What if your ugly?

[sck]

Really, in addition to genes, I'd argue that our diet is what causes much of it.

I mean, genetically, if I get moving... I lose weight. The problem is, we live in a society that is a) overly dependent on processed foods, b) prone to portion sizes that are way too large, and c) have lives that are just too sedentary in part due to modern conveniences.

Yes, there are medical conditions and some genetic predispositions. But I know for a fact that when I lived in DC and didn't have a car, and thus walked everywhere or took the metro, I lost a ton of weight without even trying. It was to the point that my clothes were hanging on my hipbones. I swear, I have times where I want to move to a city that it's inconvenient to drive in so I can force myself to walk more. (Where I live now, I just cannot get to work without a car.)

I do think a lot of it is societal as opposed to genetic, and that surgery as it stands is a terrible terrible option in all but some cases. Yeah, not everyone will be the 'ideal' thin, and people need to realize that. I know I will never be a skinny mite -- I have a lot of natural muscle mass in addition to a predisposition to put on fat. But then, I also believe that many of the medical disorders that seem to be diagnosed more and more are also driven by our diets and lifestyle rather than just appearing.

[sck]

Actually, I'm 32 now, so I've already started seeing some of the creep. Bah! I blame it in part on the metabolism slowing, but some of it's my fault, certainly. Although my father, who I take after quite a bit, did lose a good amount of weight by changing his diet, and has kept it off in his 50s.

True: re the congenital predisposition. I'd forgotten about that; I've heard that before as well.

And definitely, with eating out more. Houston eats out a lot; there's a danger to having good restaurants. I know I eat out probably three nights a week, and almost every day at lunch. When I cook for myself, I lose weight. I eat less, and what I make is generally healthier. I do believe that the processed foods are not nearly as healthy, and I generally try to avoid them, but my habit of buying frozen meals doesn't help. I try to mostly do the 'shop at the edges' approach to groceries. (And fortunately, since I'm trying to prevent a worsening MSG allery, I don't buy many prepackaged kit foods.) I have a few overall fitness goals, as well -- like being able to ride a century. Now I just need to use my bike...

And yeah, Northwestern is high on my list in part because of public transport thing!

[SCgrad]

Re-read my post.  I admitted that there are exceptions to the rule.  However, the rule still stands.
Secondly, I'm not arguing in favor of AA for ugly people (at least not at this point in our society).  I'm just saying that sizeism exists and is a real and present career concern for the thousands of us who get rejected by Extreme Makeover.

2.  What about the people who have been overweight their whole life and make the change and keep the weight off?  How come they can do it and others can't. 

Again, because they have a genetic profile that enables them to be the exception to the rule.  Turning them into the reason for there to be a rule is silly -- and completely ignoring the statistics.

I don't have to worry about it much, but I do beleive ANYONE can lose weight and maintain a normal weight given the right frame of mind, diet, and exercise program.  If we disagree on this, there is no reason to argue, you are not going to convince me with fuzzy science when I have [calarie intake - calaries burned].  That is a fact.

Statistical data is automatically "fuzzy science."  Hm.  Then I guess 85% of cancer research is a waste of time since it's just "fuzzy." 

And while calories in/calories out works for the short term, it ignores the more comple changes that occur in the following weeks and months.  If you're seriously interested in the subject, then I suggest you read the Diet Myth.  It explains the studies in more detail than I could here.

1. Everyone has the ability to live a healthy life, that is a rule.  Tell me if someone ran 10 miles a day and ate a healthy diet would not maintain a healthy, and by healthy I mean not overweight, body.  I'm not blaming people for not doing this, but everyone can be healthy, period.

2. Good we agree.  That was the point of this thread, right?  I was merely pointing out that what you had posted did not give credit to the idea of having AA for attractiveness.

3. Horrible analogy.  Makes zero sense.  If you want to compare what I said to cancer, it would be something like this:  "If you remove the cancer from someone's body, it will not kill them."  I am stating a simple fact, one that cannot be refuted with all the fuzzy statistics in the world.  You can research around this fact, but you can't take it away, that is all.  I am not saying the metobolic system is simple, of course people are different in this regard, but if you burn more that you intake, you will lose weight, THIS IS A FACT.

[HK]

When I was taking Chinese newspaper reading class we read this article that said that tall people actually have higher salaries than short people, and tall guys seem to have an easier time getting dates..

Maybe being short should merit some AA....i mean, you can't change your height!

[SCgrad]

It's the last clause that the statistics do not show.  If someone runs 10 miles a day and ate a healthy diet, there is still a very good chance that s/he would be overweight (No, there isn't, I have never heard of someone like this.  My high school football coach was a fat offensive lineman trough high school and college, now he runs 10 miles a day and is very thin.  Do you have any actual examples to the contrary, or are you just making this up?).  In fact, Brad Pitt is considered overweight (not MY tables, he isn't overweight, what are you trying to prove?  Going back to your first point, the person might be considered overweight while running 10 miles a day, but that is bull.) by the tables we've devised. JSIA.



If you have enough resources, yes.  But healthy does not equal thin (Yes, this is true).

One of my classes UG was with a very well-known med prof at Penn.  I thought it was interesting that he pointed out (off the record) that the people who are able to lose weight have the exact same personality and behavioral characteristics as his anorexic patients.  The only difference is that one is able to stay under the BMI norm and the others, who were significantly heavier to begin with, are able to stay slightly above.  Interesting food for thought, there, I think...(that is interesting)

Well, we don't entirely agree.  I think it's a valid concern for the future (You still haven't addressed the impossibility of it, not to mention the absurdity), but AA's having a hard enough time now with its group(Yes).

If you believe that, then you really haven't done any work in the field (I don't know what you mean, I haven't studied health at any university, but I do have cursory knowledge and common sense to go with mountains of anecdotal evidence).  Read The Diet Myth. (I'll put it on my list, it's not too long, is it?) It's not coincidental that several profs at the Center for Eating and Weight Disorders at Penn use it as their primary textbook for grad students.

For a week or two, yes.  Over the long run, no (actually yes, this is a fact, supported by Newton’s law, matter can neither be created or destroyed.  If you burn more than what you intake, where does the fat come from?  Maybe you should talk to a physics professor.).  Again, go talk to the profs at Penn Med. (It's actually really interesting how reporters refuse to report their statements on this subject.  JSIA.)

I've bolded my responses

If you have a link to a website that would be more effective, I don't really have access to books, as the only library near me is filled with Japanese texts. 

Have you read the responses about AA for ugly people/fat people?

How can you defend giving them AA without giving it to short people/dumb people/people with annoying voices/bald people/people who can't speak English/people with speech impediments/people with IBS/alcoholics/drug abusers/children/old people/anyone who isn't rich, white, tall, Christian, handsome, athletic, smart, personable, and healthy in all aspects of life; cause those types are horrible for law schools 

[sck]

  In fact, Brad Pitt is considered overweight (not MY tables, he isn't overweight, what are you trying to prove?  Going back to your first point, the person might be considered overweight while running 10 miles a day, but that is bull.)

I'm not saying that he looks overweight: I'm saying that, by the criteria the American Medical Association sets out, he is overweight.  That suggests something's wrong with the tables.  They realize it's wrong too; that's why they have a disclaimer saying "professional athletes shouldn't go by this chart."

All I wanted to do was chime in agreement on this. It gets especially crazy for people who are tall. I dated someone who was 6'6", athletic frame. He weighed 225, and he looked GREAT. He had maybe 10 pounds he could have changed from fat to muscle around his abdomen -- basically it'd have given him a 6-pack. Yet the weight charts said he should be like 190 (wtf?)

Likewise, I will never weigh at the lower end of my 'ideal weight', either. At 5'7", I think I'd be right at about 145-150, given my build and muscle mass. The lower end? Hah, right. I'd look awful. I will never, ever have skinny little legs, as genetics has guaranteed I'll always have bulging muscles there.

[SCgrad]

They realize it's wrong too; that's why they have a disclaimer saying "professional athletes shouldn't go by this chart."

...

  Modern humans are evolved to survive famines, and in order to survive famines, you have to be very good at hording fat: especially once your existing fat stores have vanished.

...

Because you work on the inequities that are the most salient first.  At this moment in time, it's race.  Maybe in the future it'll be size.  Maybe farther in the future it'll be ageism.  Who knows.

Alright, I think we have managed to keep this a civil debate for several posts, and it seems it is going in circles a little.  I think maybe a few things are being cleared up.  So I'm going to end my side with this post and give you the last word if you like:

1.  I would say nobody should go by these charts.  The tall example is relevant to me as I am 6'8".  If anything, I would call myself a little thin, but according to the charts, I am overweight.  It would NOT be healthy for me to be within the charts.

2.  I think the main argument might be coming up here because you are talking about overweight in different terms than me.  We all do come in different shapes and sizes and it is true that some people are just meant to carry more weight.  I can't spell his name right, but Kalid El Amin, the point guard who played for UConn when they won the 99 championship was pretty chubby, he was also extremely athletic and in amazing shape.  Since I don't believe in those stupid charts; when I say overweight, I mean "not healthy" overweight.  Maybe we will disagree on my next statement, but I don't think anyone has the genetics to massively obese. 

3.  Some people carry a little more weight than others, but that is not unhealthy and I don't think it has a meaningful effect on career prospects.  I can see, however, how someone who is maybe over 300 pounds for a man or 200 pounds for a woman, might be slightly disadvantaged, although I still don't think AA is deserved (it's not stupid people's fault they are stupid, you must agree with that.  They don't get AA, should they?). 

[LawBoundLoser]

Argument Advice:

Some of the posts create too much work for responders. If you're making multiple points, or if you raise multiple arguments, separate them into easily isolated units. Are we future lawyers or what?

[angmill08]

1. Everyone has the ability to live a healthy life, that is a rule.  Tell me if someone ran 10 miles a day and ate a healthy diet would not maintain a healthy, and by healthy I mean not overweight, body. 

It's the last clause that the statistics do not show.  If someone runs 10 miles a day and ate a healthy diet, there is still a very good chance that s/he would be overweight.  In fact, Brad Pitt is considered overweight by the tables we've devised. JSIA.

I'm not blaming people for not doing this, but everyone can be healthy, period.

If you have enough resources, yes.  But healthy does not equal thin.

But Brad Pitt -- and others who may be overweight by the standards Lily mentions but by societal standards are perceived as healthy -- are not being hurt by sizeism.

The vast majority of obese people in the US could bring their size into a societally acceptable range with a combination of exercise and diet. Is it harder for some than others, due to genetic, congenital or cultural factors? Sure. But girth -- unlike race -- is not an immutable construction, so sizeism seems much less unfair than racism.

[Mr Shears]

How much can you do about being ugly?

Plastic surgery and make-up.  Lots of actresses are pretty damn ugly without their make-up on.