Oh no, I've been eating 1600 calories since I've reached my goal weight (in November 2017, 120 pounds, 5'4", been maintaining since then) and I'm "starving"!?
I've been starving for almost two years now?
Is this person completely out of her mind? I've built quite a bit of muscle, especially in my legs. Now I'm no doctor or anything, but I'm pretty darn sure that a "starving" body will not build any muscle!
And just for curiosity's sake, if 1700 calories is "starvation", what's an anorexic's daily calorie intake? (A family member of mine is anorexic, and on some days, her intake is limited to 800 calories only)
These people have to stop doing their fatlogic-y reinterpretations of important issues that affect real people outside of their cozy little internet bubble.
Lol literally the following line on that article is "However, this depends on numerous factors. These include age, height, current weight, metabolic health and several others."
Considering 115lbs is on the high side of a healthy weight for someone who's 4'10", 110lbs for a 4'3" person is overweight. So 1500 is too many calories.
I'm 5'1 and 110 pounds and I would eat 1700 to maintain my weight. This is ridiculous.
Expand More Comments
Tough to tell commenters because they were all blacked out the same, but just to clarify terms, BMR stands for basal metabolic rate. That is pretty similar to resting metabolic rate(RMR). So the person with the BMR of 1200ish is still going to need more calories than 1200 a day to maintain their weight as long as they are getting out of bed and moving at all. That 1200 just accounts for the amount it takes to keep their brain working, heart pumping, etc. Depending on whether they work a sedentary job or not & other activities it could potentially be 300-800 calories or more a day.
(My calculated BMR/RMR is around 1360 a day, but I work on my feet and exercise regularly so I typically range from 1700-2100 total expenditure a day. When I lost my job and sat on my couch for days on end, I had a couple 1500 total expenditure days.)
girl I WISH 1700 was starving myself
Yes, if the mean number of calories available to the entire population of a nation is 1400/day, that's an indication of a food shortage.
If a single person chooses to eat a nutritionally complete 1400 calorie diet, how in this person's mind is that the same thing?
The Oracle that is healthline .com. I don't know what source the site is using. I do know the 2000 kcal/day is a statistical average based on the population. You can't really apply this to a single individual. As others have stated, height, current weight, and activity level are important variables for calculating caloric intake.
If you claim the United Nations as your source, why are you then citing healthline?
I tried to Google it, but had no luck. Apparently, though, a famine is defined by multiple factors one of which is the prevalence of malnourishment.
One interesting bit of info: The UN does acknowledge obesity and overweight as problems and says whilst some areas in the world are hunger free, none are free of overweight and obese people.
Even better, they call it an epidemic.
Yeah, they're more right than you are. BMR is not TDEE. DEXA does not measure BMR. You need indirect calorimetry for that. If your BMR is really 1230, then your office worker TDEE is about 1900 Calories a day.
If you're maintaining weight and counting calories, and your count is a lot less than 1900, then you're probably undercounting.
As a short woman whose obese myself and doing CICO on 1200 a day let me tell you my fat ass isn't starving. Not at all. I'm fully nourished and getting all my helpings of veggies, protein and a light snack of rice cakes, crackers or yogurt into my everday intake and I'm still losing and feeling energetic.
If they think 1700 is starvation geeze I and many others making healthy lifestyle changes must be anorexic apparently. I didn't know I was living a life of famine thanks FA for opening my eyes. I'll have to start taking in an extra 800 calories a day of snacks or meals I don't need or desire to stop my body from starving. In fact I just ate some chocolates earlier which took my normal 1200 count of the day up to about 1600 and frankly I feel kinda gross and full now. It made me feel gross after so many days of keeping it around 1200. As a shorty who has a lot to lose still 1200 is more then plenty anything beyond say 1300 and I feel full now.
I wonder if this is actually accurate.
An average woman needs to eat about 2000 calories per day to maintain...
It depends on what "average woman" and "average man" mean. If they mean north american woman/man and are going by actual current average, it could be very accurate since most people are overweight.
Personally, I'm at about 2000 TDEE when I input sedentary lifestyle for my height and weight (and being male). Maybe if I did more exercise (I do a little bit but not enough that I'd consider it significant) I could lose 1 pound per week at 2000 calories, but it's so much easier to eat more like 1600-1800 calories.
Also, right there in their quote, they contradict themselves. 1500 calories for women to lose 1 pound per week and they're complaining about 1700...
And really, it is under-eating. The point of calorie restriction (under-eating) is to counteract past over-eating. The fat on your body is the excess energy you consumed, so use it up to get rid of it. There's no easier way to do that than to eat less food than maintenance.
That guy confusing TDEE with BMR makes me wonder if he actually /is/ undereating
This doesn't have all the HAES social engineering lies, but it's prime fat logic. Simple anti-science ranting and bad cites. 95% of humans range from 4.5' to 7', that's a wild range so ranting about "the average" human is irrelevant to any given actual human.
I’m 5’4” and overweight, and my BMR is around 1500 kcal. I don’t even burn 1800+ calories on my bedridden days. 2000 is a LOT.
Ah yes the classic. Not understanding the difference between tdee and bmr and being smug regardless
Maybe some people cant survive off 1700 calories permanently but can lose weight off it if they cut down to that for 6 months to reduce their body fat percentage.
Bit different to a person who's struggling to make 1700 calories every single day of their lives.
I've eaten anything from 0 to 6000 calories in a day, and the only moments I felt bad was when I was above 2500 so explain that!
I assume 4’3” is a typo because that is outside the normal range for human height and they meant 5’3” which is short but realistic.
A 5’3”, 110lb woman requires 1432 calories to maintain so possibly they rounded up to 1500.
A 5’3”, 110lb woman is on the small side (definitely shorter than average) but not a “micro-human”, WTF?!
I eat ~1600 calories a day and still alive... Only losing weight and becoming healthier. Guess I'll die
I'm not losing weight. I'm killing my harmful fat with famine
Sounds much cooler. Thanks for this
If a POPULATION is getting 1400 calories per person then that means a) some people are getting far fewer than 1400 calories, b) the average person is eating 1400 calories without regard to whether they have adipose reserves to supply extra energy (and in most cases, with a negative correlation due to how resource inequality works), and c) the average person can expect to receive 1400 calories for the forseeable future regardless of their actual needs. All of that is entirely different than an individual with adipose reserve choosing to consume 1400 calories until such time as it is more appropriate to fully fuel their activity through food consumption.
I’m glad to know that I’m a microhuman who doesn’t matter in the concept of data. I’m 5’4”, for anybody wondering.
My bmr is 1283 and my maintenance calories is apparently 1411.I'm 155cm and 49kg. Yes, I'm short and I'm pretty small. But I'm by no means underweight. Everyone's body has different requirements and it drives me wild when people make blanket statements like "X is too few calories for anyone". Besides, if you have a bunch of excess body weight, having a deficit is the only way you'll lose weight.
A bit offtopic but I find that the 2000 cals per woman and 2500 cals per man values are simply not true. If I can clean bulk on 2000cals as a guy than what justifies my female coworker who lives a sedentary lifestyle eating as much as me? The WHO should really re-evaluate this
ITT: Lots of people with claimed energy intakes that are implausible. Y'all's the living embodiment of Ed Archer's paper: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4527547/
It's OK though. Even Registered Dietitians have trouble getting it right. https://weightology.net/do-dietitians-accurately-report-their-food-intake/
If i eat 2000 calories i will gain weight and perish from obesity yes.
Oh god not this again. I'm a fairly active woman (I presume more active than the average American since I commute by bike and actually walk my dog), 5'6", around 140 lbs right now. My tdee is somewhere around 1600/1700 depending on how long my walks with the dog are. To get to 2000, I need to spend more than 3 hours of my day on exercise, which is quite a lot. If I eat 2000 every day, I will slowly gain wait until my weight is high enough that 2000 has become my tdee. (Edit: Should add that commute and dog walks don't actually make me work up a sweat).
Every single time a HAES/FA supporter finds the fucking balls to pretend they actually care about people actually dealing with legitimate famine, I can never not think immediately of this:
Well, yes. 1400 calories across an entire population would indicate famine levels of intake. 2200 or something would probably indicate weight maintenance across the population.
These are the roughest of rough averages. If you literally have no idea about life, eat 2000 calories a day. You'll probably be fine.
My TDEE for my goal weight (125 lbs) and activity level is around 1900 calories. I use moderate exercise even though I train for endurance triathlon and running. I like to be conservative as I'm not always in the middle of a heavy training load. I still work out about 6 times per week, though.
"According to my most recent DEXA" ?????? A DEXA is a bone scan to test for osteoporosis, what the fuck is this person on about?
I'm 168 cm, 64 kg, and I need about 1900 kcal to maintain my weight, on off days. About 2000 kcal during work days due to extra walking - I usually end up with about 8000-10000 steps by the end of the day. About 2500-2700 kcal on gym days (weightlifting on the heavy side, 3-4 times per week).
At 1400 kcal/day (2000-2200 kcal/gym day), I would lose half a kilo per week.
While I do agree that 1700 kcal per day is by no means starving yourself, eating that amount every single day for long periods of time (talking about months to years) does run the risk of body switching to energy saving mode, which in turn causes all sorts of fun stuff (always cold, fatigue, weaker immune system, lack of energy when exercising, etc.). Again, the exact calorie count very much depends on activity level, height, weight and muscle mass, and lowering of metabolic rate can be avoided pretty easily by eating beyond maintenance calories once every few weeks, as well as regular exercise. But no. 1700 kcal is definitely not starving yourself.
I'm getting my information from the WHO, so here's a link to healthline.com.
The link they use says 2500 calories is for the 'average male' but the calculator gives me a maintenance for 2200 for where I started off, just over 200lbs. 200lbs for a male my size is a BMI of 27 (overweight).
For me to work a 2500 calorie maintenance, it says I'd need to be around 250lbs - which is a BMI of 34 (obese).
Maybe if I was 7'0...
"The magnitude and composition of the starvation response (i.e. metabolic adaptation) was estimated in a study of 8 individuals living in isolation in Biosphere 2 for two years. During their isolation, they gradually lost an average of 15% (range: 9–24%) of their body weight due to harsh conditions. On emerging from isolation, the eight isolated individuals were compared with a 152-person control group that initially had had similar physical characteristics. On average, the starvation response of the individuals after isolation was a 180 kCal reduction in daily total energy expenditure. 60 kCal of the starvation response was explained by a reduction in fat-free mass and fat mass. An additional 65 kCal was explained by a reduction in fidgeting. The remaining 55 kCal was statistically insignificant."
So 1/3 of the "starvation response" is due to weight loss, another 1/3 is due to less activity, and what's left over is insignificant...
And that's based on 2 years of caloric restriction, not triggered by missing a single meal!
Oh look, they still lost weight instead of magically gaining it, even though their "metabolism" actually slowed down.
I haven't eaten a hoagie in 2 hours. My metabolism has come to a crawl. I might need to call that number for an emergency pizza.
Studies usually show adaptive thermogenesis to be about a 15% decrease beyond what is expected due to weight loss, even in Keys's Minnesota experiment. This is around 100-200 calories a day for most people.
Yeah lol how do they think anorexics lose weight?
I am definitely a fidgeter, and it can be incredibly uncomfortable.
But what I do when I get restless legs (or whatever parts) when I am trying to rest? ...I get the fuck out of bed even if it's 4am and I put on clothes and shoes and go for a walk, for as long as it takes/as long as I can.
(To be fair: sometimes I walk myself out until I can't anymore - especially in this crazy summer heat - but my limbs still want to fidget restlessly. But I don't assume that is what makes me fit.
It's what makes me INSANE with insomnia sometimes, 😂😭 but I am fit because I am active and keep an eye on my portions, not because I spend hours kicking my comforter around)
So they are saying one cannot go into starvation mode by denying themselves a pizza with cheese crust?How dare they?! Another confirmation that wiki is just fake science
/s (obviously, but just in case)
65k calories for fidgeting.
The amount of tiny slim people who explain away their size by claiming to be a fidgeter.
This was on the blog of a famous fitness instructor. My answer was:
"What gives you a right to claim that phrase and define its meaning?Anyway, she doesn’t want to be in a smaller body, she wants her body to be smaller (and stronger and healthier). This language is disturbing. You are your body, it’s not some kind of vehicle that you can exchange for another one, so you have to take good care of it. And if it isn’t body positive to take care of yourself, I don’t know what is."
So... body positivity isn’t body positivity... it’s about looking at a girl eating carrots dipped in humous... and being offended by that. Alright cool.
Just like the people who think you can’t be patriotic if you want to improve or change things in your country. I’ll never understand this mindset.
It’s a weird mindset - that if you clam to love something that means you should never want to change it.
Yes, body positivity is so much about radical self acceptance that they use distancing language towards their own body.
Doesn't sound all that self accepting to me.
1984 wasn't a guide. Doublespeak isn't something you should emulate.
They’re literally admitting that only “goddess sized bodies” are marginalized. Screw folks with birth defects or burns or disabilities. Folks that have zero choice about their appearance don’t matter; it’s only the ones that actually can change themselves but are unwilling to that matter.
Notice the language they are using. "Smaller body", "bigger body" they are talking about it just like if it was height. "Shrink your body" jeez, it's like the poor body was put in a hydraulic press in one of those challenge videos or being trapped in a tiny room that is getting smaller and smaller every second. That kind of language is definietly manipulative to push its blind followers even further into that toxic community.
Wow, that was a load of bullshit. Sorry, Karen, you don’t get to decide who is positive about how they feel in their own skin.
Body positivity is exactly about feeling better about your body and has nothing to do with taking a stance against (or for) dieting and/or weight loss.
Though j feel it's originally for people with birth defects or victims of accidents/attavks, who cares how much you love your body even if you're fat.
But this person seems to be using the term to bring other people's work towards self love down. What a horrible thing to do.
Body acceptance does not equal body complacence
Practice radical self acceptance, but don't you dare accept it when others want to change their body or their habits in any way.
Sounds a little like not really accepting yourself and therefore being "triggered" by others. Just saying.
"Body positivity doesn't mean being positive about your body, silly-willy! It means you need to be positive about whatever I think you should be positive about!"
That's assuming everything they think about set weight and eating disorders is true, which it is not. So really her Body Positivity is just telling people to stay sick.
My place is a complete mess right now. There are dishes in the sink. My clothes are piled up on my bedroom floor. My garbage can is overflowing. But I'm trying to be radically house positive. You will never have a house that looks like the ones on HGTV so to even vacuum my house is not house positive. When I have guests over and tell me "clean up your shit" I tell them that I'm taking a stance against home improvement culture which was created to shame marginalized homeowners who can't afford sliding barn doors.
There's nothing positive about being fit and healthy because you care about yourself. /s
I cant explain how much I hate the phrase "radicalized self acceptance." Nothing about accepting yourself is radical. It doesnt effect anyone around you. Yes, it's important to accept and love yourself. But it's not radical.
Body positivity isn't 'feeling positive about' your body
Well, it's not like words have any meaning or something...
I'm not sure this is even possible for many people unless they lose a lot of water weight. You'd need to have a TDEE of ~3800 and eat nothing at all for 30 days to lose 33 pounds of fat (/muscle) at that rate!
Y'all know how to lose 20 lbs of ugly fat, right?
Cut off yo ugly fat head.
This always gets downvoted. I think Louise Jefferson said it.
“I lost 33 pounds in 30 days”...on a water only fast.
Maybe they meant £s...?
I wonder if ads like these are responsible for why diets fail. Common wisdom nowadays is 1 pound a week is a pretty safe and normal. But that means 50-300 weeks of dieting, depending on the person. Ads like these might skew people's perceptions of what's possible/desirable.
His sophisticated yet subtle trolling consisted of the following:
FATTY BOOM BOOM!
I don’t know if this is fatlogic so much as he’s just insulting you tbh? Maybe I’m misunderstanding the context
Here you go. A big name straight up calling people who are losing or have lost weight mentally ill.
This person assumes they are special enough to stay friends with if topics of conversation happen to be about your life and how you feel about yourself... and not about them and how amazing they are for being fat. Lolol.
The internet is a public forum and not your safe space!! You cannot expect people to bend to your needs! I do think this person should unfriend the people they know who are trying to get healthy. Sounds like they dont need the toxicity in their health journeys.
I discuss my intentional blood glucose level loss.
Fortunately, I have not run into anyone IRL or on line who wants me to have my toes amputated.
good ol' Virgie, she sounds like the queen of the world - actually, more smug & condescending than royalty
Virgie Tovar is an ugly person. This has nothing to do with her appearance.
Who am I to complain about trash that takes itself out?
Safe spaces are actual places designated because you can’t make the world your safe space because that’s not how shit works.
AA meetings are safe spaces from alcohol, alcoholics don’t expect everyone around them to never mention alcohol to them ever. In the initial recovery maybe, because that’s a reasonable accommodation. It’s like these people have no reason.
Look, snowflake, the world is not yours to command not to step on your precious toes. If you don’t like, don’t follow. Grow set, or at least some thicker skin.
Wouldn’t it just be easier to wear a tin hat?
intentionally unfollow/unfriend me is *your* loss, so you going to unfollow/unfriend yourself?
On that note I want to lose 15 pounds to.... (psst guys, is she gone yet?)
You know what really contributes to disease? Obesity.
Honestly, do these people even read their own words?
So does obesity. I'm sure Bacon knows this which is why she herself is not obese.
I have so many thoughts about why someone like Linda Bacon might want to keep other women fat.
For reference: https://www.reddit.com/r/fatlogic/comments/5a3g2l/virgie_tovar_is_triggered_and_suffers_a_2_day/
Assumptions/oppression/fatphobia did NOT cause my coworker's foot to have to be amputated.
Fuck Linda Bacon. Fuck Virgie Tovar. They are killing people.
I will never, ever get over her surname. Ever.
Minority stress? Since when are fat people the minority? Over 60% of America is overweight and 30% is obese. In what world is 60% a minority???
So in the original article, Virgie accuses a person of undefined rank (could have been an undergrad) of causing "minority stress" because this person wrote in an email (to an undefined recipient) that having Virgie present at their university under the sponsorship of the "campus health educator program" would send a confusing message about the healthiness of obesity and this person suggested two speakers whose work seeks to help people overcome obesity instead. Virgie writes that her heart started beating faster as she read this then realized her discomfort was a result of the systemic problem of "minority stress."
That's it. That terrible onslaught of mild criticism and disagreement is what caused the "minority stress" --- not personal discomfort from one individual person who has a poor tolerance for disagreement, mind you, but minority stress --- that Bacon suggests "[contributes] to disease and anxiety." Virgie, unlike the rest of us, doesn't anticipate that there are people out there who strenuously disagree with her and actually begins panicking when she encounters them and they criticize her ideas in a civil fashion.
This is literally "my feels" > "reals" with a crit theory-inflected sociological analysis for why that is.
Also, it drives me crazy when Tovar tries to inflate her credentials and functions through sneaky language, so I'm just going to rant about it here since she's speaking about "lecturing" at universities in this post. Some of her online biographies write that she taught at UC Berkeley --- but she simply didn't in the conventional sense that she tries to imply. UC Berkeley allows undergrads to "teach" extracurricular classes to their fellow undergrads on topics that interest them (e.g., "zombie movies," "the history of video games" etc.) These dCal classes are taught by kids whose highest level of formal education is high school or community college and since Virgie took her undergrad there (in a department notorious for having the lowest minimum undergrad GPA requirement on campus and one that therefore accepts all the otherwise rejected undergrads of the university for the purposes of inflated funding claims) it's a solid bet that she was teaching a dCal class. She's also "lecturing" at these universities only in the loose, vernacular sense of the word of offering an extracurricular presentation to the campus community, but she isn't "lecturing" as a formal faculty lecturer --- i.e., as someone who has either earned his or her PhD or who is on the verge of earning it and who holds an appointment to teach the curriculum on the basis of those credentials. The difference wouldn't much matter to the average person but what she's clearly doing with her use of language is trying to boost her image and perceived authority: most people hear "lecturing at universities" and imagine someone like the appointed lecturer with her hard-earned credentials. Virgie is not that, but is implicitly trying to ride that connotation by framing herself in the same mode of "lecturing at universities." You're not Virgie: your lack of credentials and lack of appointments within the academy speak to that. Nice self-aggrandizement though.
Yes, bingeing is indeed your body trying to protect you and coping with trauma. It's not good for it to do this, though! It's trying to protect you, but it's not doing it properly and needs to learn healthier ways to manage traumatic memories and the emotions they create.
There is always a grain of truth in these things -- yes, your body is probably trying to cope with trauma and thinks it is protecting you. It's not, though. Instead, try asking yourself what your body is trying to protect you from. The answers will probably be the things that the food is enabling you to not think about, but eventually you'll need to think about those things, and preferably before your body collapses from its well-meaning but dangerous and misguided attempts to protect you.
Also this person "I cured my depression by deciding I wanted to lay in bed all day!"
“Internalized fatphobia:” a term used to gaslight others into believing their rational thoughts about improving their health and wellness are the result of nefarious external forces.
The most ableist thing is being an able bodied person that thinks health is optional and leeching healthcare resources from people who cant do anything about their chronic conditions.
Health is optional?!
The box on the right seemed fairly sane for the first two points and then it lost me.
Fatness =/= recovery and healing
That font takes a level of effort to read that I'm just not willing to invest tbh.
health is apparently not about being "able-bodied" and is "optional". yikes. i mean yes technically, being healthy is optional but that's not a good way to view taking care of yourself.
As for body image, I think the actual image/appearance of your body should be trivial, but the image you have about your body (how you feel when you look in the mirror) is absolutely not inconsequential.
This font type is awful to read on a screen
Bodies and body image is imbricated with everyone's self-worth and one part of that equation is our weight; it isn't nearly everything about our self-worth, but it's a part of it. There's a reason it's not uncommon for people who are suffering (from grief, depression, anxiety, trauma) to lose or gain weight, to stop grooming themselves, to have slow or sudden change in appearance.
It's also possible to overstress the relationship between bodies and body image and self-worth. People who are constantly under the knife and having plastic surgery or bouncing from one fad diet to another (especially when looking good isn't a part of their job --- and, sometimes, even when it is) usually have some underlying issues going on too. If weight and appearance is the only index of self-worth you have, there's going to be a problem.
Having a measured interest in maintaining a reasonably healthy body and having some basic interest in our appearance is a sign that we're healthy and value ourselves. We're embodied creatures: it's okay and reasonably expected that we take healthy interest in our bodies including our basic grooming, appearance and, yes, weight. How well and to what degree we do that is one thing that speaks to how we value ourselves. That's perfectly natural.
Since discovering this thread, I've realized I didn't need to quit drinking. Society has alcoholic phobia. How dare society impose their standards on how much I drink. I'm starting AA, the Alcoholics Acceptance movement. If you don't like my drunk driving, you need to ask yourself why you are so full hate.
Upper case or lower case: pick one!
Rational people realize being fat fucking sucks. It's depressing, you look like hot garbage, everything hurts. Been there before and will literally die before I become fat again.
Me, me, me. When will you understand that it’s all about meeeeee?
"As a long haired person, I don't want to hear haircut talk. I don't need to know how much you are doing to avoid looking like me"
See how dumb this sounds when it isn't a topic you're deeply insecure about?
You don't need to listen to anything you don't want to listen to. Your inability to hear how people are bettering themselves speaks to something about you more than it does them though --- so maybe lay off shaming as though they're doing something wrong by talking about how their lives are getting better. They're not doing anything wrong.
A major step to self assuredness is the realization that people aren’t as fixated on you as you think they are
Sometimes I wonder how these guys survive in this world. There literally must be thousands of people in the world trying to avoid the life you're living. From people who avoid social media, to people who travel around the world without a care, to those who live a static and predictable life.
What is she, in her late 20's, 30's? There must be several things she decided isn't for her and moved on.
Too bad, so sad, because I'll continue to discuss my diet whether you like it or not.
Maybe they'd rather look like themselves -- and they get to determine what that means. It's not a personal offense for people to want to be themselves instead of being YOU, especially when being you means major health problems.
If she reacts this way to everyone in the world who insists on being themselves rather than her, she's in for a rough ride on this planet. There are seven BILLION minus one people on this planet who are going to continue to be themselves rather than her.
This is like people who jump off of a cliff and brag about how they're flying. Yes, go you, you can fly -- right up until the splat. Other people can see the splat coming, and would rather avoid it.
Known published author of many articles. Can be identified.
It’s more the things I’m not doing to avoid it but whatevs clevs my fat friend
I don't want to be trapped by my own body and immobile like my mom. Go off tho.
Also this woman's Twitter is so fucking annoying.
Maybe you and I value different things. It’s hard to respect someone who’s so disrespectful.
I saw this posted on Facebook with #dietsdontwork 🙄
I used to look like you. That's not important, though.
I don't want to have the same blood glucose, blood pressure and cholesterol as you.
We know exactly how to operate safely on fat bodies: slim them down a bit and then operate on them.
Fat people are denied bariatric surgery all the time: the pre-surgery diet isn't only about seeing if a person can stick to a diet, it's about getting their bodies into acceptable risk ranges for surgery, shrinking their fatty liver to make the operation more wieldy for the surgeon (and therefore safer for the patient), etc. My 600 Lb Life bariatric surgery is the exception, not the rule: there's a reason the subjects of that show keep calling Dr. Now their last chance --- most surgeons can't and won't operate on patients of that size.
We can safely operate on obese people. But due to characteristics of obese bodies, there will always be higher risks than for thin people. Most of the modern inventions and techniques that minimize risk do so for all people, not just thin or just fat people.
Fat doesn't get a good blood supply so it heals slowly. A thick layer of fat on the obdomen means that an incision must be deeper in order to reach the organs. The same thick layer of fat is harder to maneuver than a thin layer.
And for joint replacement surgeries specifically: those joints wear out after 10-20 years and second and third replacement surgeries on the same joint can be less and less effective. Things like excessive weight or being very active can drop the longevity of the joint. A very obese 40 year old who needs an artificial hip might need 2 replacements by the time they're 60 or 70. If they live longer than that, they'd better hope that another surgery is even possible or they'll just have to live in pain and increasingly limited mobility.
FAs: Bodies are more complex than machines and it's not as simple as calories in calories out!!!
Also FAs: Why isn't surgery as simple as sending machines to the moon??
We have bigger fish to fry than babying people who have eaten themselves into immobility and total dependency on others due to unresolved childhood trauma (that is best solved with a therapist 💁🏽♀️)
...and only 4 of the twelve men who walked on the moon are still alive. What's that? Their survival rate, 50 years later, has nothing to do with the technological challenges overcome to actually land a man on the moon?
Weird, huh? I mean, that the one thing has very little to do with the other, yet here I am trying to casually link them.
Instead of working on tweets and Instagram posts maybe this engineer could get educated in the fields relevant to bariatric surgeries and help bring about the goal of safely operating on obese bodies?
If we can put a man on the moon, we can cure all cancers. Oh, no, wait, that's not how it works, because these things are totally different.
Also, in the lead-up to getting to the moon, there were failures and people even died. The same thing would be true of operating on fat people more often.
If we can put a man on the moon, we can figure out how to lose weight
We can send a man (or woman) to space, but they still have to be between 4’10” and 6’3” and weigh between 110 lbs and 209 lbs.
Except being fat affects intubation and airway management. I'm not a doc and even I know that.
You're not a surgeon. Enough said. Come back when you have actual understanding of medicine and maybe we'll take the time to listen.
Two different disciplines.
I don't expect my doctor to be an aeronautical expert, and I don't expect a rocket scientist to prescribe pills.
But we do operate on fat bodies?
Sorry, as a scientist, I'm still waiting for my check from BigPharma/BigMedicine/Whoever supposedly is paying me this year.
I'll get back to you when that clears.
(Also, we blew up quite a few people getting to the moon and even recently back from orbit. It's not exactly safe.)
Everyone floating around getting operated on like a planet full of Barons Harkonnen. WCGW?
Shouldn't it be "in" on makes me think sex like your having sex on fatter bodies and you need to operate it correctly.
Anybody knows if there are difficulties with operating on bodybuilders? I'm not exactly a 300lb behemoth, but it would be interesting to know if that also poses challenges.
In case surgery fails, there is a fun fact: It's really fucking hard to cremate muscular or even athletic people who went through chemo. Takes for fucking ever. No idea why.
Could, or we could not waste effort on a problem that already has a perfect solution.
If you are unwilling to get fit to get surgery, why is some surgeon wasting time to fix what you’ve already ruined.
It's unfair that only thin people are candidates for bariatric surgery....
My uncle is big. Like morbidly obese, 300+ lbs. He had 2 knee replacements through his regular doctor and when the second one went out, he had to find a doctor a few cities away who made him sign a waiver before they would give him another replacement.
Listening to engineers opine on biology always gives me a laugh.
Made with Love in New York City, New Jersey & Monterrey, Mexico.