Fat-Friendly Campuses?

[Guest Gnome Chomsky]

 

There is also a big correlation between poverty and health. There are areas of our country where people are so fundamentally disadvantaged that finding healthy food is one of their lowest priorities. There are places in America called food deserts. A food desert is defined as an area without access to fresh fruits, vegetables, and other whole foods due to a lack of supermarkets, farmers markets and other healthy food providers. Many individuals in these areas may not have cars with which to drive to an area where such things are accessible or may not be able to afford the gas. http://americannutritionassociation.org/newsletter/usda-defines-food-deserts <- what is a food desert. http://newsone.com/1540235/americas-worst-9-urban-food-deserts/ <- Top 9 urban food deserts. So that covers food. What about exercise? Not only are there people so economically disadvantaged that they can't get to good supermarkets, who of these people do you think are going to get to a gym? Go outside and run, you say? In temperatures that can get below freezing, you say? Or how about above 85 and humid? Above 95? It is it okay to exercise outside in adverse weather conditions? What about in unsafe neighborhoods? Who honestly thinks that anyone who can't even afford gas money is going to be living in super safe neighborhood? I won't even bother addressing the low wage workers who work 10 or 12+ hour days and can't access basic things like clean water and healthy supermarkets (in America!). 

 

For a forum all about higher education, this thread was sorely lacking it. 

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=mILfIjh356sC&lpg=PA201&ots=0T_5klWQvd&dq=food%20deserts%20in%20america&lr&pg=PA201#v=onepage&q=food%20deserts%20in%20america&f=false  <- more on food deserts

 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1549-0831.2009.tb00387.x/abstract;jsessionid=14E99F2ED815CBE471D72D7A2CC1CB01.f03t03?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false   <- article on the lack on available healthy food correlates to increased BMI

I'll just throw something out there. I'm not saying poverty and obesity aren't correlated. But the majority of athletes come from inner-cities and poor rural neighborhoods. These are people you mention who live in areas with no access to supermarkets, no money for healthy food, extremely hot temperatures, and in gang-ridden neighborhoods. So how were they able to get in phenomenal shape? I know there are a lot of obese people in the hood, but there are also a lot of extremely fit people. I ask because you're basically saying anyone in the hood should be obese. Based on your argument. 

Edited March 24, 2014 by Gnome Chomsky

[Geologizer]

TakeruK, point well taken on how the whole FERPA thing came about, and I think we can agree to disagree on the merits of the analogy and the necessary discussion that would hash it out. Like you, I think that'll divert the topic much further from where it started. It was nice to get all of the misunderstandings out of the way though. 

 

Also, I think it's worth commenting that this thread initially started with the premise that we are talking about someone who maxes out at 20-30 steps, which was in the back of my mind the whole time. I don't think any stretch of the imagination could consider that healthy. The implicit assumption was that we're talking about the unhealthy side (which I know I didn't do a good job of making clear), so point well taken that a healthy body weight is person specific.

 

Varangian, I think we can avoid a lot of grief and much less diversion of the topic if we don't correlate the "Fat Acceptance Movement" with Feminism. I don't think any one here would argue that people who are obese should be unfairly discriminated against, or be subject to threats and/or harrassment. No one is going to argue that the rights of obese people should be less than those of thin people. There are a few that have made categorical statements that don't allow for any factors out of a person's control, and I agree, those are wrong. However, to suggest that those suffering from those extenuating circumstances are even remotely close to a significant portion of the unhealthy obese population, I think is also wrong. What that invites is a blanket dismissal of the issue, because after all, it's out of control and who are we to make judgments? For feminism, all women are women, and are not in control of that (not trying to suggest this is any sort of malady - just making sure to indicate why this isn't a good example). In the case of obesity, most are obese due to factors they can in fact manage. There is a small portion obviously that can't. Why not make them the exception, not the rule? I think we'll be a lot better off if we can make that distinction. We'd have a lot better infrastructure in place to combat obesity if it weren't getting stifled by the eggshell walking necessary to not incite PC outrage.  

[Guest Gnome Chomsky]

 

Also, I think it's worth commenting that this thread initially started with the premise that we are talking about someone who maxes out at 20-30 steps, which was in the back of my mind the whole time. I don't think any stretch of the imagination could consider that healthy. The implicit assumption was that we're talking about the unhealthy side (which I know I didn't do a good job of making clear), so point well taken that a healthy body weight is person specific.

 

Good point. Someone mentioned there are fat people who internally are extremely healthy, and there are skinny people who are internally extremely unhealthy. That's irrelevant. We're talking about someone who can only take 20 steps at a time. 

 

To be honest, I don't know who we're talking about. This person has only made 9 posts on GradCafe, and she has posted in various threads (some unrelated to body weight) saying the same things about not being interested in fitness. 

 

She was saying in one thread that she didn't want to go to a school where people cared about fitness. She was agreeing with another poster who said that fitness fanatics are annoying. She then talked about her favorite pizza and coffee places in various cities. 

 

Not to mention, she hasn't logged on since she began this topic a week or two ago. What I'm hinting at is this person is probably not real and this person has a history (although very short) on GradCafe. Perhaps she would have been treated with more respect if she came off as a real person. But who knows. Perhaps we'd still try to run her over with our cars. 

[Graditude]

This thread was terribly disappointing... The last bastion of safe discrimination and the Megatron of concern trolling... Why thank you, concern troll, I had no idea and this is the very first time someone has ever suggested such a thing before... You are my hero... STFU... big shocker... some people... Some individuals here... 

 

For a forum all about higher education, this thread was sorely lacking it. 

 

 

It may be that you hold this topic very near and dear to your heart, and that others of us were just enjoying a discussion with no serious consequences. After all, the consensus is that the OP was fake, right? Perhaps it was unnecessary to shake your finger at everyone quite so vigorously. But OK. You have apparently established to your own satisfaction that most of us fail your higher education small talk test.

[vityaz]

For what it's worth, if you reverse image search the OP's avatar it doesn't come up with any matches. There's a decent chance it's a legit pic and not one she just found online somewhere.

[actuallyatree]

But the majority of athletes come from inner-cities and poor rural neighborhoods

 

I find this claim to be highly dubious. NBA players, for example, tend to come from two parent households with slightly above average income. At the 2012 Olympics, 37% of British medalists attended private schools (the bastions of the upper and upper-middle classes), compared to 7% of the general population. Elite athletics is, and always has been, dominated by people from middle or high income backgrounds.

[Guest Gnome Chomsky]

I find this claim to be highly dubious. NBA players, for example, tend to come from two parent households with slightly above average income. At the 2012 Olympics, 37% of British medalists attended private schools (the bastions of the upper and upper-middle classes), compared to 7% of the general population. Elite athletics is, and always has been, dominated by people from middle or high income backgrounds.

Haha wow. Are you talking Britain or Canada? I'm talking America. Post your made up statistics because I find your claim to be complete bullshit. Especially in the NFL (which has 20 times more players than the NBA) the average player is far from middle class. You're inaccurate in your claim.

Edited March 25, 2014 by Gnome Chomsky

[EmperorRyker]

I don't know what some of you are trying to say. People who are here described as "fat-shamers" or with some other descriptor that doesn't reflect their posts, have acknowledged everything about the relationship between obesity and factors that influence people's choices. No one is saying one person can't have it harder than the other. No one is saying that people's emotional, social and financial well-being doesn't influence their behavior and perhaps have them find solace in food. That's what everyone here has acknowledged, yet there seem to be insults thrown at people who have done that, but just hold fat people to different standards of personal behavior. It's really getting ridiculous. I also wonder about the honesty of some of you and wonder whether you think the same about those who lie, cheat, steal, whatever.

 

Italians are "known" to disregard traffic rules. Hence, if you're an Italian, it isn't really your fault if you do that. It's that you're, well... Italian. Can't go against that current, right? But now I'm shaming the Italians. Mi scusi.

 

To reiterate, because some don't seem to get it. Yes, some have to eat less or fight outside factors influencing their psychological state to stay at a "normal" weight. But since everyone can eat and/or exercise, some people believe that they are ultimately in control. Because technically speaking they are. They just have to have that much more determination. But isn't that the case in all aspects of life?

Edited March 25, 2014 by EmperorRyker

[Guest Gnome Chomsky]

I don't know what some of you are trying to say. People who are here described as "fat-shamers" or with some other descriptor that doesn't reflect their posts, have acknowledged everything about the relationship between obesity and factors that influence people's choices. No one is saying one person can't have it harder than the other. No one is saying that people's emotional, social and financial well-being doesn't influence their behavior and perhaps have them find solace in food. No one is saying That's what everyone here has acknowledged, yet there seem to be insults thrown at people who have done that, but just hold fat people to different standards of personal behavior. It's really getting ridiculous. I also wonder about the honesty of some of you and wonder whether you think the same about those who lie, cheat, steal, whatever.

 

Italians are "known" to disregard traffic rules. Hence, if you're an Italian, it isn't really your fault if you do that. It's that you're, well... Italian. Can't go against that current, right? But now I'm shaming the Italians. Mi scusi.

 

To reiterate, because some don't seem to get it. Yes, some have to eat less or fight outside factors influencing their psychological state to stay at a "normal" weight. But since everyone can eat and/or exercise, some people believe that they are ultimately in control. Because technically speaking they are. They just have to have that more determination. But isn't that the case in all aspects of life?

I agree. Personally, I'm a pretty bad alcoholic. Much worse than I'm letting off. Nobody feels sorry for me. I'm habitually the bad guy. Nobody cuts me slack when I do another horrible thing. I'm also a productive drunk, meaning I've managed to do well at a full-time job and maintain and 4.0 GPA while getting shitfaced 7 days a week. I drink between classes, study at the campus bar, and take an exam half in the bag. Obviously this makes it that much more difficult for me to succeed in school, but I do succeed and to the highest level. Nobody is gonna feel sorry for me. Nobody is gonna say, "Wow, what an amazing accomplishment." I don't see how doing well in school while working full-time and being an alcoholic is any different than managing to exercise and maintain a strict diet while living in poverty and being of a certain race. One thing I've noticed about this new age of endless knowledge is there's always someone to stand there with a picket fence, yelling out the results of some study published in some journal to disprove everything we've ever thought. Anything you've ever thought to be so, there's a study saying you're dead wrong based on some pseudo study, written by Jack Mehoff from Gotcha University. 

[EmperorRyker]

I agree. Personally, I'm a pretty bad alcoholic. Much worse than I'm letting off. Nobody feels sorry for me. I'm habitually the bad guy. Nobody cuts me slack when I do another horrible thing. I'm also a productive drunk, meaning I've managed to do well at a full-time job and maintain and 4.0 GPA while getting shitfaced 7 days a week. I drink between classes, study at the campus bar, and take an exam half in the bag. Obviously this makes it that much more difficult for me to succeed in school, but I do succeed and to the highest level. Nobody is gonna feel sorry for me. Nobody is gonna say, "Wow, what an amazing accomplishment." I don't see how doing well in school while working full-time and being an alcoholic is any different than managing to exercise and maintain a strict diet while living in poverty and being of a certain race. One thing I've noticed about this new age of endless knowledge is there's always someone to stand there with a picket fence, yelling out the results of some study published in some journal to disprove everything we've ever thought. Anything you've ever thought to be so, there's a study saying you're dead wrong based on some pseudo study, written by Jack Mehoff from Gotcha University. 

 

I don't mind people posting studies. In fact, I think people should do that. But here they have cited studies and then misinterpreted the results. For example, the person studying nutrition seems to have gotten some numbers that describe the current behavior of the population in general (or only of overweight people), whereas I thought the discussion was about personal, i.e. individual behavior. Then there's also that old causation/correlation thing going on.

 

Not everyone does it, of course. For example, I think TakeruK has taken a different stance (one that I actually really like myself), but you can't really have a discussion when free will is effectively discarded, and the two sides that seemingly battle aren't even fighting on the same grounds. Of course no one can lose or win in that situation, there's no one to fight!

Edited March 25, 2014 by EmperorRyker

[hj2012]

Haha wow. Are you talking Britain or Canada? I'm talking America. Post your made up statistics because I find your claim to be complete bullshit. Especially in the NFL (which has 20 times more players than the NBA) the average player is far from middle class. You're inaccurate in your claim.

 

One thing I've noticed about this new age of endless knowledge is there's always someone to stand there with a picket fence, yelling out the results of some study published in some journal to disprove everything we've ever thought. Anything you've ever thought to be so, there's a study saying you're dead wrong based on some pseudo study, written by Jack Mehoff from Gotcha University. 

 

 

Err, one of the cornerstones of scientific research is to question and test the kinds of assumptions we make on a day-to-day basis (as opposed to relying on anecdotal knowledge). Sometimes our assumptions are confirmed, and sometimes they are overturned.  In this case, it seems that the narratives we tell about athletes represent a minority of professional sports players today.

 

Anyway, if you're interested, this ESPN article references the NBA research: http://espn.go.com/espn/story/_/id/6777581/importance-athlete-background-making-nba There was an NYT article on this too, but I can't seem to find it. If I recall correctly, the authors found that pro athletes were much less likely to come from poorer backgrounds because of nutrition/height issues. I don't know if there are similar studies for NFL athletes, but I'd assume the commonalities remain. If you live in a neighborhood where 50% of the kids don't graduate high school and the extra-curricular funding is trashed, your path to pro will be more difficult.

 

This isn't pseudo-science or anyone trying to play gotcha! tricks. It's just that narratives of the inner city kid rising to great heights is much sexier (and therefore overplayed in the media), while the kid raised in suburban California in a stable home who wins a basketball scholarship to Duke is decidedly not.

[Guest Gnome Chomsky]

Err, one of the cornerstones of scientific research is to question and test the kinds of assumptions we make on a day-to-day basis (as opposed to relying on anecdotal knowledge). Sometimes our assumptions are confirmed, and sometimes they are overturned.  In this case, it seems that the narratives we tell about athletes represent a minority of professional sports players today.

 

Anyway, if you're interested, this ESPN article references the NBA research: http://espn.go.com/espn/story/_/id/6777581/importance-athlete-background-making-nba There was an NYT article on this too, but I can't seem to find it. If I recall correctly, the authors found that pro athletes were much less likely to come from poorer backgrounds because of nutrition/height issues. I don't know if there are similar studies for NFL athletes, but I'd assume the commonalities remain. If you live in a neighborhood where 50% of the kids don't graduate high school and the extra-curricular funding is trashed, your path to pro will be more difficult.

 

This isn't pseudo-science or anyone trying to play gotcha! tricks. It's just that narratives of the inner city kid rising to great heights is much sexier (and therefore overplayed in the media), while the kid raised in suburban California in a stable home who wins a basketball scholarship to Duke is decidedly not.

And another part of being a scholar is questioning what you read. You posted one article written by a writer from a sports magazine, quoting a few stats from one scientific article. It's also only about the NBA. The average NBA team has 12 players, while the average NFL team has 60 players. That's not including practice squads or developmental leagues. You also just assume the NFL is the same as the NBA, which I would highly question. Also, the article you posted said a third of the NBA comes from poverty, which is still a significant number. It also says over 90 percent of the NBA was impoverished in the 1970s. What was the excuse back then? Why were there no fat poor people back then? Also, in another thread I created where I proclaimed that college athletes (mainly basketball and football players) should not be forced to enroll in college classes, everyone was telling me the majority of college athletes don't go professional. Well, that tells me there must be a shit load of fit people, at least a third being from the hood, which the other poster claimed is a guarantee to be obese. As a scholar and researcher, you should know there are multiple factors in play in everything. Yes, it's true that lots of professional athletes come from privileged backgrounds because a lot of them are children of former professional athletes. Well, that tells me more studies need to be done to see why it is that children of former pros go pro themselves. Maybe they get more formal training, private tryouts, go to better colleges, etc. But that says nothing about a bunch of impoverished kids from the ghetto being morbidly obese.  

[ExponentialDecay]

Haha wow. Are you talking Britain or Canada? I'm talking America. Post your made up statistics because I find your claim to be complete bullshit. Especially in the NFL (which has 20 times more players than the NBA) the average player is far from middle class. You're inaccurate in your claim.

 

Hey Gnome Chomsky, how did you troll your way into graduate school? Because I would be honored to avail myself of your skillz.

 

What the fuuuuuuck, man, where do you even come up with these illusions? I mean, I've only been on volleyball, hockey, and crew, but in those sports, the majority of olympic athletes come from well-to-do families, because, guess what, sports are different and you can't generalize across all sports! Also, whenever I watch those linebackers in the NFL, I shamelessly stuff my face with chicken wings because, oh man, I have a LONG way to go . 

 

Oh wait, they're NFL athletes, so they're probably fit, right? They probably run that football obstacle course or whatever in 48 seconds and benchpress your mom 3x10 even though she's so fat, because they're professional athletes. But they're still fat. Oh shit. Holy shit. FAT PEOPLE CAN BE ATHLETIC TOO. 

 

This is cray cray. I mean, next thing you know, we're gonna be discovering that FAT PEOPLE EXIST NATURALLY IN THE WILD.

 

sanctorum cacas!

 

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/955775-nfls-all-time-fat-guy-team

 

 

 

Edited March 25, 2014 by exponentialdecay

[Guest Gnome Chomsky]

Hey Gnome Chomsky, how did you troll your way into graduate school? Because I would be honored to avail myself of your skillz.

What the fuuuuuuck, man, where do you even come up with these illusions? I mean, I've only been on volleyball, hockey, and crew, but in those sports, the majority of olympic athletes come from well-to-do families, because, guess what, sports are different and you can't generalize across all sports! Also, whenever I watch those linebackers in the NFL, I shamelessly stuff my face with chicken wings because, oh man, I have a LONG way to go .

Oh wait, they're NFL athletes, so they're probably fit, right? They probably run that football obstacle course or whatever in 48 seconds and benchpress your mom 3x10 even though she's so fat, because they're professional athletes. But they're still fat. Oh shit. Holy shit. FAT PEOPLE CAN BE ATHLETIC TOO.

This is cray cray. I mean, next thing you know, we're gonna be discovering that FAT PEOPLE EXIST NATURALLY IN THE WILD.

sanctorum cacas!

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/955775-nfls-all-time-fat-guy-team

First of all, the OP of this thread is far from a fat athlete because she said she can't walk more than 20 steps. If you've read, we've acknowledged people can have meat on their bones but still be athletic. The OP is far from that.

Next, linebackers are far from fat. You're thinking about linemen. And once again, they can walk more than 20 steps. And linemen make up a small portion of all football players. Not to mention, basketball has no fat people.

Also, you named the whitest sports known to man. We're talking about basketball and football since someone claimed everyone from the ghetto has an excuse to be fat. I'm saying a large percentage of those sports are people from the ghetto, and an even larger number play their whole lives and never go pro.

I was trying to show that, yes, certain factors do make it more difficult to maintain a healthy weight but no factors make it impossible. My example, a large number of inner-city kids go on to play ball despite growing up in the ghetto, when the other poster made a doom and gloom post about obesity and poverty.

A few of us have been making this point. We know there are factors that exist that make all things more difficult for certain people. Poverty makes being healthy difficult. Bad genetics make being sober difficult. Etc etc etc. Our point has been, despite the added difficulties, it's still not impossible.

Many people have been quick to excuse people. We're trying to say no one should be excused. People go on killing sprees because their daddies touched their special parts, but that doesn't make it okay.

Edited March 25, 2014 by Gnome Chomsky

[ExponentialDecay]

Many people have been quick to excuse people. We're trying to say no one should be excused. People go on killing sprees because their daddies touched their special parts, but that doesn't make it okay.

 

Jesus, you're comparing being a serial killer to being fat? My linguistics vocabulary is a little rusty, but that's some slicey and dicey semantics, innit?

 

What I don't understand is why you think a fat person must do everything in their power not to be fat. To take the OP's example, why must she put off graduate school until she loses weight? It's not like she's not gonna spend the next 5-10 years of her life glued to her desk for the best outcome, so it's not like her mobility issues have a significant impact on her work productivity, the validity of her research, her intelligence and writing skills, etc. Fat people can still go to graduate school, you know. So can people with cancer. Or people with depression. Or people who are debilitatingly insecure unless they have a boyfriend, like your friend LittleDarlings. Or people who have bombed a small village during their tenure with the US Army. All of us have shit going on all the time. Why do you insist on making a person's body weight an insurmountable hurdle to them living their life? A fat person is a stereotype, but they are also still a person.

 

I'm not sure responsibility, and excuses, are a useful rhetoric here. You've admitted that people can be fat owing to a lot of factors - but why does it follow that all these factors must be surmountable? I get you're super proud about pulling yourself up by your bootstraps or some shit, but it doesn't work out for other folks, either because they don't want it, or because they're plain out of luck. I get why you're so invested in maintaining the human-will rhetoric. It's like 99% of your identity. But you actually owe a lot to other people (starting with your parents), and some of it is good, and some of it is bad. Some people are fat because they are, and you can sit here splitting hairs all day, and that won't change their reality.

 

So basically, I don't understand why all fat people must get skinny, and I don't understand why those fat people who are not skinny must be shamed for being skinny. 

 

No one should be excused. No one should be excused from being treated like a human being and given basic respect.

[Guest Gnome Chomsky]

Jesus, you're comparing being a serial killer to being fat? My linguistics vocabulary is a little rusty, but that's some slicey and dicey semantics, innit?

What I don't understand is why you think a fat person must do everything in their power not to be fat. To take the OP's example, why must she put off graduate school until she loses weight? It's not like she's not gonna spend the next 5-10 years of her life glued to her desk for the best outcome, so it's not like her mobility issues have a significant impact on her work productivity, the validity of her research, her intelligence and writing skills, etc. Fat people can still go to graduate school, you know. So can people with cancer. Or people with depression. Or people who are debilitatingly insecure unless they have a boyfriend, like your friend LittleDarlings. Or people who have bombed a small village during their tenure with the US Army. All of us have shit going on all the time. Why do you insist on making a person's body weight an insurmountable hurdle to them living their life? A fat person is a stereotype, but they are also still a person.

I'm not sure responsibility, and excuses, are a useful rhetoric here. You've admitted that people can be fat owing to a lot of factors - but why does it follow that all these factors must be surmountable? I get you're super proud about pulling yourself up by your bootstraps or some shit, but it doesn't work out for other folks, either because they don't want it, or because they're plain out of luck. I get why you're so invested in maintaining the human-will rhetoric. It's like 99% of your identity. But you actually owe a lot to other people (starting with your parents), and some of it is good, and some of it is bad. Some people are fat because they are, and you can sit here splitting hairs all day, and that won't change their reality.

So basically, I don't understand why all fat people must get skinny, and I don't understand why those fat people who are not skinny must be shamed for being skinny.

No one should be excused. No one should be excused from being treated like a human being and given basic respect.

There's no point bringing my parents into this. I guess I could thank them for genetics. Never really knew them.

Also, you asked why being fat has to be an insurmountable thing. I'm not saying that. I mentioned earlier I know some fat girls who are proud and I respect that.

But the OP has started numerous threads saying she doesn't even want to be around fit people. I don't know people with cancer who don't want to go to a school with any healthy people, or a depressed person who doesn't want to be around happy people. You're right about LittleDarlings. She'd rather go to a school with all single people. But she special.

Anyway, I don't have a problem with people owning unpopular traits. Ask my classmates. I'm the proudest drunk you'll ever meet. Most people hate it. I don't care. But when all your posts are about your weight and you've said many times you don't even want to be around fit people, you're asking people to say something.

Edited March 25, 2014 by Gnome Chomsky

[hj2012]

And another part of being a scholar is questioning what you read. You posted one article written by a writer from a sports magazine, quoting a few stats from one scientific article. It's also only about the NBA. The average NBA team has 12 players, while the average NFL team has 60 players. That's not including practice squads or developmental leagues. You also just assume the NFL is the same as the NBA, which I would highly question. Also, the article you posted said a third of the NBA comes from poverty, which is still a significant number. It also says over 90 percent of the NBA was impoverished in the 1970s. What was the excuse back then? Why were there no fat poor people back then? Also, in another thread I created where I proclaimed that college athletes (mainly basketball and football players) should not be forced to enroll in college classes, everyone was telling me the majority of college athletes don't go professional. Well, that tells me there must be a shit load of fit people, at least a third being from the hood, which the other poster claimed is a guarantee to be obese. As a scholar and researcher, you should know there are multiple factors in play in everything. Yes, it's true that lots of professional athletes come from privileged backgrounds because a lot of them are children of former professional athletes. Well, that tells me more studies need to be done to see why it is that children of former pros go pro themselves. Maybe they get more formal training, private tryouts, go to better colleges, etc. But that says nothing about a bunch of impoverished kids from the ghetto being morbidly obese.  

 

 I'm not familiar with your other thread, and I don't disagree with the basic premise that, despite societal factors, people need to eventually take control of their own circumstances (though social/cultural factors surely make it more difficult for certain individuals). I was just commenting on this particular claim:

 

 But the majority of athletes come from inner-cities and poor rural neighborhoods.

 

I think it can be more or less accepted that this simply isn't true. Some may come from these neighborhoods, but sports (in general) have high barriers to entry that tend to make it difficult for poorer children to excel. These barriers (lack of equipment, playing fields, coaches, little leagues, etc) may also be one factor in the general fitness and health disparity between the lower and middle/upper class.

 

I suspect this to be particularly true of American football, as the sport requires expensive equipment (helmets, padding, etc) as opposed to basketball and soccer, which have relatively lower requirements to play. In inner city schools, football programs are often the first to be slashed because of their comparatively high cost of maintenance. It therefore wouldn't surprise me if an even smaller percentage of NFL athletes came from disadvantaged backgrounds. It would be cool to see some studies on this, if anyone knows of any.

[Geologizer]

 

So basically, I don't understand why all fat people must get skinny, and I don't understand why those fat people who are not skinny must be shamed for  [not] being skinny. 

 

This is an idea I've seen pop up a few times now, and I find it curious (the first part). Being that obesity is a medical condition with a laundry list of short and long term adverse health effects, is it really so outlandish to build a framework around the ideal of being healthy? After diagnosis, I don't think it should be considered any different than any other medical condition (diabetes, cancer, asthma, etc.) where wanting treatment is kind of a given. Being at a healthier weight by way of healthier lifestyle choices just happens to be the treatment for this particular condition most of the time. Take that reason for wanting to be healthy off the table, then sure, you're going to be treading pretty tough waters to make an argument. Still, I find it pretty bizarre that you would.  

 

Now getting to the second part of your statement. I haven't been reading everything terribly carefully, but I seemed to have missed the part people started saying that we should publicly shame people who are obese. People seem to be jumping straight off the deep end where if you're not on the "right" side of the argument, that you're calling for obese people to be rounded up and mocked in the public square. Where did the reasonable middle ground go? I'm not sure anyone suggested a free pass be given to just go on a tirade and berate every fat person on the street. Quite the contrary actually.  

[Guest Gnome Chomsky]

This is an idea I've seen pop up a few times now, and I find it curious (the first part). Being that obesity is a medical condition with a laundry list of short and long term adverse health effects, is it really so outlandish to build a framework around the ideal of being healthy? After diagnosis, I don't think it should be considered any different than any other medical condition (diabetes, cancer, asthma, etc.) where wanting treatment is kind of a given. Being at a healthier weight by way of healthier lifestyle choices just happens to be the treatment for this particular condition most of the time. Take that reason for wanting to be healthy off the table, then sure, you're going to be treading pretty tough waters to make an argument. Still, I find it pretty bizarre that you would.  

 

Now getting to the second part of your statement. I haven't been reading everything terribly carefully, but I seemed to have missed the part people started saying that we should publicly shame people who are obese. People seem to be jumping straight off the deep end where if you're not on the "right" side of the argument, that you're calling for obese people to be rounded up and mocked in the public square. Where did the reasonable middle ground go? I'm not sure anyone suggested a free pass be given to just go on a tirade and berate every fat person on the street. Quite the contrary actually.

Exactly. There's a difference between being proud of your body and wanting to be healthy. The OP can only take 20 steps at a time and people are really asking why she should even want to get fit? For all the times I've been accused of being ridiculous, THAT is fucking ridiculous.

[Graditude]

Wow! Are all US campuses going to be like this? Ha ha. If anyone asks me, "Middle-Aged Boy Kylie, what do you think of controversial issue X?" I will be sure to maintain a blank expression and ask, "Hm, why don't you tell me what you think first, earnest young American" as I scan for the nearest emergency exit. Man.

 

Exponential Decay, you're starting to badger a bit. You seem to be willfully exaggerating or misunderstanding the points that some posters are trying to make, pretending that someone was equating the obese with serial killers, etc.

 

Anyway, I have to start packing things up for the big move across the Atlantic, so I would like to conclude with an anecdote. Yes, I know anecdotes have little probative value.

 

Let's say that we're in a pub near a uni in the UK: a member of staff is discussing his weight problem (massive beer belly, mostly) with an earnest American student. Of the rest of us at the table, I of course suspect he's trying to apologize in advance for planning to hit on her later, maybe seeing how she reacts. Cue concerned student face. Student explains that it's not his fault: maybe genetics? maybe lack of fresh food within walking distance of where he, um, grew up? The prof is black, by the way, and the student is white. English prof takes swig of ale and says, "Nonsense. It's because I generally eat too much of the wrong type of thing and don't get off my fat arse enough."

 

So my question is, to those who have been steadily downvoting anyone who suggests that obesity is a combination of environmental and personal causes, what would you do as the earnest young student in this case? Would you insist on your multifaceted explanations of the professor's weight problem, or would you accept an intelligent, self-aware person's assessment of his own situation? Would you be shocked, shocked that he was a bit rude and offhand about his condition, and perhaps think he wasn't a very nice person for being so direct about obese people... oh, wait, he is obese. So is that OK now?

 

I think a good feature of US education is probably its emphasis on sensitivity. An equally good feature of UK education is its emphasis on vigorous debate with occasionally shocking humor. This has been an eye-opening thread in many ways,,,

 

Best of luck to all as we start the new adventure in grad school!

[ExponentialDecay]

I think a good feature of US education is probably its emphasis on sensitivity. An equally good feature of UK education is its emphasis on vigorous debate with occasionally shocking humor.

 

Well, I'm an economics major, so I wouldn't know about sensitivity, but I definitely know that any feature of my kentish boarding-school education did not contradict the overall goal of becoming more knowledgeable and better educated. So sorry, sugar, but your angle that you have a European and therefore starkly original view on the issue is neither accurate nor original, and you can stop touting it. Stiff upper lip

 

I'm not entirely sure why you read my responses as "badgering", whatever that means in Spain. If Gnome says that fat people must be held responsible for their fatness because people from broken families are held responsible when they become serial killers, YES, he is comparing fat people to serial killers. I'm glad you're going to graduate school in Rhetoric and Composition this fall, where they will be able to teach you this astonishing bit of analysis. 

 

 

 

is it really so outlandish to build a framework around the ideal of being healthy?

 

I believe you have been provided, prior in the discussion, with links to studies showing that the health scares you mention are quite weakly correlated with obesity and in most cases more contingent on lifestyle than on BMI. You will also have been provided with links that show that, in the majority of cases, people who diet gain their weight back within 5 years. This is old research, mate, but it makes for some fascinating reading.

 

But I will go back on a point. You will say, especially since health risks are contingent upon a healthy lifestyle, shouldn't we "build a framework around the ideal of being healthy"? No, your argument is completely impalatable to me, for two reasons. 1) you say you're promoting health, but you're actually promoting thinness. I understand that you're concerned that she can't walk more than 20 paces, but you don't even stop to consider why that is - whether it's a medical condition or a lack of physical conditioning. You immediately pounce on her fat. This whole discussion so far has centered on fat people, not unfit people. I have less of a problem promoting health, but your idea of health includes the idea fat person=unhealthy person, which is patently untrue. You say promoting an "ideal" like it's easy, but it actually involves a lot of measuring and defining of that ideal - because how can you promote an ideal if that ideal is not measurable? Inevitably such a policy would lead to the statistical discrimination of some population. 2) Whenever you're building a social ideal, you're engaging in social engineering. I'm not a libertarian, but I don't believe that creating a mythology of something is useful for anything but social control. People should 1) have access to information that shows that it is physical fitness that reduces the risk of metabolic disease and so on, and not how fat or thin you are, and 2) be able to choose if they want to reduce their risk of metabolic disease, or do something else with their lives. I cannot cede the last point. Body autonomy is a basic freedom, and basic freedoms are protected in the United States. Gnome will chime in here with something along the lines of, "but why must we make special accommodations for fat people, then?" - and you don't, actually. It would be, you know, decent of you to treat fat people like people (not patronize them, not talk down to them, not tell them what to do with their bodies, all of which you have been doing here), and not expressly hinder them from living their lives (you shouldn't be going to grad school if you're so fat!!!). Just do what you do with any other group of people you dislike. Step away and move on.

 

I'm pretty sure I haven't dissuaded y'all from being assholes, but I hope I have at least elucidated my position.

 

And now we can close this thread, because it is apparent that there is no such thing as a fat-friendly campus. I doubt there's even a fat-friendly morgue.

Edited March 25, 2014 by exponentialdecay

[Geologizer]

I'm really not following how you've managed to completely separate obesity and health. You mention that the health effects are weakly correlated to obesity? I think you're terribly misinterpreting that result (not sure study says that) to meet your own world view, or getting caught in a red herring. If you want to compare to healthy people, and two unhealthy people at opposite ends of the BMI spectrum and see that it health risks track with the unhealthy group, fine, not surprising. What you're failing to remember is that most obese people are also unhealthy. So it's not true that health effects don't track strongly with obesity. Not all people who are unhealthy are obese, but most who are obese are unhealthy (and that health in further reduced by remaining obese). Being that your argument is pretty centered around that point, I think you should reconsider.

It's not some abstract social ideal that I'm talking about. It's the ideal that people with a medical condition be encouraged into treatment of that condition, which is frankly an ideal that exists live and well today. Yet for some reason there's a bit of hedging when it comes to obesity - seems a bit odd to me. There's some disconnect in the public mind where obesity isn't some sort of disease where treating it is a given, and I think that disconnect is fostering the disease, delaying effective large scale measures against it. I hope this discussion exposed that disconnect. Now, I agree, body autonomy is a basic right. If a person chooses to forego treatment, then that's their prerogative. I find it odd that for this disease that it's socially acceptable to forego treatment though. Would such a cavalier attitude be as socially acceptable toward cancer? People wouldn't quibble the merits of being able to make the decision, but would we be so comfortable with it?

Edited March 25, 2014 by Geologizer

[ExponentialDecay]

What you're failing to remember is that most obese people are also unhealthy.

 

What you're failing to remember is that non-believers will burn in hell. I have no sources for this claim except what my mom says, but it's true, and you better believe it, because I said so.

 

 

Being that your argument is pretty centered around that point, I think you should reconsider.

 

No, my argument is centered around the point that fat people are people. (Feel free to google "people" for clarification on what people are). You should therefore stop reducing fat people to their fatness. 

 

 

It's the ideal that people with a medical condition be encouraged into treatment of that condition,

 

Adipose tissue occurs naturally in the human body. It is not a "medical condition", in the same way that having ten fingers or being tall is not a medical condition. Once again: this is not an argument of whether an obese person should or should not lose weight (that falls under body autonomy). This is the statement that having fat tissue on your body in whatever quantity is not a priori a death sentence, or an excuse to be treated like shit.

 

 

Seriously, when a fat person comes onto the forum asking for advice on how to determine if a university will physically accommodate people of size, how do you think it is acceptable to tell them to lose weight? Nobody asked you your opinion, whether medical or stupid. Get the fuck out.

Edited March 25, 2014 by exponentialdecay

[ExponentialDecay]

Would such a cavalier attitude be as socially acceptable toward cancer?

 

Fat people are not cancer.

[Varangian]

I'll just throw something out there. I'm not saying poverty and obesity aren't correlated. But the majority of athletes come from inner-cities and poor rural neighborhoods. These are people you mention who live in areas with no access to supermarkets, no money for healthy food, extremely hot temperatures, and in gang-ridden neighborhoods. So how were they able to get in phenomenal shape? I know there are a lot of obese people in the hood, but there are also a lot of extremely fit people. I ask because you're basically saying anyone in the hood should be obese. Based on your argument. 

 

That is the most convoluted interpretation of an argument I've seen in quite some time. Poverty and health are inversely correlated. This has been proven in study after study. It's not just my argument, it has been scientifically validated. Your athlete example is so ridiculous because not only are you stereotyping where all athletes are coming from and who they are, but assuming a lot of factors that you know absolutely nothing about. There is more to athletes than just football or basketball (which is what I imagine you're thinking of when you think athletes). Even your use of the word "hood" tells me a little more about your stereotypes. But to answer your most ridiculous example question, I'll propose another one on the same level of ridiculousness. Why, if there are so many criminals and drug dealers in "the hood", isn't everyone in "the hood" a criminal or drug dealer? When you extrapolate ridiculous and invalidated claims, you can expect such in return.

 

 

Also, I think it's worth commenting that this thread initially started with the premise that we are talking about someone who maxes out at 20-30 steps, which was in the back of my mind the whole time. I don't think any stretch of the imagination could consider that healthy. The implicit assumption was that we're talking about the unhealthy side (which I know I didn't do a good job of making clear), so point well taken that a healthy body weight is person specific.

 

Varangian, I think we can avoid a lot of grief and much less diversion of the topic if we don't correlate the "Fat Acceptance Movement" with Feminism. I don't think any one here would argue that people who are obese should be unfairly discriminated against, or be subject to threats and/or harrassment. No one is going to argue that the rights of obese people should be less than those of thin people. There are a few that have made categorical statements that don't allow for any factors out of a person's control, and I agree, those are wrong. However, to suggest that those suffering from those extenuating circumstances are even remotely close to a significant portion of the unhealthy obese population, I think is also wrong. What that invites is a blanket dismissal of the issue, because after all, it's out of control and who are we to make judgments? For feminism, all women are women, and are not in control of that (not trying to suggest this is any sort of malady - just making sure to indicate why this isn't a good example). In the case of obesity, most are obese due to factors they can in fact manage. There is a small portion obviously that can't. Why not make them the exception, not the rule? I think we'll be a lot better off if we can make that distinction. We'd have a lot better infrastructure in place to combat obesity if it weren't getting stifled by the eggshell walking necessary to not incite PC outrage.  

 

 Please note that I in no way "correlate" the Fat Acceptance Movement with Feminism. What I do say is that like Feminism, the Fat Acceptance Movement is this radical notion that fat people are....people, just like women are...people. Deserving of equal rights and opportunities just like anyone else. "It is the belief that a fat person should not have to be okay with discrimination in the job market, bullying, harassment, or threats." You have no idea, individual to individual what makes a person fat, obese, or morbidly obese. You don't know what their lifestyle choices are. You don't know what medical conditions they may or may not have, or what medications they are on, or if they've had a physical injury that has kept them from being mobile. You don't know what their mental state of being is. You say relating it to feminism is a blanket dismissal of the issue but then proceed to make a blanket dismissal of the causes of obesity assuming that all factors in obesity are factors that can be managed when you have no variables, no facts and no information on the lives of those individuals. I won't deny that that yes, for many people, diet and exercise will be the answer, but making the blanket statement that is is the only thing needed, or they are obese ONLY because they've let go of factors that can be managed is an ill informed mindset. 

 

 

 

It may be that you hold this topic very near and dear to your heart, and that others of us were just enjoying a discussion with no serious consequences. After all, the consensus is that the OP was fake, right? Perhaps it was unnecessary to shake your finger at everyone quite so vigorously. But OK. You have apparently established to your own satisfaction that most of us fail your higher education small talk test.

 

You make too many presumptions. The OP may well have read through some of the initial posts on this topic, found it not to her liking and moved on. I'm not really sure why people presume why if someone makes a handful of forum posts and disappears, the person was fake. This happens on forums all the time. People sign up, post a few times and disappear for a wide variety of reasons. 

 

 

Wow! Are all US campuses going to be like this? Ha ha. If anyone asks me, "Middle-Aged Boy Kylie, what do you think of controversial issue X?" I will be sure to maintain a blank expression and ask, "Hm, why don't you tell me what you think first, earnest young American" as I scan for the nearest emergency exit. Man.

 

Exponential Decay, you're starting to badger a bit. You seem to be willfully exaggerating or misunderstanding the points that some posters are trying to make, pretending that someone was equating the obese with serial killers, etc.

 

Anyway, I have to start packing things up for the big move across the Atlantic, so I would like to conclude with an anecdote. Yes, I know anecdotes have little probative value.

 

Let's say that we're in a pub near a uni in the UK: a member of staff is discussing his weight problem (massive beer belly, mostly) with an earnest American student. Of the rest of us at the table, I of course suspect he's trying to apologize in advance for planning to hit on her later, maybe seeing how she reacts. Cue concerned student face. Student explains that it's not his fault: maybe genetics? maybe lack of fresh food within walking distance of where he, um, grew up? The prof is black, by the way, and the student is white. English prof takes swig of ale and says, "Nonsense. It's because I generally eat too much of the wrong type of thing and don't get off my fat arse enough."

 

So my question is, to those who have been steadily downvoting anyone who suggests that obesity is a combination of environmental and personal causes, what would you do as the earnest young student in this case? Would you insist on your multifaceted explanations of the professor's weight problem, or would you accept an intelligent, self-aware person's assessment of his own situation? Would you be shocked, shocked that he was a bit rude and offhand about his condition, and perhaps think he wasn't a very nice person for being so direct about obese people... oh, wait, he is obese. So is that OK now?

 

I think a good feature of US education is probably its emphasis on sensitivity. An equally good feature of UK education is its emphasis on vigorous debate with occasionally shocking humor. This has been an eye-opening thread in many ways,,,

 

Best of luck to all as we start the new adventure in grad school!

 

Where to start? That type of condescension is only going to get you so far in America once the newness of you being European wears off on your campus. I used to live in Spain, and I love my Spaniard friends - none of them were academics but I never once heard a single statement of condescension from them. Actually the only time I did was from an academic studying my program originally from Barcelona. Not really sure where I'm going with that anecdote and I'm probably stereotyping a little bit about my favorite people but really , your posts are very ill informed. Europe is great, and yes people are thinner over there but Europeans also have completely different lifestyle from Americans. The cities are much more compact, the reliance on cars is vastly diminished, the public transportation  is far superior, the freshness of the food is very different, the treatment of the food itself is also very different. You'll see for yourself when you come here. And you will gain weight here even eating the same exact way you do there. I say this from experience and from every single one of my American and European friends who travel back and fourth between Europe and America. All the Americans lose weight after being in Europe and all the Europeans gain weight when they come to America. 

 

Your anecdote is kind of pointless. The person talking obviously knows what the root cause of their weight problem is. Someone who does, says it and is fine with that is one matter. They might be content with that - in which case, so? If they want to lose that weight, then they already know what they have to do and just haven't done it yet. You can chalk that up to whatever is going on with that person - maybe their lazy, maybe their busy, maybe they're just content don't really care so much. Point is, you don't really know - and someone like that won't change unless they want to. Much like Mr. Gnome up there. His functional alcoholism doesn't prevent him from continuing his work and as a result, hasn't stopped drinking. The second point is - that you can't assume this is true for every overweight person. You have absolutely no idea what other variables are at work. 

 

OP's original issue of health and disability is a concern - but she in fact asked about fat-friendly campuses. Not to be concern trolled about getting healthy. It is simply not anyone's business but hers to choose how/when/if she wants/can/is able to get healthy and/or reduce her size.