Another comment in a discussion about weight over at Alas.
Soulhuntre Writes: March 23rd, 2006 at 9:45 am
There are skinny people who eat bad diets, and fat people who eat healthy diets.
Of course there are. The range of variation in the human animal includes all sorts of metabolisms and related effects. Anomalies will exist obviously. However it is accurate that to say by and large weight is most commonly a result of diet and activity level.
To point to the exceptions as if it negated the reality of that correlation for the vast majority of the cases is disingenuous in my opinion. There is no evidence that the majority of the large numbers of people who are overweight suffer from any significant genetic defect that would render their metabolism incapable of losing the excess in a healthy manner if diet and activity were adjusted.
Gaining weight is not always a bad thing. It’s perfectly normal for people to gain a little weight as they get older, and there’s no evidence showing that such minor weight gain is bad for your health.
I haven’t really seen many people indicate that minor weight gain as one gets older is a significant health issue. If I do see them I’ll be happy to take them to task for it.
The problem arises when health issues are only and directly blamed on “obvious” lifestyle choices.
Whether this is a problem depends on whether or not it is true in any particular case. While there are obviously cases where a healthy diet and moderate activity is beyond someone for physical or economic reasons there are many, many cases where those choices are available.
If someone decides that they have other priorities or simply have no desire to alter their choices in this regard that’s fine with me. I don’t think it makes them a bad human being. However refusal to accept that this lifestyle choice can lead to health problems or blaming society for the problem when the choices are available and not taken does tell me something about someone.
There is no good proof that being fat is unhealthy OR can be changed.
Well, when you refuse to use the term “obesity” it makes that sort of assertion hard to discuss. There is ample evidence that obesity for example has a large negative impact on health. However if you refuse to use the term or acknowledge that there is a huge range in the term “fat” then you will reject that evidence because someone who is only 15lbs overweight is not at a huge health risk.
It almost seems like the point of trying to erase the concept of the differing amounts of weight included in the term “fat” is so that one can pick and choose their evidence. For example it makes no sense to try and refute the clear health problems of being severely overweight by saying “well, someone who is just a little heavy aren’t at risk!” and thus try and take the medical issues off the table.
The second assertion is equally problematic as a statement of fact. What we do know is that the genetic disorders that cause significant problems in the metabolism are rare. We do ample evidence by example of many, many humans who have indeed altered their body fat levels via diet and activity both in scientific studies and by observing the world around us. In the face of such evidence, I am at a loss how someone could refuse to accept the correlations.
This is what happens when a social or moral agenda is used to determine what physical reality someone is willing to accept. I have no problem defending someone’s right to decide their weight isn’t a priority for them. I certainly understand that economics play a role in such decisions.
However to extrapolate from the social agenda (size acceptance) to trying to ignore the physical and medical realities is not something I understand.
But there sure is a lot of proof that some folks don’t consider fat to be beautiful.
The majority of the issues involved in what is or isn’t “beautiful” are probably “thread drift” dangers, so I won’t go into them here.
However on topic is this as it relates to health. Many of the factors humans consider attractive relate in one way or another to health and fitness. This is an evolutionary adaptation that occurs in all animals, and certainly humans are not immune. Like all things that are only visible as large scale trends over populations and time there are of course many exceptions, so this is not definitive for why any single individual may or may not find fat to be attractive.
Let’s assume that I accepted the argument that the majority of those who are significantly overweight are that way for a genetic reason. In that case then their weight would be a visible marker of a genetic condition that is an evolutionary disadvantage. It makes perfect sense that many humans would find such a marker as something that correlated negatively with attraction.
That I do not accept the argument postulated doesn’t change this significantly. Someone who is significantly overweight would still be showing the visible marker for what *may be* a genetic condition that is an evolutionary disadvantage.. The correlations with attraction would remain.