>

I disagree, I think fatties should be mocked
/u/CondorLane (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

Maybe to change your view in a different way - "The US" gave up on obesity a while ago, this stuff didn't stick the fork in it. Policies that continue to create food deserts, defund school lunch programs and health education, and commodify exercise in trade for driving everywhere all do way more for "the US" as an entity to ignore another one of our epidemics.  
Anything body positivity from a social standpoint is just normal folks trying to cope with the situation in one way or another. >

It is not "healthy at any size". It is "Health at every size".
And all it means is there are things people can do to develop healthy habits no matter what size they are. 
It also takes the focus away from weight loss as the goal to developing long term healthful habits as the goal.
That's all. It's not saying it's healthy to be morbidly obese. >

You’re right about that, there is a health at any size movement and I agree with it’s premise, but I’ve seen “healthy at any size” as much as I’ve seen “health at any size”.  They’re of course very different ideas. 
I don’t know if lots of people on the internet have just misunderstood it and think the movement is about saying it’s healthy to be 300lbs, but I’ve seen plenty of people saying exactly that. >

I'm curious, can you show there actually IS a movement "healthy at any size"? 
Because people saying that on the Internet means nothing in regards to if there's an actual movement. 
Personally what I see is those who don't approve of the movement claiming that based on their misunderstanding that but I haven't seen people actually in the movement claiming that. >

I’m referring to things like this. I don’t know who that Twitter account is btw but was looking for that image. >

Wow, what are you talking about specifically? 
Because I just see fat people being bashed? >

The fat shaming in the comments is vile - that’s why I added the disclaimer that I am not on side with bullies like that.  These debates are always difficult because I do not want to place myself in a camp with people who believe that being cruel to people will improve their health. 
But the image itself is what I’m talking about - that’s a very clear statement to me that is telling people it’s healthy to be very overweight.  I’ve seen people share that image both disagreeing with the premise and celebrating the idea that it’s not unhealthy to be very overweight. >

"Just the image and the headline" is the point, though.  It's a very popular magazine very clearly making a point.  You can say the related article contradicts the point the cover makes.  But don't pretend that the cover isn't saying that obesity is healthy.  It's a great example of the OP's point. >

Y'all act like all skinny people are automatically healthier than all fat people. 
Plenty of skinny people are unhealthy and live unhealthy lives. Plenty of fat people are doing just fine irt health and live overall healthful lives.  
What's wrong with saying you can live a healthy lifestyle at any size? >


Y'all act like all skinny people are automatically healthier than all fat people.

Show me where I said this?  Or is it just an attempt to deflect from my point? >

My approach, to help me Get healthier. was really people in my family not treating me any different bc of my size, just as a human and it takes away the pressure of HAVING to loose weight, and instead perusing health and weight loss being a symptom but unfortunately 99% of peoples experiences are not the same >

Omg yes!!! I lost weight when I decided I didn’t want to put pressure on myself anymore. From the ages of 8-28 I had body image issues and disordered eating.. one day I took a leap of faith. I was always afraid of accepting my body because I was worried it’d make my weight go even more out of control. But I had a hunch that by no longer stressing about it, I’d stop stress eating and crash dieting and all that nonsense. And it worked lol. I weigh as much as I did when I was 14 (31 now) before I started gaining weight due to pressure to lose weight, but I absolutely do not restrict what I eat nor do I exercise. I want to now for health purposes but man. You don’t need to do anything crazy. It’s literally just.. don’t put pressure on yourself and others!!!
Don’t get me wrong, it took effort to not care. To shut off those thoughts and habits of being cruel to myself creep in. But it was effort better spent than crash dieting and fighting an uphill battle. >

I fully understand why you would think this way based on the name of the HAES movement. It is, unfortunately, well-intentioned but poorly named. 
If you dive into it, it isn't "BODIES are healthy at every size", it is "bodies can DO HEALTHY THINGS at every size". Which is a completely legitimate statement. There is always something you can do to improve your health, be it exercise, eating healthier, meditation, drinking more water, etc.
The name, which can be misleading, does get used by some people as an "excuse" to turn a blind eye to the effects of obesity on their health. However, I wouldn't consider those people to be representative of the HAES movement because they have not understood its purpose. I say this as an obese woman - I can do things today while I'm still obese that are going to positively affect my health. I don't need to wait until I'm "average weight" to do healthy things. 
I saw the same confusion with the BLM movement. There were many people who misinterpreted the name until they actually dove into it to understand what BLM's goal actually was, only to realize they actually did side with the movement.    And of course, there were those that twisted its meaning to suit their own agendas. Racists gonna racist I guess. But I digress. I think you've just misinterpreted the HAES name and have seen some posts by those that have twisted it to excuse themselves from any responsibility for their health, and thought they were representatives of the movement when they are not. >


"BODIES are healthy at every size", 

This is the motte.  

"bodies can DO HEALTHY THINGS at every size". 

This is the bailey.
But the motte is real.  One of the principles of the movement is to "reject the ... pathologizing of specific weights."
That means denying that it is unhealthy to be too fat. >


It worries me because it’s essentially actively encouraging people not to even try and fix the problem, condemning them to an old age of serious health complications.

See... here's the problem: more than 90% of diets fail, with people regaining their weight within 5 years. This is actually worse for you than never losing the weight in the first place, as most (but not all) of the damage comes from gaining weight, not being a particular weight. Yoyo dieting is far more hazardous to health than staying fat.
So... for more than 90% of people, they actually would be better off with a different strategy than "lose weight". 
What's that strategy? Having a goal of not gaining weight, taking long term sustainable lifestyle changes to achieve that. Add manageable amounts of exercise to your lifestyle. 
I.e. try to be "healthy at any size". 
The alternative is well known and happens most of the time: the cycle of lose weight, backslide on a holiday or due to illness/etc., get depressed, self-medicate with food, gain weight, lather, rinse, repeat. It doesn't matter what people should do, only what they do do. 
That phrase doesn't mean there are no risks to being fat (although, the majority of the risks are getting fat). They mean that working on being more healthy at your size is more important than trying to change your size. 
The obesity epidemic in the Western world is largely one of having things too well. High calorie delicious foods (of poor nutritional value) are incredibly cheap, and people rarely have to engage in strenuous exercise in order to make a living. Fixing that is not about willpower or dieting. It's not plausible that people's "willpower" has changed significantly since the mid 70s when this epidemic started... And dieting has never worked. 
So education, encouraging active lifestyles (and supporting those economically) and reforming (i.e. massively regulating and removing subsidies) our food system are the solution to the obesity epidemic. 
Dieting isn't the solution, never has been, and never can be, except perhaps for 10% of the population. 
Changing your lifestyle to overall be more healthy at your size, improve your mental health, and once you're happy with yourself, take some steps to lose a little weight... and then lather, rinse, repeat that, is way more likely to work. >

90% of diets fail because people start one, lose some weight, then stop the diet and go back to what they were doing before. That isn't the diet failing, that's someone failing to maintain a healthier diet. To actually keep the weight off, you have to make a change to your diet that you maintain for as long as you want the weight to stay off. A lot harder to do, but also infinitely more successful at losing weight and keeping the weight off >

If you had a medication that cured insomnia but caused incredible nausea and so no one took it, it's a failed medication. Blaming the patient for not wanting to be nauseous would be bad medicine. >

That's a false equivalence, unless you're specifically talking about fad diets. Yes, the "Super Juice Cleanse^TM" or "Giga-ultra-mega Two Week Fat Burner Deluxe^TM" are gonna make you feel like shit, because your body isn't meant to thrive on a diet like that. Fad diets are essentially different methods of starving yourself until you lose some weight. 
Changing your diet as a whole to be made up of less empty carbs and unhealthy fats and more lean protein, fruits, vegetables, and healthy fats is gonna make you feel amazing because that's the kind of diet that actually works, and provides your body with all the nutrition it needs at a lower calorie count. Yeah, you might feel hungry for a while until you become accustomed to eating healthier food in smaller quantities, but that's an issue of discipline, not one of the healthy diet having negative side effects like you're saying >

And yet, people by and large are not able to change their diets and stick with it.
Not to be flippant, but the proof is in the pudding. If it felt more amazing than eating burgers and shakes, people would do it without having to put in effort. >

Oh but it does, it's not that hard to lose weight if you look at what you eat.  Of course most people fail at sticking with it, most people suck in general, this should be common knowledge.  But to act like because of this, no one has lost weight and stuck with a change in thier diet is more than a bit disingenuous. It's not some crazy thing, and you don't have to tackle it all at once, but, if you do little things like replace fries with a salad, make your own burgers, get low carb and low sodium alternatives, no shakes or get one but have small portions and put the rest in the freezer for later, and ditch the coke and instead drink sparkling water and club soda. Move and walk and run a little.
It can be done if someone is motivated to do it, I mean just look at Richard Simmons (edit: actually looking into it, maybe not the best example, oh better yet Jared from Subway). >


most people suck in general

And so all efforts to help people lose weight should be built with this in mind, rather than recommending the same stuff to people and wondering why it isn't working. >

I have no idea what you're talking about, my doctor recommended I get some exercise and watch what I eat.  If your doctor doesn't recommend that, than maybe you need a better doctor.  Otherwise, if you're getting health advice from TV adverts and "doctors" on TV or radio, celebrities, podcasters or vloggers of course they'll sell you on what ever crap they're paid to sell you or keep you coming back and engaged. >

Actually, I wonder what my doctor would say if I told him that 80% of efforts to lose weight and keep it off don't succeed. He would probably agree with me that we need a better solution, as I'm sure he's frustrated telling patients day in and day out (70% of the population being overweight or obese and all), only to see the problem get worse and worse each day.
The problem is not that everyone's trying fad diets instead of eating less and exercising more, and if you want to claim it is, I'll need to see a source as it contradicts my own research into the topic. >

Okay well fine if diet and exercise aren't the solution what is your alternative advice that you think a doctor should give?  Should they just give up and say fuck it, while your health gradually deteriorates and maybe die a premature death like a lot of the Dr.s others patients have in the past.  Doctors see a lot of shit, if they don't warn their patients about things like that, someone like that would have questionable morals at best.  It's hard to say they're looking out for their patients best interests if they don't mention it, it's kind of their jobs.  
Of course these days there's all kinds of alternatives, like a special kind of pill maybe or surgery, maybe a tapeworm (lol), but the old fashioned exercise and eat healthier is still the best advice and the first course of action one should take.  If it doesn't work I guess talk to your doctor about trying something else, but, drugs have side effects, and surgeries are expensive, traumatic, and still require a kind of diet afterwards, so it doesn't make much sense to recommend those until changes in diet have already been attempted and found not to work. >

As someone who is obese I don’t want to change your view. It’s not healthy at all and people should try and change and improve their health by weight loss if they are obese. >

I think the fact is many people are overweight, and they may be stuck that way for a while; losing weight takes time, building healthy habits takes time, and there's learning curves, emotional factors at play. I suppose there's an argument to be made that wanting to stay overweight is medically unhealthy, and that parading it is kind of endorsing an unhealthy lifestyle. However, there's something to be said about only showing the minority, esteemed percent of society, who have slim bodies, who are not penetrated by the sugar lobbies, etc, and not the majority, who are overweight and obese. It implies a shame, a lack of belonging, and in essence, that they're something that should be hidden away. Anti fatness pervades every facet of media- slim TV presenters, slim celebrities, not being looked at because you're fat, porn, advertising. The message? "YOU are not IMPORTANT."
Losing weight isn't so simple- in essence, it is, but if it were so incredibly easy nobody would struggle with their weight for many years (a lifetime even,) and the weight loss industry wouldn't be so very profitable. 
So, what are we to do, in any state our body is in? Wait until we're good enough? When we're slim? When we have the designer clothes? When we have a six pack? Should we show shame to our kids? We should show that at every size, your life is a wonderful thing. It's especially big for women, whose self worth is often limited to whether or not a man finds you attractive (it's all over media- if she's not pretty she's not seen: end of story.) But feeling beautiful shouldnt be reserved for being your ideal weight.
I think it should be seen parallel to health, but not in opposition to it. Besides, self consciousness=shame=bad coping mechanisms=eating more unhealthy food=more shame. >

I think it's a step in the right direction. Weight loss shouldn't be everyone's goal, it shouldn't even be every fat person's goal. There are ways to improve health and body composition that aren't just "dieting".  I think that this new mantra further embraces that. >

Idk why people get in such a twist over the healthy at every size movement. To my understanding it's not even that popular (I've never seen it outside of outraged Reddit comments) and the idea is more that no matter your current weight, you can do things that make you healthier. Not that obesity is healthy. >

Pretty much every person on the planet knows obesity is generally damaging to health just as much as everyone knows smoking is bad for you. The HAES movement, at least from my perspective, is about disconnecting this pervasive social belief that body size determines health. If you put a thin person who only eats junk, never exercises, and only get their water from what’s in beer next to a chubbier person who tries to eat well, exercises regularly, and actively works on their health in their own ways…most people would automatically say thin person = healthier person. If we really, truly, care about health, believing body size inherently measures overall health is completely counterproductive. HAES is just about promoting health in the body you have rather than upholding this toxic idea that body size is some absolute determination of your health.
Obesity is generally unhealthy, yes, but so is drinking alcohol, doing drugs, not getting enough sleep, not wearing sunscreen, screen addiction, etc. Society has singled out obesity differently than most other unhealthy things. People treat being like fat like an all-or-nothing thing for your health, like you can’t have healthy habits and also be fat. If someone who is an average size eats well most of the time and works out semi-regularly, but they also drink like a fish on the weekends and smoke cigarettes socially, we don’t act like they’re 100% unhealthy. HAES (at least from my perspective) is about simply treating obesity like every other health risk—a piece of the equation, but not the end-all, be-all barometer of health and well-being. 
Furthermore, this popular idea that criticism of HAES comes from a concern for health and has nothing to do with fat-shaming people is usually bullshit. Just as an example, there are very many celebrities who openly, brazenly, proudly live horribly unhealthy lifestyles, and it’s not just that it’s not talked about in terms of how unhealthy it is as often, it’s actually glamorized in many cases. How many songs are there about popping bottles, doing drugs, and shit like that? Now, compare that to how people talk about fat celebrities, like Lizzo. Suddenly, here are all these “health” concerns and people who take issue with her because for promoting something “unhealthy.” Many of these people insist it’s not about the way she looks—it’s about health. Where are all these health warriors in all those other cases when a famous person does every other unhealthy thing? In general, it’s not really about health. It’s just a socially acceptable way to bully fat people because of a subconscious (or even blatant) belief that fat people are icky, unattractive, lesser people. Most of the HAES critics are average-sized or thin people, mind you. Society has long upheld this idea that they are better and healthier than fat people. I personally think that a lot of folks in this camp actually have a subconscious fear that if we actually erase toxic beauty standards and actually become body positive as a collective, they no longer get to be “better than” fat people. As much as some folks insist that they are body positive and it’s not about fat-phobia, but this focus on health and body size is just a different way of upholding the idea that fat = bad and thin = good. >


If you put a thin person who only eats junk, never exercises, and only get their water from what’s in beer next to a chubbier person who tries to eat well, exercises regularly, and actively works on their health in their own ways…most people would automatically say thin person = healthier person.

I would challenge this. I'm a (very) thin person and people always think chubbier people are healthier than me. They would think that I have shittier life style and I just need to "eat more". It's also very common that people assume eating more is far easier than eating less. >

as a fat person with type 2 diabetes I can tell you its NEVER healthy to be fat
but yeah, reality doesn't seem to matter to anyone anymore >

I agree completely. I am by definition obese myself, and while it’s important to always love yourself, I am fully aware that this shit is not good for my health. What looks good is irrelevant, being overweight will eventually kill me or anyone my size. Been trying to not be such a fat boy, working out and eating better. I’ve lost quite a bit. Body positivity needs to be more so applied to things we’re born with/can’t change like birth defects or birth marks, developmental disorders and so on. Big people can be very beautiful, doesn’t mean it’s a good choice or that it’s healthy. >

Completely agree man.  Congrats on the weight loss! Been on my own health journey too (used to be severely underweight due to too much drugs and partying), we’ll both get there! >

Absolutely! I know it’s cliche but if I can do it, anybody can. Cuz when I tell you I love food? Bro I will eat damn near anything lol I am not picky and that’s part of my problem lmao >

Haha I love food too.  Honestly these days the main reason I work out is so I can eat what brings me joy and know I’m not in a calorie surplus. >

Health at any size is a harm reduction approach.  If people avoid going to the doctor or engaging in health related activities because of stigma due to their weight, it's actually more detrimental to their health than accepting their current weight and looking to find other ways of improving their health. >

Also to get doctors to re-center their focus away from weight.
Someone with a severed limb who gets wheeled into the ER doesn’t need to be told to lose weight.
Same with someone with an undetected form of cancer that is causing them pain but the doctor just endlessly tells them to lose weight. >

Healthy at any size is probably sponsored by food companies >


That being said, what I’ve seen is body positivity morphing into a belief that there are no health risks associated with severe obesity

Have you seen this other than trolly TikTok videos? I do not know of anyone who actually believes this.

or that it’s all about genetics and has nothing to do with lifestyle, poor diet etc. This is nonsense, the genetic component of obesity is small relative to lifestyle factors

Your mistake is in thinking that "lifestyle factors" are mutually exclusive with genetics. If you knock out a gene for a hormone that's supposed to limit hunger (genetic) in mice, they'll eat way more ("lifestyle") because they're hungry all the time and weigh way more than normal mice.
Mutations in that same gene are associated with obesity in humans. >

The obesity epidemic cannot be a primarily genetic cause because of its very nature, it has only been around as long as near endlessly plentiful cheap but unhealthy food has.   Especially when you consider that most white Americans have European genetics from nations with currently much lower rates of severe obesity. 
There have always been small numbers of obese people in society but nearly half is a modern phenomenon caused primarily by lifestyle. >

Sure it can. 
Consider phenylketonuria (PKU for short). It's a completely genetic condition that damages your ability to process the amino acid phenylalanine. If you eat foods that contain it, it'll build up in your blood, and if you do this as a child it'll cause all sorts of developmental disabilities.
If you lived in a society that didn't regularly eat phenylalanine-rich foods, you'd never notice if you had PKU. You'd grow up normally, live normally, die normally. If your society than started eating phenylalanine-rich food, people with PKU would suddenly start developing severe developmental disabilities and die very young. But you wouldn't be able to identify a poison in the population as a whole, because phenylalanine is perfectly well-tolerated by people without that underlying genetic disorder.

In this case, you could have a world where limited access to food and a lack of ways to obviously break the insulin/leptin/ghrelin hormone axis was enough to protect people who had pre-existing susceptibility to malfunctions in that axis.
That's especially true because the breakdown has a positive feedback. Once someone starts to drift out of health on that axis, the resulting obesity both causes and is worsened by the development in insulin sensitivity. (To go back to our PKU example, imagine if high levels of phenylalanine made you crave more phenylalanine-containing foods, and that PKU had a gradual onset and a continuous genetic distribution rather than being either/or.)
You can easily have a situation where some pre-existing minor malfunction in the insulin/leptin/ghrelin access isn't enough to get that feedback started in the natural environment, but where a little encouragement from a slight increase in food consumption or sedentariness or sugar messing with insulin metabolism is enough to get the feedback started. The cause would still be primarily genetic, even if it needs an environmental factor to get things going. >


1 in 12,000 newborns 

70% of Americans are overweight. >

I wasn't claiming PKU was comparably common, just that it offers an example of a purely genetic condition activated by lifestyle factors. >

But in the grand scheme of things, that condition is effectively irrelevant, and you're saying that it (and similar conditions) are primarily explain the obesity crisis. >

...no, I'm not saying it explains the obesity crisis. PKU has nothing to do with obesity, as far as I know.
I'm saying other genes that, like PKU, create vulnerabilities to environmental factors explain a lot of obesity. Those genes are much, MUCH more common than the gene for PKU. >

It causes a reduced metabolism so it probably would lead to weight issues.
Such as? and you would need for these genetic factors to be highly common in the population. >


It causes a reduced metabolism so it probably would lead to weight issues.

Well, ok. In any event, PKU-derived obesity is, given how rare the disorder is, a tiny portion of total obesity, and I wasn't claiming that it was any at all. That wasn't the argument I was making.

Such as?

Mutations on the leptin receptor are one really common one.

and you would need for these genetic factors to be highly common in the population.

They are. >

If you mean Leptin receptor deficiency, then that isn't common at all. >

The hard thing for me about finding the "best version" of the movement, is simply the statement in the name. "Healthy at any size." The name itself really leaves no room for misinterpretation. It's saying regardless of your size, you're healthy. Which is just blatantly false. >

Did you read the article?
​
And thats not how I interpret it after reading about it. Its about being healthy at any size. Ie prioritizing health goals over weight goals. >

Right, and I get that. It's still a misleading name, but it's also ignoring the primary issue. Yes more cardio-focused excersizes on people "at any size" will overall improve your health. No that won't make you lose much weight, nor will it remove the negative health effects of your obesity. >

Did you read the article? >

Yes I read the article, and yes I understand it's about improving the cardiovascular health of people "at any weight" and I also understand that it's overall against dieting >

So what is your issue with that >

The body positivity movement is letting obesity run rampant. Being obese is not healthy and very detrimental to your health, mentally and physically. I actually think that the way to overcome this isn’t shaming, but finding that middle ground because pressure needs to be applied. If no pressure is applied then nothing will ever change. You can get mad at me but one of my best friends is fat and my friends and I are constantly trying to get him in the gym, always talking about diet, self improvement. There needs to be positive influence to change and there can’t be this stalemate of letting obese people letting themselves go. So fuck body positively and let’s get everyone healthy. >

We are too lazy to invent a philosophy. >

it's not giving up on some endemic.  it's caving in to an industry which draws it's profits from unhealthy near addictive sugary fatty food. >

Agree with your assessment overall but I think what makes this movement work are targeted advertisements and campaigns. It’s a huge market to cater to. I don’t see this movement due to people or the US giving up. It’s just that being overweight has become so common in the US that advertisers evolved to show plus sized models more frequently and this image has become more acceptable compared to the 90s or previous decades. >

Nothing needs to be changed here, you got the right idea. >

A lot of these campaigns are sponsored by the companies who make snacks/soda/ fast food. They are the ones “winning” this movement, not those who are overweight. >

bring back shamig people >

No, it's actually more sinister. 

The medical/weight loss industry profits greatly from our unhealthiness. How much money is made every year off of cholesterol, blood pressure, and diabetes drugs? A whole lot. How much is money is made every year off of bypass, bariatric, and other obesity-related surgeries? A whole lot. How much money is made off of hospitals and equipment for completing said surgeries? A whole lot. How much money is made via grants to combat the epidemic every year? A whole lot. How much money do general weight loss programs, products, and diet foods make every year? A whole lot. The same institutional investors who have money in this realm have money in the media/entertainment conglomerates that push the fat acceptance crap. 
This comes more of personal inferences I have made than objective fact, but I believe there is a very specific group of people (I won't get into who here) at the top of America's social/economic hierarchy who want the population weak and complacent. A 300 pound person is much less likely to have the energy/drive to get up and be an activist than a fit person will be. This maintains our societal status quo. >

The mass population has seem to adopted the idea that health vs weight is a black and white concept. But the truth is there is a lot of grey area on the matter. 
In general, yes, having a higher weight is not good. It puts physical strain on your organs and bones. But, you also have to consider genetics, underlying health conditions, SES, access to proper nutrition, knowledge of nutrition, and where a persons weight may plateau. 
I lived with a girl a few years ago who went to the gym everyday at 5am. She took very good care of herself but was still 200+ lbs. meanwhile I ate garbage everyday and was still 140lbs. 
No one should promote excessive weight gain but if an overweight person is happy with their body then nothing we say or do will change their habits. >

I agree with you that obesity typically aligns with a slew of comorbidities, but I disagree that genetics is a small part of that equation. Research suggests genetics account for about 80% of your weight retention. Of course, this is more so in regards to retaining some extra weight and not morbid obesity. 
I used to think very similar to you, and I was very athletic, muscular, gymnastics coach and therapeutic recreation specialist with my personal training certification. And then I started having health issues. As my weight went up, I ate less and less. I rarely eat over 1000kcals in a day but somehow still gained weight. I am exhausted all the time, not just tired, but physically and mentally drained to the point that my limbs feel like they’re weighed down with lead. I had to quickly confront everything I thought about obesity before, because I was sliding into a life where I was no longer slim and muscular myself. 
I still struggle with it, but I can guarantee it is not because of my eating or exercise habits. When I started to realize this, it gave me a whole new perspective of others obesity. We do agree on one point, I think we live in a sick society and I think there are a lot of things in our food and even in the air we breathe that are making people more sick by the day. But I also now understand that you’ll hold your beliefs until you’re the one suffering from chronic fatigue and weight retention. It’s easier to blame it all on lifestyle as opposed to genetics. >

No, I don’t think it’s okay. My health issues and busy schedule cause me to have no appetite and I forget to eat. My point in making that statement was that I know it’s not okay. I have to avidly think about eating more than 1000kcals a day, and I still retain, or even gain, weight. 
My health issues started at the tail end of my coaching gymnastics, and both my appetite and calorie intake went downhill progressively while my weight went up. I am very well aware of what I “should” be taking in. But that has no baring on my weight gain. >

A really nice lady who lived next door died at 42 from cardiac arrest in Nov. I loved her dearly, but she was morbidly obese. I don’t care what people say , I can’t justify it. Lose weight.. your life depends on it! >

Registered dietitian who currently works in DNA sequencing here. There is a genetic component that makes it harder for certain individuals to lose weight, however it is still unhealthy to be obese. Eating a balanced diet and exercising helps, however carrying that extra weight is hard on your joints, heart, and the excess adipose tissue affects glucose metabolism which increases risk of diabetes and heart disease. Therefore, some are more susceptible of obesity but that does not make it “health at every size”. >

The 'Healthy at Any Size' movement is not denying that obesity is an epidemic or ignoring the potential health consequences. Rather, it is combating the societal and medical discrimination against people of larger body sizes. Specifically, the movement is addressing the following issues:

The belief that there is only one ideal body type, when in fact there are different body types and shapes. A woman can be a model or she can be a line-backer and be in perfect health. 
The notion that weight gain is a moral failing rather than a medical condition. This is the biggest problem. Most of weight related discrimination is moral judgement in disguise.
The tendency of doctors to ignore unrelated health concerns once they realize their patient is overweight.
The idea that many health issues are only correlative with being overweight, and that some people can be otherwise healthy and simply overweight. >

What evidence do you have that the "healthy at any size" movement has any popular support?
And where/how do you see the US government endorsing it? >

We are going to find out that it was a cigarette/climate change level ploy by the refined sugar and bread industries. >

I’m not sure if this counts as a rebuttal, but I reject the entire conversation. We’re talking about the wrong thing. The obesity conversation is always about individual choice, willpower, responsibility. That’s bullshit. Look at the data. It’s clearly a systemic issue with the food supply and food industry. It’s like that SNL meme where the guy shoots the other guy on the couch. The shooter says “Why are you fat?” While the bullets are labeled “sugar industry, dairy industry, corn industry, etc etc etc.” At this point, it’s becoming more difficult to not be fat than to be fat if you’re an average person making average decisions. We should be talking about that, and restructure the food supply and food industries to make it extremely difficult to be obese. >

I agree, I think it’s primarily a systemic issue that results from poor access to good food, a lack of social safety net, and lobbyists.  Wealthy Americans are less likely to be overweight than poor Americans, which to me is the absolutely key point.  Rich people have money and time. 
I don’t like the idea of normalizing it as specifically healthy though - severe obesity is the visible symptom of how fucked up our society has become. >

Thank you for thinking critically about this. I'm glad to see some deltas going around in this thread.
As others have said, HAES refers to health being available to people at every size. Health can be something to strive for at every size. People deserve access to healthcare at every size. It's an attempt to meet people where they are at and move away from reductive demands to "just lose weight."
Example: in a HAES-friendly doctor's office, the waiting area will have a mix of standard chairs and extra wide chairs so that a broader variety of body types can use them. It's one of those micro-affirmations that only people with larger bodies will notice. Most people like this have spent their lives being shamed by medical professionals and having otherwise treatable health problems disregarded and reduced to "just lose weight." Understandably, they have learned to avoid the doctor. Basic examples of this: their ankle hurts, the doc says "just lose weight and your joints will feel better." The hurt ankle turns into a stress fracture that could have been prevented with bracing and physical therapy. Or they're getting out of breath lately and doc says "just lose weight and it will be easier to breathe." Turns out it was asthma and they could have been using an inhaler, which could have led to increased mobility and quality of life anyway. And what if it didn't lead to those things? That person still deserves to breathe. Even if obesity contributed to these conditions, the person deserves to be treated, cared for, respected, and not blown off.
They often have learned through experience to fear the doctor. The chairs in the lobby are just one way for the doctor to say, "I'm glad you're here today, I see you and respect you for who you are today, I will give your body attention and care as it exists today; not just later, when you've somehow gotten less fat all on your own without any positive relationship with a medical professional."
It makes me sad that a valuable paradigm like this has a name that makes people turn against it so quickly. >

I think it’s important to note that not all fat people are super unhealthy. I’m not suggesting morbidly obese is healthy but if I use myself as an example- I have PCOS, a hormonal disorder, and I will always struggle with my weight as a result. I’d classify myself as midsized (I currently wear size 14-16 depending on clothing) and my weight lies in my belly. All my blood work is good, as is my blood pressure. I’m closely monitored by my dr and I’m really happy she is great when it comes to my health. That said I know many people who are slightly overweight or more who have doctors who immediately go to weight any time there is a health concern- including for broken bones, migraines, essentially things that aren’t always related to a higher weight. We need to stop assuming that all people with weight issues are unhealthy. Many people with bigger weights have underlying health conditions that lead them to the weight they are today. The mentality that we’ve given up or we aren’t healthy isn’t always the case. >

I’d be curious to see any major trends actually saying that you can be morbidly obese and be considered healthy. I think you’re probably confusing “being overweight does not inherently make you unhealthy” with saying that any size is healthy. >

I’m not sure I see how either of those things are true.  Anything more than a fairly small amount of extra weight comes with significantly worsened health risk. >

Let em die at 35 >

Nah it was true in the past and it is true now just because someone is fat don't mean they can not be healthy too. Take a lesson from butterbean >

Obesity is not an exclusive to the US. It appears to be a side effect of economic prosperity. >

Sorry to drop an hour long video but Adam Ragusea really covers everything in pretty great detail.
Basically:


We have no idea how to, on a societal scale, reduce obesity.


The harms of obesity are caused at least in part, if not majority, by the social factors that come with being overweight.


Therefore, reducing the impact of those social factors is the only way we know to improve the health outcomes of currently overweight people, so that's exactly the public health strategy that makes most sense.
Unless you can provide evidence that people are actually using this movement as a reason to stay overweight when they would otherwise successfully lose weight, then I can only see it as a positive psychological effect on overweight people that has no real downside. >


Unless you can provide evidence that people are actually using this movement as a reason to stay overweight when they would otherwise successfully lose weight

I just spent 10-15 minutes reading the comments on that video (and in this thread), and there are plenty of people (I'd say a surprising number relative to the total) who admit they were previously in denial about both their own weight and the negative effects of being overweight.  I'm more than happy to admit that that doesn't rise to the study level of statistical evidence, but it's a sizeable fraction of every discussion about this. >

The thing that I struggle to understand is that all these people are so concerned with fat peoples health yet they are literally bashing your mental health making you feel ashamed to even breathe because you're fat. 
Yes we are fat, we know... we understand the risks you constantly repeat while shaming us.
If we want to do something about it, we will.
But I bet there's a large majority who aren't fat are out there taking steroids, doing drugs, starving themselves - which is also damaging yet they are idolised as role models and goals  but because thats not always visible by looking at someone...well you get my point?
Yes of course being overweight is unhealthy.
But there is more to health then what you can see by just looking at someone.
Little do you know that fat person has already lost weight and making changes. Yet the more people that want to bash us for existing and not have any shred of dignity. Why the fuck bother right?? 
Or maybe we can stop eating, start doing some hardcore drugs...so we can be hot right? >


The thing that I struggle to understand is that all these people are so concerned with fat peoples health yet they are literally bashing your mental health making you feel ashamed to even breathe because you're fat. 
Yes we are fat, we know... we understand the risks you constantly repeat while shaming us. 

I struggle to understand this as well. They claim to care about our health but go to bashing us and treat obesity as moral failing and not being obese as being a moral thing. 
Why should we want to lose weight for the haters who refuse to be respectful of us at all while claiming they care about our health so much? >

Obesity is not healthy. I say this as an obese man. 
However, it is not impossible to be in good health while obese. I have perfect BP, perfect cholesterol, perfect H1Cs and everything else (just had a full panel done a couple weeks ago while switching doctors). 
Despite that, though, I think it’s naive to believe that you can remain healthy while also remaining obese.  The old adage “there’s a lot of old people, and there’s a lot of fat people, but there’s not a lot of fat old people” applies. 
I think the bigger thing about HAES is to teach doctors that obesity is not the be-all-end-all of a condition, and to look at the patient as a whole and not just their BMI.  While obesity is a risk factor for a lot of diseases, it’s not the sole risk factor, and it shouldn’t be treated as such. 
I also think the big thing is that we treat obesity like a condition when in reality, IMO, obesity is a symptom. It’s a symptom of poor mental health and various untreated dopamine and serotonin deficiencies (primarily, things like ADHD, anxiety, depression, etc). The “high” of junk food or overeating is used to self-medicate and ease those conditions. We really shouldn’t be treating obesity as “lose weight”, we should be treating obesity as “feel better”. Attack the underlying causes and the obesity will cure itself.  
Furthermore, when speaking of anxiety/depression, body negativity feeds those conditions even further. Anybody who thinks fat shaming people will get them motivated is an idiot, and, quite frankly, a bully…and while I hate the whole “fat acceptance” side of HAES, it has some merit. >

It can be true that thin people are at lower risks of different conditions than fat people, without it also being true that there's a healthy path to being thinner for every fat person.
For example, if you have trouble losing weight, then the brute force approach of starving yourself or drastically limiting what you eat isn't just going to burn through your fat and leave the rest of your body the same.
Equally, it depends what you think of as health, are we talking about being at risks of having conditions or having those conditions? Because if being obese gave you a 99% chance of heart disease, there would still be obese people who didn't have heart disease and thinner people who did.
As a hypothetically, say we had an obese person, do you think regular exercise is going to necesserily lead to weight loss or not? Do you think that exercise would only have health benifits if it lead to weight loss, or could it have cardiovascular benifits even if their weight remained fairly constant. Say they ate exactly the same but added in as much extra walking as they could manage. >


It can be true that thin people are at lower risks of different conditions than fat people, without it also being true that there's a healthy path to being thinner for every fat person.

I think it's fair to say that some people that are overweight have certain conditions that make it hard or nearly impossible for them to lose weight, but I think especially after we acknowledge that, we should move on and discuss what effects the vast majority of overweight people that can do something about it, but don't in part due to movements like this. 

the brute force approach of starving yourself or drastically limiting what you eat isn't just going to burn through your fat and leave the rest of your body the same.

Of course starving yourself intensely is basically never the answer, the answer is to find your maintain, and eat under that a responsible amount. If you're overweight, and your maintain is 2500 calories, eat 2000 - 2200. You'll be a bit hungry, but you're not really starving, and you're still perfectly capable of remaining perfectly healthy in other ways (i.e. avoiding nutrient deficiency etc.) 

are we talking about being at risks of having conditions or having those conditions? Because if being obese gave you a 99% chance of heart disease, there would still be obese people who didn't have heart disease and thinner people who did.

Both? It's clear that being overweight/obese heavily increases your chances of heart disease, and it's not really a debated factor, it's clear as day and just because some people don't have heart disease when they're overweight doesn't mean that everyone should just take that selective bias and gain all the weight they want without considering the health effects. In the same way that a reasonable percentile of cig smokers don't develop lung cancer, cigs still cause it and the tendency is high enough for most people to avoid them. 

As a hypothetically, say we had an obese person, do you think regular exercise is going to necesserily lead to weight loss or not?

Excersize is important for general heart health, but it's much less important than dieting when it comes to losing weight.

could it have cardiovascular benifits even if their weight remained fairly constant.

Yes it would have health benefits, and so would losing the weight... both should be done