Scientists Now Think That Being Fat Can Protect Your Health

brandonk

Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2015
Messages
145
Tarmander said:
This is an interesting issue. As someone who used to be skinny ... Just saying that visceral fat is bad for you, is probably too simplistic.
What evidence do you have that you did not have visceral fat when you were skinny? Did you have an MRI, or even a bioimpedance scan?

There is a profound correlation between diabetes and increased visceral fat, regardless of how apparently "skinny" the person is.
http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/diabetes.shtml

Gaining visceral fat, such as the fat in a fatty liver, is deadly regardless of context. Visceral fat grows through inflammation (while other fat grows through hypertrophy). There can be 5-20 pounds of visceral fat inflammation in an apparently "skinny" person. Chronic inflammation is the "cause" (in Peat's view of biology, and increasingly in the mainstream, too) of aging and degenerative disease.
 

Tarmander

Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2015
Messages
3,763
brandonk said:
post 111232
Tarmander said:
This is an interesting issue. As someone who used to be skinny ... Just saying that visceral fat is bad for you, is probably too simplistic.
What evidence do you have that you did not have visceral fat when you were skinny? Did you have an MRI, or even a bioimpedance scan?

There is a profound correlation between diabetes and increased visceral fat, regardless of how apparently "skinny" the person is.
http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/diabetes.shtml

Gaining visceral fat, such as the fat in a fatty liver, is deadly regardless of context. Visceral fat grows through inflammation (while other fat grows through hypertrophy). There can be 5-20 pounds of visceral fat inflammation in an apparently "skinny" person. Chronic inflammation is the "cause" (in Peat's view of biology, and increasingly in the mainstream, too) of aging and degenerative disease.

I never got any of those tests done, so it's certainly possible that I had visceral fat even when I was skinny. I think your trying to make a point that is not in conflict with...well...anything anyone is saying. Who doesn't think inflammation is bad?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

brandonk

Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2015
Messages
145
Tarmander said:
brandonk said:
post 111232
Tarmander said:
This is an interesting issue. As someone who used to be skinny ... Just saying that visceral fat is bad for you, is probably too simplistic. ... I never got any of those tests done, so it's certainly possible that I had visceral fat even when I was skinny. I think your trying to make a point that is not in conflict with...well...anything anyone is saying. Who doesn't think inflammation is bad?
I didn't mean to conflict with anything anyone is saying. The study cited in the first post above does not draw any distinction concerning visceral fat. As you correctly state, visceral fat is a form of inflammation, and it is deadly.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

brandonk

Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2015
Messages
145
haidut said:
Westside PUFAs said:
post 110424 Someone from the comments section debunks this study:

"I love it, she went with BMI alone and didn't separate out the terminally ill or the extremely fit . So, on the side of "low weight makes you die young" she included patients emaciated by cancer and any other horrific disease you can think of, as well as terminal heroin and meth addicts; and on the side of "being slightly overweight makes you live a little longer" she included nearly all Olympic, professional, and dedicated amateur athletes, and exercise hobbyists (whose BMIs generally score 28-29+ due to the large quantities of healthy dense muscle tissue required by their occupation/hobby). It would appear that she has intentionally overlooked a couple of major confounding factors in pursuit of getting widespread attention and name recognition."

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shot ... ive-longer

I think you guys are missing the fact that her article refers to multiple studies that have confirmed the link in various conditions like heart failure and sepsis and those studies did control for the healthy people with high BMI or chronically ill with low BMI. Also, the issue is not so much whether being fat is good for you from the point of view of preventive effectiveness as it is about survivability benefits in people with already established conditions.
The rule of thumb is this. It is best to be lean IF this is your natural disposition - i.e. you have high metabolism without exercise or stimulants like ephedrine, clenbuterol. It is a high REE that is protective, not raising metabolism forcefully through methods that lead to adaptive downregulation of metabolism when done long term. If metabolism is low for whatever reason, then it is probably less dangerous being overweight as long as you are not morbidly obese. Being fat and trying to get lean through exercise is probably not a good idea unless it is concentric exercise with weights.
Just my 2c.
In recently published study (November 10 in the Annals of Internal Medicine) the rule of thumb is claimed to be this:
Abdominal or central obesity, which is considered to occur when waist-hip ratio exceeds 0.9 among males, or 0.85 among females, was the most significant source of premature death.

Also, it appears that excessive stomach fat was particularly damaging among normal weight men, whose death rates were higher than those reported among women with healthy BMIs.

Male participants having a normal weight, but more fat around their waists, were 87% more likely to die than their counterparts who had a smaller waist circumference.

On the other hand, female subjects had a 50% heightened risk of premature death when they had large abdomens, in comparison with women with more evenly distributed weight.

As emphasized by Dr. Paul Poirier, from the Institute of Cardiology at Laval University in Quebec, Canada, stomach fat is especially dangerous, because it usually associated with insulin resistance (causing type 2 diabetes), high levels of cholesterol, cardiovascular disease, stroke and inflammation.

Women with a waistline exceeding 34 inches, and men with waistlines of more than 40 inches actually suffer from abdominal obesity, even though their overall weight might appear to be normal.

While it might seem surprising that some people can have normal BMIs and yet have excessive belly fat, this is actually a more common occurrence than it might seem.

Certain individuals are genetically predisposed to accumulate weight round their middle section, which also causes fat deposits to appear on essential organs, such as the liver, the gastrointestinal tract and the pancreas.

This type of visceral fat is much deadlier than subcutaneous fat, which is the one located just underneath the skin, also because it influences the release of leptin, nicknamed the satiety hormone. When its levels are disrupted, people can no longer curb their hunger, and continue to indulge in excessive eating.
https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/new ... 55606.html
http://www.regaltribune.com/excess-bell ... ity/23974/

References
Sahakyan KR, Somers VK, Rodriguez-Escudero JP, et al. Normal-weight central obesity: implications for total and cardiovascular mortality. Ann Intern Med. 2015; doi: 10.7326/M14-2525
Poirier P. The many paradoxes of our modern world: is there really an obesity paradox or is it only a matter of adiposity assessment? Ann Intern Med. 2015; doi: 10.7326/M15-2435
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joined
Feb 4, 2015
Messages
1,972
haidut said:
post 110426 Also, the issue is not so much whether being fat is good for you from the point of view of preventive effectiveness as it is about survivability benefits in people with already established conditions.

Then a more fitting title for this thread may have been "Scientists believe that having excess fat tissue can help you survive in a disease state"
 
Last edited by a moderator:

tara

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
10,368
brandonk said:
post 111174 That's fine. I was just answering your question with what the authors of the study conclude, that visceral fat syndrome is itself a clinical entity, based on their own experiments, and the literature they survey.
Yes, a multiple risk factor syndrome. A bunch of symptoms that often occur together, and that correlate with increased risk.

cantstoppeating said:
post 111185 In this context, if we frame being fat as "protective" we'd also have to frame adrenaline as "protective" because both are compensatory results of a poor metabolism.
If you need adrenaline, you may really need it. There can be a problem with it being chronically elevated when it is not needed (eg when people are chronically scared long after the acute danger has passed), and it's better not to be in a situation where you need it too much of the time. But in times when people sometimes face acute danger that require fast and strong reactions, it has probably been overall protective.
I expect that in general it is better not to train one's body for famine, if one has a better alternative, too. But the adaptations for famine have probably been overall protective on an evolutionary level, and on the individual level. And if you are actually facing famine, carrying extra fat is definitely protective.

cantstoppeating said:
post 111185 Good to know that being fat isn't healthy: it's a symptom of a poor metabolism.
It may well be true for many or most, depending on where you draw the definition. I don't think it has been demonstrated to be true for everyone. One of the problems seems to me to be that many people leap from 'being fat isn't healthy' (which may sometimes be true) to 'if I lose/avoid being fat I will be healthier' (which doesn't follow and which often isn't true) to 'I better eat less even if that means I will be stressed and miserable with hunger' (which can often lead to worse problems). As a symptom of poor metabolism, it seems to me that the health supportive-approach should avoid doing too much stuff that is known to lower metabolism.
Herein lies the difficulty. How does a particular individual know whether the benefits of restrictive dieting to lose weight (and hopefully some belly fat) exceed the risks? And how do they know whether they, personally, are 'overweight' wrt their own optimal set point?

XPlus said:
post 111191 I think there are many different cases to consider when drawing a conclusion about this.
I agree.

XPlus said:
post 111191 Then you've got those lean people with a lot of health issues.
They're likely to come from backgrounds of poor or slightly poor health. Their metabolism might be in good shape but they don't eat enough and eat the wrong kinds of food. There's a constant tendency to store PUFA and release it at times of hunger, aggravating their health problems even further.
Those are probably the people who'd have no breakfast and go for a donuts midday and then piece of fried food for dinner. Eventually, their metabolism slows down.
Yes. Or they might be people who eat half a grapefruit for breakfast (which 'looks very nice on a hat but no-one in their right mind would call it breakfast' - Kaz Cooke, argumentative Australian from way back :) ) or a green smoothie or an orange a couple of eggs or a cafe latte, a slice of cheese and a leafy salad for lunch, and a piece of fish and a little rice and veges for dinner. They might make low fat food choices, or follow some other restrictive diet - eg vegan, and may even get better than average micronutrients. But may just be severely energy deficient. And not understand why they are unwell when they eat such a healthy diet.

cantstoppeating said:
post 111185 What's becoming clear is that being fat isn't a required step on the way to Peating,
To me it looks as though getting fat is not necessary for most people. But for some people it may be an inevitable part of recovery, or at least a lesser evil compared with all the known available alternatives. You can't change the past. If someone has spent 3 decades training for famine, I don't know how you undo that training without plentiful food. Some young men seem to make the change without gaining much fat. That doesn't prove it is possible for everyone. I think for some people it is possible to gradually make the change by gradually increasing calories in a controlled way in step with increasing metabolism. For many of us that would be too difficult, and we don't know if it is possible until after it has succeeded. For people whose biggest health dangers come from anorexia etc, a path of continued restriction is fraught, compared with simply accepting some fat gain.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

tara

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
10,368
brandonk said:
post 111261 The study cited in the first post above does not draw any distinction concerning visceral fat. As you correctly state, visceral fat is a form of inflammation, and it is deadly.
The study you quoted does not say visceral fat alone is deadly. It says it can be part of a multiple risk factor syndrome. And that the syndrome seems to predispose to atherosclerosis, and may be a refinement of syndrome X (deadly quartet).
As far as I can tell, grey hair is a part of the syndrome of old age. I think old age is deadly. The older you are, the more likely you are to die. I expect there is a strong correlation between gray hair and increased mortality. I don't think having grey hair is a sign of health. I don't think it is directly deadly, either, or that eliminating it directly will improve my longevity by much. (Becoming leaner can be a part of the syndrome of old age, too. )

There is a proposed mechanism in that paper proposing that increases FFAs arising directly from the visceral fat may contribute to the trouble. This seems credible. Metabolism moving away from sugar burning towards more fat burning does not look like a great sign to me either. On the other hand, the mechanism has probably developed because it has survival value under some common kinds of stress (eg sugar deficiency or other difficulty). So as long as that stress is there, how do we know if it is the stress that is deadly, or the symptomatic response?

brandonk said:
post 111232 Gaining visceral fat, such as the fat in a fatty liver, is deadly regardless of context. Visceral fat grows through inflammation (while other fat grows through hypertrophy). There can be 5-20 pounds of visceral fat inflammation in an apparently "skinny" person. Chronic inflammation is the "cause" (in Peat's view of biology, and increasingly in the mainstream, too) of aging and degenerative disease.

You seems to be mixing up causes and symptoms:
1. Inflammation causes visceral fat. Inflammation is deadly.
This may be true. There seem to be known mechanisms for chronic inflammation to cause trouble.
It does not follow logically from this that:
2. All visceral fat is deadly.
This may or may not be true. And even if it is true, it may be less deadly than the alternative.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

brandonk

Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2015
Messages
145
I surely don't want to conflict with anyone's valid and important opinions about how society treats or mistreats the obese, or for that matter the anorexic. I simply want to point out that the study concludes that visceral fat is itself a "clinical entity" -- meaning that the authors believe that their findings support the view that visceral fat is a disorder that should be diagnosed and treated.

I can only hope everyone takes this warning very seriously, since it is almost never discussed in the popular press, or the internet, and even on this forum, studies like the one cited in the first post completely ignore the by now well-known danger of visceral fat. (I only happened to cite to some of the studies about the dangers of visceral fat, but there are many more that you could find in your own search if you wish to know more.)

While inflammation can have benefits if sustained for a short period of time, the inflammation of visceral fat is chronic, low-grade, and even lifelong, and this is the very kind of inflammation that is increasingly understood as the actual cause of aging and degenerative disease.

(Perhaps I should add, just for clarity, that visceral fat is fat tissue that is in a constant state of chronic, low-grade inflammation. see Lee YH, Pratley RE 2005 The evolving role of inflammation in obesity and the metabolic syndrome. Curr Diab Rep 5:70–75)
 

tara

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
10,368
@brandonk
I do think your point about inflammation being problematic, and that there can be a connection with visceral fat, is a relevant one. It does seem that high levels of visceral fat are at least a symptom of significant health issues, and once in place, may also contribute to perpetuating them.

I guess part of my concern is that it's all very well wanting diagnosis and treatment (not you necessarily, but the study authors), but I'd be a bit skeptical about which treatments would currently be offered by most drs. Some people seem to want to simplify the situation to make weight-loss by any means the top priority. Other than here, I haven't come across a lot of proposed treatment options other than eat less and exercise more, which as we know has it's limitations, and sometimes does more harm than good. (Not that I'm against regular physical activity - I think it is important for most people. And not that I recommend 'overeating' for most people, either.) One of the ways some people gain visceral fat seems to be by bouts of is low-calorie dieting, sometimes encouraged by their drs who want them to lose the fat.
 
Joined
Nov 11, 2014
Messages
585
tara said:
post 111325

cantstoppeating said:
post 111185 In this context, if we frame being fat as "protective" we'd also have to frame adrenaline as "protective" because both are compensatory results of a poor metabolism.
If you need adrenaline, you may really need it. There can be a problem with it being chronically elevated when it is not needed (eg when people are chronically scared long after the acute danger has passed), and it's better not to be in a situation where you need it too much of the time. But in times when people sometimes face acute danger that require fast and strong reactions, it has probably been overall protective.
I expect that in general it is better not to train one's body for famine, if one has a better alternative, too. But the adaptations for famine have probably been overall protective on an evolutionary level, and on the individual level. And if you are actually facing famine, carrying extra fat is definitely protective.

Obviously but you're talking talking about acute the effects of adrenaline when the discussion (implied by my statement) is about the chronic effects.

tara said:
cantstoppeating said:
post 111185 Good to know that being fat isn't healthy: it's a symptom of a poor metabolism.
It may well be true for many or most, depending on where you draw the definition. I don't think it has been demonstrated to be true for everyone. One of the problems seems to me to be that many people leap from 'being fat isn't healthy' (which may sometimes be true) to 'if I lose/avoid being fat I will be healthier' (which doesn't follow and which often isn't true) to 'I better eat less even if that means I will be stressed and miserable with hunger' (which can often lead to worse problems). As a symptom of poor metabolism, it seems to me that the health supportive-approach should avoid doing too much stuff that is known to lower metabolism.
Herein lies the difficulty. How does a particular individual know whether the benefits of restrictive dieting to lose weight (and hopefully some belly fat) exceed the risks? And how do they know whether they, personally, are 'overweight' wrt their own optimal set point?

The better approach is to focus on the substances/protocols/experiments that offer a solution to the root cause of the problem which appears to be a deranged liver. And it's not about restricting calories than it is about restricting excess calories and taking specific substances to clean the liver.

tara said:
cantstoppeating said:
post 111185 What's becoming clear is that being fat isn't a required step on the way to Peating,
To me it looks as though getting fat is not necessary for most people. But for some people it may be an inevitable part of recovery, or at least a lesser evil compared with all the known available alternatives. You can't change the past. If someone has spent 3 decades training for famine, I don't know how you undo that training without plentiful food. Some young men seem to make the change without gaining much fat. That doesn't prove it is possible for everyone. I think for some people it is possible to gradually make the change by gradually increasing calories in a controlled way in step with increasing metabolism. For many of us that would be too difficult, and we don't know if it is possible until after it has succeeded. For people whose biggest health dangers come from anorexia etc, a path of continued restriction is fraught, compared with simply accepting some fat gain.

Like I said above; there's enough info on this forum to reveal that the liver is often at the root of fat gain when eating carbs.

I've seen many of your posts on this forum and whenever the topic of fatloss/weightloss comes up, you're quick to offer justifications for excess fat (along with implied suggestions of consuming excess calories) with reasons of anorexia and notions of famine. (And even in the case of famine, it easy to see how a long period of burning through (PUFA filled) fat and muscle tissue with increased cortisol and adrenaline can lead to a deranged liver.)

Being fat is not OK, and shouldn't be excused because it may be the lesser of some comparative evil; being fat promotes systemic inflammation (often via aromatase) and induces mental stress through societal friction. It seems to me that you carry excess fat and that you haven't yet lost it and that you find it difficult to lose and so you project your circumstances onto others on this forum.

We have enough of the puzzle pieces to solve this without having to offer nationalizations for why being fat is excusable. It's time to emphasis non-excess consumption of calories, liver protocols (e.g. caffeine, K2) and other methods (e.g. lowering prolactin with bromocriptine has shown 6kg fat loss in overweight subjects without reducing calories) as sound strategies to Peating without excess fat gain.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Tarmander

Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2015
Messages
3,763
cantstoppeating said:
post 111325

Being fat is not OK, and shouldn't be excused because it may be the lesser of some comparative evil; being fat promotes systemic inflammation (often via aromatase) and induces mental stress through societal friction. It seems to me that you carry excess fat and that you haven't yet lost it and that you find it difficult to lose and so you project your circumstances onto others on this forum.

We have enough of the puzzle pieces to solve this without having to offer nationalizations for why being fat is excusable. It's time to emphasis non-excess consumption of calories, liver protocols (e.g. caffeine, K2) and other methods (e.g. lowering prolactin with bromocriptine has shown 6kg fat loss in overweight subjects without reducing calories) as sound strategies to Peating without excess fat gain.

This is basically the mainstream belief that is gripping our nation that I talked about above. Being fat is your fault, you don't have any excuse except your own unworthiness, and you could do something about it if you just had the willpower/were good enough. It is fascinating how much this issue triggers people.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

brandonk

Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2015
Messages
145
Tarmander said:
post 111379
cantstoppeating said:
tara said:
post 111325

Being fat is not OK, and shouldn't be excused because it may be the lesser of some comparative evil; being fat promotes systemic inflammation (often via aromatase) and induces mental stress through societal friction. It seems to me that you carry excess fat and that you haven't yet lost it and that you find it difficult to lose and so you project your circumstances onto others on this forum.

We have enough of the puzzle pieces to solve this without having to offer nationalizations for why being fat is excusable. It's time to emphasis non-excess consumption of calories, liver protocols (e.g. caffeine, K2) and other methods (e.g. lowering prolactin with bromocriptine has shown 6kg fat loss in overweight subjects without reducing calories) as sound strategies to Peating without excess fat gain.

This is basically the mainstream belief that is gripping our nation that I talked about above. Being fat is your fault, you don't have any excuse except your own unworthiness, and you could do something about it if you just had the willpower/were good enough. It is fascinating how much this issue triggers people.
I agree that it is a deep-seated, callous prejudice, and worse, I don't know of any good evidence to support the opinion, that "it is not OK" to have subcutaneous fat around the thighs, buttocks and breasts, and even around the belly, as long as visceral fat is absent or minimal, or that there is some way to "solve this" involving "non-excess consumption of calories," "caffeine, K2" and bromocriptine. I would ask everyone just to politely disregard the post you're quoting and move on.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joined
Nov 11, 2014
Messages
585
Tarmander said:
post 111379This is basically the mainstream belief that is gripping our nation that I talked about above. Being fat is your fault, you don't have any excuse except your own unworthiness, and you could do something about it if you just had the willpower/were good enough. It is fascinating how much this issue triggers people.

Fascinating indeed: the irony is that it's you who's been triggered because you're projecting your prejudice onto my post. Can you point exactly to where I said anything that remotely resembles the above?

brandonk said:
I agree that it is a deep-seated, callous prejudice, and worse, I don't know of any good evidence to support the opinion, that "it is not OK" to have subcutaneous fat around the thighs, buttocks and breasts, and even around the belly, as long as visceral fat is absent or minimal, or that there is some way to "solve this" involving "non-excess consumption of calories," "caffeine, K2" and bromocriptine. I would ask everyone just to politely disregard the post you're quoting and move on.

And again, the same to you. You went a step further to misconstrue my post from "Being fat is not OK...being fat promotes systemic inflammation" to "it is not OK to have subcutaanous fat...as long as visceral fat is absent or minimal..."

Both of you constructed a strawman argument.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Tarmander

Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2015
Messages
3,763
cantstoppeating said:
post 111399
Tarmander said:
post 111379This is basically the mainstream belief that is gripping our nation that I talked about above. Being fat is your fault, you don't have any excuse except your own unworthiness, and you could do something about it if you just had the willpower/were good enough. It is fascinating how much this issue triggers people.

Fascinating indeed: the irony is that it's you who's been triggered because you're projecting your prejudice onto my post. Can you point exactly to where I said anything that remotely resembles the above?

I'm not sure how I could explain it any better. Tara is usually better at explaining things then I am.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joined
Nov 11, 2014
Messages
585
Tarmander said:
post 111402
cantstoppeating said:
post 111399
Tarmander said:
post 111379This is basically the mainstream belief that is gripping our nation that I talked about above. Being fat is your fault, you don't have any excuse except your own unworthiness, and you could do something about it if you just had the willpower/were good enough. It is fascinating how much this issue triggers people.

Fascinating indeed: the irony is that it's you who's been triggered because you're projecting your prejudice onto my post. Can you point exactly to where I said anything that remotely resembles the above?

I'm not sure how I could explain it any better. Tara is usually better at explaining things then I am.

No explanation needed, simply quote the part of my post that resembles or implies, "...Being fat is your fault, you don't have any excuse except your own unworthiness, and you could do something about it if you just had the willpower/were good enough..."
 
Last edited by a moderator:

brandonk

Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2015
Messages
145
tara said:
@brandonk
I do think your point about inflammation being problematic, and that there can be a connection with visceral fat, is a relevant one. It does seem that high levels of visceral fat are at least a symptom of significant health issues, and once in place, may also contribute to perpetuating them.

I guess part of my concern is that it's all very well wanting diagnosis and treatment (not you necessarily, but the study authors), but I'd be a bit skeptical about which treatments would currently be offered by most drs. Some people seem to want to simplify the situation to make weight-loss by any means the top priority. Other than here, I haven't come across a lot of proposed treatment options other than eat less and exercise more, which as we know has it's limitations, and sometimes does more harm than good. (Not that I'm against regular physical activity - I think it is important for most people. And not that I recommend 'overeating' for most people, either.) One of the ways some people gain visceral fat seems to be by bouts of is low-calorie dieting, sometimes encouraged by their drs who want them to lose the fat.
Agreed. I think these are all important points. There are proposed treatment options that involve keeping the small intestine sterile, and even the large intestine relatively sterile, and improving slow transit/weak digestive secretions in the intestine. As Ray Peat said in a recent newsletter:
Recently, the kidney industry has been realizing that the bowel is the source of the major toxins of uremia, so there might be a gradual change of attitude toward the intestine in medicine generally.
 

Tarmander

Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2015
Messages
3,763
cantstoppeating said:
post 111404
Tarmander said:
post 111402
cantstoppeating said:
post 111399
Tarmander said:
post 111379This is basically the mainstream belief that is gripping our nation that I talked about above. Being fat is your fault, you don't have any excuse except your own unworthiness, and you could do something about it if you just had the willpower/were good enough. It is fascinating how much this issue triggers people.

Fascinating indeed: the irony is that it's you who's been triggered because you're projecting your prejudice onto my post. Can you point exactly to where I said anything that remotely resembles the above?

I'm not sure how I could explain it any better. Tara is usually better at explaining things then I am.

No explanation needed, simply quote the part of my post that resembles or implies, "...Being fat is your fault, you don't have any excuse except your own unworthiness, and you could do something about it if you just had the willpower/were good enough..."

This is how I saw it, perhaps my own prejudices are getting involved, and I am misunderstanding you. In which case further explanation on your part would be helpful:

cantstoppeating said:
Being fat is not OK, and shouldn't be excused because it may be the lesser of some comparative evil

To me this basically means that if you are fat, you are not okay, and you do not have an excuse for being not okay. In other words, you are fat and kind of helpless about it. It sounds very authoritarian and learned helpless-esque

cantstoppeating said:
being fat promotes systemic inflammation (often via aromatase) and induces mental stress through societal friction.

In my mind this means that if you are fat, you are promoting inflammation (probably true, although chicken and the egg here), and causing yourself stress because basically society, and no one in society, likes you all that much.

cantstoppeating said:
It seems to me that you carry excess fat and that you haven't yet lost it and that you find it difficult to lose and so you project your circumstances onto others on this forum.

Tara is fat, and her arguments are less valid because she is just trying to make excuses for being fat, and especially less valid because she cannot lose said fat.

cantstoppeating said:
We have enough of the puzzle pieces to solve this without having to offer nationalizations for why being fat is excusable.

I am assuming you meant rationalizations. Basically you are saying here that being fat is solvable, we have the technology, so your excuses for your circumstances are invalid, and by assumption, you are lacking in said technology that you could help yourself with. If we assume that this knowledge is available, like it is on our forum, then why can't these fatties help themselves? God what is wrong with them.

cantstoppeating said:
It's time to emphasis non-excess consumption of calories, liver protocols (e.g. caffeine, K2) and other methods (e.g. lowering prolactin with bromocriptine has shown 6kg fat loss in overweight subjects without reducing calories) as sound strategies to Peating without excess fat gain.

These are the "fat solving" protocols that people should be using to resolve their fattiness. Always love the "non-excess calorie consumption," which assumes that these fatties are...well..just eating too much. What if these protocols do not work? Caffeine and K2 can be pretty stressful, and some people cannot tolerate that protocol given their life circumstance. I haven't tried bromocriptine, so I am not sure about that.

So to sum it all up, basically if you are fat, you do not have any excuses, you seem to not be able to simply use given technology to solve your dilemna (what's wrong with you??), and no body likes you. This is what I got from your post, and like I said maybe it is just my own prejudice and you are coming across all happiness and butterflies?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joined
Nov 11, 2014
Messages
585
Great breakdown Tarmander; if you come back to this with fresh eyes you'll see your prejudices listed nicely.

My post is limited to the physiological impact of being fat and nothing more, with plausible mechanisms discussed. Anything more than that was added by your own projection.
 

Tarmander

Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2015
Messages
3,763
cantstoppeating said:
post 111420 Great breakdown Tarmander; if you come back to this with fresh eyes you'll see your prejudices listed nicely.

My post is limited to the physiological impact of being fat and nothing more, with plausible mechanisms discussed. Anything more than that was added by your own projection.

Ehh I took a crack at it, I am not the best at explaining things, like I said. If your post really has none of the prejudices you claim to be free from, then my post was misguided. However after rereading it, I do not think I will regret it being up in the future for others to see.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joined
Feb 4, 2015
Messages
1,972
cantstoppeating said:
Good to know that being fat isn't healthy: it's a symptom of a poor metabolism.

In this context, if we frame being fat as "protective" we'd also have to frame adrenaline as "protective" because both are compensatory results of a poor metabolism.

What's becoming clear is that being fat isn't a required step on the way to Peating, most of the self-professed health bloggers/people claiming that getting fat is part of the "recovery" process have nothing behind it in the same way there's nothing behind to the notion of a "green tea and grape fruit" detox.

When people arrive to Peating and begin to smash carbs, getting fat isn't a part of recovery, or a protective mechanism, it's a consequence of having poor insulin sensitivity and poorly functioning liver after years of low carb, pufa etc and all the consequences of disregulated HPA axis (high cortisol, adrenaline etc).

:yeahthat :10

Brilliant, especially the "recovery" fallacy, which only applies to someone who is literally in starvation, suffering.

I would just add that many people also don't just smash carbs, they smash in the ice cream, butter, cheese, whole milk, chocolate, coconut oil, fatty cuts of meat and from some things I've read...even olive oil. It depends on what the person is doing and where they come from.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom