.jpg) |
| credit examiner.com |
"I can't get behind fat acceptance because I have known fat people who have been sick/have died because they were fat." -Everyone
If you want the perfect response to that misguided person (all 23498072348970324 of them), look no further. I found it in the comments section of this Jezebel article. Jezebel, which has criticized the Biggest Loser in the past, broke the news that this awful show will now feature 13-16 year old contestants. Jezebel is a feminist site that runs FA articles, but,as you might expect, I saw a lot of "but fat is bad for you so I can't support fat acceptance" retorts. And then I saw this:
"If people think the objection to Biggest Loser is because Fat Acceptance is against health, then you have no clue what Fat Acceptance is about. The problem is that the Biggest Loser promotes an unrealistic and unsustainable lifestyle with a superficial definition of health. Contestants exercise an average of 6 hours a day and engage in severe caloric restriction to get the results that they do. Actual health experts recommend a more modest lifestyle change (150 minutes of moderate exercise or 75 minutes vigorous, plus strength training) and a focus on improving the quality of your diet, rather than engaging in caloric restriction.
Fat Acceptance is not about shunning health. It's about reminding people that we all have the autonomy to make choices about our own health, whether we choose to smoke, drink, have unprotected sex, climb mountains or eat Twinkies. For health, FA recommends Health at Every Size, which basically says that if you make healthy changes, you may improve your metabolic indicators (blood pressure, sugar and lipids), but you may not be thinner for it. But medical research backs that up, as researchers now tout a weight loss of 5-10% of your starting weight as "clinically significant" in terms of the effects on metabolic health. But a 300 pound person losing 15 to 30 pounds is not good television. Forcing inhumane caloric deficits produces 100+ pound weight losses, but has been proven to be unsustainable for the vast majority of people.
So taking this already skewed and unhealthy message and applying it to children is even more dangerous. And for all those saying "SAVE THE FAT KIDS," it's worth noting that just 12 in 100,000 kids have type 2 diabetes, while 2,700 in 100,000 kids have an eating disorder. Encouraging Biggest Loser-esque lifestyle changes will not help the former statistic, it will only worsen the latter.
For an overview of some of the worst violations the Biggest Loser has committed, you can read this post I wrote about Michelle Obama unfortunately endorsing the show:[fiercefatties.com]"
credit to the awesome Shannon at Fierce Fatties.
"it's worth noting that just 12 in 100,000 kids have type 2 diabetes, while 2,700 in 100,000 kids have an eating disorder."
ReplyDeleteright. on. sister.
I know, it's nice to find some statistics every now and then - there's a lot of important data to be gathered yet.
DeleteThat statistic is a little misleading, because the fact is that overweight children are more likely to develop type 2 diabetes not just as children, but as adults. It can take up to 10 years for someone to develop type 2 diabetes, so the impact of current diets and the "obesity epidemic" have not even been felt yet. Plus, when children and chronically obese people get diabetes, it is often rapid-onset and does not respond as well to treatment.
ReplyDeleteHi, Team 7. I believe the commenter's bigger point was that children face more psychological weight-related risks than physical ones. But I appreciate your dropping knowledge on this blog. Thanks for reading.
Delete