Current Events > How can someone convince themselves that being fat is healthy.

(+) Yeah! (+)

Because factually it is not

It's probably less effort to convince yourself of that than to actually stop being a lazy, greedy **** and eat less and workout a little.

Most sensible people understand that you can be healthy at every size.
---

TheRealDill2000 posted...

Most sensible people understand that you can be healthy at every size.

This isn't exactly true. the fatter you are the less healthy you are. You might not be unhealthy or I'll, but you're at quite a higher risk and eventually will be.
---

TheRealDill2000 posted...

Most sensible people understand that you can be healthy at every size.

This is exactly the type of comment I mean. Its False

Fat girls are hawt
---

Because the premise of fat and the associated risks are based upon the bmi chart which only actually was intended to be used for standard height adults, and then they extrapolated the ratios for tall and short people, as well as weights for those heights. It's also not a determinant of health so much as it's supposed to be a general guideline for assessing what risks to actually check for in the person. Being underweight has far more fast acting short and long term consequences.

Then there's the whole "what is healthy weight is more in line with 1950s pin up girls than the size 0 ideal of today (which is even smaller than size 0s were a few years ago, and smaller than size 0 when they first came out which was only in the last few decades). But people would say that pin up models from the 1950s are fat or chubby.

Oh, then there's the fact that for women, a certain level of body fat is needed to induce a regular menstrual cycle. Or grow boobs. Or ass. Or hips. Or thighs. And that being underweight can cause those areas to swell from what fat they do manage to get because of that survival mechanism, with extremes being those distended stomach examples that those " for pennies a day, help sponsor a starving African child" commercials love to stroll out.

Anyone who says that is full of bologna.
---

asagi_mode_gone posted...

Because the premise of fat and the associated risks are based upon the bmi chart which only actually was intended to be used for standard height adults, and then they extrapolated the ratios for tall and short people, as well as weights for those heights. It's also not a determinant of health so much as it's supposed to be a general guideline for assessing what risks to actually check for in the person. Being underweight has far more fast acting short and long term consequences.

Then there's the whole "what is healthy weight is more in line with 1950s pin up girls than the size 0 ideal of today (which is even smaller than size 0s were a few years ago, and smaller than size 0 when they first came out which was only in the last few decades). But people would say that pin up models from the 1950s are fat or chubby.

Oh, then there's the fact that for women, a certain level of body fat is needed to induce a regular menstrual cycle. Or grow boobs. Or ass. Or hips. Or thighs. And that being underweight can cause those areas to swell from what fat they do manage to get because of that survival mechanism, with extremes being those distended stomach examples that those " for pennies a day, help sponsor a starving African child" commercials love to stroll out.

What ridiculous sophistry. Most American women are like 50+ pounds overweight. We're not even in the same ballpark of discussion.
---