"For 60 Years, Doctors And Researchers Have Known Two Things That Could Have Improved, Or Even Saved,

The Huffington Post

Everything You Know About Obesity Is Wrong

For decades, the medical community has ignored mountains of evidence to wage a cruel and futile war on fat people, poisoning public percepti

"For 60 years, doctors and researchers have known two things that could have improved, or even saved, millions of lives. The first is that diets do not work. Not just paleo or Atkins or Weight Watchers or Goop, but all diets. Since 1959, research has shown that 95 to 98 percent of attempts to lose weight fail and that two-thirds of dieters gain back more than they lost. The reasons are biological and irreversible. As early as 1969, research showed that losing just 3 percent of your body weight resulted in a 17 percent slowdown in your metabolism—a body-wide starvation response that blasts you with hunger hormones and drops your internal temperature until you rise back to your highest weight. Keeping weight off means fighting your body’s energy-regulation system and battling hunger all day, every day, for the rest of your life.

The second big lesson the medical establishment has learned and rejected over and over again is that weight and health are not perfect synonyms. Yes, nearly every population-level study finds that fat people have worse cardiovascular health than thin people. But individuals are not averages: Studies have found that anywhere from one-third to three-quarters of people classified as obese are metabolically healthy. They show no signs of elevated blood pressure, insulin resistance or high cholesterol. Meanwhile, about a quarter of non-overweight people are what epidemiologists call “the lean unhealthy.” A 2016 study that followed participants for an average of 19 years found that unfit skinny people were twice as likely to get diabetes as fit fat people."

A surprising article to find on the Huffington post. I think, especially towards the end, there's still a saturation of healthism and diet talk (just of the "clean eating" variety), but the information about weight discrimination is absolutely on point, especially within the medical field ignoring decades of research.

Not only do we know that weight loss isn't sustainable or possible, we also know that weight discrimination kills, in a myriad of ways. If you actually care about "health" then start unlearning your weight bias NOW and realize that fat people are just people who are a different shape.

And this article doesn't even touch on "the obesity paradox"(the fact that fat people survive heart attacks and injuries BETTER THAN thin people) or the fact that dieting, especially "yo-yo dieting," is a better predictor for heart disease than weight, and that many of the fat people who have cardiovascular diseases have a long history of dieting that (understandably) didn't work.

encouraged to rb but fatphobes will just be blocked.

Image ID's incoming:

[ID: The three picture's on OP's posts are all identical except for the subtitled words and a slight change in facial expression. They show Brennan Lee Mulligan, a pale adult man with short auburn hair wearing a dark blue, dull orange, and grey plaid button-up shirt sitting at a table covered with piles of paper, books, and candles. Brennan is looking to his left in the photos. The subtitles on the three screen-caps read as follows: 'Purpose, true purpose,' 'is always down the scarier path,' 'through the darker part of the forest.' End ID] [ID: The picture consists of a quote from Brennan Lee Mulligan from the previous photos overlayed on a background of wavy green and sparkly gold colors behind a black silhouette of a forest that covers the bottom third of the picture. The text is pale yellow and reads as follows: "Purpose, true purpose, is always down the scarier path, through the darker part of the forest." The first three words -purpose, true purpose,- of the quote are shown in cursive, the next six words -is always down the scarier path- are in a scratchier font, and the last seven words, -through the darker part of the forest- are in a simple gothic font. End ID]

This is our first time doing a proper image ID, be gentle.

put that on an inspirational poster, or a lock screen background

hh. hell.o? hi. exccuse the. typing. im nnot. great with words

saw. dsmp, fnaf. kincall

not.. the person you were. looking for

not. a person.

but. hii. 👋

anamatronic tubbo (ficctive). nice to see you, i think

Hi Tubbo! It's nice to see you again. Sorry it took so long to respond to this. It really is nice to see you! And don't worry about your typing quirks, they're quite charming! Gives your words personality. No one else has responded to our kin call yet ^^" so we got quite excited when we saw you in our inbox, as Karl and I do remember an animatronic Tubbo in our timeline. Would you be open to discussing timeline memories in DM's? It's okay if you don't want to talk about certain things; from what Karl and I remember, there was... a lot of trauma regarding certain events, especially early on. Hope to chat with you more soon! -Quackity (& Karl!)

male gaze is not 'when person look sexy' or 'when misogynist make film'

death of the author is not 'miku wrote this'

I don't think you have to read either essay to grasp the basic concepts

death of the author means that once a work is complete, what the author believes it to mean is irrelevant to critical analysis of what's in the text. it means when analysing the meaning of a text you prioritise reader interpretation above author intention, and that an interpretation can hold valid meaning even if it's utterly unintentional on the part of the person who created the thing. it doesn't mean 'i can ignore that the person who made this is a bigot' - it may in fact often mean 'this piece of art holds a lot of bigoted meanings that the author probably wasn't intentionally trying to convey but did anyway, and it's worth addressing that on its own terms regardless of whether the author recognises it's there.' it's important to understand because most artists are not consciously and vocally aware of all the possible meanings of their art, and because art is communal and interpretive. and because what somebody thinks they mean, what you think somebody means, and what a text is saying to you are three entirely different things and it's important to be able to tell the difference.

male gaze is a cinematographic theory on how films construct subjectivity (ie who you identify with and who you look at). it argues that film language assumes that the watcher is a (cis straight white hegemonically normative) man, and treats men as relatable subjects and women as unknowable objects - men as people with interior lives and women as things to be looked at or interacted with but not related to. this includes sexual objectification and voyeurism, but it doesn't mean 'finding a lady sexy' or 'looking with a sexual lens', it means the ways in which visual languages strip women of interiority and encourage us to understand only men as relatable people. it's important to understand this because not all related gaze theories are sexual in nature and if you can't get a grip on male gaze beyond 'sexual imagery', you're really going to struggle with concepts of white or abled or cis subjectivities.

ive been reading a book that basically explains how so-called “brain differences” between the genders is the result of gendered socialization and not the cause of it. i honestly expected the book to be very cis-centric but its actually the opposite, the author stresses that testimony from trans ppl is actually indispensable because we’ve, in a sense, “lived both experiences”

more cis feminists should have this mindset