<p>A number. Not your identity. There is nothing wrong with that number ever oh sure it might be higher then your friends but what on earth does that change?
You don't necessarily look any better if your number is less then another person. It doesn't change your ability to score on testing or the way you act.
It's a number that is, in most cases, irrelevant.
Yet I find myself cringing at my own number in this stupid self-loathing streak I have. I'm not (I dont think) what you would consider an ugly person. I'm fairly athletic and I don't worry too much about how I look. Yet when someone says their number I can't help but compare mine to theirs.
My questions why? Why do we as a society take so much stock in weight?</p>
<p>(the best part of the is I googled it and was told that a majority of Americans were obese. Well so? If it causes health problems then yes something should be done. However, as far as I can tell we start attacking anyone who even broaches on a little over weight. People with larger frames for example are 'overweight' when in reality losing weight would be more harmful. This whole hype I believe does a whole lot more harm then good. Regulations on fast food? Taxes on pop? It's all completely insane. In addition how many teenagers are self conscious about their weight for no reason. And people with eating disorders and! /end rant/)</p>
<p>Having a high metabolism, I’ve wished I weighed more for the past few years and have slowly put on weight. At 145 now, but still working towards more weight. I grew pretty fast to 6’1 and was just naturally skinny as a 14 and 15 year old back then(115-120 something those years). </p>
<p>For me to gain weight, I’d have to set a schedule to stuff myself many times a day, and I guess I haven’t cared enough to do that, although weighing more would help in sports- I still eat a lot and try to throw in meals before sleeping as much as possible.</p>
<p>With that being said, family members did make fun of me for being skinny, and it’s a disadvantage as a male in sports. I’m 6’2.5" now and 17 and never think about weight, but just automatically work towards gaining it.</p>
<p>I don’t know how the other end feels, but weight doesn’t really matter other than objective disadvantages to some weights (strength wise, athletically, etc.). Anything subjective about looks shouldn’t really exist because the range in people’s perceptions in external attractiveness relating to courting or beauty are so broad. Of course, that isn’t really important when juxtaposed with the character and internal qualities of a person, but everyone has an outside, and it can be easiest to characterize them by it.</p>
<p>Trust me - as a wrestler, I’ve seen kids lose 7+ pounds in a single night. Weight means next to nothing - especially if you’re worried about losing an extra five pounds or less simply because there are way too many variables involved. Body fat is a much better measurement - and even that is never accurate. Of course, I think I’m talking on technical terms that you didn’t really want to hear.</p>
<p>What’s unhealthy for one person may not be unhealthy for another. Everybody’s body is unique - and some people have bodies designed to carry almost no fat while some people’s bodies may be built to carry more fat than what is desired, but that is okay. Just like some people are tall and some people are short, some people are skinny and some people, not so much. Everybody is different, and if everybody looked like a Victoria’s Secret model or an Abercombie & Fitch model, than the world would be pretty boring in my opinion. :)</p>
<p>i want to take 1.5 seconds to quip that fast food should be abolished.</p>
<p>i don’t really feel like people knowing their weight in pounds is really the issue. sure people have weight goals now due to being able to weigh themselves all the time, that seems natural, but it’s more about feeling okay about how you look to yourself then achieving a certain weight usually. </p>
<p>we might hear about people wanting to lose x pounds so much partly because it is a less revealing way of saying that you want to look better than you do.</p>
<p>Good/desirable weight and body structure is all based on society’s likes and dislikes in this present time. You’re right though, weight really doesn’t change anything but how you look. But people are all pretty vain. Appearance can make a difference occasionally. I guess in the end it all about when you step on the scale and see you number, or when before you take a shower and you see yourself naked if your happy or not. </p>
<p>But I do think that if you were to be 4 foot tall, and weigh 200 pounds which is not very healthy at all that you should lose some weight. Not to be mean or cruel or make fun of the person. But it because it has health risks. And you wouldn’t have a good cholesterol or blood pressure. If your not at the point of having a heart attack because you’re so obese it shouldn’t matter.</p>
<p>Obesity can easily lead to T2 Diabetes, High Blood Pressure, and Cardiovascular disease. Diabetes is the leading cause of kidney failure. Cardiovascular disease kills nearly 30% of people in the world. Moreover, obesity increases health care use and expenditure, costing society an extra $117 billion in direct costs. The worst part is, the trend is ever-increasing. It’s scary just to think where we will be in 50 years, considering there is nothing to stop obesity.</p>
<p>The underlying cause of obesity in america is stupidity and laziness. Stupidity because they ignore all the adverse ways an unhealthy lifestyle can affect them, their children, and Tax-Payers. Laziness because they don’t exercise, prepare their own food, or ensure that their children are eating and exercising.</p>
<p>And the whole “anorexia, bulimia, skeleton, society says we should look like this” argument is absolute rubbish. One can easily find out his or her current health state by approaching a physician, who can take into consideration their body type, age, sex etc. They can also take a blood test to assess their triglyceride levels. Most people don’t do this, however, because they are lazy and stupid. These numbers won’t lie and can give any person a solid idea on what is a healthy state for them.</p>
<p>Weight is an important number.
I personally have been underweight my whole life. 5’6 and 95 pounds.
Makes it hard for sports and trying to find long 00s. Rude comments about how I can in no way be this thin naturally and about how every guy wants a curvy girl etc. But I live, I am healthy, athletic and happy.</p>
<p>It can also be or become genetic. The relatively new field of epigenetics has has shown that a person’s habits (diet, smoking, etc.) can actually affect their children’s genes.</p>
<p>yeah there’s the phenomenon of kids born during famines being extra susceptible to obesity due to being primed to live in famine conditions via by epigenetic changes. but when they suddenly grow up in a society where bad food is cheap, things don’t work out very well.</p>
<p>Laziness or lifestyle can play a role, but it’s not the case (or is only partially the case) for everybody. Everybody has the capability to lose weight, but some are predisposed to lose it much more easily than others. Judging everybody else in the world by the standards of your own body isn’t really fair because not everybody has your body.</p>
<p>^ Let me rephrase.
** Out of 100 people say 80 are overweight. (making up statistics at this point)
Say 12 are morbidly obese, 20 are certainly overweight, and 10 could probably use to lose a few pounds
However I know quite a few people (say the other 38) who are a little larger that aren’t in anyway in danger of diabetes.
I mean yes eat healthy and exercise but the whole hype is causing eating disorders as well.
I feel that the overweight category is much too broad to be decided by a number.
My point is(which it seems was missed) is that image is important. But there is no way a number can say everything about you.
Perhaps I just live in a sheltered world but my public Highschool of 600 a class I wouldn’t say a huge number of us are obese.
Some have a little extra poundage but they aren’t about to get an illness from it
And some of the overweight is genetics too and having a slow metabolism.</p>
<p>One - the body image issues. It’s part of the human condition. We want to feel superior. So “he’s fat.” She’s “too skinny.” Regardless of whether they have underlying medical conditions (e.g. obesity and anorexia). We might vilify Cora of As I Lay Dying, but Faulkner frankly presents a realistic view of whom we really are, whether we like to admit it or not. </p>
<p>Two - the actual medical issues. I believe that regulations on fast food and pop might be a good thing to deter people from high-caloric foods. But it’s still going to be largely an individual’s fight. </p>
<p>Cigarettes are taxed. People still smoke. I was at the gym yesterday, and there was a group of young, college-aged guys and girls. The water fountain was located next to the group. I tried to drink some water, but the smoke was so acrid that I could barely stand drinking the water; the smell made the water taste horrible (smell is linked with taste). Why do these people smoke? Rationally, it makes no sense. A cheap thrill for a possible lifetime of suffering. Not to mention the fact that they’re hurting me as well. </p>
<p>It’s the same thing with obesity, anorexia, and their related maladies. People can still choose to overeat, or to undereat. People can still choose to be lazy. And these people often end up costing society. Regulations might only shave off a few sales. But changing even these few lives is worth it.</p>
<p>Look, if the media and culture embrace obesity (which seems to be happening; what was considered “fat” in 1960 was vastly different from what is considered “fat” today), an unhealthy behavior that decreases society’s viability as a whole is coddled and even encouraged as “embracing your body”. This isn’t a well-reasoned or empirical argument; I’m tired of making factual arguments against choosing to be obese. </p>
<p>In response to IceQube’s suggestion that junk food be taxed or restricted (or that’s what I’m inferring, but I could be wrong), I cringe a little bit. It’s an understandable plan of action in wake of the success of legal restrictions, taxation, and media campaigns against tobacco, but I just don’t know how many vices we can legislate away before A) People stop caring and/or B) the rules actually become draconian, like Glenn Beck keeps screaming. At this point, it might be worth a shot, though.</p>
<p>People can smoke…in the gym? That’s…stupid. I mean, I smoke on occasion and all, but that’s just inconsiderate.</p>
<p>the restriction doesn’t seem so bad to me because it’s just taking away things that were introduced which turned out to be harmful. plus, it would only be a generational restriction: the following generations that grew up without fast food wouldn’t be bothered by it not being there.</p>
<p>restriction to the point of abolition is rather impractical though, and i’m not sure if anything less than that can really do that much. people aren’t smoking because cigarettes are more expensive as much as they are not smoking because the social acceptability of smoking went down so much.</p>
<p>maybe the same thing will happen with fast food, but i kind of think the industries are too powerful and numerous to let it happen, along with people being less willing to condemn it.</p>