Too Fat to Graduate

[sassafras]

After reading the story about your friend, and watching the video, I just want to mention a few points...

The women in that video, for the most part, had solid muscle tone, the kind that cannot be developed in a few months, and certainly not by using a crash diet. Their bodies, for the most part, looked to be the result of regular and possibly extreme athletic activity. They had extremely low BMI percentages, but very few of them looked unhealthy, underweight, or malnourished. Most of the women in that video looked to be in peak physical condition - for long duration cardio based athletics like triathalon or marathon running. Note, I say most. Some of the contestants were seriously bordering on healthy low amounts of muscle mass to go with their unhealthy low BMI percentages, and it is likely that they focused much more on dieting than exercise to achieve their respective weights - which is not the point to the competition.

If your friend lost 40 pounds in 3 months, especially 40 pounds that close to her minimum weight which likely contained a lot of muscle mass, she very likely used some manner of crash diet that was extremely unhealthy, advised against, and known to be a bad idea by pretty much everyone having anything to do with fitness. This is further supported by the weight she gained back, which is exactly what happens with crash diets.

I am fairly certain, the competition is designed on the assumption that the contestants used healthy methods to achieve their physical states. I am even more certain that if your friend used healthy methods to achieve her physical state, she'd still be very close to the same size, barring water weight. It normally takes years of hard work for an athlete to reach those types of muscle and BMI proportions - and they generally have to have a genetic and/or metabolic predisposition to such a low BMI - which is why the competition exists. It is a very difficult thing to achieve for the rare people who can achieve it.

For all intents, your friend cheated. Unfortunately, the person she cheated most was herself.

With all due respect, VH, you've obviously never been in a fitness competition. It's not at all the sugary ideal you've just described. There's often a lot of money at stake, and these wholesome ideals regarding body-building that you've just outlined are almost never upheld.

If you worked behind the scenes, you would know that this sort of crash dieting isn't all that uncommon. Or steroid use. Or other performance enhancing drugs (depending how heavily the competition is monitored). But barring all that, the diet and work-out regime BEFORE a competition by itself is insane. You're taking a whole bunch of crazy fat burners, you're practically living at the gym and you've all but eliminated your fat and carbohydrate intake (and I do mean that literally) a month before the competition. Then, the week before the competition, you're dehydrating, until eventually, 24 hours before you go up on stage, you're not even allowed to have a glass of water so you don't break a sweat.

Yup, that's the pinnacle of healthy, wholesome bodybuilding. Even if you were doing everything right up to then, surely, your body would definitely be reacting violently after a month of pre-competition prep.

If you walk and talk with any of the competitors, you'll see that an average gain of 20 lbs after a competition isn't uncommon. And it ain't water-weight. The regime is insane to upkeep on a daily basis.

But you're right, technically, it should take years of painstaking effort. Very few people have that patience.

This wasn't my friend's first competition. It's just the first time she hasn't been able to bounce back.

 

[Solongo]

I have to agree with Solong. Not only do I think that it is more important to focus on 'heavy' people exhibiting 'healthy' behaviors such as physical activity than focusing on their actual weight, weight loss, or gain...

... it is important to note that as INFJs we are driven by our Ni and Fe. This means we view the world through our idealism. However, this doesn't mean we have the same ideals. Sometimes INFJs can be really harsh - for the good of others - because they need it more than whatever is harming them. This is one of those instances.

This a wonderful example of the difference between congitive functions and the many additional facets of personality that people develop. The INFJs posting here clearly care about the people involved, and feel driven to at minimum voice an opinion on how to help, but we have differing opinions on how to help them. INFJs are similar, but unique, just like all the other personality types.

Haha thank Von Hase. Such a conqueror and savior of damsels in distress...

 

[VH]

With all due respect, VH, you've obviously never been in a fitness competition.

Nothing like that. Only martial arts, marksmanship, and the like. There isn't an emphasis on appearance, and certainly not the sorts of motivations like cash prizes to 'cheat' like you're describing. I was aware that people did these sorts of things, but was hoping it wasn't as prevalent.

But you're right, technically, it should take years of painstaking effort. Very few people have that patience.

What a sad statement about the state of the world here, that people are not only willing but eager to 'cheat', but to endanger themselves for vanity, cash, and prizes. In fact, we're so caught up in this mentality as a society that we are trying to fail people who won't adopt it. (To relate this back to the OP.)

This wasn't my friend's first competition. It's just the first time she hasn't been able to bounce back.

That sounds like her body finally had enough, and she's blown out one of her regulation centers. Has she been tested for diabetes?

 

[Solongo]

I want to train for a competition...Do i have to get fake boobs though?? They're expensive...

 

[sassafras]

I want to train for a competition...Do i have to get fake boobs though?? They're expensive...

*raises brow* What do fake boobs have to do with fitness? Your own aesthetic choice, m'dear.

 

[Solongo]

*raises brow* What do fake boobs have to do with fitness? Your own aesthetic choice, m'dear.

Most fitness models and competitors seems to have them. They deem that having great muscle definition but not having a great upper chest area ruins the overall proportion of the physique they worked so hard to perfect....that is if you were flat chested.

 

[sassafras]

Most fitness models and competitors seems to have them. They deem that having great muscle definition but not having a great upper chest area ruins the overall proportion of the physique they worked so hard to perfect....that is if you were flat chested.

A preference is not a requirement.

Also, there are bras especially designed to tackle such a problem. Infamous chicken cutlets. They can be surprisingly effective.

 

[Solongo]

A preference is not a requirement.

Also, there are bras especially designed to tackle such a problem. Infamous chicken cutlets. They can be surprisingly effective.

chicken cutlets it is.

 

[gloomy-optimist]

Let's not blow it out of proportion.

There are some people who can't help their weight gain. But the nation didn't increase their BMI dramatically in a few decades just because everyone contracted these issues. I mean, a lot of the time it IS just a lack of healthy diet and exercise, whether we like to admit that or not.

Now, this shouldn't prevent anyone from graduating if they just complete the requirement. An additional class is not going to destroy these people's lives. And, if they couple the physical fitness aspects with education on how to lead a healthier life, I imagine it could actually help some people. I mean, some people just literally don't know what they are doing wrong when it comes to their weight, and I think there's a possibility of some good coming out of this. Yeah, they do target a specific group, and that is unfair -- but it's not a crime against humanity, and facing the current obesity epidemic, it's not like their intentions were bad. An extra class on physical wellness is not going to destroy any of these people's lives, and universities are allowed to subject their students, who attend on their own free will, to their requirements. If they don't like it, they won't go there, and if the program drives everyone away, the university will do away with it or suffer. That's how the capitalist system works.

 

[sassafras]

Still, I hope you weren't being facetious.

 

[sassafras]

There are some people who can't help their weight gain. But the nation didn't increase their BMI dramatically in a few decades just because everyone contracted these issues. I mean, a lot of the time it IS just a lack of healthy diet and exercise, whether we like to admit that or not.

^^ Agreed.

 

[Quinlan]

Let's not blow it out of proportion.

There are some people who can't help their weight gain. But the nation didn't increase their BMI dramatically in a few decades just because everyone contracted these issues. I mean, a lot of the time it IS just a lack of healthy diet and exercise, whether we like to admit that or not.

You can't use population wide changes to explain individual differences in people, it just doesn't work. The average weight change during the "obesity epidemic" in the States is about 10 pounds, 10 pounds doesn't explain at all the reason why you might be a certain size and why someone else is bigger. Even if you corrected everyone's weight by 10 pounds and reversed the obesity epidemic there would still be a lot of big people around (because 10 pounds makes bugger all difference to a 200 or 300 pound person).

If you are fat yet you're slimmer than your parents and grandparents then you're doing bloody well given your genes, better than most.

Population wide changes can explain the difference between my weight and that of my parents but it cannot explain the difference between me and an unrelated very fat person.

Anyone can lose weight in the short term and that's what I think this policy will encourage crash/starvation dieting untill the requirement is met, which is unhealthy.

 

[Shai Gar]

Let's not blow it out of proportion.

There are some people who can't help their weight gain. But the nation didn't increase their BMI dramatically in a few decades just because everyone contracted these issues. I mean, a lot of the time it IS just a lack of healthy diet and exercise, whether we like to admit that or not.

Now, this shouldn't prevent anyone from graduating if they just complete the requirement. An additional class is not going to destroy these people's lives. And, if they couple the physical fitness aspects with education on how to lead a healthier life, I imagine it could actually help some people. I mean, some people just literally don't know what they are doing wrong when it comes to their weight, and I think there's a possibility of some good coming out of this. Yeah, they do target a specific group, and that is unfair -- but it's not a crime against humanity, and facing the current obesity epidemic, it's not like their intentions were bad. An extra class on physical wellness is not going to destroy any of these people's lives, and universities are allowed to subject their students, who attend on their own free will, to their requirements. If they don't like it, they won't go there, and if the program drives everyone away, the university will do away with it or suffer. That's how the capitalist system works.

Brilliant.

 

[VH]

Brilliant.

Agreed.

 

[gloomy-optimist]

You can't use population wide changes to explain individual differences in people, it just doesn't work. The average weight change during the "obesity epidemic" in the States is about 10 pounds, 10 pounds doesn't explain at all the reason why you might be a certain size and why someone else is bigger. Even if you corrected everyone's weight by 10 pounds and reversed the obesity epidemic there would still be a lot of big people around (because 10 pounds makes bugger all difference to a 200 or 300 pound person).

If you are fat yet you're slimmer than your parents and grandparents then you're doing bloody well given your genes, better than most.

Population wide changes can explain the difference between my weight and that of my parents but it cannot explain the difference between me and an unrelated very fat person.

Anyone can lose weight in the short term and that's what I think this policy will encourage crash/starvation dieting untill the requirement is met, which is unhealthy.

I was referring to percentage of the population that is overweight versus earlier years. Just a few decades ago, there was no state in the US that had a very high obesity problem; over the last few, though, almost every state has gone up substantially in percentage, I think (and don't quote me on this) up to over 50% increase. And also, the highest range of obesity has increased, so people in the top bracket of size are larger than they were before.

That's more than just genetics.

Now, it's true that you can't just use BMI. Some people are genetically predisposed to have a larger body weight and index. However, the rise in this trend comes from the lack of natural foods and an increase in portion sizes. A lot of people do not really realize how much they are consuming.

That's why I think it would be beneficial for a class to actually educate on this. Crash dieting is bad; real education about weight is good.

 

[enfp can be shy]

This regulation is just not the right method to help, obviously. There's no way to justify it, because it simply won't work. Beat the donkey, it may improve! Remember, the goal of this decision isn't to control people, but to help them - which won't succeed, because they don't take enough factors into account. Basically, "This is Sparta!". It can be very efficient, if we agree to one little detail: kill off some people. And I mean literally, not dropout, but kill them. Because that's actually how it was done in Sparta, they didn't fire them or something like that. If we agree to that little detail, then it will work. Otherwise, they really don't know what they want to achieve.
If the Sparta scenario doesn't sound right (hopefully), then they should work with the people individually, see what is going on with the food and so on. Maybe test 1-month vegetarian diet, things like this.

Don't worry, the lawyers will take care of it.

IN TPternet we trust.

I just think people aren't as brainwashed as in the past. And thanks to the connectedness with people like you, they couldn't remain for too long.

Now, if INTPternet is lost, which is not impossible, that's another story.

 

[Quinlan]

I was referring to percentage of the population that is overweight versus earlier years. Just a few decades ago, there was no state in the US that had a very high obesity problem; over the last few, though, almost every state has gone up substantially in percentage, I think (and don't quote me on this) up to over 50% increase. And also, the highest range of obesity has increased, so people in the top bracket of size are larger than they were before.

These changes may be "dramatic" on the population level but those percentage changes at the individual level are anything but dramatic. It's the result of placing an arbitrary line through a normal distribution, tiny shifts on the individual level create "dramatic" rates on the population level. It doesn't change the fact that in terms of actually weight we're only slightly fatter than our parents were.

Take a hypothetical population it starts out with 99 people with a bmi of 29.9 and 1 with a BMI of 30, the obesity "rate" is only 1%. Now say all those 99 people gained a few pounds and increased their BMI by .1 all of a sudden the obesity rate of the population has gone from 1% to 100% even though to the naked eye and in terms of health outcomes their would be pretty much no difference on the individual level.

While there has been significant weight gain among the heaviest individuals the vast majority of people in the

 

[VH]

I really have to agree with Gloomy on this one.

There have been far too many studies that link lifestyle and diet to BMI, in proportion to the changes. The amount of high glucose high calorie large portion foods a population eats divided by the amount of sustained exercise it gets is always in direct proportion to the overall BMI of that group.

As Americans have become more sedentary, and altered our diets over the past 50 years, our BMI has increased in exact proportion. 50 years ago, even a cushy office job involved a lot more motion than the ones we have today sitting in a cubicle that has been designed for efficiency (aka as little motion as possible). People were across the board more active, not spending countless hours in front of the television or computer monitor. 50 years ago, meals consisted of meats and vegetables, with a smattering of sauces. Fried foods were rare, as were pastries, and junk food. Now the situation has been reversed, and a traditional meal is extremely uncommon... not to mention that our portions have nearly doubled.

Yes, some people have a genetic disposition to be heavier than others by being more prone to gaining weight and more resistant to losing it. And because of this, no one should be singled out due to their biology. However, the bulk of the population operates on human norms. And these norms will react to our environment. It really is this simple.

 

[Quinlan]

I really have to agree with Gloomy on this one.

There have been far too many studies that link lifestyle and diet to BMI, in proportion to the changes.

I think that's incorrect, there is very little evidence that people of high BMIs eat more or exercise any less on average than slim people. Most of the scientific evidence so far has found genes to be by far the greatest predictor of BMI. "The changes" does not explain fat people, it might explain why fat people are slightly fatter than there fat predecessors on average but not why they are much fatter than slim people.

As Americans have become more sedentary, and altered our diets over the past 50 years, our BMI has increased in exact proportion. 50 years ago, even a cushy office job involved a lot more motion than the ones we have today sitting in a cubicle that has been designed for efficiency (aka as little motion as possible). People were across the board more active, not spending countless hours in front of the television or computer monitor. 50 years ago, meals consisted of meats and vegetables, with a smattering of sauces. Fried foods were rare, as were pastries, and junk food. Now the situation has been reversed, and a traditional meal is extremely uncommon... not to mention that our portions have nearly doubled.

Yes and because of all this we have gained 10 pounds on average, so 150 pound people are now 160 pounds and 200 pound people are 210 pounds etc. This does not explain the difference between a 150 pound person and a 300 pound person, that difference is explained by genetics as shown by many many twin and adoption studies.

Yes, some people have a genetic disposition to be heavier than others by being more prone to gaining weight and more resistant to losing it. And because of this, no one should be singled out due to their biology. However, the bulk of the population operates on human norms. And these norms will react to our environment. It really is this simple.

Genetic disposition towards a certain weight is the norm, for everybody! There have never been any evolutionary limits set on those natural weight ranges so for a lot of people they have drifted up very high, there has also never been an evolutionary need to conciously regulate our weight, we are well and truly ill-equipped to conciously control it over the long-term. As a result body weight regulation has very little to do with concious control. Not eating cheap calories when they're available goes against every fibre of what we've evolved to do.

 

[VH]

I think that's incorrect, there is very little evidence that people of high BMIs eat more or exercise any less on average than slim people. Most of the scientific evidence so far has found genes to be by far the greatest predictor of BMI. "The changes" does not explain fat people, it might explain why fat people are slightly fatter than there fat predecessors on average but not why they are much fatter than slim people.

For individuals, yes, for society, no.

Yes and because of all this we have gained 10 pounds on average, so 150 pound people are now 160 pounds and 200 pound people are 210 pounds etc. This does not explain the difference between a 150 pound person and a 300 pound person, that difference is explained by genetics as shown by many many twin and adoption studies.

I disagree with these figures, at least for America over the past 50 years. For the past 10, maybe. Also, take into consideration, if half the population gained 20 pounds, and the other half didn't, that's still an overall 10 pound gain. Half the population engaging in that much of a lifestyle and diet shift is significant.