To think Prejudice against fat people is NOT as bad as racism.

[goodnessgracious]

To think the article in the Times today claiming that prejudice against fat people is as bad as racism and that it is one of the last socially acceptable forms of prejudice is ridiculous.

Firstly, obesity is normally caused by an addiction and has health implications for the obese person and further implications on society as whole. How can this be compared to racism in any way?

Also, it is not the last socially acceptable form of prejudice because I believe society is just as (if not more) prejudiced against smokers, alcoholics and gamblers and all people with addictions which have costs toward society.

AIBU to think that although it is not right to be prejudice against obese people it is ridiculous to compare it to racism.

Copied article extract below...

"Prejudice against fat people as bad as racism, say scientists "Dr Jackson said that prejudice against overweight people pervaded society and needed to be challenged. “People think it’s one of the last socially acceptable forms of prejudice. You just have to look at the comments section on media reports on obesity to see that obese people are subjected to labelling and even abuse and attack.”

And i lost ten stone previously 11/12 years ago going from 21 stone down to 10 stone 12.

And i was eating more then than i am now.

Working in recruitment my experience has been that self confidence is more of a problem than weight prejudice ( not saying it does not exist). There was another thread about dressing with weight gain. Some people are proud and dress well but some (including myself) use clothes as a disguise. Like many a yo yo dieter I have a mix of sizes and my 10/12 are much more colourful/ trendy and fitted, whereas my 16's are black and baggy just plain drab. This does reflect in interviews and being on the interviewer side being uncomfortable in your clothes impacts the impression you give to others.
But that is where the the vicious circle of emotional eating begins. I am at a weight I am happy at now with the realisation a steady size 12/14 is better than the yo yo of the crash to get to an 8/10 leading to the weight gain to size 16+ and repeat again, and again and again.

YY Thom I am happy at a size 16 But i was a size 28!!

And ive lost a little off my breasts Im only a 34 back size but a J cup size.

It sometimes not the size but the confidence and build, you have done amazingly.

Thankyou So have you Thom

Worra - I'm the same. I can't face breakfast unless it's after a big run or circuits class, which makes me hungry.
I usually have a couple of cups of tea and then most likely nothing, aside from perhaps some raspberries or blueberries, til lunch.
This is normal for me, but work colleagues think I'm mad and must be "starving", "not healthy", etc.

The point I'm making is that people I know say they could never be a healthy weight, they weren't designed to be a healthy weight, etc, but each one of those people eats what I would consider to be an awful lot of food.

My sister is morbidly obese and eats probably four times the amount I do, as this has become her "normal."

I am not skinny. Far from it. I'm currently trying to shift another stone and am struggling (doing MFP, 1200 cals a day). But I know that if I ate what others consider "normal" or indeed what Darkest said was "very little" compared to her previous diet, then I would be a lot bigger.

Loads of people cannot face food first thing in the morning. It's unrealistic to bang on about the need to eat first thing in the morning when most people have only an hour at most between getting up and getting out to work/school/whatever. The thought of preparing/eating food when you are barely out of bed and rushing around is alien to so many people.

It doesn't matter whether you want to eat at 7am or 11am - your breakfast should be the first meal of the day that you feel genuinely hungry/ready for. I hate this mixed message/double standard of 'learn to recognise the signs of hunger and don't just eat on automatic pilot or out of habit' versus 'it is essential that you start each day with a good breakfast, first thing in the morning.'

My breakfast is around 9.30-10.30 am. That's when I feel ready to eat, and hunger has kicked in. It's easy for me to eat a healthy, low carb, protein rich breakfast because I work from home and am able to cook it, but not everybody is.

Most people who grab 'breakfast' mid-morning during their working day will, out of convenience or necessity, end up relying on hastily grabbed cereal bars, bananas, bread or croissants etc.

A 'classic' breakfast of fruit or fruit juice, cereal/porridge, sweet yoghurts or toast and bread products will raise the blood sugar and cause a person to be continually hungry/tired/hungry/tired throughout the day, which in turn triggers repeated cycles of eating to counteract dips in insulin. This is a classic pattern for many, many people. It is what drives them to eat again so soon after last eating, and it's why they find it so hard to regulate their appetite. It is what other (thinner) people with different metabolisms, different insulin responses, perceive as 'greed.' But to the fat person their brain perceives it as genuine hunger.

In spite of the insistence of dieticians that skipping breakfast leads to a likelihood of being overweight, I actually find it far easier to avoid over-eating throughout the day if I have swerved breakfast, or at least swerved all foods other than protein heavy foods such as eggs, meat, cheese. Even porridge will set me off an a carbfest for the day.

My SIL will start to get wobbly within half an hour of getting up if she doesn't eat, and she always has a very carby cereal type breakfast. She's one of those people that gets really agitated if she doesn't eat at regular set intervals, which must be a PITA.

I used to get sugar dips quite a lot, like dontdrink's SIL; my old diet used to be quite carb heavy and also a lot of wheat and cereal.

I have always been v fit and my 'happy' weight was around 11.5 stone (but that was no wobble - soft, but muscly); I was v ill last year though and put on 4 stone for various reasons.

Due to the nature of my illness (crohn's with ibs - had open surgery bowel resection in Feb), I have had to completely change the way I eat - I am now low fructose and lactose and try to avoid gluten, I eat very little processed food now too.
I feel really, really amazing now lots of energy, no glucose dips, and not hungry all the time; I started back to fitness at the end of July and am now back to cycling most days (around 10 mile rides) and also swim when I can.

I disagree with greengrow's "9 stone is perfect" reasoning to some extent - I am perfectly fine a couple of stones up from that (although only 5' 2", I am large framed hourglass who can usually leg press well over 100kg, so quite strong!), I place far more importance on fitness than weight. I will be quite happy when I get back to under 12 stone tbh (I am usually a big 10 / small 12 then).

Wrt men and erect penises darkest, I don't see how that's relevant tbh - fit and healthy should be because you want it, not other people. (Am also a bit confused as to the feminism thing you keep mentioning).

I did not say 9 stone is perfect. The healthy weight for average height British women is 8 stone up to 10 stone. I also said 10 - 11 and possibly 12 stone and you're unlikely to be at your local heart clinic keeping over but 18 stone and you might well be.

Most average height women look and feel best between about 8 and 10 stone. I don't think I'm saying anything controversial - see thousands of Mumsnet healthy eating threads. I always say to people put mental health top of any list - which means moving and eating whole healthy foods; second physical health ( so avoid sugar etc). This is how you look. Most of us can take our clothes off and look in a mirror and decide if we are overweight or not.

This is untrue

"Greengrow your posts are incredibly harmful. There are plenty of women who look great naked at 10/12 stone. I think your problems are escalating because last time you came on one of these threads and said the "optimum" weight for women was 11 stone Now today you have been saying its 9 stone. "

The NHS for 40 y ears has had women of average height at healthy weight (and now waist size) at between 8 - 10 stone. That has never varied and nor have I ever said otherwise. I have said it is very hard to lose weight. I have been sympathetic to the difficulties but the bottom line is that far too many women live in cloud cuckoo land of what is a normal healthy weight. I would never ever lie and change medical science in suggesting 11 stone for a woman of average height is a healthy weight. No one would ever suggest that. It is much much better than 20 stone of course. However your waist size and weight are what you go on and 8 - 10 stone is healthy, no question. 11 stone is not likely to give you a heart attack but it is over healthy normal weight.

greengrow can I suggest you google 'obesity paradox' and 'health at every size'? There's an increasing amount of evidence to show that the arbitrary bands on a BMI chart may be inaccurate for most people. It is absolutely possible to be very healthy and obese on a chart. I agree, if you are looking at 18st then you are likely to have health challenges but not at 10-12st. If you are fit and eat well you are probably healthier than an 8-9st woman who never exercises and eats a poor diet.

The blog post seems relevant to the discussion here
www.theguardian.com/society/the-shape-we-are-in-blog/2014/sep/10/obesity-body-image

I would not dispute that. In fact one study found being a stone over weight for people who were fit and ate well they were healthy.
However most people to be blunt who are fat are not eating well and exercising.

Also those who are a stone or two overweight and happy with it even in a bikini that's fine too. I always have my list of priorities for everyone as good mental health, good physical health and only after that how you look. However I stand by the fact that most average height women in the UK prefer to be between 8 - 10 stone than 10 - 12. Look at any weight loss thread on mumsnet.

The topic is if discrimination on grounds of weight in the area of employment law should be added to one of the classes of discrimination even if it is not indirectly one of the other discriminations. Other similar lobbying has been around class which again you can lawfully discriminate on and separately on whether we need a specific prohibition on caste discrimination (Indian caste system which has unfortunately been exported to the UK).

Not all the discriminations in law are treated the same. Age for example you can discriminate on more than some of the others.

Isn't bmi considered outdated now as an indicator of health?
It's all about visceral fat as evidenced by waist to height ratio now...isn't it?

Yes Suzanne it is.

Sorry Greengrow but first you state very matter of factory that at '11st is over healthy, normal weight' and now 'most' people who are that heavy are not fit or eating well....how exactly would you know ? You are pretty much personifying fat prejudice!

I think we are talking at cross purposes. We all know what healthy weights are. If people are a few stones over it's not worth getting a state over but it is wise if most people can get down to a healthy weight. I think we all agree on that.

For an average height woman whether you go back BMI, NHS health charts or waist measurement 11 stone is over what most UK doctors would want for you. If you don't believe that you're kidding yourself. If someone has got down to 11 stone from say 20 they should be delighted however and aim to stay the same as most people actively diet put on more than they lose so you're better at 11 than back up to 20 or more.

It's all about visceral fat as evidenced by waist to height ratio now...isn't it?

In a few years somebody might decide that this method isn't very helpful for all body shapes either. I am pear shaped and I have a small waist. I would need to be significantly overweight before my waist size reached the point where I showed as being too fat on a waist-height ratio chart.

Scarlett Greengrow self identifies as a feminist yet upthread says that someone between 10/12 stone do not look great naked. Thats not feminism. And yes i did mention men ive been with in the past because that disproves what she said.

If a young woman (after reading this) had a choice whether to spend time with a "feminist" like Greengrow telling her she should be 9 stone every chance she got to say it or spend time with a guy who is really into her which do you think she would choose.

Comments like Greengrows will alienate young women from feminism. THATS what its got to do with it,

Saying all women should be 9 stone is fucking ridiculous. I dont come on threads and say women should be any size at all. Because im not a body fascist.

Greengrow when i was 21 stone many years ago two doctors told me to get down to 12 and a half.

Ive got a couple of appointments coming up for other things. I will point them towards this thread (and a couple of others)

Seeing as women's height can range from 4 ft something to 6 ft something I don't see how you can assign a healthy weight to a gender. I am about 11.5 stone but at almost 6 ft I am well within a healthy range.

Mssunreasonable, if you have a small waist then you likely have low levels of visceral fat...point being that visceral fat behaves differently to subcutaneous fat and has a far more detrimental effect on health

Suzanne my point is that I might have low visceral levels of fat as indicated by my waist size but I could be very overweight before showing that I am unhealthy on a waist - height ratio chart. I could be suffering from joint pain and back pain etc due to excessive weight before a waist - height ration chart showed me as actually being overweight.
It isn't a good indicator of being a healthy weight for pear shaped people.

The point is that it's an indicator.

You wouldn't say "well my waist is well in limits" and genuinely believe that was healthy if you were so heavy your knees were giving out.

Skinny-fat is the "bmi as bible" equivalent - people are a 'normal' weight as an apple shape or straighter hipped shape, but their waist size shows that their fat is not as visible (which is fine for the joints but rubbish for the internal organs).

If you are fit and eat well, even if you are a bit overweight on the bmi chart, then you are far more healthy than a 'normal' weight person who eats crap and does no exercise.