"Too Fat To Work" | This Morning - Katie Hopkins, Jay Cole

[ThatOneMusicalGirl]

Does it really matter what causes obesity? I think obesity is a huge problem (no pun intended). This is coming from an obese girl, so don't get all offended.

There are two major problems with obesity.

The first of these problems is pride. People who are obese are still people. They function the same way as people who don't have as much weight do. The fact is, weight can be changed. It can be changed with or without gland or hormone problems. I'm working on changing my weight, because I want to be healthier. I have to go to the gym 5-6 times a week for an hour each day, but I'm seeing results. Yes, it's a hell of a lot of work. No, you shouldn't change for anyone else. It's when your pride gets in the way of your own health that you should acknowledge you have a problem. When you're so caught up in being defiant against other people that you ignore your own needs, you need to look at yourself. You have one body. Treat it well. That doesn't mean consume nothing until you become a pole, and it doesn't mean exercise until you look like Arnold Schwarzenegger. It means you should stop consuming more than you burn a day and trying your best to live a long, healthy life. Eat more veggies. Go for a walk. Don't give a damn what people think about you at first sight because they don't know your life and you shouldn't have to justify having to live. Strive to be a person who cares about the body they've been given, not about proving somebody who shouldn't even be judging you wrong.

The second of these problems is the view that people take of obese people. Disqualifying somebody from a job because they're obese is a serious problem, because people make assumptions of being unqualified from one look. The same thing happened with gender and race. Obesity, though it does take a toll on health, has nothing to do with the quality of work that somebody produces. Obesity affects heart health and can shorten a lifespan, but the chances of an employee over 40 years old having a heart attack in the office probably won't change if you have an obese person in the office. Plus, obesity isn't necessarily an indicator of a lazy lifestyle. Sure, some people are obese because they're lazy. Some people are obese because they eat more than they exercise. If I take a leisurely walk for an hour a day, but eat cake afterwards, I'll probably break even at the end of the day, or store more fat. It didn't mean I was lazy, it meant I liked food. Who doesn't like food? People who are scared of being judged by people like themselves.

Is this a definitive list of everything wrong with societal and personal views of obesity? Heck no. Both sides have it wrong. Treat people like people no matter what they look like, and treat your body with the care that it deserves. Peace out.

[Mei tsuki7]

Tape Culture

Mei tsuki7

Tape Culture

Mei tsuki7

Tape Culture

Mei tsuki7

How is it that people don't realize that weight is mainly genetic? It's mainly based on body type, hormones and metabolism. All of those things are out of someone's control. Being overweight does not mean someone is lazy just as being skinny doesn't mean someone isn't lazy. Plus skinny does not equal healthy just as overweight does not equal unhealthy.

Actually, obesity is caused by a person eating more calories than their body consumes.[1] If a person was physically active and only ate enough calories to support a thin frame, then they would have a thin frame. It is possible that a fat person simply has a slow metabolism, but this can be corrected with enough exercise, especially strength training. The more muscular a person is, the more calories their body must consume to maintain their weight, and therefore, the more that person can eat before it begins storing leftovers as fat.[2]

Therefore, obesity is caused by your environment and your decisions above all else. Not your genetics.

The amount of calories a body consumes differs depending on the person. It is not a universal constant. There are seditary people who can consume 3000 calories a day and not gain any weight. This is also due to the fact that how a body deals with excess calories depends on the person. Some store fat quickly while others do not. Then there's the fact that body frames differ greatly. Two people of the same height who weigh the same with the same body fat percentage can look extremely different. One may look fat and the other not. This is also due to the fact that people tend to gain weight in different places. Some may gain in their hips, some their butts, etc. All these things clearly show that weight is NOT mainly environmental.

PS. You completely ignored my point about hormones. They are what effect weight gain and loss the most. Those with more testosterone gain muscle faster and fat slower than those with more estrogyn.

It's "estrogen."

Anyway, no, they absolutely do show that weight is mainly environmental. The only way for it to not be primarily environmental would be for you to show that eating fewer calories than the body consumes doesn't result in weight loss, which it does. An excess of food and a lack of exercise is absolutely necessary for the kind of obesity we see today in the United States. Moderate food consumption coupled with regular conventional exercise does not result in a high body fat percentage in the long term.

You're completely wrong. Moderate food consumption with regular exercise does NOT equal weight loss or a lack of weight gain. I have already explained why. You are acting like every persons body is exactly the same which is completely false.

Yeah, as a matter of fact, they do. If you don't like the reality that the facts don't agree with you, you can take it up with Mayo Clinic and the National Institute of Health. I'll take their word over someone who can't spell "estrogen."

You're probably just fat and embarrassed about that fact. That said, nobody here is judging you for your weight harsher than you are. Well, yourself and maybe the hypermasculine guys you probably want to ********]

From your second link: "Many factors can contribute to a person’s weight. These factors include environment, family history and genetics, metabolism (the way your body changes food and oxygen into energy), and behavior or habits."

And I was on my damn phone. The fact that you're focusing on a misspelling shows a lack of debate etiquette and a lack of confidence if your own argument. My argument is far more important than my spelling.

Actually I'm not too overweight but I have a literal inability to lose weight due to a hormonal condition. I can literally go on an extreme diet and exercise excessively and not lose weight. There are many, many people like me out there. To say it's all laziness is like saying ADHD is just kids being lazy and depression is just people being sad.

Lastly, you have completely ignored the vast majority of what I have said. You never argued against any specific point I had. That makes your arguments of little use and they prove nothing.

[Nonesuch Solo]

My Dog Mr. Kitty

Now you're just making up excuses for yourself. The entire issue was what was cheaper, not what was cheaper and delicious. Personally I love plain skinless chicken breast if it's recently been made, but if it's leftovers it needs some seasoning. And seasonings aren't expensive, you can get 20 ounces of chili powder on amazon right now for $6.46. 20 ounces of chili powder will go an incredibly long way but guess what. If you really are so poor that you can't afford to pay for what costs as much as a meal or two at mcdonalds, you don't need seasonings at all

There is no meal plan, it's simply portion control and eating things that don't have 500 calories without filling you up. Like poptarts, two (so one package) have 400 calories, while a massive baked chicken breast can have ~200-300 calories. One is a lot better for filling you up than the other too

I'm just glad that somebody out there has all the answers. You're not the only one, of course. There are a lot of people with all the answers, even if they don't have all the same answers. Maybe once I find a system that works for me, I can have all the answers, too. Then I can go on and judge people who are still fat because I was able to lose weight and they are still not skinny, when all they have to do is what I did!

It reminds me of my mother, who just can't wrap her mind around the fact that people are different, have different feelings, different priorities, different resources, different support systems, and so on and so forth.

In poverty, ingredient cost is not the only problem. A reliable way to store and prepare food is important. Time and know-how are also at a premium in many low-socioeconomic-status families. I used to get a lot of great deals on foods, even good produce, through my family's membership to Costco. My parents have a deep freeze in the basement and when they buy in bulk, they can store lots of frozen goods. I'm sure you and I both have functioning kitchen appliances, including stove and oven, and, of course, all of the necessary utilities. There are poor people who do not have these simple things. Some days it's really easy to take for granted the fact that I can drive to Walmart or Kroger and I don't have to rely on the nearest gas station for groceries, but I see people walking to the Chevron station and leaving with bags full of processed foods and I know that's the position they're in. Sure, frozen chicken breast might be cheaper than whatever they eat from the gas station--hell, the processed foods they buy at the gas station would probably be cheaper at Walmart--but if the gas station takes food stamps and they can get there if they don't have access to a car, they're going to take that choice. (Before someone suggests public transportation, where I live there are no buses, trains, subways, trolleys, or bicycle ports. The best suggestion you could give is probably carpooling, and I know people who can only find that option once or twice a month.)

It's nice that I can have conversations about changes I could make, personally, to the things I'm doing. I have a whole lot of options. I kinda know how to grow plants and I have a space where I could set up several pots, so I could always grow my own bell peppers, cucumbers, tomatoes, herbs, and so on. I kinda know how to cook and I can use my home computer and internet connection to answer any questions I might have in case I want to try something new. I'll be able to pack my kids' lunches and even if they'd qualify for free or reduced food in the public school system I won't be making them eat marshmallow cereal for breakfast and "pizza" for lunch every weekday. In a few years we should be able to afford to eat at a halfway-decent restaurant about once a week instead of falling back on McDonald's or frozen pizza for our "no-cook" nights. Health is something I value, so most likely once I finally get my ducks in a row I'll be on the right track. I'm just glad that getting my ducks in a row is something I can count on in the (relatively) near future.

[Nonesuch Solo]

Tape Culture

Mei tsuki7

Tape Culture

Mei tsuki7

Tape Culture

Mei tsuki7

How is it that people don't realize that weight is mainly genetic? It's mainly based on body type, hormones and metabolism. All of those things are out of someone's control. Being overweight does not mean someone is lazy just as being skinny doesn't mean someone isn't lazy. Plus skinny does not equal healthy just as overweight does not equal unhealthy.

Actually, obesity is caused by a person eating more calories than their body consumes.[1] If a person was physically active and only ate enough calories to support a thin frame, then they would have a thin frame. It is possible that a fat person simply has a slow metabolism, but this can be corrected with enough exercise, especially strength training. The more muscular a person is, the more calories their body must consume to maintain their weight, and therefore, the more that person can eat before it begins storing leftovers as fat.[2]

Therefore, obesity is caused by your environment and your decisions above all else. Not your genetics.

The amount of calories a body consumes differs depending on the person. It is not a universal constant. There are seditary people who can consume 3000 calories a day and not gain any weight. This is also due to the fact that how a body deals with excess calories depends on the person. Some store fat quickly while others do not. Then there's the fact that body frames differ greatly. Two people of the same height who weigh the same with the same body fat percentage can look extremely different. One may look fat and the other not. This is also due to the fact that people tend to gain weight in different places. Some may gain in their hips, some their butts, etc. All these things clearly show that weight is NOT mainly environmental.

PS. You completely ignored my point about hormones. They are what effect weight gain and loss the most. Those with more testosterone gain muscle faster and fat slower than those with more estrogyn.

It's "estrogen."

Anyway, no, they absolutely do show that weight is mainly environmental. The only way for it to not be primarily environmental would be for you to show that eating fewer calories than the body consumes doesn't result in weight loss, which it does. An excess of food and a lack of exercise is absolutely necessary for the kind of obesity we see today in the United States. Moderate food consumption coupled with regular conventional exercise does not result in a high body fat percentage in the long term.

You're completely wrong. Moderate food consumption with regular exercise does NOT equal weight loss or a lack of weight gain. I have already explained why. You are acting like every persons body is exactly the same which is completely false.

Yeah, as a matter of fact, they do. If you don't like the reality that the facts don't agree with you,

The last part was uncalled for.

However, the fact of the matter is that nearly everyone will lose weight if they starve themselves enough. Nobody coming out of Auschwitz was fat, amirite? I mean, some were dead, but everyone still lost weight. (Am I the Godwinner here? Woot!)

The disagreement is about how many calories and what sort of diet constitute "moderate food consumption" and so forth. I could eat 6,000+ calories per day when I was younger and not gain an ounce. Now if I go over 2,000 calories a day I will see weight gain. Nobody would tell my skinny self that I wasn't eating a moderate amount (because I was skinny so obviously what I was doing was "right," right?), but if you saw me now scarfing down that much food you would tell me that isn't moderate. It's not "moderate" to eat three quarters of a large pizza in one sitting, because I'm fat. But when I was young? Meh, I'd probably go back for those last two pieces, too, and my parents would joke about me eating them out of house and home, because growing teens need more food than most adults.

What counts as "moderate" is different for different people. My mother eats like 1,000 calories per day and maintains her skinny figure. If I eat 1,500 calories a day my body freaks the ******** out and starts hoarding fat because it thinks I'm starving. Whoops, that's the opposite of losing weight! If I dropped to 1,000 calories I'd probably start to lose weight, but I can assure you, 1,500 is miserable, and I know 1,000 would be torture.

[My Dog Mr. Kitty]

Nonesuch Solo

My Dog Mr. Kitty

Now you're just making up excuses for yourself. The entire issue was what was cheaper, not what was cheaper and delicious. Personally I love plain skinless chicken breast if it's recently been made, but if it's leftovers it needs some seasoning. And seasonings aren't expensive, you can get 20 ounces of chili powder on amazon right now for $6.46. 20 ounces of chili powder will go an incredibly long way but guess what. If you really are so poor that you can't afford to pay for what costs as much as a meal or two at mcdonalds, you don't need seasonings at all

There is no meal plan, it's simply portion control and eating things that don't have 500 calories without filling you up. Like poptarts, two (so one package) have 400 calories, while a massive baked chicken breast can have ~200-300 calories. One is a lot better for filling you up than the other too

I'm just glad that somebody out there has all the answers. You're not the only one, of course. There are a lot of people with all the answers, even if they don't have all the same answers. Maybe once I find a system that works for me, I can have all the answers, too. Then I can go on and judge people who are still fat because I was able to lose weight and they are still not skinny, when all they have to do is what I did!

It reminds me of my mother, who just can't wrap her mind around the fact that people are different, have different feelings, different priorities, different resources, different support systems, and so on and so forth.

In poverty, ingredient cost is not the only problem. A reliable way to store and prepare food is important. Time and know-how are also at a premium in many low-socioeconomic-status families. I used to get a lot of great deals on foods, even good produce, through my family's membership to Costco. My parents have a deep freeze in the basement and when they buy in bulk, they can store lots of frozen goods. I'm sure you and I both have functioning kitchen appliances, including stove and oven, and, of course, all of the necessary utilities. There are poor people who do not have these simple things. Some days it's really easy to take for granted the fact that I can drive to Walmart or Kroger and I don't have to rely on the nearest gas station for groceries, but I see people walking to the Chevron station and leaving with bags full of processed foods and I know that's the position they're in. Sure, frozen chicken breast might be cheaper than whatever they eat from the gas station--hell, the processed foods they buy at the gas station would probably be cheaper at Walmart--but if the gas station takes food stamps and they can get there if they don't have access to a car, they're going to take that choice. (Before someone suggests public transportation, where I live there are no buses, trains, subways, trolleys, or bicycle ports. The best suggestion you could give is probably carpooling, and I know people who can only find that option once or twice a month.)

It's nice that I can have conversations about changes I could make, personally, to the things I'm doing. I have a whole lot of options. I kinda know how to grow plants and I have a space where I could set up several pots, so I could always grow my own bell peppers, cucumbers, tomatoes, herbs, and so on. I kinda know how to cook and I can use my home computer and internet connection to answer any questions I might have in case I want to try something new. I'll be able to pack my kids' lunches and even if they'd qualify for free or reduced food in the public school system I won't be making them eat marshmallow cereal for breakfast and "pizza" for lunch every weekday. In a few years we should be able to afford to eat at a halfway-decent restaurant about once a week instead of falling back on McDonald's or frozen pizza for our "no-cook" nights. Health is something I value, so most likely once I finally get my ducks in a row I'll be on the right track. I'm just glad that getting my ducks in a row is something I can count on in the (relatively) near future.

You're thinking I'm referring to everyone on the planet, and I'm just not. I say again, the original post of mine you responded to was saying that you can eat healthy for just as cheap if not cheaper than eating crap. I didn't say everyone owned a freezer or a car

[Nonesuch Solo]

Tape Culture

Nonesuch Solo

Tape Culture

Mei tsuki7

Tape Culture

Mei tsuki7

The amount of calories a body consumes differs depending on the person. It is not a universal constant. There are seditary people who can consume 3000 calories a day and not gain any weight. This is also due to the fact that how a body deals with excess calories depends on the person. Some store fat quickly while others do not. Then there's the fact that body frames differ greatly. Two people of the same height who weigh the same with the same body fat percentage can look extremely different. One may look fat and the other not. This is also due to the fact that people tend to gain weight in different places. Some may gain in their hips, some their butts, etc. All these things clearly show that weight is NOT mainly environmental.

PS. You completely ignored my point about hormones. They are what effect weight gain and loss the most. Those with more testosterone gain muscle faster and fat slower than those with more estrogyn.

It's "estrogen."

Anyway, no, they absolutely do show that weight is mainly environmental. The only way for it to not be primarily environmental would be for you to show that eating fewer calories than the body consumes doesn't result in weight loss, which it does. An excess of food and a lack of exercise is absolutely necessary for the kind of obesity we see today in the United States. Moderate food consumption coupled with regular conventional exercise does not result in a high body fat percentage in the long term.

You're completely wrong. Moderate food consumption with regular exercise does NOT equal weight loss or a lack of weight gain. I have already explained why. You are acting like every persons body is exactly the same which is completely false.

Yeah, as a matter of fact, they do. If you don't like the reality that the facts don't agree with you,

The last part was uncalled for.

However, the fact of the matter is that nearly everyone will lose weight if they starve themselves enough. Nobody coming out of Auschwitz was fat, amirite? I mean, some were dead, but everyone still lost weight. (Am I the Godwinner here? Woot!)

The disagreement is about how many calories and what sort of diet constitute "moderate food consumption" and so forth. I could eat 6,000+ calories per day when I was younger and not gain an ounce. Now if I go over 2,000 calories a day I will see weight gain. Nobody would tell my skinny self that I wasn't eating a moderate amount (because I was skinny so obviously what I was doing was "right," right?), but if you saw me now scarfing down that much food you would tell me that isn't moderate. It's not "moderate" to eat three quarters of a large pizza in one sitting, because I'm fat. But when I was young? Meh, I'd probably go back for those last two pieces, too, and my parents would joke about me eating them out of house and home, because growing teens need more food than most adults.

What counts as "moderate" is different for different people. My mother eats like 1,000 calories per day and maintains her skinny figure. If I eat 1,500 calories a day my body freaks the ******** out and starts hoarding fat because it thinks I'm starving. Whoops, that's the opposite of losing weight! If I dropped to 1,000 calories I'd probably start to lose weight, but I can assure you, 1,500 is miserable, and I know 1,000 would be torture.

Oh I don't disagree at all. Metabolism varies greatly by person, and genetics do factor into this. However, Mei tsuki insists that genetics play a "primary" role in determining how overweight, if at all, one is, which is just not the case at all. This is because one can bypass metabolism by simply eating less than their body uses up, and on top of this, metabolism can be forced to kick into gear via exercise, especially with resistance training and a high-protein, middling fats, and low carbohydrate diet.

To insist that genetics determine if you're obese above all else and is factually inaccurate. Not to mention, it implies that Americans, and especially poor Americans, have a high concentration of obesity genes (since there is a strong correlation between being an American and being obese compared to the rest of the world, and an even stronger correlation between being a poor American and being obese compared to the rest of the world's poor), which I would find a bit offensive if I didn't find it so ******** funny.

The way I understood it, genetics can predispose you to things--like rapid weight gain, or weight gain past a certain age--and that's the primary impact it has on obesity. Kinda like people can be genetically predisposed to heart disease, but if they know this they can take measures to reduce their risk.

[Nonesuch Solo]

My Dog Mr. Kitty

You're thinking I'm referring to everyone on the planet, and I'm just not. I say again, the original post of mine you responded to was saying that you can eat healthy for just as cheap if not cheaper than eating crap. I didn't say everyone owned a freezer or a car

I was taking it in the context of the whole discussion. A lot of things are "cheaper" if you don't count all the other things you need to have to make the "cheaper" way work.

[Lord of the Vine]

Tape Culture

Mei tsuki7

Tape Culture

Mei tsuki7

Tape Culture

Mei tsuki7

How is it that people don't realize that weight is mainly genetic? It's mainly based on body type, hormones and metabolism. All of those things are out of someone's control. Being overweight does not mean someone is lazy just as being skinny doesn't mean someone isn't lazy. Plus skinny does not equal healthy just as overweight does not equal unhealthy.

Actually, obesity is caused by a person eating more calories than their body consumes.[1] If a person was physically active and only ate enough calories to support a thin frame, then they would have a thin frame. It is possible that a fat person simply has a slow metabolism, but this can be corrected with enough exercise, especially strength training. The more muscular a person is, the more calories their body must consume to maintain their weight, and therefore, the more that person can eat before it begins storing leftovers as fat.[2]

Therefore, obesity is caused by your environment and your decisions above all else. Not your genetics.

The amount of calories a body consumes differs depending on the person. It is not a universal constant. There are seditary people who can consume 3000 calories a day and not gain any weight. This is also due to the fact that how a body deals with excess calories depends on the person. Some store fat quickly while others do not. Then there's the fact that body frames differ greatly. Two people of the same height who weigh the same with the same body fat percentage can look extremely different. One may look fat and the other not. This is also due to the fact that people tend to gain weight in different places. Some may gain in their hips, some their butts, etc. All these things clearly show that weight is NOT mainly environmental.

PS. You completely ignored my point about hormones. They are what effect weight gain and loss the most. Those with more testosterone gain muscle faster and fat slower than those with more estrogyn.

It's "estrogen."

Anyway, no, they absolutely do show that weight is mainly environmental. The only way for it to not be primarily environmental would be for you to show that eating fewer calories than the body consumes doesn't result in weight loss, which it does. An excess of food and a lack of exercise is absolutely necessary for the kind of obesity we see today in the United States. Moderate food consumption coupled with regular conventional exercise does not result in a high body fat percentage in the long term.

You're completely wrong. Moderate food consumption with regular exercise does NOT equal weight loss or a lack of weight gain. I have already explained why. You are acting like every persons body is exactly the same which is completely false.

Yeah, as a matter of fact, they do. If you don't like the reality that the facts don't agree with you, you can take it up with Mayo Clinic and the National Institute of Health. I'll take their word over someone who can't spell "estrogen."

You're probably just fat and embarrassed about that fact. That said, nobody here is judging you for your weight harsher than you are. Well, yourself and maybe the hypermasculine guys you probably want to ********]

Says the guy judging on weight.

[My Dog Mr. Kitty]

Nonesuch Solo

My Dog Mr. Kitty

You're thinking I'm referring to everyone on the planet, and I'm just not. I say again, the original post of mine you responded to was saying that you can eat healthy for just as cheap if not cheaper than eating crap. I didn't say everyone owned a freezer or a car

I was taking it in the context of the whole discussion. A lot of things are "cheaper" if you don't count all the other things you need to have to make the "cheaper" way work.

No one includes the cost of a car in determining costs of products. The absolute vast majority of people have access to stores like walmart. Anyone who doesn't can if they wanted to and put some effort in

Bringing up the idea that some people are incredibly poor in a discussion about whether eating healthy or unhealthy is more affordable is like saying some people can't afford computers when I post asking what laptop I should buy

[Riviera de la Mancha]

Mei tsuki7

How is it that people don't realize that weight is mainly genetic? It's mainly based on body type, hormones and metabolism. All of those things are out of someone's control. Being overweight does not mean someone is lazy just as being skinny doesn't mean someone isn't lazy. Plus skinny does not equal healthy just as overweight does not equal unhealthy.

To be fair, while the science is pretty clear now that our genes definitely have a role to play, its still unclear just how much. The science is just not there to say its "mainly genetic".

Other than that, I agree. The problem with discriminating based on weight to me is that when most people do it, it doesn't have relevance to the position. For example, I can see weight discrimination if I own a Hooters and I am looking for waitresses - they need to be physically appealing, and the market for "fat is sexy" is just too small. But is it sensible to think a skinny person is going to be better than a fat person at telemarketing? At being a lawyer? A scientist? The answer is "no" because there is not really a nexus between weight and the demands of the job.

[PureCocainePureCocaine]

Lutishyia

If anyone obese does suffer from any medical condition(s) it's probably due to...oh that's right, being obese. You only have yourself to blame as an adult. You are the one responsible for putting pies in your mouth.

Why you tryin' to pick on fat people bruh, they have it bad enough

[PureCocainePureCocaine]

ThatOneMusicalGirl

Does it really matter what causes obesity? I think obesity is a huge problem (no pun intended). This is coming from an obese girl, so don't get all offended.

There are two major problems with obesity.

The first of these problems is pride. People who are obese are still people. They function the same way as people who don't have as much weight do. The fact is, weight can be changed. It can be changed with or without gland or hormone problems. I'm working on changing my weight, because I want to be healthier. I have to go to the gym 5-6 times a week for an hour each day, but I'm seeing results. Yes, it's a hell of a lot of work. No, you shouldn't change for anyone else. It's when your pride gets in the way of your own health that you should acknowledge you have a problem. When you're so caught up in being defiant against other people that you ignore your own needs, you need to look at yourself. You have one body. Treat it well. That doesn't mean consume nothing until you become a pole, and it doesn't mean exercise until you look like Arnold Schwarzenegger. It means you should stop consuming more than you burn a day and trying your best to live a long, healthy life. Eat more veggies. Go for a walk. Don't give a damn what people think about you at first sight because they don't know your life and you shouldn't have to justify having to live. Strive to be a person who cares about the body they've been given, not about proving somebody who shouldn't even be judging you wrong.

The second of these problems is the view that people take of obese people. Disqualifying somebody from a job because they're obese is a serious problem, because people make assumptions of being unqualified from one look. The same thing happened with gender and race. Obesity, though it does take a toll on health, has nothing to do with the quality of work that somebody produces. Obesity affects heart health and can shorten a lifespan, but the chances of an employee over 40 years old having a heart attack in the office probably won't change if you have an obese person in the office. Plus, obesity isn't necessarily an indicator of a lazy lifestyle. Sure, some people are obese because they're lazy. Some people are obese because they eat more than they exercise. If I take a leisurely walk for an hour a day, but eat cake afterwards, I'll probably break even at the end of the day, or store more fat. It didn't mean I was lazy, it meant I liked food. Who doesn't like food? People who are scared of being judged by people like themselves.

Is this a definitive list of everything wrong with societal and personal views of obesity? Heck no. Both sides have it wrong. Treat people like people no matter what they look like, and treat your body with the care that it deserves. Peace out.

I hate when people talk s**t about a fat person exercising, like, goddamn you have to start someone man, yanno? Like, I wanna just follow a fat dude running down the street and just take off on anyone who dares speak up, lol