be more clear once the actual study is released on 2014/08/01. As for the 5.5-10 years, that was with a follow up, past the follow up mark it is uncertain, but they can make educated guesses.

Second one: I think you need to reread this one especially where they describe how the study is being set up, and what they are going for.

Third one: Same as top, I think you misunderstood the intentions of the studies. http://diabetes.niddk.nih.gov/dm/pubs/insulinresistance/ reading this site might help you better understand. Keep in mind, postmenopausal generally mean older women, late 40's and on wards.

Forth one: On this one I am thinking you were looking for something that wasn't going to be there. It helps to fully get an idea of what the study will be about before jumping in.

Fifth one: Out of context quote. the whole quote reads, "It is clear that obesity is tightly linked to a host of chronic illnesses, among them heart disease, hypertension and Type 2 diabetes. That there are metabolically normal obese adults suggests that there is a way to safely carry excess fat. But to what extent is not clear."
Out of context quote. the whole quote reads, "Metabolically healthy obesity is found more frequently among younger adults, as a large study in the journal Diabetes Care demonstrated in August. There is growing evidence that it may be a transition state, and that if followed long enough, some, if not many, people in this category will eventually develop the expected metabolic disturbances."
this is where they are taking educated guesses. They do not know for certain, though they have data pointing the trend. So you have to remember, some does not equal all, nor does many equal all.
Another out of context quote, the follow up was, "But there is evidence that not everyone will progress down that road, or at least not so quickly. In Dr. Naukkarinen’s new study, for example, the obese subjects had become obese at similar ages and remained so for about a decade — yet some showed no metabolic disturbances."

Sixth: I thought you said you read this? It only talks about the BMI in the first 15 pages of the 149 page document....I really suggest you read the rest of it, and look up the end notes as you read. It will help.


So what I was talking about in regards to sources to begin with was when you said my post was full of ignorance. These articles are all on the general subject at hand, but I meant specifically when I was comparing your body composition to Ronnie Coleman. You said it was ignorant but you did the math yourself and you put yourself right around his amount of lean mass, if not a little more.
You said my post was full of ignorance but didn't point anything out or explain why it was wrong, or give any reply to it really.

Ronnie Coleman is a professional bodybuilder. As the name suggests, he builds his body. In a nutshell, bodybuilding is where you only lift enough to get your muscles to start building mass. Generally low rep high weight is common, and high weight means different weight for different people and how far along they are in body building. The goal is to look big, chiseled, and highlighting muscles.
Now, if I was at 0% body fat, I would look nothing like Ronnie, since I didn't build my body like that. I will look thick, and bulky sure, but not on the level professional body builders are at. I will have under developed muscles in some areas, in some areas I will be on par. Also I will most likely be dead too, but that is beside the point.
I should also point out, that body fat checking doesn't take into account excess water content. I could very well weigh less than that once I reach 5%-10% range, who knows. I have to reach it before hand.

Now for a more real way of what I would look like at lower body fat % is to look at the world strongest men, they are by no means body builder built, they are thick, bulky, and yes, they have a gut at times. Will I be as bulky and thick as them? Nyooope. I do not train as hard, nor do I have a strict diet like they do (and by diet I am not talking about eating less, I am talking about the type of food they eat). I will be thick and bulky yes, but not like them.


You said my post was full of ignorance but didn't point anything out or explain why it was wrong, or give any reply to it really.

I was going to, but honestly, would you have listened?


edit: Removed double same meaning words.
Posted 10/13/13
Oh my....

This thread is for people who can read and write....

:S
47864 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 10/14/13 , edited 10/14/13

alpacapocalypse6 wrote:



You do know how fat is created, right? When we intake more calories than we use, the extra energy is stored in the body as fat.


I was thinking that I didn't want to reply to this, but it's bothered me enough to want to. So here goes:

First of all, there's no such thing as a "calorie," just as there's no such thing as a "gram" or a "mile." You can have a "gram of copper" or a "mile of road," but it doesn't make sense to just say "a gram" unless it's clear what you're referring to. A calorie is a unit of measurement, and it measures energy. And while we know from Einstein's most famous equation that there's a proportional mass-energy equivalence, you're misunderstanding it if you think that the body converts energy into fat. The calories listed on the back of a box of food are the estimated amount of energy that the body can take from the food. How does it derive this energy? Through chemical reactions. And guess what? Different foods are made of different chemicals, which means that they react differently. Input different chemicals, and you get different byproducts.

That is, the body doesn't convert "extra energy" into fat, it converts some food that hasn't been used for energy into fat. But not all, or even most, food. Most food leaves as waste. So let's just talk about the small amount of food that doesn't leave as waste. When you say "it gets stored as fat," you need to keep in mind that firstly, there are different chemicals that qualify as "fat." The important types, as far as health is concerned, is cholesterol, of which there are different types. One is actually considered good for blood vessels, and further, consistent exercise can also strengthen blood vessels. Since it's only food that reacts, and only the chemicals in the food that get broken down into fats, this means that, theoretically speaking, we can engineer a diet and exercise regiment such that a person can have a perfectly healthy cardiovascular system, while also having stored body fat.

"But theYchromosome, that's just theory!" Yeah, but there are some relevant practical examples. Nmason called it "getting fat off of apples and broccoli." I claim that there exist people that exercise regularly, eat a proper diet, but eat a lot of it, and end up fat, but otherwise healthy. This doesn't mean that I think fatness then can always be excused this way. In fact I'd guess that if you placed a bet on every fat person, and bet that they were unhealthy, you'd not only win more often than not, you'd end up fucking rich. However, that doesn't mean that it's impossible to be fat and healthy, although Nmason has convinced me that the sheer weight can put pressure on lungs, joints, etc. which can lead to quicker deterioration of the body.


Those athletes obviously aren't "fat." They weigh more because of their muscle and just being large in general, not because they have too much excess body fat. Caloric intake does have a lot to do with health problems, as does cholesterol. Most foods that are high in calories are also high in cholesterol, which is what causes blood clots. That doesn't mean that body fat doesn't cause serious health problems, though. It's not a coincidence that people who are overweight are more likely to have higher blood pressure, which is what causes heart disease and strokes.


They obviously are fat. They weigh more because of their muscle, being large in general, and fat. In fact many of them put on fat specifically because they want to be fat. Most have a very tough time after they retire, but some stay healthy after retiring by losing the weight.

Also, cholesterol doesn't cause blood clots. A certain type of cholesterol causes blood clots. Other types seem to combat blood clots. Besides, the fact that you didn't say "all foods that are high in calories are high in cholesterol" (you said "most" foods) means that you'd probably agree that there are some foods that aren't. Assuming you eat those foods then, there's no reason to think that you will necessarily have health problems. Although the OVERWHELMING majority of fat people aren't even close to fitting in that category. It's no coincidence that people that are overweight are more likely to have health problems, because it's no coincidence that most people that are overweight are eating and doing the things that cause those health problems. It's theoretically possible to be overweight, while still having "healthy insides," and I would claim that there are relevant practical examples of this. I have no problem with using, as a guideline, the idea that a fat person will probably be unhealthy. However, I do have some problems with the statement "if you're fat, then you're definitely unhealthy." It doesn't seem to be necessarily the case, although it probably almost always is.
17380 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M
Offline
Posted 10/14/13 , edited 10/14/13

the amount of extra fat they carry is just by its nature hard on their bodies, and can cause things like liver problems or joint issues, etc, which is why I would say it's unhealthy.



While playing, lineman do not have a greater prevalence heart disease risk factors compared to the general population. While most have problems after they're out, for the reasons you've stated, there are also many that continue to be healthy after they're retired.


Question!:
If having extra fat is by nature hard on the body, why do linebackers not have problems while playing?
If exercise eliminates fat, and linebackers exercise, how do linebackers gain fat?
Can fat gain be directed at specific parts of the body?
Can fat loss be directed at certain parts of the body?
How long do fat stores need to be present to create problems?
Are some places worse than others to have large amounts of fat? If so, why?
What is the optimal location(I'm thinking distribution, not one location) and amount of fat to have on the body?
What is dirty bulking?
Can a thin person have high amounts of fat stored internally (in a place like the liver) and if so, does this cause the same type of problems found in fat people?

And that's all, I have no opinion on "thin privilege."
44366 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Alaska
Offline
Posted 10/14/13 , edited 10/14/13

Nobodyofimportance wrote:


the amount of extra fat they carry is just by its nature hard on their bodies, and can cause things like liver problems or joint issues, etc, which is why I would say it's unhealthy.



While playing, lineman do not have a greater prevalence heart disease risk factors compared to the general population. While most have problems after they're out, for the reasons you've stated, there are also many that continue to be healthy after they're retired.


Question!:
1.If having extra fat is by nature hard on the body, why do linebackers not have problems while playing?
2.If exercise eliminates fat, and linebackers exercise, how do linebackers gain fat?
3.Can fat gain be directed at specific parts of the body?
4.Can fat loss be directed at certain parts of the body?
5.How long do fat stores need to be present to create problems?
6.Are some places worse than others to have large amounts of fat? If so, why?
7.What is the optimal location(I'm thinking distribution, not one location) and amount of fat to have on the body?
8.What is dirty bulking?
9.Can a thin person have high amounts of fat stored internally (in a place like the liver) and if so, does this cause the same type of problems found in fat people?

And that's all, I have no opinion on "thin privilege."

I'll take a crack at these questions.

1: Fat by it's nature isn't hard on the body, excessive amounts can be. What determines excessive is what type of fat, where it is located, your body type, and how your body handles fat.
2: Exercise does not eliminate fat, not directly. Easy way of thinking of fat is like a back up battery. You first burn your easy energy, and then you move into your reserves, your back up battery, and will slowly burn through that back up battery until normal first line energy levels are returned. Normally after your first line of energy is used up, you will feel a craving to eat. The more often you run out of this first line of energy, the longer the hunger feeling lasts.
You can also force your body to run on the back up reserve, but it is a double edge sword to play with. It is known as being put into Ketosis Mode. This can work, but it is also dangerous. This mode your body is in is made for when you cannot get food, and your body starts to literally eat itself. At first it will be fat, but soon your brain starts to go crazy mode. It will do it's damn best to keep you functioning, and your whole system is put into high maintenance. After a while your brain will start getting loopy, and start eating other parts of the body in hope to keep it's self functioning and it does a very damn good job at it, but catch 22, will eventually leave the body so feeble it won't be able to function and will soon start shutting down. The longer you wait to eat the crazier the brain gets.
Though as soon as you have outside energy and nutrients coming in, what ever isn't immediately used gets deposited for later. Say 50% of what you eat normally is used and 50% is waste, but in ketosis mode, 25% is used and the rest is stored. The undigested stuff and un absorbed stuff is still pooped out mind you. This storing effect will last for a while, even after you return to normal. The brain is afraid another dry spell will occur.
Oh and there is that whole blood turning acidic thing too, nasty stuff.
3:Outside of being forcefully injected? no.
4:That is a myth, no.
5: If it will cause problems, it will be almost right away.
6:Liver and heart at the two biggest danger spots for fat. Look up fatty liver to see why, as for the heart, take a good guess :P
7: There is no optimal spot, each persons body has it's own method of depositing fat. As for the amount, that will vary based on your frame, occurrences of famine, the more often you have famine occur, the more fat you want. The less occurrences of famine you experience, than you can make do with lesser amount of fat.
8: If I would hazard a guess, I am thinking he means the effect of being strong enough to move and support the body weight. Much like wearing weighted clothing, your body will be forced to get strong enough to at least support the added weight. This effect can be experienced immediately, though to truly experience it you have to wear it for longer periods. once you remove it, there is a sense of weightlessness while your body will take a moment to readjust.
9: Yep, thin people are not exempt.
15456 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / UK
Offline
Posted 10/14/13

ThePinkRanger wrote:

Where the hell is MY privilege?

I am 2% body fat.

I am 60 meters tall.

I am a titan.



/thread
2589 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Canada
Offline
Posted 10/14/13
I'm 140 lbs and I eat junk food all day and don't exercise. But I have chronic stomach pain all day and feel like shit because of how unhealthy I am despite being skinny. #lazy4life
Posted 10/14/13
Have your cholesterol checked
1126 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / F
Offline
Posted 10/14/13
some people are naturally thin no matter what they eat or what they do. for people who are fat, they should exercise and they will get results. always be proud of what you are
15557 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M
Offline
Posted 10/14/13
fucking political correctness and pussies crying over their feelings, ruining everything.

Nmason 
34046 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M
Offline
Posted 10/15/13 , edited 10/15/13

Ok, you proved me wrong. You did read. Great. I hope the reading brought into light some preconceived notions you had earlier.
I also hope this will open you up to what I am actually saying versus what you think I am saying.

Now, there are fat unhealthy people, and fit fat people. If fit obese people turn to unhealthy obese, they becomes just that, unhealthy obese. I specifically chose different studies that offered a broader view of the subject. Getting into details requires reading lots of the smaller studies that relate. Some studies conflict, some only focus on a certain group (like that veteran one), and some don't go too deep; so I would keep that in mind if you do choose to dig deeper.

First one: Yes, it will be more clear once the actual study is released on 2014/08/01. As for the 5.5-10 years, that was with a follow up, past the follow up mark it is uncertain, but they can make educated guesses.

Second one: I think you need to reread this one especially where they describe how the study is being set up, and what they are going for.

Third one: Same as top, I think you misunderstood the intentions of the studies. http://diabetes.niddk.nih.gov/dm/pubs/insulinresistance/ reading this site might help you better understand. Keep in mind, postmenopausal generally mean older women, late 40's and on wards.

Forth one: On this one I am thinking you were looking for something that wasn't going to be there. It helps to fully get an idea of what the study will be about before jumping in.

Fifth one: Out of context quote. the whole quote reads, "It is clear that obesity is tightly linked to a host of chronic illnesses, among them heart disease, hypertension and Type 2 diabetes. That there are metabolically normal obese adults suggests that there is a way to safely carry excess fat. But to what extent is not clear."
Out of context quote. the whole quote reads, "Metabolically healthy obesity is found more frequently among younger adults, as a large study in the journal Diabetes Care demonstrated in August. There is growing evidence that it may be a transition state, and that if followed long enough, some, if not many, people in this category will eventually develop the expected metabolic disturbances."
this is where they are taking educated guesses. They do not know for certain, though they have data pointing the trend. So you have to remember, some does not equal all, nor does many equal all.
Another out of context quote, the follow up was, "But there is evidence that not everyone will progress down that road, or at least not so quickly. In Dr. Naukkarinen’s new study, for example, the obese subjects had become obese at similar ages and remained so for about a decade — yet some showed no metabolic disturbances."

Sixth: I thought you said you read this? It only talks about the BMI in the first 15 pages of the 149 page document....I really suggest you read the rest of it, and look up the end notes as you read. It will help.


So what I was talking about in regards to sources to begin with was when you said my post was full of ignorance. These articles are all on the general subject at hand, but I meant specifically when I was comparing your body composition to Ronnie Coleman. You said it was ignorant but you did the math yourself and you put yourself right around his amount of lean mass, if not a little more.
You said my post was full of ignorance but didn't point anything out or explain why it was wrong, or give any reply to it really.

Ronnie Coleman is a professional bodybuilder. As the name suggests, he builds his body. In a nutshell, bodybuilding is where you only lift enough to get your muscles to start building mass. Generally low rep high weight is common, and high weight means different weight for different people and how far along they are in body building. The goal is to look big, chiseled, and highlighting muscles.
Now, if I was at 0% body fat, I would look nothing like Ronnie, since I didn't build my body like that. I will look thick, and bulky sure, but not on the level professional body builders are at. I will have under developed muscles in some areas, in some areas I will be on par. Also I will most likely be dead too, but that is beside the point.
I should also point out, that body fat checking doesn't take into account excess water content. I could very well weigh less than that once I reach 5%-10% range, who knows. I have to reach it before hand.

Now for a more real way of what I would look like at lower body fat % is to look at the world strongest men, they are by no means body builder built, they are thick, bulky, and yes, they have a gut at times. Will I be as bulky and thick as them? Nyooope. I do not train as hard, nor do I have a strict diet like they do (and by diet I am not talking about eating less, I am talking about the type of food they eat). I will be thick and bulky yes, but not like them.


You said my post was full of ignorance but didn't point anything out or explain why it was wrong, or give any reply to it really.

I was going to, but honestly, would you have listened?


edit: Removed double same meaning words.


Sorry it took awhile to respond, midterms all week have been taking up my time.

Let me start by saying that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, whether right or wrong. (Not sarcastically calling you wrong btw, just saying either of us can potentially be)
In the hopes of settling this debate I propose we just respectfully agree to disagree. I will say though that I do believe that some fat people are healthier than others (as proven in the studies you linked), and the same also applies to thin people obviously, but I still just see the fat as an unnecessary strain on the body, by its nature being unhealthy.

Also, yeah I definitely didn't read all of the last study, that one was a bit long for me. I did read the others in their entirety though, and actually enjoyed it. For every study supporting the health of fat people, there will always be another one arguing their health, so we could link different points back and forth all day long, and personally I'd rather not.

Also, whatever your weight and body fat % may be, since you're as heavy as you are you'd look pretty great if you ever did decide to lose weight. Fat people always have beast calves and quads. And if anyone feels like losing weight I totally encourage it, it's not as hard as people make it seem, and can be fun to see yourself shrink and start to feel better/lighter.

Edit: Saw the questions another user posted, might as well add on them a bit.

Question!:
1.If having extra fat is by nature hard on the body, why do linebackers not have problems while playing?
2.If exercise eliminates fat, and linebackers exercise, how do linebackers gain fat?
3.Can fat gain be directed at specific parts of the body?
4.Can fat loss be directed at certain parts of the body?
5.How long do fat stores need to be present to create problems?
6.Are some places worse than others to have large amounts of fat? If so, why?
7.What is the optimal location(I'm thinking distribution, not one location) and amount of fat to have on the body?
8.What is dirty bulking?
9.Can a thin person have high amounts of fat stored internally (in a place like the liver) and if so, does this cause the same type of problems found in fat people?

And that's all, I have no opinion on "thin privilege."


micdeath answered most of these spot on, I'll give short answers to all of them as well though.

1. Linebackers can sometimes have trouble, not all have a great time supporting the build they choose to sustain during football. Generally though, they have amazing cardiovascular health compared to your run of the mill fat guy, they run and tackle shit all day. This helps reduce a lot of the risk.

2. Exercise doesn't eliminate fat, exercise burns calories. At the end of the day, if you consumed more calories than you expended, you will gain weight in the form of fat and muscle (both come together, you can't only gain fat, or only gain muscle, but depending on your diet and exercise regimen, you can tip the scale more favorably towards your preference). Slang for this is bulking. If you expended more than you consumed, you will lose weight. (You will lose fat and muscle, but generally you won't lose much fat, because protein is harder for the body to breakdown for energy, while that is basically fat's purpose to begin with. Also, you can keep nearly all of your muscle if you exercise sufficiently while losing weight. Slang for this is cutting.

3. Fat gain can't be directed at specific parts, per se. Genetics decide where your fat will be deposited and in what manner, so you may gain weight much faster in one area, but nothing can decide where aside from your genetic coding.

4. Short answer: No. Long answer: Spot reduction has been proven to occur, but it's such a ridiculously small amount that it's not noticeable at all. And when I say it has been proven, that doesn't mean fat was only lost in the one area, only that slightly more was lost in the specific part, than was lost elsewhere. Generally, fat will be lost from all over, with genetics helping to decide where it's lost first.

5. It depends on the amount of fat. Everybody has fat on and in their bodies, and without it we couldn't survive. When it is in large amounts though, the longer the fat is kept on, the more it will affect the body. The longer you have excess fat, the more it'll wear on your joints etc.

6. The heart and liver are awful places to have fat. Really anywhere on the outside of your body is better than in your heart or liver.

7. Location doesn't really matter healthwise as long it's not in your heart or liver. Location on your body as in on your belly or ass or thighs, really only matters if you care about aesthetics. As long as your bf% doesn't go into the realm of obese and higher you're fine.

8. Dirty bulking is when you're in a bulking phase (refer to question 2), and you eat whatever you want for your caloric surplus. As in going to wendys, mcdonalds, and just in general eating whatever you feel like as long as you go over your maintenance calories. This method is great for gaining strength and mass(both fat and muscle) quickly, and is usually followed by a cutting phase to get rid of the fat and retain the muscle. It is the opposite of a 'clean bulk' where you would count out everything you eat and still eat very health consciously. Clean bulking puts on strength and mass slower, but the mass you do put on has less fat that comes along with the muscle, so the following cutting phase can be postponed for longer, or take less time.

9. Yes, skinny people can have fairly high bf% and still look thin-ish, because they don't have much muscle mass underneath the fat to fill out their frame. And yes they absolutely can have fat-related health issues. Being thin doesn't make you immune, it just lowers your risk.
22097 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / On the Court
Offline
Posted 10/15/13
Yeah I hate talking about the whole "I'm fat" thing. Since I was a wrestler I only hade 5% body fact and girls would hate me for having that. So I just keep my mouth shut when people talk about their weight.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.