The Judgment of Paris Forum

Go Back   The Judgment of Paris Forum > 2005-2012 > 2012: January - December
User Name
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 10th July 2012   #1
Senior Member
Join Date: January 2010
Posts: 188
Default Plus-size is healthier (article)

This article is from 2005, but it's well worth bringing up now, as the issues haven't changed. If anything, the study is more pertinent than ever.

The article systematically dismantles the usual propaganda and indoctrination about weight. It shows that being full-figured is actually healthier for women than being underweight. It also exposes the conflicts of interest that are invariably behind the biased, so-called "research" in this field.

First, the basics. Or at least, these should be basics to anyone who hasn't been indoctrinated by mass-media scare tactics

the available scientific data neither support alarmist claims about ob***** nor justify diverting scarce resources away from far more pressing public health issues.
the current rhetoric about an ob*****-driven health crisis is being driven more by cultural and political factors than by any threat increasing body weight may pose to public health.
the vast majority of people in the ‘overweight’ and ‘ob***’ categories are now at weight levels that are only slightly higher than those they or their predecessors were maintaining a generation ago.

The article reveals that in fact, being full-figured is healthier than being underweight -- and even, that being full-figured is healthier than being of so-called "normal" weight.

Plus-size is not just more beautiful, but also healthier, than minus-size, or any other size.

high body mass is protective.
body fat depots actually provide significant health benefits
numerous large-scale studies that have found no increase in relative risk among the so-called ‘overweight’, or have found a lower relative risk for premature mortality among this cohort than among persons of so-called ‘normal’ or ‘ideal’ [sic] weight. The vast majority of people labelled ‘overweight’ and ‘ob***’ according to current definitions do not in fact face any meaningful increased risk for early death. Indeed the most recent comprehensive analysis of this question within the context of the US population found more premature deaths associated with a BMI of less than25 than with a BMI above it.

Even better, the study points out that the real health crisis is with the underweight. People today have been ludicrously duped into thinking that a malnourished look is somehow "healthy," but of course, it is not:

Rarely do the risks of thinness get any media attention. In the recent Flegal study,6 for example, underweight (BMI < 18.5) was associated with an estimated 33 746 excess deaths, despite the very small percentage (2.7%) of the subject pool that was in this category. In most of the NHANES cohorts, the relative risks associated with underweight were greater than those associated with even high levels (BMI > 35) of ob*****. Furthermore, when Flegal and her colleagues used a BMI range of 23–24.9 as the referent category, underweight (BMI < 23) was associated with 81 705 excess deaths. In other words, including women in the lower end of the ‘normal weight’ range increased the number of deaths associated with thinness by nearly 48 000.

The female body's natural craving for generous self-indulgence is hardwired for a reason: it both beautifies a woman aesthetically and it protects her physiologically.

And again, despite media myths to the contrary, the only health risks that come from being full-figured derive from weight loss.

The adjusted odds ratio for stroke in women taking a drug for weight loss was 16.6,16 many times higher than the relative risk for stroke associated with a BMI > 30, which in one typical study was 1.29 (not significant)
all of the excess mortality associated with ob***** in the Framingham study can be accounted for by the impact of weight cycling. Ob*** Framingham residents with stable body weights were not at increased risk.
weight loss itself did not appear to be beneficial.42 Indeed, in this same study, weight loss was associated with a mortality hazard ratio of 3.36 and weight cycling with a hazard ratio of 1.83.10 By contrast, ***** people with stable body weight had no increase in mortality.

Thus, women can be as full-figured as they like, and so long as they stay at their more opulent size and do not diminish themselves, they will be healthy.

The article notes how the current weight hysteria is a typical example of what is termed a "moral panic" (like medieval witch hysteria, or like Bolshevik and French Revolutionary brutality against so-called "counter-revolutionaries" and "reactionaries"):

The exponential increase in mass media attention to obesity in the US and abroad seems to have many of the elements of what social scientists call a ‘moral panic’. Moral panics are typical during times of rapid social change and involve an exaggeration or fabrication of risks, the use of disaster analogies, and the projection of societal anxieties onto a stigmatized group. Despite the very weak evidence that ob***** represents a health crisis, scientific studies and news articles alike continue to treat the population's weight gain as an impending disaster’

But the most damning and important part of the article comes when it identifies the financial motivations behind today's weight hysteria. All current research in this field is being funded by profiteering of the diet-starvation and exercise-torture industries:

the leading ob***** researchers who have created the official standards for what constitutes ‘overweight’ and ‘ob***’ have also received sizable funding from the pharmaceutical and weight-loss industries. These ob***** researchers also manage weight loss clinics and have an economic interest in defining unhealthy weight as broadly as possible, by overstating the hazards of ob*****, and thus providing justifications for regulatory approvals, as well as for government and insurance industry subsidization of their products. In particular, organizations like the International Ob***** Task Force (which has authored many of the WHO reports on ob*****) and the American Ob***** Association (which has actively campaigned to have ob***** officially designated as a ‘disease’) have been largely funded by pharmaceutical and weight-loss companies.

How could any woman be so naive as to let herself be duped by these pathologically greedy, self-interested corporations, which profit off women's misery?

And of course, one should not forget that at the government level, there is a statist imperative behind this as well:

government health agencies, like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the United States, have promoted the urgency of the ‘ob***** epidemic’ while lobbying for greater programme funding and policy setting authority.

Because of weight-hysteria propaganda, women are literally funding their own mistreatment and misery. They are paying to make themselves LESS healthy via self-imposed starvation. It's madness beyond madness.

The article ends on the most important note:

It should also make us pause to consider how propagating the idea of an ‘ob***** epidemic’ furthers the political and economic interests of certain groups, while doing immense damage to those whom it blames and stigmatizes.

It's time for all women to stop punishing themselves just to line the pockets of a greedy cabal that laughs as it takes their money and gives them misery in return.

Being full-figured is healthier and more beautiful than being lesser-sized. The proof is there, even though an unholy corporate-government alliance doesn't want you to know it.
Meredith is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:15.

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.0.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.