View Full Version : Being full-figured is good for health (study)
21st February 2011, 09:31
Yet another study has now emerged which proves, once again, that being full-figured is healthy for women, while weight loss is unhealthy.
Typically, although this was a significant study printed in a major academic publication, the mass media aggressively suppressed it. I could only find references to it in the international press, e.g.:
The findings shatter diet-industry indoctrination:
Being plump is good for health
Jan 25, 2011
LONDON: Are you a reluctant dieter? Then, it would be a perfect excuse for you, as scientists have claimed that staying f** may be better for your health.
The researchers said the idea that weight is harmful has been "exaggerated" and people who are little heavier may actually live longer. The California University (CU) study that looked at about 350,000 people in the US also suggested that the ob*** put their health in greater danger when they obsessively try to slim down.
The researchers also noted that society's obsession with dieting is "ineffective".
Linda Bacon, a CU professor who led the study, claimed there is evidence to show that "overweight" people live longer than normal. Those who are ob** also tend to live longer than people who are thin, they said. They are also more likely to survive certain health conditions, such as type 2 diabetes, heart disease and kidney failure, added the researchers.
Not only is it important to realize that being full-figured is actually healthy for women, and leads to a longer lifespan, but that body diminishment is specifically unhealthy. Thus, the worst thing that a woman can do, health-wise, is lose weight. Better to either stay at the shape she is, or to become fuller figured.
This is the truth about weight and health, despite the myths that the media and the diet industry concoct to try to brainwash people into thinking otherwise. This is only the latest in a lost list of studies that have been recorded on this site which have concluded likewise -- that for women, as the title of the article states, "being plump is good for health."
21st February 2011, 11:11
The study was also reported on in The Independent of London,
where the author used it as a springboard for some interesting observations:
Why do we believe there's virtue in our choice of food?
Because, under the modern Western dispensation, thinness is seen to be beautiful, dieting has become a form of self-sacrifice
Tuesday, 25 January 2011
Eating is good for you – and eating a lot is even better. There, I've said it; but before the ob***** police take me away for re-education in the cells beneath the Department of Health, I offer – as evidence in my defence against high treason in the war against f** – some findings published in the latest edition of Nutrition Journal, the results of a survey of 350,000 randomly selected Americans.
The analysis, in this highly respected academic publication, concludes that "overweight" people live longer lives, and that those who are ob*** tend to live longer than those who are thin. They are also, say the researchers from the University of California, more likely to survive certain dangerous medical conditions such as heart disease, renal failure and type 2 diabetes.
The lead researcher, Dr Linda Bacon, concludes: “It is overwhelmingly apparent that f** has been highly exaggerated as a risk for disease or decreased longevity. For decades the US public health establishment and the $58.6bn a year private weight-loss industry have focused on health improvement through weight loss. The result is unprecedented levels of body dissatisfaction and failure in achieving desired health outcomes.”
Hallelujah and pass the cream! Actually Dr Bacon’s observations elide two very different phenomena, which should be treated separately. As she points out, there is the publicly funded campaign (as bloated here as it is in the US) which spends countless millions telling us that f** in food is a terrible thing because it will kill us off prematurely – an assertion for which there is very little evidence, but which has the status of holy writ. Then there is the obsession with being thin, a phenomenon which is overwhelmingly the province of well-to-do women; this has nothing to do with health, and does not make any claims to be beneficial, in the medical sense. It is about image rather than content – and no less significant for that.
Thus, while the average dieter says that she wants to lose weight, it has nothing to do with being a “healthy weight” (whatever that is). Dieting has become a form of self-sanctification, of moral purification.
This is a point that bears consideration -- that starvation is seen in moral terms. The author expands on this point in an interesting way:
It has sometimes been argued that in an increasingly irreligious age, the body has become the most fashionable temple, to which devotion is paid in a peculiarly self-obsessed manner, to the benefit of no one but the owner.
In fact, religion and diet have always been closely linked. Fasting...is the most obvious example...always about being virtuous, in this case by obeying God’s word unquestioningly, and to be part of a group who by eating in a certain (highly constrained) way, were closer to that God.
There really is not such a vast difference, psychologically, between those ancient faith identities and the modern cults of food faddism. The latter, too, identify certain food items as inherently and absolutely “bad”, quite distinct from any nutritional or scientific evidence. Vegans are an extreme example of this tendency, in that they are able to judge all those who do not observe their own strictures as being participants in a form of collective wickedness. Yet other, less ascetic, brands of nutritional nonsense are also little more than food cults – for example, the so-called “organic” movement.
While every meta-analysis conducted over decades has failed to demonstrate that “organic” food has any superior nutritional properties to that grown with the aid of chemical fertilisers, the adherents to this cult remain unalterably convinced that they and their children will live longer and healthier lives than those who do not adhere to the same quasi-religious dietary law. They believe that so-called “non-organic food” – in reality there is no such thing – gives people cancer; yet since 1950, as pesticides and industrial farming have taken an increasing role in food production, stomach cancer rates have actually declined by 60 per cent in Western countries.
Those who are frightened by food are frightened by life itself. Eat up – and enjoy yourself.
What the author is getting at is another manifestation of the "aesthetics of guilt." Last year, a number of posts on this forum discussed how the visible fullness of the well-fed goddess was troubling to some people in the present day because we have had an aesthetic imposed on us that equates looking emaciated with being virtuous (disciplined, etc.).
The author of this Independent article confirms this but also indicates how this secular-guilt phenomenon governs eating itself, with the act of eating being seen, absurdly, in moralistic terms, and that the issue of health is merely a canard to disguise or justify what is actually a moralistic crusade. Instead of spending time reading prayers, the modern woman reads food charts; instead of spending time in church, she spends time in a gym. It's the same kind of pointless self-abnegation, and a particularly empty exercise, because at least the self-abnegation of the past involved something purportedly higher than oneself, something spiritual, or at least imaginative; but now, it's merely a closed circle of self-loathing with no greater goal than altering one's physical appearance (and for the worse at that).
Women need to free themselves from this pointless form of secular guilt, and to begin taking pleasure in eating and in their own full-figured beauty.
23rd May 2011, 05:42
The following article debunks many weight-related myths that the media and the starvation/torture industries prop up. It's weakened by tacking on the usual share of mixed messages, but the overall effect is positive.
Not only does it point out the obvious -- that every diet is a de facto eating disorder -- but in a comparison between a group of dieters and non-dieters, it reveals that the dieters' health and self-esteem were worse than the non-dieters, and that the women who were not on a diet had better health and higher self-esteem (!):
Dieting is considered a form of disordered eating.
A 2004 study has found that “yo-yo” dieting weakens the immune system...Dieting may increase diabetes and heart disease risks as well.
Non-dieters showed improvement in blood pressure and cholesterol levels while dieters did not.
Non-dieters had increased self-esteem and lowered rates of depression while dieters had worsening depression and self-esteem
It quotes the brilliant Paul Campos in exposing the fraud of the so-called "weight epidemic":
Is it even true that obesity rates across the world are rapidly reaching epidemic proportions? Law Professor Paul Campos questions this hype.
The World Health Organisation (WHO) reclassified "overweight" and ob***** in 1995, placing almost 70 per cent of Americans in the "overweight" category with the swipe of a pen (or the click of a computer).
“We made everyone f** by framing!” Campos claims. “That is the real epidemic.” He says, “The current rhetoric about an ob*****-driven health crisis is being driven more by cultural and political factors than by any threat that increasing body weight may pose to public health.”
Campos reports that multiple studies have found that those carrying extra weight have lower rates of anaemia, bronchitis, lung cancer and osteoporosis.
Another section points out that BMI has been completely discredited as any measure of health, and that female bodies lacking in natural fullness have greater health risks than fuller-figured bodies:
Lower BMIs don’t equal health. In fact, the very low body f** percentages...are medically unsafe.
Those with such low levels of body f** are more susceptible to illness, loss of bone density and reproductive impairments
But what's new in this article -- at least, this is the first time that I've encountered it -- is that it shatters the myth that fullness is only healthy depending on where it appears on the body. Far from being unhealthy, some women simply naturally store fullness in their midsection -- and this, it turns out, is healthy too:
Not all people with
the apple shape necessarily have high levels of
visceral f**. Some people just store f** there more easily. Harvard researchers found that subcutaneous f** in the abdominal region lowered blood sugar levels...Even more surprising, it wasn’t that abdominal f** was exerting negative effects, but that subcutaneous f** was producing a good effect.”
Plus, how your body looks has a strong genetic component. We all process food differently, store f** differently and have different body types.
“We really don’t know as much about ob***** as we think we do,” Dr Judith Wylie-Rosett reports after a study of weight and heart health. “A considerable proportion of "overweight" and ob*** US adults are metabolically healthy, whereas a considerable proportion of normal-weight adults express a clustering of cardiometabolic abnormalities.”
So yet another group of studies have concluded that being fuller-figured is healthier for women than being thin; that body-diminshment ruins health while increased fullness improves health; and that having fullness around the middle can be just as healthy for women as having fullness in the hips.
Think about it: better health, increased beauty, and the ability to eat whatever one likes -- it should now be abundantly clear that being plus-size is the natural and desirable state for women.
10th June 2011, 18:35
what's new in this article is that it shatters the myth that fullness is only healthy depending on where it appears on the body. Far from being unhealthy, some women simply naturally store fullness in their midsection -- and this, it turns out, is healthy too
More studies are now confirming this fact. A report released just the other day draws the same conclusion.
The salient point:
BMI, waist circumference, and waist-to-hip ratio, whether assessed singly or in combination, do not importantly improve cardiovascular disease risk prediction in people in developed countries
In other words, it doesn't matter if a plus-size goddess has a supposedly "high" BMI or a full waist. These qualities doesn't diminish her health at all.
Rather, as the links that the others have posted in this thread show, being fuller-figured is better for female health than being skinny.
The world has been turned upside-down for too long; now it's starting to right itself, and people are rediscovering the obvious truth: that looking like a well-fed goddess is both healthier and more gorgeous than looking like a famine victim. This fact should be blindingly obvious, and it is, but the media propaganda war against curves has been waged for so long that people started to think that down was up and black was white. But no more. Now, at last, people are realizing that traditional aesthetic values were correct, after all, and that androgynous modernity was the lie.
28th July 2011, 16:21
Here's another definitive debunking of a weight myth, this one regarding what is a "good" food and what is not.
According to a recent clinical study, and contrary to popular belief, generously indulging in candy does not impact health in any way. Neither does it increase risk factors of any kind, nor -- and this is the really interesting part -- nor does it lead to weight increase.
I found two abstracts about the study which make the conclusions very clear. This is from the original source.
The title says it all:
Candy consumption was not associated with body weight measures, risk factors for cardiovascular disease, or metabolic syndrome
It acknowledges that up till now, there have been no actual studies in this area. So everyone who has been attempting to demonize fun foods has been going on nothing.
There is limited research examining the relationship of candy consumption by adults on diet and health.
The conclusion is pretty self-explanatory:
Results suggest that the current level of candy consumption was not associated with health risks.
Okay, that covers adults. But what about children? Well, another study dealt with children and adolescents. Guess what it determined?
This study suggests that candy consumption did not adversely affect health risk markers in children and adolescents.
Now, here's the really myth-busting aspect:
Candy consumers were 22 and 26%, respectively, less likely to be "over"weight and ob*** than non-candy consumers. Blood pressure, blood lipid levels, and cardiovascular risk factors were not different between total, chocolate, and sugar candy consumers and non-consumers
Less likely? It almost takes the fun out of candy knowing that it doesn't lead to weight gain! But it doesn't -- and more importantly, it does not negative impact health.
The study involving children is especially useful, because curvy girls are routinely demonized for not starving themselves and for eating anything other than prison rations. Well, it turns out that all of that externally imposed (or even self-imposed) guilt was for nothing.
The moral of the story: eat what you like, and as much as you like. The weight bigots' attempts to demonize food are just a tissue of lies.
16th August 2011, 06:29
Well, the findings are now coming in so rapidly and consistently that even the billions of dollars that the diet/exercise industry spends on propaganda to brainwash women into starving themselves will no longer work.
Yesterday, not just one but two studies were published which prove, more conclusively than ever, that being full-figured is healthier for women, while weight loss is detrimental. Here's the first link:
The studies contain some toxic terminology, but the conclusions are the key:
A study found some ob*** people who are generally healthy without any underlying medical issues live just as long as their slim counterparts. The surprising kicker is that these ob*** people are also less likely to die of cardiovascular causes.
“This concept of healthy ob***** just recently came to light” lead author Jennifer Kuk, assistant professor at York University’s School of Kinesiology and Health Science, said. “We found that not all ob*** people need to lose weight.
“Just because a person is of normal weight, doesn’t mean they’re healthy,” she said. “We shouldn’t have one sweeping brush saying everyone who is ob*** has to lose weight. Each individual should be looked at as a whole person, rather than just what the scale says.”
Kuk said with a fluctuating weight loss, there is an increased risk for people of cancer and cardiovascular disease and mental health illness...
The study doesn't just present an equivalency between thinness and fullness. It reveals that weight loss the increases risk of cancer and cardiovascular disease. And they're not talking about being faux-plus. No, the study specifies women who are genuinely full-figured (using the awful term, "ob***").
Meanwhile, a U of Alberta study comes to the same conclusion:
The pertinent points:
New research from the University of Alberta shows some ob*** people are as healthy as and have no higher risk of death than their thinner counterparts.
Some may not even benefit from losing weight — including a significant number who are defined as morbidly ob***
[The research] challenges the assumption overweight people need to lose weight.
“The surprising result of our study is that there are ob*** people, and actually quite a few of them, who do not have health problems related to 'excess' weight and that we should not be focusing on providing treatment for those people because they don’t need them,” Sharma said.
Once and for all, women need to realize that they have been lied to their whole lives -- by the media, the medical profession and especially the fashion industry.
Being full-figured -- that is, being truly full-figured, having genuine plus-size proportions -- is not only more beautiful than being faux-plus (let alone underweight), but also healthier.
This is the stunning truth: Being full-figured is healthier than being faux-plus.
Being plus-size is healthier than being minus-size.
So ends the ability of the diet industry to ever indoctrinate women into hating their naturally curvaceous bodies.
And so end any pathetic excuses from the fashion establishment that it suppresses truly full-figured plus-size models for the sake of "health."
30th December 2011, 14:22
<br>What a rich discussion. Every link is worth following, every comment worth reading.
Little wonder that a thread gathering together studies which demonstrate that being full-figured is salutary, just as self-imposed starvation is unhealthy, should prove to be so fruitful.
Studies such as these are rigorously suppressed and ignored by the mainstream media, but every year, more evidence emerges which confirms the traditional wisdom that a look of physical opulence and radiant fleshiness in women indicates good health. Countless terms signify both plus-size and salubrious ("hale," "hearty," "robust," and so forth), testifying to the traditional recognition that being well-fed betokens well-being. This association is so obvious that one can hardly comprehend how the alien elements which hijacked the modern media in the 20th century and turned it into a propaganda vehicle for diet-starvation and exercise-torture were ever able to convince the world of the absurd notion that an emaciated, wizened appearance represented "health," while a look of fleshy abundance does not.
How particularly encouraging to encounter studies that shatter the ridiculous myth that there is "good" fullness and "bad" fullness. Rather, as these studies show, <i>all</i> feminine fullness is healthy, including a generous waist, just as all feminine fullness is beautiful.
Shelley's observation is uniquely interesting:
Instead of spending time reading prayers, the modern woman reads food charts; instead of spending time in church, she spends time in a gym. It's the same kind of pointless self-abnegation, and a particularly empty exercise, because at least the self-abnegation of the past involved something purportedly higher than oneself, something spiritual, or at least imaginative; but now, it's merely a closed circle of self-loathing with no greater goal than altering one's physical appearance (and for the worse at that).
How true that the morality of guilt laid the foundation for the aesthetics of guilt. Both are predicated on a valorization of denial and minimalism, and a suspicion or outright condemnation of unbridled indulgence and maximalism.
This is yet another reason why plus-size models are so culturally seditious, not just in presenting society with a different aesthetic, but in glamorouzing the ideas and sensations that the full-figured female body betokens. Plus-size models shatter repressive morality just as they shatter repressive aesthetics. The personae that they create appear <i>alluringly</i> spoiled, <i>seductively</i> selfish, <i>excitingly</i> greedy, <i>sensually</i> indolent. In revealing how attractive and desirable such supposedly "negative" qualities can be, plus-size models enact a thoroughgoing revaluation of values and pave the way for a restoration of master morality in place of the aberration of slave morality.
For timeless beauty to be restored to its rightful place as the dominant ideal of female attractiveness, and for a cultural renewal to ensue, just such a turn in thinking must be accomplished. And through their subversive gorgeousness, plus-size models are setting this revaluation of values in motion.
The rich, intoxicating, heavy sensuality of Katherine Roll (MSA Models) amid the teeming fecundity of the natural world. A model and an environment exhibiting the vigorous, full bloom of well-nourished abundance.<p><center><a href="http://www.judgmentofparis.com/kr/debas09.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.judgmentofparis.com/kr/debas09b.jpg" border="0" title="Click to enlarge" alt="Click to enlarge"></a></center><p>- <a href="http://www.judgmentofparis.com/board/showthread.php?t=2362" target="_blank">Katherine's succulent beauty . . .</a>
vBulletin v3.0.7, Copyright ©2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.