Mommy I Want Plus Size Barbie

And ultimately it always boils down to energy in vs energy out. Your body won't store that cupcake for very long if it's actually needing that energy. A prime example of Michael Phelps during training season, his intake is 12,000 calories per day, it's insane the amount he has to eat. He doesn't balloon up because he's actually using that energy and not sitting on his *** watching TV or at the computer desk. The minute details about metabolism and specific food types are important when someone is fine tuning their diet and trying to get a specific cut or maximize their health, it's useless when someone is 50~100+ lbs overweight. At that point in time they need a massive reduction in excess body mass and the only way that's gonna happen is by cutting down energy intake to bare minimum and dealing with the withdrawal effects for the first couple of months.

Where do you think the numbers come from? Hmm... they match perfectly the numbers recommended under the BMI. I guess that's just "coincidence." *** dolt.

I notice you don't have any commentary on the science I provided. I don't know why I expect you to. Mere facts and proof never change someone's mind once they've decided what it is.

since BMI is a simplified version designed around a typical lifestyle, it actually doesn't line up perfectly and is only similar to the medical scale because it's based off it.

I'm still not sure what data you provided that contradicted anything i have said or why you think that calling me a dolt is acceptable, but do continue to throw a tantrum like every thread you post in.

You DO realize what website you're on, right?



Damn you picture, not able to be bigger. D:

You're "still" not sure what data I provided that contradicts you? You clearly took long enough to open the spoiler in which I showed you a study demonstrating that being overweight or slightly obese increase life expectancy as compared to normal weight people, so I guess you either couldn't understand it or are incapable of reading. That or you have some kind of brain hemorrhage that allows you to make no connection between reduced chances of mortality and your claims that extra weight positively indicates poorer health.

And I'll call you a dolt when you're being a dolt. Which is all the time in this thread, irritatingly. BMI is a ratio of height to weight. Your precious appeal-to-authority "ideal weight" guideline is a ratio of height to weight. Gee, I wonder if that's the same damned thing! Minor variance between the two is negligible since BMI is deliberately skewed around certain decimal points.

I've never said that being overweight shortens lifespan, i even said being overweight lowers risks for some conditions. you're picking a fight with a conjured caricature of me because you need a nemisis.

Ah, so then you gleefully skipped over the other article I referenced which showed that certain forms of overweight provide protection against those conditions you're referring to.

You consistently ignore any evidence presented to you, fail to provide real data to support your own arguments, and rely on terse dodges and backhanded insults. I know your little white knights are pleased with it, but I am not fooled. The best you've tried to do in supporting your opinion is to make unsupported appeals to authority, rely on "it stands to reason" statements, and claim that any opposing evidence was never presented. I don't know why I bother to keep a horse in a race that I've already won.

Hit the nail on the head.


Oh wow! This is enlightening. It's a competition? A thread on FFXIAH is a legitimate source of accomplishment now?

Ugh...I shouldn't have got on here on a weekend.

You're still not getting it, because I never denied the accuracy of BMR calculation in overall weight loss nor do I claim the majority of people have metabolic disease. All I'm pointing out is that the things you say are about as dumb as telling women in labor "just grit your teeth and squat in a cave to squirt that baby out, people of ye olde did it and they do it in third world countries too".

FTR I think the "fat acceptance movement" is *** stupid because they spread lots of misinformation and bad science, and you're not the least bit better in that regard

oh yeah Onorgul I'll look up the article you referenced when I get a bit more free time and try to give an intelligible resposne but a bit too busy atm

Wow, Zahrah, I'm sorry I misjudged you as badly as I did. I had thought you were a rational and level-headed participant, but since you have just explicitly said that you logged in to make a dig at me, I guess you're petty and resentful instead.

Anyhow, I cannot seem to figure out what argument you've been trying to push, Jassik. It started off by you saying that you think overweight is a problem and voicing it in terms of health, but every time you've been challenged on the subject of health or the metric by which one gauges excess weight, you eventually capitulate. I think the most you've been able to claim after all of this is that being excessively heavy causes joint and back problems. I'll give you a freebie and throw sleep apnea into that mix, especially given that joint cartilage deterioration can happen as a consequence of things like exercise just as much as carrying excessive adipose tissue.

I get the impression that what you would rather say is, "I think fat people look gross." You've said several times that your opinion isn't about vanity, but given your opinion is supported by, well, nothing, vanity is about the only thing left. And here's the real trick: having an aesthetic opinion makes your argument unassailable. No one is debating that Savael is out of line for being proud of his "No Fat Chicks" bumper sticker because argument can't change aesthetics. Where he and you have both gone astray is in trying to use science to back up an opinion that is simultaneously insupportable and unassailable.

In terms of science, virtually all metrics of what is an appropriate weight are inherently flawed. Generalizing has proved to be nearly impossible. Attempts to generalize have revealed counter-intuitive things like, say, increased health and longevity correlated to higher weight (because, let's recall, none of the studies cited in this thread have made a distinction between adipose and lean tissue percentages). Central obesity is correlated with artherosclerosis and diabetes, but that correlation is neither causation nor even a strong predictor. Peripheral obesity is correlated to protection from those same chronic conditions, and metrics like BMI fail to account for that difference. The only negative conditions that have a causative relationship with obesity are cartilage deterioration (which, as I've pointed out, is not exclusive to excess weight) and sleep apnea (which only happens with considerable obesity, not just simple overweight). Oh, and there's the many psychological impacts, of course, like being condescendingly pitied by people who are slimmer.

Of course, the real irony here is that I have no problem saying that I find body fat unattractive, especially in myself. That I recognize it poses limited health risks in itself does not preclude my finding it aesthetically unappealing. By the same token, though, I find anorectic slimness grossly disgusting, too, which is why I've continually suggested that formative models like children's toys should more closely resemble the average person. It is a fallacy to presume that I am suggesting fat is beautiful simply because I point out that it is not the public health bugaboo that some would present it as.

If it pleases you to pretend to be a victim because I keep challenging you, Jassik, I won't stop you. I only bothered to argue with you because I thought that you had a supportable point to make and a coherent point-of-view that was worth becoming acquainted with. Instead you edit your opinion every time it is roundly challenged and have whittled it down to nothing, so I am left wondering if you ever had a thought to make and, if not, why you kept arguing.

I said clearly, multiple times...

Overweight is a medical term meaning you are outside of your ideal weight range. There are real and documented health concerns associated with being overweight. The focus needs to be on the health aspects associated with the habits that result in being overweight. That's literally what I have been saying throughout the last 15 pages that you've tried to make me out as misinformed or having a psychosis about weight. I don't have a problem with fat people, never have, never will. Health is the concern, not weight, not fashion, and not the media. I have a problem with people blaming things within their control on a genetics, metabolic disease, or a friggin doll. Those factors do exist and are a source of much suffering for the people affected, but there are orders of magnitude more people who are overweight/obese than the most extreme estimates of undiagnosed metabolic diseases.

Being overweight and being unhealthy are different things, but both CAN and often ARE the extension of a poor diet and sedentary lifestyle.

Your obsession with weight and measurements of weight are a red herring, and from the beginning I've said that Barbie is not the primary, or even a significant part, of the physical and psychological issues that kids are facing.

You have done a great job of disguising your strawman attacks as outrage or genuine "think about the children" rhetoric, but you continually focus only on winning an argument and not the content of the conversation. If you care about the kids so much, spend less time trying to defame me and more time helping the children. I am involved in initiatives to update school lunch programs and have been in contact with the local school boards to work through securing funding and accreditation for more in-depth nutrition programs and to attempt to save the physical education programs that are being defunded.

I know a bit about the subject...

Paradoxically, the chase associated with trying to lose weight in order to become more healthy can become the source of a whole new slew of disorders and illness underpinned by the stress of trying to attain that weight loss.

It is the kind of cycle that kids are dealing with at younger and younger ages, and it's terrible.

What. Are. They.

This is, by far, the tactic I've seen you use repeatedly: you allude to these health concerns and chronic conditions but explicitly avoid naming them. Since I've just asked you to recap your position, I will ask you once more to name what these concerns are that are central to your argumentation.

You've said you "pity" them. Your condescension may be born of naivete, but it isn't a helpful attitude to have.

arthritis, hypertension, chronic fatigue, diabetes, sleeping disorders, stroke, to name a few. They aren't caused specifically by weight, but weight INCREASES your risk factors and exacerbates existing and progressive conditions. I never said "chronic conditions" and I've used the phrasing "associated with" exclusively. You are such a stickler for phrasing and terminology, why do you think I've used that language? Because it's the correct way to convey the point, I shouldn't need to spend pages of thread explaining this crap.

The more concerning conditions are directly related to sedentary lifestyles and high fat/sugar diets and prolonged overeating.


I never onced used the word "pity"...

I said...


How would it be better phrased so that a hypersensitive person wouldn't think it was condescending?

So you've noticed that I use words with precision and have missed the point I made earlier that correlation is not causation? This is why you're driving me mad.

Merely being fat does not cause arthritis, diabetes, or hypertension. I'll use the easiest example of the three, diabetes. Your contention is that because some fat people are overloading themselves on sugar and burning out their insulin ducts, being fat increases the probability of developing diabetes. That's just not true, though it is a very common logic error. I know skinny people with lousy eating habits who have developed diabetes (in the interests of fairness, they were/are also alcoholics, so it wasn't pure sugar that was the culprit). Arthritis and hypertension are similar. There is not even a strong correlation between them and being heavy. At most, I'll give you that having a small elephant's-worth of fat clinging to your *** does place pressure on the heart, but that's morbid obesity at minimum.

Chronic fatigue is completely idiopathic. No one knows what causes it. If it were something as simple as weight, we'd have figured that out a long time ago. I suspect you're confusing chronic fatigue syndrome, a genuine diagnosis, with the more pedestrian "I'm a bucket of lard and get tired easily" problem. Hauling around 300 lbs. of ***-fat will tire anyone out, I can't deny that.

Sleep apnea, on the other hand, is definitely caused by and made worse by excessive weight. Again, though, it's not something that happens at relatively low amounts of excess fat.

I can find zero evidence that stroke is in any way affected by weight. Even a deep vein thrombosis, which is about the only thing I can think of, isn't likely to be caused by weight alone and, moreover, is exceedingly rare except in the elderly. I certainly hope you aren't latching onto artherosclerosis because that's just another correlation without causation.

I get the impression that what you're largely concerned with can be summed up in your line "sedentary lifestyles and high fat/sugar diets and prolonged overeating." Ignoring the fact that fat is healthy (contrary to the nonsense the media has pushed since the 90s, fat doesn't cause cholesterol plaques and, indeed, saturated fat has beneficial effects for the heart), we're in agreement that being sedentary and sucking down excessive sugar is bad. Being sedentary and high sugar can cause a host of problems... with obesity being one of them. But obesity itself is not the cause; it's a correlated disorder. It may be less aesthetic, but it is entirely possible to be fat (for a given definition of "fat") and healthy, just as it is entirely possible to slim and unhealthy. Weight and health are not opposite sides of a balance.

If you want to promote increased athleticism and less disordered eating, that's great. I'm right there alongside you. I'll point out that you're going to end up with a lot of overweight people, though, because that precious ideal weight you keep talking about is based on being sedentary. And that's why I keep hassling you about a.) latching onto flawed metrics and b.) treating overweight as something demonic. I'd far rather see everyone in the world able to climb five flights of stairs without breaking a sweat and sporting love handles than see a bunch of skinny-fat weaklings who've starved themselves into "normal" weight. I'd like to hope I'm making my point clearly on this?

And my apologies, you didn't use the word "pity," but you did employ the concept. You think it is unfortunate. Why? I know many people who are content with being larger than they strictly need to be and whose spouses/significant others prefer them that way. They're active and fit, sociable and happy. What is unfortunate about their being chubby? Additionally, if you feel it is unfortunate that someone like me allowed himself to get fat (by which I mean, someone who isn't pleased with his body composition), I don't need to hear it. I recognize my agency and suggesting it is an act of misfortune obviates me from responsibility, which isn't helpful. It's not helpful to even worry about responsibility for the past (in this instance, I mean). If you want to be supportive of someone who is trying to reshape their body, do just that. Talk about how you had to overcome some of the same obstacles and say it can be done.

Like I said, I think it came from naivete, not malice. Bringing a sense of pity (or whatever word you prefer) becomes a distraction. I have no idea how hard you had to work to get slimmer, but my experience has been that giving excuses and pity a place to grow will enhance negativity and make any setbacks that much worse. It's oh-so-very-easy to here someone say, "That's too bad," and wind up in a miserable spiral as a result. On this, though, I'll admit that I'm only speaking to my own experience and if someone has an alternative perspective, I'd like to hear it.

You're being purposefully obtuse and I'm tired of it. I've been talking about health, not weight, and I'm done talking about it. Find a person in real life to give you attention.

I can actually reply to this particular point off the top of my head:

1. Predisposing factor (high cholesterol/LDL/blood pressure)
2. causes disruption in the super oxide/nitrogen monoxide ratio release (also increase vWF which has more to do with variant angina but just mentioning it anyway)
3. shearing stress and increase in predisposing factor activates NF-κB pathway, chemokines, cytokines and adhesion molescules are released
4. cytokines activate TNF-α, adhesion molecules cause white blood cell and platelet aggregation (ICAM-1 and VCAM-1)
5. White blood cell infiltrates endothelial wall, intakes oxidized LDL- with no HDL to negate this process the cell will die, releasing more cytokines and creating a vicuous cycle
6. over time, lipid core is formed, atherosclerotic plaque

(Also I know you're going to point out how high LDL/low LDL isn't caused by obesity but if being overweight is correlated with that, then it might as well be correlated with atherosclerosis too and for all practical applications obesity DOES cause it)

You've been talking about health and weight and claiming they're identical. If I am obtuse for disputing this, I guess I don't know what the hell "obtuse" means. By all means, though, if trying to engage you in a conversation results in your taking your ball and leaving, get the *** out already. Wanna throw in another ad hominem to bolster your failed argument?

I must be reading that wrong because it sounds like you're suggesting artherosclerosis causes obesity. Heck, that might even be true, but it's not the same thing as obesity causing atherosclerosis and obesity doesn't cause hypertension and high serum cholesterol.

They're two different disorders. They correlate often because they arise from the same cause, but they're both symptoms. It is erroneous to claim obesity is the cause of diabetes, they are co-symptoms of excess sugar intake (and usually a host of genetic predispositions).

NEVER did I claim that health and weight were identical, they usually have the same cause, poor eating habits and inactivity. It's quite uncommon for people who are clinically overweight or obese to be healthy and have good eating habits and regular exercise. You're claiming I said things and then attacking those things, that's the literal definition of strawman, bubba.

Didn't you say(a few times)that you were done talking?

I'm done arguing, but I'm not going to ignore someone libeling me.

Atherosclerosis is caused by many factors, but the non-technical way of putting it simply that while I will agree with you that being fat in and of itself does not necessarily directly cause it, if being fat correlates with the risk factors that ARE known (LDL/HDL ratio, high LDL, high blood triglycerol etc, and obesity is certainly correlated with these) then for all practical purposes it DOES cause atherosclerosis, because we don't sustain ourselves using protein paste and glucose drips. I agree it is an interesting academic question to pinpoint exact causes but for the actual conversation of "does being fat mean I might get x disease more" that answer isn't really relevant.

Hmm. In that wording, no. That was not the question asked, however. Contrary to what the Atkins people tell you, it's entirely possible to get fat while eating fat and protein to the exclusion of carbohydrates. It's grossly unlikely to develop diabetes along the way (although there does exist a mechanism by which we can produce glucose since that's what our brains exist on).

Put it this way: playing soccer (the cause) has a symptom of increasing musculature and increasing the risk of broken limbs. Does having increased musculature consequently increase your risk of getting a broken leg? That's is the argument being made when claiming that obesity causes diabetes. It's a common misfire of logic.

To return to your question, though, does having one symptom increase the likelihood of the other. It's not easy to say with surety since both problems can be caused by a host of unrelated issues. I know several alcoholics who developed diabetes as a result of their alcoholism and in spite of being normal weight. Moreover, one of the first symptoms of adult-onset diabetes is weight loss. Obesity or just plain old weight gain can be effected by an even greater variety of causes. That there exists one common cause for both does not mean that both are necessarily coincident.

Nonetheless, it is statistically valid to say that the two disorders are somewhat coincident because their common cause is, well, common. There are fat diabetics, there are skinny diabetics. There are fat people with normal insulin, there are skinny people with normal insulin. It is disingenuous to suggest that the presence of one factor necessarily increases the likelihood of the presence of another factor unless they have common cause. By saying "obesity and diabetes tend to occur together," you get closer to addressing the real problem: excess sugar (and genetic predisposition). By saying "obesity causes diabetes" on the basis that obese people are more likely to develop diabetes, you leave the problem untreated, especially given the misinformation that surrounds weight loss these days in that we are still promoting a high-carb, low-meat regimen that spikes insulin like crazy.

Related to my above, but the core word here is "if." Although I have a fair bit of medical knowledge, I am not a physician, so it is entirely possible that I've missed something. I have not seen anything to suggest that merely being overweight or obese results in worsening of serum cholesterol. I happen to know that diabetes has a habit of increasing all the bad factors associated with cholesterol by means of a mechanism that is not fully understood, but being fat and being diabetic are not synonymous. If you do know better, please point me at the information. I would far rather be wrong and know than right and ignorant.