I know. Hence why I brought up a supporting article which both cited their studies and journals. What I googled was directly asked, and therefore I answered, otherwise I wouldn't have bothered.
Nope. It started as mockery, the name itself indicates the intent, and there was never anything to it but the mockery and transparent excuses for it. Maybe? Heck if I know. But the existence of lobbyists is a pretty easy thing to verify. Lobbyists exist. Therefore corporations are in some cases pushing agendas. Oh, that was. But the things you've previously described, like the PPC people's behavior, hasn't been. This seems like a non-sequitur. I'm not saying every group you could conceivably qualify for is rooted in mockery, I'm saying that you've consistently come up with examples of people you're interested in being with/like/aligned-with, who just happen to be unified and motivated exclusively by mockery and cruelty. Can you seriously not see the difference between "people whose fundamental goal is to support and protect other people, who get angry and fighty about it", and "people whose fundamental goal is to tear other people down"? The fatlogic people are exclusively playing offense. There is no group of victims that other people are attacking that fatlogic is trying to protect. There is a group of people fatlogic is trying to attack. That's aggression. Body positivity stuff is primarily focused on defense; they are looking at people who are the victims of existing ongoing attacks, and trying to protect those people. Sometimes badly, because humans are still like that, but it's possible for them to do their thing without cruelty, while fatlogic started out as cruelty.
Sorry, I wrote that before reloading the page and seeing you had answered! it was directed more at the thread in general bc it's a pet peeve of mine, not an attempt to scold you for anything
the clarification is appreciated greatly, esp because the bolding made it seem a bit more... aggressive towards me? but thank you.
Yeah i should have really thought about that more, I was trying to use the bolding so the post wouldn't get lost on the page, but it does come off aggressive in hindsight. I'll try to be more careful!
Actual real-world example: I have seen a doctor, an actual person with an MD, instruct a patient to discontinue exercise and physical therapy, because it was causing him to gain muscle mass, and thus increasing BMI. Because muscle is denser than fat. So replacing fat with muscle can make you thinner but heavier. Not "increasing fat". Increasing weight, by creating muscle mass, and increasing capacity for burning calories and thus making the patient healthier. The doctor would have preferred him to be bedridden and unable to move and have more body fat, because that would Reduce Weight.
So I'm in school to be a physical therapist, so I do know more about this stuff than some providers might. Spock's explanation here is exactly right. And the thing is, those things can happen when working with patients who aren't obese, because the weight of an entire other person is almost always above those established safe lifting thresholds. Things like ceiling lifts and inflatable floor lifts (for getting someone off the floor if they have fallen down) improve safety far more than having slenderer patients would.
Anecdata: I have a friend with celiac. Before it was diagnosed she was eating an extremely nutritiously sound diet (for someone without gluten intolerance) with a lower-end-of-reasonable calorie count, and adhering to a rigorous exercise plan with the help of an entire cadre of extremely well-researched gym rat friends. She did build muscle, but she just wasn't able to lose any fat. She was constantly struggling, often unsuccessfully, not to gain more fat. Because despite the nominally healthy diet, she was starving. She couldn't absorb nutrients properly because of what the celiac was doing to her digestive tract. So her body was desperately grabbing and storing all the calories it could. Exactly like you described.
This is anecdotal, but my mom managed to gain weight during an intestinal illness by constantly snacking on the acceptable foods, which included a lot of orange sherbert and Ensure. (Ulcerative Colitis or Crohn's, I don't remember which. It also involved bad sores on her legs.) With a layman's understanding of digestion, if she still had a bunch of functional intestine sections, she would be able to absorb more food than someone who had mostly dysfunctional intestines. Other people have better explanations. Which is back to the core of what was "on message." I run into corrupted-fatlogic types outside of the echo chamber and argue things that lean more towards the alcoholic's prayer than morality. Actually, there is a bit of horrible language that I used to use, but I don't think the proper tone comes through. "Even after deciding to change, they still bear the mark of their gluttony." Which means "Don't fucking heckle a fat person about their size when they're working out." It ignores that depression is also a very valid reason for someone to gain a lot and then be able to burn a lot off. There should be some sort of system in place to change doctor protocols when new information gets approved. I think we're arguing different translations of the same verse. (How do I adjust an idiom like "we're on the same page" to be accurate, and then remove the idiom?) All the negatives I was talking about? Just negatives for the gluten-fad crowd that now has to switch to the more-restrictive paleo diet to get the same results. If it took a bunch of posers to make manufacturers care about gluten sensitivity, obviously there weren't enough people with actual problems to even think about. /s As far as 1/100, which I'll go with as an estimate of how big the GF sections tend to be... but what about the produce, butcher, and dairy departments? There are cereals, and rice is kept elsewhere, and canned goods... It's like the GF section is just for problematic foods that don't want to be next to their wheat-based and contaminated counterparts. Read, didn't agree with at the time, still have some reservations. If you're the type of person to buy a cake and then eat the whole thing yourself, then it's something to think about. If you decide to take a stroll everyday and forget that it's about weight loss, that's fine. Since I can eat gluten, nevermind that I'm still itchy about having bags of the stuff even though I know how it's made... I read about how glycerides are made, I don't like it, and I'm pretty sure I can avoid foods that list it on the label. (After we get through this package of buns, which have HFCS besides, and they're just the type of fluffy bread that usually makes a grumpy tummy turn into a bad stomachache.) Hey, beer and bread have mostly the same ingredients so they must be the same thing, right? Thanks for stepping in to answer. I'm sorry if I wasn't to clear about {request=low priority} when I asked for clarifications.
It really doesn't mean that at all. It doesn't mean anything like that. It's a direct assertion that the only possible way they could have gotten fat was "gluttony", because otherwise, it wouldn't be "the mark of their gluttony". To clarify: If you say "by which I meant ...", then you're making a claim about your intent, and you're the authority as to what your intent is. But when you say "which means...", you're making a claim about what the actual words used mean. And what they mean is really fucked up, in this case. And you have a lot of trouble with that. Well, there is, but it gets overwritten by mob psychology and all the people running around promoting incredibly toxic worldviews. Doctors are still people, it turns out, and can still be suckered by compelling-sounding things and mass media perceptions and marketing.
I'm just asking because I'm pretty sure diglycerides and monoglycerides, while they're made of fatty acids, aren't the stuff to avoid you're thinking of. Triglycerides are the ones that are present in human body fat, diglycerides and monoglycerides have entirely different structures (and number of fatty acids, obviously) and that's quite important chemically. Avoiding foods with monoglycerides and diglycerides is going to be difficult, because they're emulsifiers: they allow two liquids that are normally unmixable to mix. That's pretty important in cooking! Monoglycerides and diglycerides aren't nutritionally considered fats as far as I can tell, and they're going to be present in a lot of things in small amounts, because of their emulsive properties. While I commend you for looking at ingredients in what you eat and trying to avoid heavily fatty things, it's important to be able to figure out why certain things are present so you can decide if it's a problem. You'll have to forgive me, I'm not a nutritionist nor any sort of specialist in this, I just would worry if you severely restricted your diet because of avoiding anything with a fatty acid as a compound, even though I'm making an assumption that that's your worry.
I'm talking about the emulsifier. I tried to find a list of "foods that contain diglyceride" without reading a "this is why they're bad" website, but I couldn't find one. Considering that other people eat them in larger quantities without dying, it's a matter of avoiding as much as possible, which actually isn't that limiting for someone who doesn't need much prepackaged food. I just have to get the right type of peanut butter, try to find a brand of bread that doesn't use it, I wonder if there's an ice cream that doesn't have it but I already don't eat much ice cream because it makes me sick.
I should point out that, since your digestive system can't absorb triglycerides (AKA dietary fat), it breaks them down into mono- and diglycerides along with fatty acids. I don't think a few milligrams of those as an additive in something containing a whole lot more fat (which is most foods it's used in, the point is preventing the fat and water parts from separating) is going to make much of a difference.
Why do you feel the need to avoid diglycerides? What do you feel they will do to you? I'm pretty sure there's no such thing as food that doesn't contain diglycerides as they make up part of the cell wall in organic material, both plant and animal.
Honestly the three foods you listed can be pretty easily made at home if you're just willing to put your money where your mouth is wrt clean eating ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ sure it's inconvenient but you said somewhere you were avoiding anything people didn't have in the 1940s and I believe convenience is one of those things. a little less snarky: If you are actually allergic to something or are avoiding it for health/cultural reasons that is valid, but you don't seem to be very good at quality-checking your sources and apparently generally grab the first few search results you get. If you feel you need to take more control over the food you eat don't do it by demonizing certain chemicals you don't really understand apparently, just do it productively by getting into artisanal breadmaking or something.
I'd also highly recommend at least meeting with a nutritionist if you're concerned about your diet but not sure where to start. Doctors can be kind of hit or miss, but a nutritionist (if they're worth their salt*) will listen to you when you explain if certain foods make you feel sick or you avoid them for different reasons either personal or religious or otherwise and will be able to offer alternatives to help you arrange an eating plan that would ensure you get the nutrition you need and the calories you need while cutting back on things you might not need. Even if they don't wind up being the best fit, a decent nutritionist can at least give you a loose outline to have in your hands that you can custom fit a bit better to your situation. Because super rigorous can be. So awful. And stressful. But a loose idea of "oh, okay, this is a Bad thing but I can still have it in small amounts and be just fine" can help with cravings and stuff, even, and keep away that stress and anxiety. "Oh I ate this and it was technically a Bad thing, but it's okay because it was fulfilling these other parts just fine and I don't eat it every single day in huge amounts". They can teach you about proper portion sizes and you can pick up ideas for how best to make those work for you, as well as your metabolism. They may even arrange for other tests if you've not had them re: to check for things like vitamin deficiencies and celiac or other things that some docs might just overlook. * Not all nutritionists are great either, there still lies the doctor issue especially towards fat people. But the things about food portions, the potential testing and the custom fitting things and suggestions are still useful in general to learn.
Ah, yes, what @TheMockingCrows said. I know you're restricted by what's on your insurance, but if you could find a nutritionist I'm sure that'd be super helpful for you. It's something I want to look into eventually.
