There is no obesity crisis

File: 1496037653435m.jpg (105KB, 706x1024px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 706x1024px

>bbc
At least archive the links to these fake news you normie

File: 1459712195059.jpg (30KB, 456x402px)

30KB, 456x402px

>>42087304
>if you're obese, you have a higher risk for these shitty diseases but if you get them, you have a better chance than people who aren't obese
>exercise doesn't necessarily make you lose weight
>you can be fit and fat
>those glasses
>those arguments
>mfw

>>42087304

"Social health and psychology" Yeah, so why the FUCK is she talking about physiology and medicine?

"Obese people don't have shorter lifespans than non-obese people" *BBBBZZZZZZTTT* WRONG!!

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673609603184

Then she proceeds to conflate effects and causes:

"Obesity is correlated with being sedentary" This is obvious.

"Obesity is correlated with lower income", okay, I'll let 'ol George take this one:

When you are unemployed, which is to say when you are underfed, harassed, bored, and miserable, you don't want to eat dull wholesome food. You want something a little bit 'tasty'. There is always some cheaply pleasant thing to tempt you. Let's have three pennorth of chips! Run out and buy us a twopenny ice-cream! Put the kettle on and we'll all have a nice cup of tea! ...
The results of all this are visible in a physical degeneracy which you can study directly, by using your eyes, or inferentially, by having a look at the vital statistics. The physical average in the industrial towns is terribly low, lower even than in London. In Sheffield you have the feeling of walking among a population of troglodytes.

That was the 1930's. Nothing has changed except the prices and the portion sizes.

"Obesity is correlated with lack of medical care" Being sedentary and low income is correlated with lack of medical care.

"Obesity Paradox"! You're less likely to die of... shh! Shhhhhh! You're far more likely to have cardiac events and far more likely to have diabetes for an extended period of time. The fact that doctors can keep your system on the right side of total collapse doesn't mean obesity protects you from diabetes and a heart attack.

>>42087442

cont'd:

It's hard to tell if this woman is misguided, venal, or actually evil.

It's possible she could be suffering from engineer's disease. She thinks her skills are universally applicable, so looks at a field and makes basic errors.

If you have any health related credentials though, telling fat people it's okay to be fat and helping them delude themselves into thinking walking three blocks makes them the equivalent of an olympic weightlifter who runs marathons between MMA championships, is a fast ticket to an easy goddamn buck. This woman will be very very sought after by the people who sell garbage food and the people who are addicted to it.

Finally, she may be evil. She may be one of those intersectional thinkers for whom the question is not "what is the truth" but "how do I turn my misguided mental model of hierarchical power relationships and privilege groups into public policy". In which case it is necessary that obesity not be a problem, so she comes up with twisted logic why it isn't.

File: argument.jpg (72KB, 598x792px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 598x792px

>Super Thin people are more likely to die than Super Fat

Not an argument. We should compare obese to normal weight.

>Fat people are less likely to die of diseases diabetes and heart disease.

Not an argument for two reasons. Firstly the video admitted obese are more likely to get these diseases. Secondly these diseases lead to significantly worse quality of life and are expensive to care for. Who does she propose pay for this treatment? No doubt at this point she turns around and claims we should all pay for it, despite admitted factually that obese people will place more of a burden on the system.

>>42087304
Huh guess I will be fat now

>>42087304
>it's a lot easier to get /fit/ than it is to get thin
what did she mean by this

>>42087304
It's one point of view and it's totally wrong. Just about what you'd expect as a professor of social and health psychology and not an actual doctor. All of the studies she cites can be rebutted by an average science university student. It's tupid that she's not obese herself (so clearly she does think obesity is a problem) and her solution is we need to exercise more (that will make people lose weight). Her research is probably mostly funded by mcdonald's and weight watchers.
for example "the obesity paradox" is just a case of those studies not adjusting for smokers (smokers lose weight and are even more unhealthy than lardmonsters) and not accounting for people losing weight as they get really ill and die