Took a little break from the internet and touched some grass and it was great. Wander back in here after my hiatus and what do I find? Just a thread with a bunch of fatphobia.
Cute.
For a community that is incredibly careful about protecting its users from the -phobias and the -isms, there sure is a hell of a lot of unchecked fatphobia here basically any time fatness gets brought up.
Itās something Iāve noticed on the left in general as well. The leftist org Iām in has almost no fat people in it and something tells me thatās not because there arenāt any fat leftists out there.
Fatphobia is rooted in anti-Blackness and ableism.
Iād highly recommend the āMaintenance Phaseā podcast with Michael Hobbes and Aubrey Gordon, as well as Aubrey Gordonās books āWhat We Donāt Talk About When We Talk About Fatā and āYou Just Need To Lose Weight.ā
TL;DR: Thereās mounting evidence that anti-fat bias in medicine is more to blame for poor medical outcomes in fat people rather than just the fat itself.
Diet and exercise donāt result in long-term weight loss for something like 95% of people. As a leftist, are you really gonna sit here and blame this on individual choices rather than systemic issues? Are you really gonna try to convince us that 95% of people are just lacking willpower?
Please note that this thread is not an invitation to convince me Iām wrong or share your own personal anecdotal story of successful long-term weight loss with the implication that others can do it because you did it. This post is a request that any thin person (or thin-adjacent person) reading this who wants to argue about how being fat is bad for your health do some research and some self-crit. This post is a request that this community rethink the way it engages with discussions about fatness, diet, fatphobia, and anti-fat bias.
Anti-fat bias literally kills people.
How does one explain body-builders, who calculate very closely their intake and burning of calories (as well as nutrients)? Thatās not just āclose enough to be useful,ā is it?
I understand that CICO isnāt useful when applied to a social, biological, or psychological situation in which CICO isnt practical or desired or such. It seems to me this discussion is very clearly a case like āof course water is just protons, neutrons, and electrons pushed together with forces in a shapeā to explain waterās purpose in cellular reproduction. Itās technically correct (itās absolutely true that these basic components are what makes it up), but their interactions and forces between them cause emergent properties which need to be dealt with in chemical and biological terms.
This same thing feels like why this discussion always goes badly: of course CICO is real, because 2nd law of thermodynamics is a law for humans too. But of course itās not useful to discuss lifestyles, desires, appetites, and complex activities. If you can spend lots of time tracking it all really well, and not allowing any externalalities to grow, it is useful. But thatās not a useful solution applied to healthcare on any sociological scale. And itās not useful when thereās no āsolutionā wanted or needed.
I am not sure honestly how to have any sort of proof about the affect of fatness on other health aspects, or whether there is. Scientifically, it seems almost impossible to me. What does that proof even look like? Major comparisons of health outcomes taking only BMI into account? Finding the bias against fatness separately and taking it into account? But then it will be discovered that health indicators are based on studies of skinny people, so the indicators need re-evaluing, and further down this chain. This cycle is where we are lost and people are talking past one another. Solution to this? More focus on health study funding and diversity in it/remove capitalist incentive structures which always want to change everyone. Then see how the health indicators are looking.
Anyways, this ended up not just being a reply to you, but my take on the whole situation. Sorry for that. The first paragraph (and partially the 2nd) were to you though
I donāt understand how the first part disagrees with what I said? Many body builders do estimate it close enough to be useful, yes. But, itās still estimates. We have no way of tracking things like ābasal metabolic rateā, and how that might change over time and under different conditions (which, isnāt to say it canāt be estimated). If you are working out or doing physical labor to a large degree, like body builders and professional athletes do, you can make those basal calories and their fluctuations basically negligible, able to be left as just a line item. When professional bodybuilders are eating 5000 calories a day, yeah, deviations in ābackground caloriesā donāt really matter.
I donāt want to discount the math pros do as unimpressive, or not useful. But thereās a lot of it that is ānapkin mathā, figured out second or third hand, from the data that is able to be tracked accurately.
but I donāt think the āaverage personā is expected to work out for 6 hours a day, nor would they likely be capable.
As one tracks oneās own calories, and tracks and keep consistent oneās activities, it can turn it from estimated to a hard science. Thatās what I mean. Just that CICO CAN be super accurate, more accurate than most biology we can do in simple āuncertaintyā terms. But my overall point is that this is not effective at tackling desires/problems around weight at any larger scale than the āindividual in trackable conditionsā. My only disagreement is linguistic here, I think, and partially a separation of levels of complexity.
I mean that CICO is very precise when isolated, but not precise with variation in a person or groups lives. And CICO is not useful in most of the cases, despite being perfectly scientific at the less complex-scale.
Disagree, thatās not what hard science means, nor can it be isolated in such a way for a lot of people.