Does someone's weight affect your perception of them?

Oh, that's not what I meant. I simply meant it's difficult to quantify how much of a person's physiological makeup is responsible for their weight as opposed to just their lifestyle. One reason why this is so difficult is because of the nebulous nature of psychosomatic dynamics. Basically, there are so many variables that could plausibly impact a person's weight, that quantifying the degree to which personal choice and lifestyle are responsible for it can be very problematic.

Take me, for instance. I've basically been sitting on my ass reading books and surfing the web for the past three years. I barely exercise and I eat a lot, and I don't eat particularly healthy either, but I've gained barely any weight during that time. Basically, I haven't had to lift a finger in order to maintain a healthy weight. Conversely, a person who isn't blessed with my genetic makeup might be overweight, but it's entirely possible that they exercise regularly and eat relatively healthy. If you were to judge us by our weight, you would wrongly infer that I take more pride in my personal health and such, when the reality is that I'm just blessed with skinny person genes.

 

doctors tend to disagree.

the cardiovascular benefits of walking are always referred to in the articles cited in medical journals, as are the numerous other benefits including decreasing the risk of osteoporosis.

walking is also effective in countering deprssion just as other exercise is.
if you are walking on terrains which include going uphill its as good as a a decent workout.

for someone who wants to get fit but doesn't want to go to the gym with all those perfect bodies, a walk around the block every day after work is the best way to make a start.

 

Thank you for stating this. I have tons of friends just like you in that regard. That is what I was trying to get across as well.

 

That's where the health impact comes into play. As a naturally skinny person, you may not be healthy, but you're not likely to suffer the negative affects of obesity. So even if the other person isn't genetically blessed, they should realize the health effects that their obesity can have.

 

When I talk about fitness and working out you seem to envision a 24/7 Globo gym with a bunch of jersey shore types. There are plenty of ways to excercise without stepping foot into a gym. There are also plenty of people who lift weights for their health and performance without being vain.

 

you don't need to underestimate the benefits of walking - which is free, requires no special equipment - and anyone (unless they are mobility impaired) can engage in.

I have also mentioned other incidental exercise as well.

keeping fit should just be part of what we do naturally. I have no objection to people wanting to further enhance their fitness, but it isn't all either/or.

the fittest people I ever met have never been near a gym and wouldn't know an exercise routine if they fell over one. They just had active lifestyles.

its not regular exercise routines that kept most of the population within a better weight range before the age of television and computers, it was just normal everyday activity and eating less crap.

 

I have nothing against walking. My issue is that I constantly see overweight people (and skinny ones) who claim that nothing works for them because they excercise everyday. I inquire about this excercise and it turns out all they do is walk 1 mile each way to work. Humans are designed to walk long distances. Walking 2 miles a day at a slow pace isn't going to push your body at all. If these same people did something more intensive a few times a week they could get dramatically better results.

The fittest people I have ever met used a combination of traditional weight lifting with a whole blend of "natural" excercises like pack runs, swimming, rock climbing, and high intensity interval training. These were truly elite guys whos lives literally depended on their fitness level.

 

The links I have posted referred to "brisk walking".

perhaps I should have made it clear I meant walking, not ambling ... although having said that there is one gentleman I know, who for health reasons was tiold by his doctor he needed to do something. He now uses public transport/walking combined - and doesn't pick up a coffee and pastry in the morning, but has a bottle of water instead.

from the bus to his office is a ten minute walk for me - he covers it in about 12 minutes now (down from 15 minutes). He told me from home to the bus takes him about 5 minutes. he also has a short walk at lunch time, and is eating more sensibly.

He isn't half the man he used to be, but his girth has diminished noticably over a 6 month period.

most of the really fit people I know haven't engaged in activities like that ... the fittest person I have ever known was a professional diver who loved surfing.

 

Not Uncle Ferd...

... he says fat girls need luvin' too.

 

That's certainly true, but would it be fair to judge our respective work ethics or characters on that basis? Like I said, if our weight were the only consideration, you might infer that I was the harder worker or the one with the better character, and no doubt you would be right, but that is only because I am so unique and awesome. In other circumstances, where the skinny person does not possess my awesomeness, you would likely be incorrect in your assessment...

That said, you certainly do make a point about weight in general. Overweight individuals should make every effort to get healthier and adequate exercise and good diet are the best way to achieve that.

 

"I'll be sorry?" Awww, what'cha gonna do? Report me? Go for it, skippy.

According to you, but we've already established that your position isn't one with a lot of reading under its belt, based on your ignorant concept that a story "isn't much of one" simply because "people already know how it ends." That's a totally idiotic statement and argument and no well-read individual would ever make that kind of an asinine false analogy. That much is clear.

Of course you would, but that would simply be Freudian projection at its worst.

You characterize Hitler's insanity as a "character flaw?" To even entertain the notion of exterminating an entire race in a brutal and systematic fashion comes from more than just "a character flaw." Is your position that of a closet-Nazi or something--trying to simplify and perhaps "tone down" Hitler's destructive lunacy? How droll.

 

So is anorexia, so is bullimia, so is alcoholism, so is sex addiction, etc. The list goes on. Do you feel the same way about people who are deathly thin because they refuse to eat, people who are always drunk, people who find it difficult to go a few hours without "getting off?" Or does the crux of your position just boil down a personal and shallow distaste for how "fat people" look? I'd love to see an answer for that question, because if your position is consistent about all choices which result in addictions, then it's actually a logical and valid position.

 

I wouldn't have any idea before you elect to clarify, sorry for any inconvenience.

It was a prediction, not a threat. In any case, I could hardly do you more harm than you've already done to yourself.

Reading is hardly necessary for the apprehension of a self-evident truth, hth.

Indeed it would if it were not true...but of course we're not living in that universe.

No, I characterize it as a manifestation thereof. You're welcome.

You certainly are, however unintentionally.

 

Oh of course, I've caused myself a great deal of harm, haven't I? You act as if this anonymous and public political forum has some sort of significant bearing on real world feelings. Newsflash: it doesn't, or at least it shouldn't. Even if people viewed me differently for my posts on here, I really couldn't care less. I can't help it if you are greatly affected or "harmed" by the outcomes of your discussions on forums such as this.

I agree, but you were the one who made the stupid false analogy to begin with.

It isn't true. And your ad hominem attack against me is a prime example of Freudian projection.

Sorry, but that doesn't match with your own previous words.

So you're going to play the infantile schoolyard game of "I know you are, but what am I?" How revealing.

 

You probably did yourself most of the harm before you ever heard of me. In any case, your conduct here certainly hasn't done you any good.

You have me confused with someone else.

I don't know who the hell you think you're kidding.

That's a perceptual problem on your end.

Anyway, this is getting to be kind of a bore, so if you will excuse me...

 

Yes, my reputation is just total crap and yours is just so incredibly good. I guess that explains the quandary of why you have 1800 more posts than I do and less than a third of my reputation here. How droll. I don't even care, but you're the one making the concept of who thinks what about other people on the internet into such a big deal. As for my conduct, pointless insults/hostility begets itself. Had you not responded in such a childishly condescending manner to my original post which just included my own thoughts and opinions, none of this exchange would have happened. I don't take crap from people on the internet who think they're better than everyone else and treat others as such. So my conduct in this thread regarding my responses to you was totally justified.

No I don't, you made the false analogy that "it's not much of a story if everyone already knows how it ends." That was your quote. I can go back and find the post number if you'd like, shouldn't be too difficult. But you compared a self-evident statement to a story which has already been read. That was your foolish comparison, not mine. I just pointed out how foolish it was.

I don't know why you even think it matters. You think I give two (*)(*)(*)(*)s about what you think of me? Not really, I'm just enjoying this exchange because it's quite hilarious that you found the need to make such hostile little posts and then dishonestly claim they were not hostile.

Please do, go derail a different thread and insult people by telling them that their "internet reputation" is on the line. Ha ha! Just do me a favor and link me to the next discussion you attempt to interject your pointless opinions into, because I can always use a good laugh.

 

I have always held the belief that there is no such thing as addiction. If you are too skinny, eat. If you are too fat, diet. If you smoke, stop smoking. Simple as that.

 

With respect Makedde, that is a simplistic, and somewhat judgmental approach. I am slightly built (an euphemism for a bit skinny) and no matter how much I eat (and I eat a lot), and how much sport I play, I do not get significantly heavier. I think one's metabolism has some effect on the outcome.

To address the questions put in the poll, - I can honestly say that I do not think of the shape or weight of my friends, but I must also be honest enough to confess that I would not choose to go to bed with a dysmorphically overweight chick. But that works both ways, and I guess there are lots of chicks who would not want to go to bed with someone built like me.

As a society, we put far to much store on an impossible standard of facial features and body image - and nobody is worse in that respect than us teens. Like a couple of zits (which most girls would not even notice) on an important date, and your life is ruined. So don't judge people on whether they are fat or skinny (or have zits,) judge them on how nice, or otherwise, they are to you and everyone else. I am not moralising here, I am just being practical - I would not like to be judged by those things, so I try not to do the same. I does make life easier and more pleasant.

Per example - at the interschool gigs (which we had to attend) I would often ask a plain looking or slightly tubby chick - who was usually just sitting, looking on - to dance. Their smiles were awesome, and I usually enjoyed their company. Like it's not like I was expecting them to have my babies - I might not even ever see them again.

 

Fat girls need loving too.

 

It shouldn't be acceptable for ANYONE to be overweight. It's an unnecessary cost to the healthcare system and it's totally avoidable.

 

Addiction is very real and a medical condition. The problem only comes in when it is over diagnosed or the diagnosis is abused. Most fat people are NOT "addicted" to food.

 

That's debatable. Here's a study which shows that the more overweight someone is, the more difficult it is for them--having to do with actual brain chemistry--to eat smaller portions:

http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2007/March/07030701.asp

This line of research indicates that the sweeping epidemic of American obesity--while a choice at first--becomes something that typical run of the mill willpower won't even work against efficiently. According to that study, it all boils down to brain chemistry, but it certainly can't be dismissed anymore than any other addiction. Granted, like I already made clear, the choice to initially start down the path of an addiction is still present (just like any other addiction). However, claims that this addiction is "less legitimate or valid" and "it isn't really an addiction for the most part" are simply not true. Here's an interesting segment from 60 minutes about the properties of sugar, high fructose corn syrup, etc. The segment demonstrates that sugar intake stimulates the brain with a pleasure sensation similar in intensity to that of cocaine and also talks about its harmful effects, including severely increased risk for diabetes, high cholesterol, heart disease, and even cancer:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7403942n&tag=contentBody;storyMediaBox

 

Then why can't they stop eating?

 

For the same reason that a long-term smoker can't just "stop smoking" in a day and for the same reason that someone with anorexia won't be willing to just "start eating" to help themselves, for the same reason that someone who gets high on cocaine won't be able to just "give it up right away" if they decide they no longer wish to do it, for the same reason that an alcoholic would find it incredibly difficult to just "stop drinking." Vilifying obesity as an "illegitimate addiction" or just "not an addiction" is simply not an accurate assessment and it will not solve the growing epidemic in this country. Medical research, therapy, psychiatric assistance, etc. will, just like it helps with all other cases of any kind of addictive behavior or substance.

 

Why should I, as a taxpayer, have to pay for these fat people to have medical treatment and therapy to lose weight?