soc.support.fat-rejectance FAQ 3.0
by Jackie T. Tokeman
Table of contents
1. How many members does NAAFA have?
2. What is the most trollable newsgroup on usenet?
3. Do fat women have problems finding a romantic partner?
4. What sort of guys are Fat Admirer's (FAs - also known as fatty fuckers)?
5. How many fat admirers are there in the United States?
6. But people love the Teletubbies (Porky Pig, Fred Flintstone, John Candy)
and they are fat. Doesn't this refute your whole point?
7. How fat are these people?
8. Fat acceptors who admit they are fat because they eat too much and
exercise too little:
9. Isn't it possible to be fit and fat?
10. How many people die due to obesity annually in the United States?
11. Are fat women more likely to be mentally ill?
12. Are fat people more likely to be losers?
13. Is obesity costly?
14. Being fat sucks testimonials:
15. Have any internet fat acceptors dropped dead early?
16. Is being fat sinful?
17. Are fat people really responsible for being fat?
18. Anti fat quotes:
19. Will being fat shorten your life?
20. But I heard that being heavier is really better than being extremely
thin? Aren't really thin people just as bad as morbidly obese ones?
21. What health risks do fat people face?
22. So OK, I agree being fat sucks. So what do I do about it?
23. Isn't it true that diets don't work?
24. But I eat very little fat and yet I don't lose weight. How do you
explain that?
25. But I eat very little. Less than 800 calories a day. Really. So how do
you explain that?
26. Just how much do you have to eat to maintain extreme obesity?
27. But I tried exercising and I don't lose weight? Doesn't this prove I am
meant to be fat?
28. How can you say I eat too much when I've been the same weight for
years?
29. What is this "Morbid Obesity" you keep talking about?
30. How do I calculate my BMI?
Fat Rejectance FAQ:
1. How many members does NAAFA have?
About 5,000.
Which at 300 lbs. per is enough to hold a million AND A HALF pound march.
(Then again some of them might not be able to get out of thier houses to go
to a march without some sort of a block and tackle arrangement...)
2. What is the most trollable newsgroup on usenet?
soc.support.fat-acceptance
3. Do fat women have problems finding a romantic partner?
This was written in response to a fat acceptance advocate who claimed that
40% of men are willing to date women over the Met Life chart healthy range.
Let's take your most optimistic scenario - 40% of men are willing to date
women over the insurance company chart ideal weight range.
Note that this is the appraisal of the situation from the point of view of
a fat acceptor not the malevolent worst case scenario of a sinister troll.
And yet even these numbers paint a grim picture when viewed in the light of
some other relevant numbers.
In the United States 35% of all women were obese in 1991. Fine, you might
say, that means that they have 40% of men available so there's actually a
surplus of datable dudes vying for their affection.
Unfortunately for that rosy scenario you didn't say 40% are willing to date
obese women, you said 40% are willing to date women fatter than the
insurance charts ideal weight.
It turns out that, according to a Harris poll, as of 1996 74% of Americans
were overweight based on the Met Life charts! And that was using the 1983
charts which actually allow one to be fatter than the 1959 charts!
Now as far as I know women actually tend to be more overweight than men but
for the sake of argument (and because I don't have a breakdown by sex in
front of me) let's say that 74% of women are overweight.
40% of American men = 52 million. That is the available dating pool for fat
women.
74% of women who are overweight = 96.2 million.
Which leaves 44.2 million women dateless! (one caveat - I don't calculate
the percentage of men and women who are of dating age - I don't have those
numbers - so the exact numbers of various groups within the population is
actually somewhat less than indicated but the basic ratios should hold
true)
So your statement, which was intended to refute my central point, actually
confirms it!
There are too many fat women and not enough fat-accepting men to go around.
In fact almost HALF of all fat women, if your numbers are to be believed,
will not be able to find a man who finds them attractive!
But the situation is almost certainly worse for those who are likely to be
fat acceptors - that is to say those who are immensely obese - than it
appears.
A woman 20 pounds above the Met Life chart weights is still quite
acceptable to many men. But add another 80 pounds and the pool of willing
dates drops precipitously.
Indeed I'd say that of those 40% willing to date an overweight woman about
3/4ths are only willing to date a woman 20-30 pounds above ideal weight.
Now you can say that's not a scientific number and you'd be right but it
matches my experience. A girl with a pretty face whose weight is
distributed nicely (doesn't lose her waist) will still have plenty of
options for about the first 25 pounds above that dreaded Met Life ideal.
It's girls like this that most guys are talking about when they say they
like a little meat on the bones. They are NOT saying they desire morbidly
obese bowling balls.
Once you get much above that pleasingly plump range things get ugly real
fast. Facial features become distorted by a layer of fat that spreads to
every part of the body. In most women the waist fills up with a layer of
blubber. Smooth skin transforms into a hideous cellulite-ridden hide. The
beautiful lines of the hourglass figure are overwhelmed by bloat, the
muscular structure loses all definition and limbs become swollen sausage
links.
At this point a woman will be viewed as completely asexual by most men. If
I had to put a number on it I'd say 95%+* of men find extreme obesity
either asexual or outright repulsive.
* Since this was written i have come up with a more specific estimate. see
below.
I would also note that fat men don't do that well either.
There is also this anecdotal evidence inadvertantly supplied by a pro-fat
poster:
deke.spambl...@generous.net wrote:
>Go to a PWP meeting or any singles dance. You will find
>that there are 4-12 times as many women as men. The ratios are *not*
>different
>when you go to a fat dance.
If fat women are in demand why aren't men flocking to these dances?
and:
wrmbldd...@aol.comxdamspam (WrmBldDomm) wrote:
>> wondering if anyone here has any experience with the plus size
>>dating services?
>I'd love to hear some feedback on this also... the few I checked are
>about 5 to 1, women to men, and are about 3x the cost of plain old
>vanilla services.
>Man, is this discrimination yet again, or is it just that these services
>have a smaller overall cust base, and thus must charge more to make up
>for the lack of volume?
- Message-ID: <19990822024747.05310.00002...@ng-fe1.aol.com>
If fat women are in demand why is the female/male ratio in 'plus size'
dating services 5/1?
There is also this study:
Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 1999 Jan 22;266(1415):211-8
Visual cues to female physical attractiveness.
Tovee MJ, Maisey DS, Emery JL, Cornelissen PL
Department of Psychology, Newcastle University,
Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK. m.j.to...@ncl.ac.uk
Evolutionary psychology suggests that a woman's sexual attractiveness is
based on cues of health and reproductive potential. In recent years,
research has focused on the ratio of the width of the waist to the width of
the hips (the waist-to-hip ratio (WHR). A low WHR (i.e. a curvaceous body)
is believed to correspond to the optimal fat distribution for high
fertility, and so this shape should be highly attractive. In this paper we
present evidence that weight scaled for height (the body mass index (BMI))
is the primary determinant of sexual attractiveness rather than WHR. BMI is
also strongly linked to health and reproductive potential. Furthermore, we
show how covariation of apparent BMI and WHR in previous studies led to the
overestimation of the importance of WHR in the perception of female
attractiveness. Finally, we show how visual cues, such as the perimeter-
area ratio (PAR), can provide an accurate and reliable index of an
individual's BMI and could be used by an observer to differentiate between
potential partners.
4. What sort of guys are Fat Admirer's (FAs - also known as fatty fuckers)?
We have this testimonial by one fat woman:
muhly...@aol.comnojunk (Muhlyssa) wrote:
This has been my experience only. It is not a reflection of anyone
specific other than me.
I have been fat my entire life. I have dated so-called Fat Admirers, but
never had a serious relationship with one. Most of the ones I have met are
one of two ways.
1)They just want to get laid and figure a fat girl is totally lonely and
despirate, therefore will sleep with them.
2)They get turned on by fat and the only thing that is important to them is
your size. It is size first, your mind, heart and soul later.
- Message-ID: <19990829211202.04629.00002...@ng-cg1.aol.com>
Please note that fat women are not above LYING about thier relationship
status to defend themselves on this issue. See for example:
Message-ID: <01befa70$ad202a00$086de...@fpm109-8.ucsd.edu>
In which one jill.wilker...@mciworld.com is caught in a big fat lie.
5. How many fat admirers are there in the United States?
In light of the fact that only 2-3% of the population is morbidly obese the
low turnout of men at fat events is very bad news for fat women. Presumably
the morbidly obese would be the prize catches for fatty fuckers. I've seen
fattys claim that 30-40% of men find obesity attractive. If that were the
case every morbidly obese woman would be turning down dozens of offers
every month, many from desirable men.
Looking at the male/female ratio in the pictures of fat events one can
extrapolate the fatty fucking population of the United States.
If 3% of american women are morbidly obese there are 4,350,000 of them.
Self reports have indicated a 4 to 1 female/male ratio at fat dances.
If that reflects the fatty fucker percentages in the general population
there are 1,087,500 fatty fucking men.
Which amounts to 0.0075 of the male population of the united states.
Doh!!!
6. But people love the Teletubbies (Porky Pig, Fred Flintstone, John Candy)
and they are fat. Doesn't this refute your whole point?
No.
Most people are not SEXUALLY ATTRACTED to the Teletubbies.
People may find various tubby characters amusing or charming but most of
them don't want to have sex with them. And that is the sort of attraction I
am talking about. The sort that is crucial to success in love and romance.
I would also note that even the cute cartoon fatties are generally SOMEWHAT
fat not grossly obese. I doubt half the hippos on this newsgroup could even
fit in a Teletubbies costume.
7. How fat are these people?
The average self reported weight of an internet fat acceptor is 325.57
pounds.
See Appendix A for details.
8. Fat acceptors who admit they are fat because they eat too much and
exercise too little:
Index:
Lazy: L - admits to exercising too little
Pig: P - admits to eating too much
I admit it--I probably
eat more than I should.
princes_char...@my-deja.com - P
- Message-ID: <7mfq18$nk...@nnrp1.deja.com>
Robin King <maplet...@worldnet.att.net> - P
- Message-ID: <378C4378.3...@worldnet.att.net>
"Rinn" <cath...@aloha.net> - LP
- Message-ID: <77p525$jk...@nuhou.aloha.net>
cockb...@homail.com (Aunt Fannie) - P
- Message-ID: <cockburn-1601990219180...@s23-pm42.snwestsac.campuscwix.net>
"Shannon Grimmett" <sgrim...@globalcenter.net> - P
- Message-ID: <789asq$42...@nnrp03.primenet.com>
sarahsi...@aol.comREMOVEME (SarahSidhe) - LP
- Message-ID: <19990208072635.16983.00001...@ng148.aol.com>
Mary <gte0...@acme.gatech.edu> - L
- Message-ID: <7r4p87$a4...@news-int.gatech.edu>
And my favorite pig of them all:
I've lost large amounts of weight myself in the past through diet
& exercise and every time the diet "failed me" it wasn't because it just
stopped working it was because I missed stuffing my face and feeling my
belly fill up.I know many of my fat brethren will say,"That's just you,
lots of fat folk have different medical reasons for being fat." To that
I say yes some folk probably do have the mystical glandular problems but
most of us grew wide because of consumption.
(snip)
Am I gonna change my gluttonous ways? Nah, too many fast
food joints round here depend on my business!
HD
p.s. I don't fear the future. My 500lb grandfather lived to be 77, maybe
I will too. Or if I croak tomorrow be sure to bury me in black, it's
slimming you know. :-)
HuugeD...@webtv.net
- Message-ID: <8413-38CF1E2F...@storefull-221.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
9. Isn't it possible to be fit and fat?
That depends what you mean by fit and what you mean by fat:
Subject: Re: Where is the anger?
Date: 09/28/1999
Author: Dr. Alexander Manette <105_North_To...@Bastille.gov>
The whole question of whether or not it is possible to be "fit and fat" is
really a matter of how you define the word "fitness". I think the best
definition is that used in the Cooper Institute mortality epidemiology (by
Stephan Blair, et. al.), since their results are the scientific evidence
most often cited by those in the popular press (Laura Fraser, Glenn Gaeser,
etc.) who claim that "fitness is more important than fatness". The Cooper
Institute definition is the only one that has ever been shown ot have any
positive association with longevity.
Fortunately, it is quite easy to measure how "fit" you are according to
their definition; all you need is a motorized treadmill with adjustable
incline control (which should be available at any good gym). Start the
treadmill out with a speed of 5.3 kilometers per hour (about 3.3 miles per
hour) and an incline of 0%. After the first minute, increase the incline
to 1%; increase it to 2% after the second minute and so on, until you have
been on for 25 minutes. After that point, increase the speed by about 0.2
miles per hour for ever minute until the test terminates. Keep doing this
until you can no longer keep going. Try to go all out before stopping
(assuming you are in good physical health, of course), but DO NOT cheat by
supporting your weight on the side rails or by holding on to the front bar
(a very common practice). Your fitness score will be the total number of
minutes you are able to stay on the treadmill under this protocol, and
about 17 minutes is the minimum you need in order to be considered fit.
This cutoff point for "fitness" is the most lenient one that has ever been
shown in published accounts to have a positive effect on longevity,
independent of BMI.
I would be very interested in seeing how many people here with very high
BMI's (above 40, say) are "fit" according to this criteria.
(end dr. manette)
As of this writing no one with a BMI over 40 has come forward claiming that
they can meet the Cooper study fitness standard.
10. How many people die due to obesity annually in the United States?
Approximately 280,000:
JAMA 1999 Oct 27;282(16):1530-8
Annual deaths attributable to obesity in the United States.
Allison DB, Fontaine KR, Manson JE, Stevens J, VanItallie TB
Obesity Research Center, St Luke's/Roosevelt Hospital Center, Columbia
University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, NY 10025, USA.
d...@columbia.edu
CONTEXT: Obesity is a major health problem in the United States, but the
number of obesity-attributable deaths has not been rigorously estimated.
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the number of deaths, annually, attributable to
obesity among US adults. DESIGN: Data from 5 prospective cohort studies
(the Alameda Community Health Study, the Framingham Heart Study, the
Tecumseh Community Health Study, the American Cancer Society Cancer
Prevention Study I, and the National Health and Nutrition Examination
Survey I Epidemiologic Follow-up Study) and 1 published study (the Nurses'
Health Study) in conjunction with 1991 national statistics on body mass
index distributions, population size, and overall deaths. SUBJECTS: Adults,
18 years or older in 1991, classified by body mass index (kg/m2) as
overweight (25-30), obese (30-35), and severely obese (>35). MAIN OUTCOME
MEASURE: Relative hazard ratio (HR) of death for obese or overweight
persons. RESULTS: The estimated number of annual deaths attributable to
obesity varied with the cohort used to calculate the HRs, but findings were
consistent overall. More than 80% of the estimated obesity-attributable
deaths occurred among individuals with a body mass index of more than 30
kg/m2. When HRs were estimated for all eligible subjects from all 6
studies, the mean estimate of deaths attributable to obesity in the United
States was 280184 (range, 236111-341153). Hazard ratios also were
calculated from data for nonsmokers or never-smokers only. When these HRs
were applied to the entire population (assuming the HR applied to all
individuals), the mean estimate for
obesity-attributable death was 324 940 (range, 262541-383410).
CONCLUSIONS:
The estimated number of annual deaths attributable to obesity among US
adults is approximately 280000 based on HRs from all subjects and 325000
based on HRs from only nonsmokers and never-smokers.
PMID: 10546692, UI: 20012183
11. Are fat women more likely to be mentally ill?
Yes:
Obes Res 1998 Sep;6(5):338-45
Psychiatric ill-health of women and its relationship to obesity and body
fat distribution.
Rosmond R, Bjorntorp P
Department of Heart and Lung Diseases, Sahlgrenska University Hospital,
Goteborg, Sweden.
OBJECTIVE: Abdominal obesity is associated with serious, prevalent
diseases. Previously, psychiatric symptoms and ill-health has been found in
this condition in men. The results of a similar study in women is reported
herein.
RESEARCH METHODS AND PROCEDURES: A cohort of 1464 women, aged 40 years and
recruited by systematic sampling, was examined (77.7% participation rate).
Items regarding use of anxiolytics, hypnotics, and antidepressive drugs
were registered, as well as symptoms of dyspepsia, sleeping disturbances,
melancholy, and degree of life satisfaction. Smoking and alcohol
consumption, as well as self-measured weight, height, waist, and hip
circumferences, were reported, from which body mass index [BMI; weight
(kg)/height2 (m2), kg/m2] and the waist/hip circumference ratio (WHR) were
calculated. RESULTS: In bivariate analyses, BMI was associated with use of
anxiolytics, antidepressive drugs, various sleeping disturbances, and a low
degree of life satisfaction. After controlling for the WHR, alcohol, and
tobacco use in multivariate analysis, the associations between BMI and use
of anxiolytics and sleeping disturbances remained significant. The WHR
correlated with dyspepsia, sleeping problems, and use of antidepressive
drugs. After adjustments for BMI, smoking, and alcohol, the relationship to
dyspepsia and antidepressants remained significant. DISCUSSION: The results
suggest that elevated BMI (obesity) and elevated WHR (central fat
distribution) are associated in different ways with symptoms of psychiatric
ill-health in women. Obesity alone shows no such relationships to
psychiatric ill-health in men, whereas central fat distribution shows
independent associations to all of the measured variables studied in this
report in women, suggesting gender differences in these associations.
12. Are fat people more likely to be losers?
Yes:
Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1986 Mar 1;292(6520):586-9
Prospective study of attainment of social class of severely obese subjects
in relation to parental social class, intelligence, and education.
Sonne-Holm S, Sorensen TI
Cross sectional population studies have shown that subjects who are
severely obese are of lower social class than comparable subjects who are
not obese. This may be ascribed to lower parental social class, poorer
education, and lower intelligence test scores of the obese subjects. In
this study based on 242 633 draftees appearing before the draft board in
Copenhagen between 1956 and 1977, 1144 extremely overweight men (body mass
index greater than or equal to 31 kg/m2) were compared with 2123 young men
randomly chosen from the remainder of the population. The two groups were
followed up for an average period of 12 X 5 years, after which time their
occupation was obtained from the National Population Register. Social class
was derived from a ranking of occupations based on prestige from 0
(unskilled, manual worker) to 7 (for example, judge, professor). Among the
obese subjects, only 300 (30%) out of 1006 attained a position above social
class 2, compared with 988 (51%) out of 1948 in the control group. At each
level of education and intelligence test score, as registered at the draft
board, the obese subjects still showed a significantly lower attainment of
social class than the controls. Inclusion of parental social class,
information which was available for part of the population, did not
eliminate the difference in attainment of social class. The results of this
study show that obese subjects not only suffer from a higher risk of
somatic diseases but have to live with a social handicap that is
independent of parental social class, intelligence, and education.
PMID: 3081178, UI: 86132523
13. Is obesity costly?
Yes:
Med Sci Sports Exerc 1999 Nov;31(11 Suppl):S663-7
Economic costs of obesity and inactivity.
Colditz GA
Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, and Harvard Medical
School, Boston, MA, USA. graham.cold...@channing.harvard.edu
PURPOSE: The purpose of this paper is to assess the economic costs of
inactivity (including those attributable to obesity). These costs represent
one summary of the public health impact of increasingly sedentary
populations in countries with established market economies. Components of
the costs of illness include direct costs resulting from treatment of
morbidity and indirect costs caused by lost productivity (work days lost)
and forgone earnings caused by premature mortality. METHODS: We searched
the Medline database for studies reporting the economic costs of obesity or
inactivity, or cost of illness. From the identified references those
relating to obesity or conditions attributable to obesity were reviewed.
Chronic conditions related to inactivity include coronary heart disease
(CHD), hypertension, Type II diabetes, colon cancer, depression and
anxiety, osteoporotic hip fractures, and also obesity. Increasing
adiposity, or obesity, is itself a direct cause of Type II diabetes,
hypertension, CHD, gallbladder disease, osteoarthritis and cancer of the
breast, colon, and endometrium. The most up-to-date estimates were
extracted. To estimate the proportion of disease that could be prevented by
eliminating inactivity or obesity we calculated the population-attributable
risk percent. Prevalence based cost of illness for the U.S. is in 1995
dollars. RESULTS: The direct costs of lack of physical activity, defined
conservatively as absence of leisure-time physical activity, are
approximately 24 billion dollars or 2.4% of the U.S. health care
expenditures. Direct costs for obesity defined as body mass index greater
than 30, in 1995 dollars, total 70 billion dollars.
These costs are independent of those resulting from lack of activity.
CONCLUSION: Overall, the direct costs of inactivity and obesity account for
some 9.4% of the national health care expenditures in the United States.
Inactivity, with its wide range of health consequences, represents a major
avoidable contribution to the costs of illness in the United States and
other countries with modern lifestyles that have replaced physical labor
with sedentary occupations and motorized transportation.
Estimated economic costs of obesity to U.S. business.
Thompson D, Edelsberg J, Kinsey KL, Oster G
Policy Analysis Inc., Brookline, MA 02146, USA.
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the economic costs of obesity to U.S. business.
METHODS: Standard epidemiologic methods for risk attribution and techniques
for ascertaining cost of illness were used to estimate obesity-attributable
expenditures on selected employee benefits, including health, life, and
disability insurance and paid sick leave by private-sector firms in the
U.S. in 1994. Data were obtained from a variety of secondary sources,
including the National Health Interview Survey, reports from the Bureau of
Labor Statistics and other federal agencies, and the published literature.
Attention was focused on employees between the ages of 25 and 64 years who
were classified according to body mass index (BMI) as "nonobese" (BMI < 25
kg/m2), "mildly obese" (BMI = 25-28.9 kg/m2), or "moderately to severely
obese" (BMI > or = 29 kg/m2).
RESULTS: The cost of obesity to U.S. business in 1994 was estimated to
total $12.7 billion, including $2.6 billion as a result of mild obesity and
$10.1 billion due to moderate to severe obesity. Health insurance
expenditures constituted $7.7 billion of the total amount, representing 43%
of all spending by U.S. business on coronary heart disease, hypertension,
type 2 diabetes, hypercholesterolemia, stroke, gallbladder disease,
osteoarthritis of the knee, and endometrial cancer. Obesity-attributable
business expenditures on paid sick leave, life insurance, and disability
insurance amounted to $2.4 billion, $1.8 billion, and $800 million,
respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The health-related economic cost of obesity to
U.S. business is substantial, representing approximately 5% of total
medical care costs. Further research is needed to determine the cost-
effectiveness of worksite weight management programs and of other efforts
to reduce the prevalence of obesity in the U.S. workforce.
14. Being fat sucks testimonials:
>Well, I'm 52, 5'2", 375 or so, and life is hell for me. I can barely
>get around and spend most of my days in bed. I think part of the
>problem is that I continued to gain weight at a time in my life
>when I shouldn't have. I have no energy, my legs and feet hurt if
>I stand for any length of time, and I'm afraid that if I don't
>lose some weight I will soon be almost totally incapacitated. A
>few weeks ago I was sick and lost maybe 5 lbs and just that bit
>made my legs feel better. I take medication for high blood pressure,
>which didn't develop until I passed the 250 lb. mark.
- bbw <b...@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <35B9C2C2.ABB9B...@mindspring.com>
Jennifer Pomerance <a...@mindspring.com>
Has 'Severe cartilage damage in both knees.'
- Message-ID: <36A7F2FC.3...@mindspring.com>
Graymalkin <marchp...@home.com>
'diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes a month ago', suffers from CFIDS
- Feb 29 2000
In the meantime I have difficulty walking long distances. I use a cane
now,and it helps a lot for short distances. I have arthritis in my knees,
and am supersized.
- mabra...@aol.com (Mary Ann)
Date: 24 Feb 2000 07:05:36 -0700
someone wrote:
>You said above that you
>used to walk all over town.
Yes, indeed. "used to" being the key phrase. That was 4 years before I got
the plantar fasciitis.
- s...@nickel.cs.stir.ac.uk (Sharon Curtis)
Date: 06 Oct 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <7tf82n$md...@nickel.cs.stir.ac.uk>
15. Have any internet fat acceptors dropped dead early?
Yes.
Newsgroups: soc.support.fat-acceptance
Subject: IRC: MrBundle Passed Away
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 02:09:00 -0700
Rich Reynolds (MrBundle on the Undernet) died September 2nd, 1998 after
a long illness. He was only 40. Rich was a NAAFA member for several
years.
He loved fat women. He thought of himself as a true FA. Confined to
bed due to his illness, he spent hours listening to and encouraging many
fat women on the Undernet, on the #BBW channel. He wanted them to see their
true beauty.
He contributed in his own way to the size acceptance movement.
We met through a personal ad in Dimensions back in 1991.
We were together ever since. His death is a great loss both to those who
knew and loved him in person -and those who knew and loved him online.
- Message-ID: <3608BAAC.4...@rochester.infi.net>
Joy Hilbert, a ssfa regular, died in 1999. She was 40 years old.
In other news Leslie Dimaggio, NAAFA board member, died on May 22, 2001.
For some reason NAAFA did not mention her age in the official press
release...
16. Is being fat sinful?
Pr 23:1,2 and 3:
When you sit to dine with a ruler,
note well what (or who) is before you,
and put a knife to your throat
if you are given to gluttony.
Do not crave his delicacies,
for that food is deceptive.
Pr 28:7: He who keeps the law is a discerning son,
but a companion of gluttons disgraces his father.
Phillipians 3:19: "Appetite is their god, and they glory in their shame;
their minds are set upon the things of this world."
I'm not religious but the religious prohibitions against extreme and self
destructive indulgence would certainly apply to all but the few (alleged)
fat people who got that way without overeating.
17. Are fat people really responsible for being fat?
Yes.
For example:
Katrina Rowe <kmrow...@athena.louisville.edu> wrote:
>You know, it's the God's honest truth. I do not eat what it is that
>people like you claim I must be eating to weigh my 400 lbs. You know
>what else? It doesn't matter spit if I did. It has nothing to do with
>how good a person I am and everything to do with how small your mind is.
As a matter of fact it has everything to do with how weak and foolish and
irresponsible a person you are and how honest and perceptive I am.
Most people can see what I am telling you but they are too 'kind' to tell
you about it.
Here's the bottom line:
A healthy weight for someone your height (5'10") is between 130-160 pounds.
160 would give you a BMI of about 23. Your actual BMI is 58.2 (!)
You are 245 pounds above your maximum healthy weight. You weigh more than
double what you should.
In order to reach such gargantuan size you had to consume (at least)
857,500 more calories than you burned.
If you did this at a rate of 100 extra calories a day it would have taken
you 8575 days. In other words: 23.5 YEARS!
OK. So if you ate 200 calories more than you burn each day it would have
taken you 11.75 years to gain all that weight.
But if you ate 600 calories more than you burn each day it would have taken
a little less than four years.
It does not matter HOW you ended up eating all of that extra food. It only
matters that you DID. Whether it was in the form of cheesy poofs and snacky
cakes or in the form of tofu dip and carrot juice it still ends up in the
same place - hanging off your grotesque sickening carcass.
To reach that weight you had to spend either a very long time being just a
little bit irresponsible or a shorter time being outrageously irresponsible
in your eating habits.
You stand accused not by the Tokeman but by the laws of physics.
18. Anti fat quotes:
To lengthen thy life, lessen thy meals.
- Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanac.
Wise temperance of the stomach is a door to all the virtues. Restrain the
stomach, and you will enter Paradise. But if you please and pamper your
stomach, you will hurl yourself over the precipice of bodily impurity, into
the fire of wrath and fury, you will coarsen and darken your mind, and in
this way you will ruin your powers of attention and self-control, your
sobriety and vigilance.
- Bishop Ignatius Brianchaninov
Fat People
Approach them warily. Thier weight is proof of thier unhappiness, and if
you spend too much time in thier company, they will lead you into debt or
psychoanalysis. The U.S. Army never promotes an overweight officer to the
rank of general.
- Lewis Lapham, Lapham's Rules of Influence
19. Will being fat shorten your life?
Yes.
According to actuarial data for each pound you rise above your ideal
weight, you'll live 34 days less. Or, for each percent you're over your
average weight, you can expect to lose 52 days. If you're 45 or more
percent overweight, expect to lose 73 days for each percent.
If the 34 day figure is accurate the many people on this newsgroup who are
100 pounds overweight are likely to lose nine whole years of life. Assuming
an average lifespan of 76 years that means a loss of 11% of your life!
The many who are 200 pounds overweight might lose 18 years. That is a loss
of about 23%!
20. But I heard that being heavier is really better than being extremely
thin? Aren't really thin people just as bad as morbidly obese ones?
No.
The studies that claim this measured weight at the time of death. As many
diseases - AIDS for example - cause weight loss before death this gives a
distorted picture of what is the cause and what is the effect. After all
AIDS patients aren't killed by being thin they're killed by immune system
failure brought about by a virus.
Some might claim that this is the same as fat people claiming that being
fat doesn't kill people, heart disease does.
But the difference is this: Being thin does not put you at greater risk of
getting cancer or AIDS while being fat DOES put you at greater risk of
having a heart attack, developing diabetes and many other terrible health
problems.
And thin people overall do live longer according to insurance company
studies which followed thousands of people.
21. What health risks do fat people face?
Clin Cornerstone 1999;2(3):17-31
Obesity and its comorbid conditions.
Khaodhiar L, McCowen KC, Blackburn GL
Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard
Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Obese patients are at an increased risk for developing many medical
problems, including
insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes mellitus,
hypertension, dyslipidemia, cardiovascular disease, stroke, sleep apnea,
gallbladder disease, hyperuricemia and gout, and osteoarthritis. Certain
cancers are also associated with obesity, including colorectal and prostate
cancer in men and endometrial, breast, and gallbladder cancer in women (1-
6). Excess body weight is also associated with substantial increases in
mortality from all causes, in particular, cardiovascular disease. More than
5% of the national health expenditure in the United States is directed at
medical costs associated with obesity (7). In addition, certain psychologic
problems, including binge-eating disorder and depression, are more common
among obese persons than they are in the general population (8.9). Finally,
obese individuals may suffer from social stigmatization and discrimination,
and severely obese people may experience greater risk of impaired
psychosocial and physical functioning, causing a negative impact on their
quality of life (10).
PMID: 10696282, UI: 20161272
22. So OK, I agree being fat sucks. So what do I do about it?
Eat less.
Exercise more.
Exercise alone is usually not enough.
Eliminate sugar. Sugar is packed with calories. Eat foods with low caloric
density - fruits and vegetables are good for this.
Eliminate deep fried foods.
Eliminate snacks. One candy bar can have as many calories as an entire
meal. And it will not fill you up.
Calories are what matters. Fad diets are worthless. The ones that work ARE
based on caloric reduction. And the nutty 'eat nothing but grapefruit'
aspects are just there to make it 'different' and sell books.
Do not keep fattening foods around the house.
Avoid eating at restaurants. Most restaurant food is fattening.
Get a good reference book with calorie information and keep a calorie count
log.
Weigh yourself, stick to your plan for two weeks, weigh yourself again.
If you weigh less stick with the plan. Don't worry if you're losing slowly
so long as you're losing something. 1 or 2 pounds a week is very
reasonable. Check weight again in another two weeks.
If you plateau you will have to reduce food intake or increase energy
output (exercise)
Lifting weights is an excellent way to increase your basic calorie burning
rate.
For maximum effectiveness combine reduced calories, aerobics and weight
training.
23. Isn't it true that diets don't work?
No.
Gina Marie Wade wrote:
> I *DO* object to being told that I am lying when I tell my physician
> that I walk a lot, due to not having a car, and that I don't eat much
> salt and avoid fried foods and I prefer vegetables to dessert, even
> though I do not measure my foods and therefore don't "diet."
I'd never tell anyone that they're lying, although I might be thinking
it. I understand why this upsets you, but please try to understand the
basis of their (and my) scepticism. Every time that obese people are
put into a controlled environment (such as an inpatient or research
setting) and their food intake is restricted to 1200-1800 calories per
day (CPD), they lose weight - without exception. Of course, once they
leave the controlled environment they usually gain the weight back very
quickly. There are numerous stories of patients who are put on 1500 CPD
free-living diets when they leave the 1200 CPD program and still gain
rapidly, even though they swear that they are following the maintainence
program strictly. However, in every reported instance in which patients
who are finished with the 1200 CPD program are moved to a 1500 CPD
controlled environment instead of a 1500 CPD free-living one, they
continue to lose weight (just not as fast), despite the fact that they
are probably less physically active in the controlled environment.
Furthermore, in every instance (and there have probably been hundreds by
now) where "problem dieters" (that is, individuals who self-report a
1200-1800 CPD diet but who still are not losing weight) have had their
energy expenditure monitored by doubly labeled water, it has been found
that their actual energy expenditure is much higher than their
self-reported caloric intake - sometimes as much as 2-3 times higher.
So ask yourself, in the face of all of this evidence, which is the more
reasonable conclusion when faced with a patient who tells you that he or
she "trys to eat healthy" and "trys to exercise whenever I can" but is
still massively obese: That he or she is that rare individual,
undetected in any rigorous experiment up till now, whose phsyiology and
biochemistry defies the laws of thermodynamics; or that the phrases
"trys to eat healthy" and "trys to exercise whenever I can" give most
people enough psychological lattitude to eat more and make poorer food
choices than they consciously realize and to exercise less regularly and
less intensely than they probably should?
"C. Miller" <cjmil...@DEATHTSPAM.ucsd.edu>
- Message-ID: <36A55B94.7...@DEATHTSPAM.ucsd.edu>
All evidence indicates that diets based on reducing caloric intake work if
you follow them.
24. But I eat very little fat and yet I don't lose weight. How do you
explain that?
Eating less fat doesn't cause weight loss, eating less calories does:
Am J Health Promot 1994 Jul-Aug;8(6):442-8
The effects of different percentages of dietary fat intake, exercise, and
calorie restriction on body composition and body weight in obese females.
Powell JJ, Tucker L, Fisher AG, Wilcox K
Castleview Hospital, Price, Utah.
PURPOSE. The goal of this study was to determine the effect of varying the
amount of dietary fat, while holding calories at 1,200 kcals/day, on body
weight and percent body fat in 35 obese women. DESIGN. A pretest, midtest,
posttest experimental design was employed, and subjects were randomly
divided into one of four dietary fat groups, with 10%, 20%, 30%, or 40% of
caloric intake as dietary fat. INTERVENTION. Subjects consumed 1,200
kcals/day and a specified percentage of total energy as fat, depending on
their dietary group. Protein was held constant at 20%. All subjects engaged
in a five day/week walking program. SETTING. Participants were recruited
from the general community using newspaper advertisements. SUBJECTS.
Thirty-five obese women 25 to 45 years of age (means=38 +/- 4.97) served as
subjects. All were at least 20% above ideal weight and 30% to 52% body fat.
MEASURES. Percent body fat, body weight, and anthropomorphic measurements
were taken at baseline, six and 12 weeks. Dietary intake was recorded daily
by each subject, and exercise walking logs were maintained by each
participant. RESULTS. All subjects lost body weight and body fat; however,
there were no significant differences in the rate or amount of body weight
or percent body fat lost across the four groups during the intervention.
CONCLUSIONS. It appears that during calorie restriction and exercise for 12
weeks, percent of calories derived from dietary fats does not influence
loss of body weight or percent body fat in adult obese women.
PMID: 10161100, UI: 94909844
25. But I eat very little. Less than 800 calories a day. Really. So how do
you explain that?
You are almost certainly undercounting how many calories you really eat:
I personally have not studied anyone, but I have read the scientific
literature written by those who have (and you can too, if you are really
interested). In every instance where obese individuals without
identifiable pathology have been studied in rigorous experimental
protocols it has been found that they need a good deal more than 600
Kcals a day to maintain body weight. These results do not prove that
obese individuals without identifiable pathology who can maintain body
weight on 600 Kcal per day do not exist, but they do suggest that such
individuals must be pretty rare and that many people who think they fall
into that catagory in fact do not. If after being brutally honest with
yourself about food consumption and activity level you really think that
you or your father might actually be such a person, I urge you to
immediately contact the nearest university or university afilliated
hospital that has a metabolic research unit. You will be treated with a
certain amount of scepticism at first, but I can guarantee that if you
turn out to be the genuine article you will be cherished as a treasure
beyond value, since tenure and eventual appointment as a full professor
will be certain for the lucky researcher who gets to publish
experimental proof of your body's ability to violate the laws of
physiology and thermodynamics.
- "C. Miller" <cjmil...@SPAMISBAD.ucsd.edu>
- Message-ID: <36C20249.7...@SPAMISBAD.ucsd.edu>
26. Just how much do you have to eat to maintain extreme obesity?
Int J Eat Disord 1995 Jan;17(1):51-7
Physical activity, total energy expenditure, and food intake in grossly
obese and normal weight women.
Platte P, Pirke KM, Wade SE, Trimborn P, Fichter MM
Department of Psychoendocrinology, University of Trier, Germany.
The doubly labeled water method was used to measure average daily total
energy expenditure (TEE) in 10 healthy normal weight women classified as
unrestrained eaters and in 10 grossly obese women. The body mass index was
20.0 +/- 1.3 kg/m2 in the control group and 37.4 +/- 8.1 kg/m2 for the
obese group. TEE was measured over a 2-week period. TEE was 2,357 +/- 504
kcal/day for the controls and 3,708 +/- 367 kcal/day for the obese group
during a cognitive-behavioral treatment.
Translating that into simple terms, the normal weight women burned between
1853 and 2861 calories a day while the obese women burned between 3341 and
4075 (!) calories daily.
I should note that the average overweight internet fat acceptor who has
provided height and weight data has a bmi over 40 and so must burn even
more calories to maintain thier weight.
27. But I tried exercising and I don't lose weight? Doesn't this prove I am
meant to be fat?
No.
What most people who exercise fail to realize is just how many calories a
pound of fat contains and just how few calories exercise burns when
compared to that immense caloric surplus that must be burned off.
On average a pound of fat contains 3500 calories.
If someone is 100 pounds overweight they have 350,000 calories to burn to
get to a healthy weight.
If they do not reduce thier caloric intake they will have to do it the hard
way - by increasing caloric output through exercise.
Here are some numbers for various exercise machines according to an AMA
study:
Machine: Calories burned per hour:
Stationary bicycle: 498
Stationary bicycle with arm rower: 509
Cross Country Ski Machine: 595
Rower: 606
Stair machine: 627
Treadmill: 700
And here is how long you would have to use each machine to burn off 100
pounds of fat:
Machine: Hours to burn off 100 pounds:
Stationary bicycle: 702.8
Stationary bicycle with arm rower: 687.6
Cross Country Ski Machine: 588.2
Rower: 577.5
Stair machine: 558.2
Treadmill: 500.0
And just for reference here is how long you would have to use each machine
to burn off ONE pound of fat:
Machine: Hours to burn off 1 pound:
Stationary bicycle: 7.02
Stationary bicycle with arm rower: 6.87
Cross Country Ski Machine: 5.88
Rower: 5.77
Stair machine: 5.58
Treadmill: 5.00
So you see that it takes more than a little bit of being 'quite active' to
make a real dent in morbid obesity.
Now I can well imagine that many out there are taking this as a
confirmation that it is indeed impossible to lose weight. Or that it is not
worth it.
And the above numbers do present a rather daunting picture for anyone who
is seriously overweight.
But fortunately they are only part of the story.
Because you can also burn off fat by reducing caloric intake. Also known as
eating less.
Each day most people's bodies will burn off well over 1500 calories just by
being alive. And before people chime in and claim they have a very special
extra low metabolism they should know that studies of fat people show that
thier metabolisms are on average SOMEWHAT HIGHER than thin people's! This
is no surprise as all that fat takes a lot of muscle to move around and
muscle burns calories.
While metabolism will drop TEMPORARILY due to caloric reduction it can only
drop so much. One study showed a 17% drop for those on ultra-calorie
restricted diets. The only option at that point is to start using up those
massive fuel reserves. And that means burning fat.
If you can manage a caloric deficit of 600 daily, 300 due to eating less
calories and 300 from forty five minutes of mild exercise, you will lose
about a pound and a half a week.
If all you do is go on a few extra walks or swim a few laps you are likely
to lose so little weight that it won't show on the scale and you'll give up
again and go around claiming exercise doesn't work.
28. How can you say I eat too much when I've been the same weight for
years?
Let's say one day a person of normal weight (bmi 20-24 or so) decides to
start eating around 3500 calories daily, perhaps by adding a super size
bacon double cheeseburger meal to thier dietary routine. Assuming thier
normal metabolism was around 2500 a day at first they will gain 2 pounds
a week.1 However as they pack on the pounds this additional body mass will
itself require additional fuel just to maintain and additional bodily
infrastructure (muscle mass) to support it. This won't make a lot of
difference for the first 10, 20, or 30 pounds. But by around 50 it will
have added something like 350 calories daily to his caloric requirement.
If our subject keeps swilling at the same pace he will hit a plateau at
around 150 pounds above his initial weight when his vast bulk's caloric
needs catch up with his prodigious eating abilities.
Incidentally, while this is a rough calculation the metabolic ward
comparisons between normal weight and grossly obese subjects back
up the basic premise that extremely fat people require a lot more food
to maintain the same weight than do height-weight proportionate people.
So unless a fat person is presently losing weight the fact that they are
fat is evidence of an ongoing overeating problem.
1. Actually metabolism tends to increase along with food intake, meaning
that the obese are eating even more than one might suspect from the
basic calculations. In other words even before overeating results in
additional fat or muscle the body will tend to 'rev up' in response to the
caloric feast.
But even without factoring that in it's obvious that we're talkin about
some serious eating.
29. What is this "Morbid Obesity" you keep talking about?
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the World Health Organization
(WHO) have formed guidelines for the identification, evaluation, and
treatment of obesity in adults. These guidelines are based on BMI and are
separated into four categories, ranging from overweight to obesity class 3.
BMI 25-29.9: Overweight
BMI 30-34.9: Obesity class 1
BMI 35-39.9: Obesity class 2
BMI 40 and above: Obesity class 3 AKA Morbid Obesity
30. How do I calculate my BMI?
Multiply your weight in pounds by 705.
Divide this by your height in inches.
Divide this again by your height in inches.
That's all there is to it.
Or you can find a BMI calculator on the web by typing "BMI Calculator" into
your favorite search engine.
SSFA information 
Linear Mode
