"Why Are We Celebrating Lizzo's Body?"-Jillian Micheals

[Broken Hope]

Pray tell me how it affects YOU. A person being obese is a personal health issue. Doesn't cause you any problems. And yet you are so worried about "normalizing" it.

Click to shrink...

I guess I'm not affected if I'm sat next to a morbidly obese person on a plane and they are spilling over into my seat either right?

Or I guess paramedics and hospitals aren't affected when they have to purchase larger equipment, or try to carry/move morbidly obese patient's, or on the extreme side having firefighters have to remove walls in peoples houses in order to transport super obese people?

 

[hendersonhank]

You didn't answer my question at all. What makes YOU responsible for the health of random individuals?

Click to shrink...

Correct, I didn't address your ridiculous strawman.

As for the fitness trainer, here are the things she COULD have said in response to that question-
"Sure, we should celebrate all of Lizzo."
"Everything about Lizzo is worth celebrating."
"Lizzo is awesome. My kids love her..."
and so on. There were so many ways to deal with that question without body-shaming Lizzo.

Click to shrink...

Here's what she actually said which you'd know if you'd watched the clip that is the subject of this thread before becoming unhinged about all the things you imagine people said or thought:

Host: I really love celebrities like Lizzo and Ashley Graham for preaching self-acceptance --

Michaels: I love her music 100%, I don't know anything about her, I'm sure she's a cool, awesome chick.

Host: And I love that they're putting images out there that we don't normally get to see of bodies that we don't get to see being celebrated --

Michaels: But why are we celebrating her body? Why does it matter? That's what I'm saying, why aren't we celebrating her music? Because it isn't going to be awesome if she gets diabetes. I'm just being honest, I love her music, my kid loves her music, but there's never a moment when I'm like 'And I'm so glad she's overweight!' Like why do I even care, why is it my job to care about her weight?

 

[Znazzy]

If that HYPOTHETICAL scenario ever comes to pass, feel free to be an advocate against those food corporates who are doing this to people. Until then, please stop with your concern-trolling.

Click to shrink...

Answering a question as to how obesity impacts society is "concern-trolling" ...okay.

That's not up for discussion and not the point of contention or the through line of this thread

Click to shrink...

Please refer to my previous post about Lizzo and Jillian's comments.

 

[Delphine]

People in this thread being afraid that obesity acceptance movements are aiming to make more people become obese, are high-key remind me of the shitty insincere rhetoric of anti-feminists thinking that feminism is thriving to topple patriarchy in order to establish matriarchy. That's literally how much goddamn fucking sense you guys are making right now.

First, obese people, by a landslide, will never wish obesity and fatness on anybody. I wouldn't wish it even on my worst enemy, considering how much I suffered under systemic fatphobia. How much it made me wanna kill myself over and over and over again throughout my life. This is utter and complete shit and whether or not acceptance gets better, fatphobia will still forever be a thing that exists and I don't see it disappearing anytime soon, just like I don't see sexism, racism and homophobia disappear anytime time soon. Your fears are incredibly, heartbreakingly off-base.

And when you see someone obese promoting obesity, one, they're a minority much like radical feminists are, two, they do it as a radical political stance against this overwhelmingly violent fatphobic society, much like radical feminists are politically retaliating to the load of bullshit that being a woman in a sexist as fuck society is. If it bothers you, that's on you, for not being empathetic enough, for not understanding the root of the existence of such political rhetoric.

But really seeing y'all spreading the BS that "OMG people will think being obese is so cool and will become obese willingly if we let these fat-acceptance movements thrive and spread their message!!1!" is so incredibly off-base and missing the point so hard it's not even remotely funny or entertaining anymore.

Also, stop trying to explain to fat people what fatphobia is. Listen to us when we say that that host was, indeed, being fatphobic and stop trying to barge in here diminishing and belittling our voices.

 

[Mobius and Pet Octopus]

So you're telling me if someone was locked in a room and only able to eat what is given to them and you give them 1000 calories a day they wouldn't lose weight?

Find me a single person that wouldn't lose weight in that situation.

Click to shrink...

I am talking about long term sustainable fat loss. Eating 1000 calories a day is going to tank your metabolism long term and you will gain weight back quickly if not super careful. I am not sure what issue you took with what I said. I never said calories do not matter, I said they are not the only thing when it comes to sustainable weight loss.

But it IS "move more/eat less".

The multitude of reasons why people don't actually do that doesn't change the fact that that IS the way to get to a normal weight and stay there.

Click to shrink...

I think we should be telling people to eat smart and move adequately. CICO plays a role but there are hormones and metabolic issues that can hinder weight/fat loss. I think there is more to solving the obesity epidemic than telling people to eat less and move more. If that were an adequate solution, then we probably would not be here or at least not getting worse. I hope I clarified my point there.

 

[Lentic]

Here's what she actually said which you'd know if you'd watched the clip that is the subject of this thread before becoming unhinged about all the things you imagine people said or thought:

Host: I really love celebrities like Lizzo and Ashley Graham for preaching self-acceptance --

Michaels: I love her music 100%, I don't know anything about her, I'm sure she's a cool, awesome chick.

Host: And I love that they're putting images out there that we don't normally get to see of bodies that we don't get to see being celebrated --

Michaels: But why are we celebrating her body? Why does it matter? That's what I'm saying, why aren't we celebrating her music? Because it isn't going to be awesome if she gets diabetes. I'm just being honest, I love her music, my kid loves her music, but there's never a moment when I'm like 'And I'm so glad she's overweight!' Like why do I even care, why is it my job to care about her weight?

Click to shrink...

This. Buzzfeed baited her into a response so they could get a headline.

 

[Deleted member 6230]

This. Buzzfeed baited her into a response so they could get a headline.

Click to shrink...

Jillian Michaels the victim now of an out of control clickbait driven media? Gimme a break

 

[Vincent Grayson]

I gotta say, it's almost impressive how many of you say shit like "I'm empathetic" and follow it with arguments that show you clearly are not.

Here's a hint: "If I did it, so can you" is privileged thinking, not empathetic thinking.

 

[ArkhamFantasy]

Again, what's your problem? The people who go to doctors with those problems will pay for the costs.

Click to shrink...

Nobody can afford to pay these costs themselves, the cost goes to everyone.

 

[Lentic]

Jillian Michaels the victim now of an out of control clickbait driven media? Gimme a break

Click to shrink...

How was she, a fitness trainer who has an image to maintain, supposed to respond to the ridiculous statement of, "aren't you glad these bodies are being celebrated"? Come on, they knew what they were doing. It's their job to stir shit and it worked.

 

[hendersonhank]

I am talking about long term sustainable fat loss. Eating 1000 calories a day is going to tank your metabolism long term and you will gain weight back quickly if not super careful.

Click to shrink...

Nobody should ever think 1000 calories a day is a good idea, it's way too low.

I think we should be telling people to eat smart and move adequately. CICO plays a role but there are hormones and metabolic issues that can hinder weight/fat loss.

Click to shrink...

They don't hinder weight/fat loss in relation to CICO to any significant degree in the vast, vast majority of cases. It's the choices people make that have them taking more CI than burning CO that is the problem. A person with a slower metabolism might need 1600 calories to lose weight compared to a comparable person with a faster metabolism being able to get away with 1700 calories to lose weight. But in both cases it's still a matter of each person having to eat less than they burn, it's just that the slower metabolism person burns less so needs to eat less. CICO.

The fact is that the vast, vast majority of overweight people are consuming FAR too many calories, and they don't know it or don't admit it because they don't track their calories. A 250lb woman who does light activity is probably consuming over 3300 calories a day. Limiting that to "just" 2800 -- which is still a ton of calories -- would slowly get her to 200lb at around 1lb of weight loss a week.

I think there is more to solving the obesity epidemic than telling people to eat less and move more. If that were an adequate solution, then we probably would not be here or at least not getting worse. I hope I clarified my point there.

Click to shrink...

It's the same as anything else, people resist doing things that deprive them of things they like, or that take effort. It's just human nature. It's kind of like if you said working out is not an "adequate solution" for improving strength and looking more fit. Well yeah, it absolutely, 100% is, but most people still won't do it, does that mean we need to say that that's not the best (only) way to do it and we need to figure out something else or stop telling people to do that? Come on.

 

[Deleted member 6230]

How was she, a fitness trainer who has an image to maintain, supposed to respond to the ridiculous statement of, "aren't you glad these bodies are being celebrated"? Come on, they knew what they were doing. It's their job to stir shit and it worked.

Click to shrink...

It's very easy to avoid that pitfall if you would deem it such. Instead she went on to make assumptions about Lizzo's health and basically diagnosed her as prediabetic

 

[Deleted member 46489]

Correct, I didn't address your ridiculous strawman.



Here's what she actually said which you'd know if you'd watched the clip that is the subject of this thread before becoming unhinged about all the things you imagine people said or thought:

Host: I really love celebrities like Lizzo and Ashley Graham for preaching self-acceptance --

Michaels: I love her music 100%, I don't know anything about her, I'm sure she's a cool, awesome chick.

Host: And I love that they're putting images out there that we don't normally get to see of bodies that we don't get to see being celebrated --

Michaels: But why are we celebrating her body? Why does it matter? That's what I'm saying, why aren't we celebrating her music? Because it isn't going to be awesome if she gets diabetes. I'm just being honest, I love her music, my kid loves her music, but there's never a moment when I'm like 'And I'm so glad she's overweight!' Like why do I even care, why is it my job to care about her weight?

Click to shrink...

You're right, I hadn't watched the clip. I'm unable to stream sounds/noise where I am(and don't have access to earphones). But thanks for the transcript. This is much worse than what I thought it was. She wasn't even backed into a corner by a question, as I assumed. She just butted into the host's statement with her fat-phobic comment.

I can't believe you're defending THAT. Thanks for clarifying any confusion I had about your intentions. Bye.

 

[hendersonhank]

I gotta say, it's almost impressive how many of you say shit like "I'm empathetic" and follow it with arguments that show you clearly are not.

Here's a hint: "If I did it, so can you" is privileged thinking, not empathetic thinking.

Click to shrink...

lol now it's a "privilege" to choose not to ask for large fries and large coke with your burger. It's a "privilege" not to choose to walk down the crap food aisle at the grocery store and a "privilege" not to choose to eat 3 servings instead of 1 when you open the box of crap food you chose to buy.

Here's a hint: EVERYBODY likes junk food. EVERYBODY likes sweet food, fat food. EVERYBODY likes to watch Netflix with a box/bag of snacks. Some people choose to cut this stuff out or limit it, some people don't. Where's the "privilege"?

 

[Broken Hope]

It's very easy to avoid that pitfall if you would deem it such. Instead she went on to make assumptions about Lizzo's health and basically diagnosed her as prediabetic

Click to shrink...

I'm assuming you wouldn't say smoking is healthy because some smokers don't get lung cancer right?

So why do people constantly go on about being fat but not having diabetes's or high blood pressure, just because they don't have it at that point doesn't mean that they won't eventually and chances are it will be more likely due to being obese.

 

[Nepenthe]

Where's the "privilege"?

Click to shrink...

The privilege is in thinking that being fit is only a matter of willpower.

 

[Vincent Grayson]

lol now it's a "privilege" to choose not to ask for large fries and large coke with your burger. It's a "privilege" not to choose to walk down the crap food aisle at the grocery store and a "privilege" not to choose to eat 3 servings instead of 1 when you open the box of crap food you chose to buy.

Here's a hint: EVERYBODY likes junk food. EVERYBODY likes sweet food, fat food. EVERYBODY likes to watch Netflix with a box/bag of snacks. Some people choose to cut this stuff out or limit it, some people don't. Where's the "privilege"?

Click to shrink...

I'm hesitant to even respond to this patently disingenuous argument, but I'll bite.

Privilege is thinking that if it was easy, simple, and sometimes, even possible, for you to do something, that everyone else is/should be similarly capable.

Edit: You don't know the resources anyone else has to address their issues in life, and this applies to everything, not just obesity. Also, it's pretty useless to keep pretending that obesity isn't pretty clearly a symptom of mental health issues.

 

[hendersonhank]

It's very easy to avoid that pitfall if you would deem it such. Instead she went on to make assumptions about Lizzo's health and basically diagnosed her as prediabetic

Click to shrink...

Lifetime diabetes risk for obese women is 74% compared to 39% across all women. That's not an "assumption". Why on earth would a fitness trainer -- or anybody -- pretend that it makes any sense whatsoever to celebrate a body type that indicates diabetes for 3 out of 4 women?

 

[Deleted member 46489]

lol now it's a "privilege" to choose not to ask for large fries and large coke with your burger. It's a "privilege" not to choose to walk down the crap food aisle at the grocery store and a "privilege" not to choose to eat 3 servings instead of 1 when you open the box of crap food you chose to buy.

Here's a hint: EVERYBODY likes junk food. EVERYBODY likes sweet food, fat food. EVERYBODY likes to watch Netflix with a box/bag of snacks. Some people choose to cut this stuff out or limit it, some people don't. Where's the "privilege"?

Click to shrink...

The privilege lies in the fact that metabolisms and bodies of different people work differently. My entire family has crazy high metabolism, and we never think twice about our food habits. I'm at the lower end of the recommended weight for my height, and my sister is actually underweight. You would be stunned by the amount of junk food I consumed in college. Ten packets of chips in a day. Burgers, sodas, everything. Never became overweight.

And then there was my friend, who strictly controlled her food intake, and would gain weight if she indulged herself even slightly. She was ashamed of her body, and had self-esteem issues because of the constant body-shaming society pelted her with.

So stop assuming that everybody shares your body and metabolism. Life's crazy unfair for many people, and the least you can do is show some empathy.

 

[Broken Hope]

The privilege lies in the fact that metabolisms and bodies of different people work differently. My entire family has crazy high metabolism, and we never think twice about our food habits. I'm at the lower end of the recommended weight for my height, and my sister is actually underweight. You would be stunned by the amount of junk food I consumed in college. Ten packets of chips in a day. Burgers, sodas, everything. Never became overweight.

And then there was my friend, who strictly controlled her food intake, and would gain weight if she indulged herself even slightly. She was ashamed of her body, and had self-esteem issues because of the constant body-shaming society pelted her with.

So stop assuming that everybody shares your body and metabolism. Life's crazy unfair for many people, and the least you can do is show some empathy.

Click to shrink...

Guessing you were active, otherwise I'd be getting studied as you're a medical marvel.

I have a TDEE of around 3000 calories due to my activity, people are surprised how much I eat but I'm only 77KG at 6ft tall.

I use to be over 140KG.

 

[hendersonhank]

The privilege is in thinking that being fit is only a matter of willpower.

Click to shrink...

Being fit is not, you could have medical issues preventing you from exercising etc.

Losing weight is absolutely a matter of willpower. If your weight is steady and you cut your calories by 500 per day (less than two large sodas) without changing your activity level, what will happen? You will lose about 1lb that week. This is a fact. It's physics.

I'm hesitant to even respond to this patently disingenuous argument, but I'll bite.

Privilege is thinking that if it was easy, simple, and sometimes, even possible, for you to do something, that everyone else is/should be similarly capable.

Click to shrink...

However much harder it might be, mentally, for one person to eat healthier foods and/or limit their portions or whatever, the fact remains that both are fully "capable" of doing so -- nothing and nobody will prevent them from doing / not doing those things -- and both will have their daily calories diminish by the same amount, and if cut calories enough, they will both lose weight.

 

[Mobius and Pet Octopus]

Nobody should ever think 1000 calories a day is a good idea, it's way too low.





They don't hinder weight/fat loss in relation to CICO to any significant degree in the vast, vast majority of cases. It's the choices people make that have them taking more CI than burning CO that is the problem. A person with a slower metabolism might need 1600 calories to lose weight compared to a comparable person with a faster metabolism being able to get away with 1700 calories to lose weight. But in both cases it's still a matter of each person having to eat less than they burn, it's just that the slower metabolism person burns less so needs to eat less. CICO.

The fact is that the vast, vast majority of overweight people are consuming FAR too many calories, and they don't know it or don't admit it because they don't track their calories. A 250lb woman who does light activity is probably consuming over 3300 calories a day. Limiting that to "just" 2800 -- which is still a ton of calories -- would slowly get her to 200lb at around 1lb of weight loss a week.



It's the same as anything else, people resist doing things that deprive them of things they like, or that take effort. It's just human nature. It's kind of like if you said working out is not an "adequate solution" for improving strength and looking more fit. Well yeah, it absolutely, 100% is, but most people still won't do it, does that mean we need to say that that's not the best (only) way to do it and we need to figure out something else or stop telling people to do that? Come on.

Click to shrink...

Actually working out is not an adequate solution for improving strength and looking more fit. Diet plays as much of or a bigger role there. Sleep plays a huge role too. Even stress plays a role. Hell, all those things play a role in sustainable dieting too.

I really do not want to spend a whole ton of time discussing metabolic issues. You seem really set in your ways, to believing that CICO is all that matters and anything preventing you from matching that special equation is just human failure.

 

[ArkhamFantasy]

You're right, I hadn't watched the clip. I'm unable to stream sounds/noise where I am(and don't have access to earphones). But thanks for the transcript. This is much worse than what I thought it was. She wasn't even backed into a corner by a question, as I assumed. She just butted into the host's statement with her fat-phobic comment.

I can't believe you're defending THAT. Thanks for clarifying any confusion I had about your intentions. Bye.

Click to shrink...

Like i was saying before, this isn't about fat shaming, this is about someone challenging the concept of obesity celebration, which are two very, very, very different things.

 

[Delphine]

This thread: "CICO is all you ever need to lose weight"
You body:

 

[hendersonhank]

The privilege lies in the fact that metabolisms and bodies of different people work differently. My entire family has crazy high metabolism, and we never think twice about our food habits. I'm at the lower end of the recommended weight for my height, and my sister is actually underweight. You would be stunned by the amount of junk food I consumed in college. Ten packets of chips in a day. Burgers, sodas, everything. Never became overweight.

And then there was my friend, who strictly controlled her food intake, and would gain weight if she indulged herself even slightly. She was ashamed of her body, and had self-esteem issues because of the constant body-shaming society pelted her with.

So stop assuming that everybody shares your body and metabolism. Life's crazy unfair for many people, and the least you can do is show some empathy.

Click to shrink...

And yet, your anecdote aside, actual medical data shows far less real-world variance in metabolism than you are trying to suggest. In your example, if you and your friend actually counted your calories and tracked activity, you would find that -- as in 99% of cases -- CICO holds true and you were eating less and/or more active than she was.

Here:

assuming an average expenditure of 2000kcal a day, 68% of the population falls into the range of 1840-2160kcal daily while 96% of the population is in the range of 1680-2320kcal daily. Comparing somebody at or below the 5
th
percentile with somebody at or above the 95
th
percentile would yield a difference of possibly 600kcal daily, and the chance of this occurring (comparing the self to a friend) is 0.50%, assuming two completely random persons.

Click to shrink...

In other words, in EXTREMELY rare instances -- 0.5% chance of this occurring -- two people might vary by about 600 calories a day. Meaning that if they did all the exact same activities at the exact same intensities and ate all of the exact same foods, the one with the slower metabolism would have to skip two large sodas a day (580 calories) to avoid being heavier than her friend.

 

[Broken Hope]

This thread: "CICO is all you ever need to lose weight"
You body:

Click to shrink...

It's funny how many people are 'special' and don't have bodies that follow the norms.

 

[Nepenthe]

Meaning that if they did all the exact same activities at the exact same intensities and ate all of the exact same foods, the one with the slower metabolism would have to skip two large sodas a day (580 calories) to avoid being heavier than her friend.

Click to shrink...

What is the likelihood of actual human beings achieving this level of consistency?

 

[hendersonhank]

This thread: "CICO is all you ever need to lose weight"
You body:

Click to shrink...

Why do you think it's honest or logical to equate calories and weight with a vague notion of "balance"?

Are you aware that medical science has long ago determined that, in actual fact, your weight IS determined by CICO?

People seem to be extremely confused by the fact that the CO part of the equation varies somewhat from person to person, or changes for an individual who gains or loses weight, and thus bizarrely conclude that this invalidates the whole thing.

The fact that you stay 170lb at 2000 calories a day while I can only get away with 1800 calories a day to maintain the same weight doesn't change the fact that if we each cut 200 calories per day, we'll both (slowly) lose weight. Because, before, our CALORIES IN matched our CALORIES OUT, and after cutting 200 calories a day, now our CALORIES IN are lower than our CALORIES OUT.

And guess what? If losing weight slows my metabolism so that -200 a day is no longer enough to lose weight, that's not because CICO isn't true, it's because my CO has changed. My CO is now 1600, so to continue losing weight my CI has to be lower than that. This doesn't magically make CICO untrue.

 

[ArkhamFantasy]

It's funny how many people are 'special' and don't have bodies that follow the norms.

Click to shrink...

It's so frustrating, americans SPECIFICALLY have different genetics?

 

[hendersonhank]

What is the likelihood of actual human beings achieving this level of consistency?

Click to shrink...

Zero, which is why it's infinitely more likely that he was much more active and/or consuming far fewer calories than his friend, than that he had a magical privileged metabolism while she toiled under one half as fast.

CICO.

 

[Deleted member 4482]

Why do you think it's honest or logical to equate calories and weight with a vague notion of "balance"?

Are you aware that medical science has long ago determined that, in actual fact, your weight IS determined by CICO?

People seem to be extremely confused by the fact that the CO part of the equation varies somewhat from person to person, or changes for an individual who gains or loses weight, and thus bizarrely conclude that this invalidates the whole thing.

The fact that you stay 170lb at 2000 calories a day while I can only get away with 1800 calories a day to maintain the same weight doesn't change the fact that if we each cut 200 calories per day, we'll both (slowly) lose weight. Because, before, our CALORIES IN matched our CALORIES OUT, and after cutting 200 calories a day, now our CALORIES IN are lower than our CALORIES OUT.

And guess what? If losing weight slows my metabolism so that -200 a day is no longer enough to lose weight, that's not because CICO isn't true, it's because my CO has changed. My CO is now 1600, so to continue losing weight my CI has to be lower than that. This doesn't magically make CICO untrue.

Click to shrink...

yeah, the whole idea of varied/changing energy output rates seems to trip up a lot of people, convincing them somehow that the human body is able to invalidate physics. but regardless of the complexity of the internal systems and how they vary, if you take in less energy that you put out, you'll be lighter.

and the anecdote about the wildly different metabolisms is easy to solve. one person felt like they were eating a lot but either it wasn't as many calories as they believed or they lived a highly active lifestyle that facilitated the high energy intake. and the other which lived in restriction and felt body shame likely had a less active lifestyle and ate in secret while projecting an attempt to take better note of food intake. this example is exactly the same as myself and my brother. I act all the time like I'm trying to lose weight but shame eat privately while sitting around gaming. my brother eats tons but is always on the move, lifting, playing sports, etc.

 

[Nepenthe]

Zero, which is why it's infinitely more likely that he was much more active and/or consuming far fewer calories than his friend, than that he had a magical privileged metabolism while she toiled under one half as fast.

CICO.

Click to shrink...

You're misunderstanding me. I'm denying the assertion that the only reason overweight people are overweight is because of a failure of character.

 

[hendersonhank]

You're misunderstanding me. I'm denying the assertion that the only reason overweight people are overweight is because of a failure of character.

Click to shrink...

Failure of character implies morality or something.

Overweight people are overweight because they consume more calories than they burn. This is true in 100% of cases. I don't know if you consider that a "failure of character" or not.

In virtually all cases -- well over 99% -- the reason for this is that they eat more food, or worse food, or are more sedentary, than the people who are not overweight, or a combination of all three.

The point is that "no matter what I do, I can't lose weight" is bullshit in virtually every single case, as the aforementioned statistics make clear. Extreme outliers at opposite ends of the metabolic spectrum vary only by about 2 large Cokes or a few tablespoons of peanut butter. So when people say this, what it actually means is that they are overestimating how active they are or underestimating how many calories they consume.

Unless he or his friend was a medical anomaly, the reason she was overweight and he wasn't was that he was much more active and/or consumed many fewer calories. Not that he had great genetics and she was cursed.

 

[Deleted member 5086]

This thread seems to have gotten quite out of hand, so we're locking it. We'll be reviewing posts and reports related to the thread.

As a reminder, body shaming and inflammatory generalisations are against the rules of the forum. Users who engage in this kind of behaviour will be banned.