Community Fat Acceptance Movement -

vanilla_pepsi_head

Heavens to Spergatroyd!
kiwifarms.net
Wait a minute -- doesn't this suggest that a major problem with BMI is not the HAES claim "It says too many healthy people are fat" but the opposite -- "it underestimates how many women are too fat?"

(FWIW, that is likely true, at least for people with small frames: I know a small-framed woman -- the same one who modeled for my "Tess Holliday arm fat estimate" last month -- she gained and then lost some weight a couple years ago due to some medication she was on for a bit, and once told me that at her largest, her BMI was still officially "normal" rather than "overweight" -- though at the higher end of "normal," instead of the lower end where she usually is -- but it was enough that around her waist she had an actual fat roll. Her response: "I don't care what the BMI says, if I'm fat enough to have a roll, I'm too damn fat." Fortunately she doesn't talk about these things on social media, because if the HAES people knew about her they'd send ALL their keyboard warriors after her.)
Yeah I'm not entirely sure the rabid anti-BMI people actually read the studies they link, just figuring the story about how the guy who invented it was associated with racist pseudoscientists of the time is enough for people to shitpile. (And not to sperg too much but it is hard to completely call it pseudoscience in some parts because physical differences can and do exist between racial groups, it's just that they weren't usually interpreted very well and after the abuses that happened as a result, it eventually became practically verboten to mention them at all).

Of fucking course BMI is a statistical tool, it doesn't even differentiate between male/female, age, race, or anything else. Scientists quibble over the numbers now and then but doctors really don't, a height and weight chart combined with a trend toward a weight problem in their last few visits and are getting to be in ill health because of it are the main deciding factors on whether they deem someone's weight an issue (well that, or an extreme BMI like 13 or 50). It would make more sense to see women with BMIs one or two points into the "overweight" category who would start spergfests about it, but it never is because they fucking listen to their doctors when they say it's no big deal so long as the trend doesn't continue.
 

NototiousUnit

kiwifarms.net
Anyone want to join in on her solo date?

Screen Shot 2019-10-16 at 10.34.24 PM.png

Screen Shot 2019-10-16 at 10.34.35 PM.png


This face definitely screams "romance". I can't even imagine the reaction of the waitstaff and other people in the restaurant. You'd likely need to avoid all gendered language for fear of this one reee-ing out. Mommy needs a night off from barely parenting her children.

EDIT: to include this truly horrifying POV shot

Screen Shot 2019-10-16 at 10.59.52 PM.png

She's got arms like a hairy blacksmith.
 
Last edited:

LetThemEatCake

kiwifarms.net
I honestly don't get why young women like the Aussie one pictured above don't just make an effort while they're young to get to a healthy or at least much healthier weight while their joints are young and they have all the advantages of youth. She's clearly obese but not end-of-the-road, Corissa-and-Jay style, she can still do stuff and it would be relatively easy to adjust her lifestyle enough to make a serious impact. It's just nuts to me to spend your youth stubbornly backing yourself into a corner with this stuff when it's the easiest time in your life to get fit. Give it another ten years of deconditioning and pressure on the joints and it's going to be three times as hard.

I went down a bit of a youtube rabbit hole regarding the whole early eighties Diana Dors diet club thing, btw, and turfed up yet another piece of evidence regarding how standards have changed regarding what is considered fatty mcfat between then and now.

Britain's first 'fat beauty contest' winner Paula Baldwin doing a workout routine. (forward to the four minute mark)

This lady won the first 'Miss Big and Beautiful' beauty contest ever held in the UK.

I doubt the FAs these days would ever deign to include her as a 'small fat'. They would probably accuse her of being skinny tbqh. When you look at the contestants and winners in these type of contests these days, they are decidely younger and much, much larger.

I know I keep banging on this drum, but it really underscores how far down the rabbit hole we are now in terms of normalizing morbid obesity that this woman, who was obviously a bit overweight but still has an obvious waist and doesn't look particularly flabby even, was considered fat enough to be noteable in the early eighties. She's actually still 'curvy' - a word that has been rendered meaningless - as opposed to a giant ball of flab.
 
Last edited:

rocknrollmartian

kiwifarms.net
Anyone want to join in on her solo date?

View attachment 974231
View attachment 974232

This face definitely screams "romance". I can't even imagine the reaction of the waitstaff and other people in the restaurant. You'd likely need to avoid all gendered language for fear of this one reee-ing out. Mommy needs a night off from barely parenting her children.

EDIT: to include this truly horrifying POV shot

View attachment 974263
She's got arms like a hairy blacksmith.
This bitch has poorly managed type 2 diabetes and is eating a huge honking sundae on a random weekday afternoon. No wonder her dinner was "sweaty." 😐
 

AbraCadaver

Alpha Winner Deluxe
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
I honestly don't get why young women like the Aussie one pictured above don't just make an effort while they're young to get to a healthy or at least much healthier weight while their joints are young and they have all the advantages of youth. She's clearly obese but not end-of-the-road, Corissa-and-Jay style, she can still do stuff and it would be relatively easy to adjust her lifestyle enough to make a serious impact. It's just nuts to me to spend your youth stubbornly backing yourself into a corner with this stuff when it's the easiest time in your life to get fit. Give it another ten years of deconditioning and pressure on the joints and it's going to be three times as hard.

I went down a bit of a youtube rabbit hole regarding the whole early eighties Diana Dors diet club thing, btw, and turfed up yet another piece of evidence regarding how standards have changed regarding what is considered fatty mcfat between then and now.

Britain's first 'fat beauty contest' winner Paula Baldwin doing a workout routine. (forward to the four minute mark)

This lady won the first 'Miss Big and Beautiful' beauty contest ever held in the UK.

I doubt the FAs these days would ever deign to include her as a 'small fat'. They would probably accuse her of being skinny tbqh. When you look at the contestants and winners in these type of contests these days, they are decidely younger and much, much larger.

I know I keep banging on this drum, but it really underscores how far down the rabbit hole we are now in terms of normalizing morbid obesity that this woman, who was obviously a bit overweight but still has an obvious waist and doesn't look particularly flabby even, was considered fat enough to be noteable in the early eighties. She's actually still 'curvy' - a word that has been rendered meaningless - as opposed to a giant ball of flab.
Paula Baldwin looks like Sally Jupiter from watchmen and I’m lovin it.
 
In a way for FA's to become the ultimate victims of society, they now compare "fatphobia" to homophobia.
Here is an article all about it (It's an older article from 2012):

“Homosexuality” and “obesity” are both diseases invented around the turn of the previous century. Prior to that time, being sexually attracted to someone of the same gender or having a larger than average body were, to the extent they were thought of as social problems, considered moral rather than medical issues: That is, they were seen as manifestations of morally problematic appetites, rather than disease states.

The same medical establishment that pathologized same-sex sexual attraction and larger bodies also offered up cures for these newly discovered diseases. Those who deviated from social norms were assured that, with the help of medical science, homosexuals and the obese could become “normal,” that is, heterosexual and thin.

In the latter half of the 20th century these frames were challenged by gay rights and fat rights advocates. Within these movements, the words "gay" and "fat" had similar purposes. They were intended to depathologize what medicine called “homosexuality” and “obesity,” by asserting that different sexual orientations and body sizes were both inevitable and largely unalterable, and that being gay or fat was not a disease.

Over the past few decades, gay rights activists have had great success challenging what 50 years ago was the standard medical view that “homosexuality” constituted a disease. By contrast, fat rights activists still deal with a public health establishment that continues to reflect and replicate profound cultural prejudices when it advocates ineffective cures for an imaginary illness.

The extent to which the construction of “obesity” as a social problem has paralleled the history of the medical establishment’s construction of the concept of “homosexuality” can be seen by comparing the cures put forth for these purported diseases.

To a remarkable degree, attempts to cure obesity resemble attempted cures for homosexuality, with the key difference being that while our public health authorities have come to denounce the latter as ineffective, unnecessary and ultimately harmful, they continue to employ the most extreme rhetoric in regard to the former. For example, the goal of Michelle Obama’s Let’s Move! campaign is no less than to “end childhood obesity within a generation,” that is, to create an America with no fat children in it.

Consider the many parallels between the treatments advocated by those who claim being gay is a disease, and those being pushed by our public health establishment to “cure” fat children and adults of their supposedly pathological state.

The advocates of so-called conversion or reparative therapy believe that “homosexuality” is a curable condition, and that a key to successful treatment is that patients must want to be cured, which is to say they consider same-sex sexual orientation volitional. These beliefs mirror precisely those of the obesity establishment, which claims to offer the means by which fat people who want to choose to stop being fat can successfully make that choice.

Those who seek to cure homosexuality and obesity have tended to react to the failure of their attempts by demanding ever more radical interventions. For example, in the 1950s Edmund Bergler, the most influential psychoanalytical theorist of homosexuality of his era, bullied and berated his clients, violated patient confidentiality and renounced his earlier, more tolerant attitude toward gay people as a form of enabling. Meanwhile, earlier this year a Harvard biology professor declared in a public lecture that Mrs. Obama’s call for voluntary lifestyle changes on the part of the obese constituted an insufficient response to the supposed public health calamity overwhelming the nation, and that the government should legally require fat people to exercise.

Anti-gay and anti-fat zealots both try to build support for their initiatives by defining success down: Advocates of conversion therapy claim their treatments “work” if patients are able to achieve sexual potency in a heterosexual encounter, or are able to avoid same-sex sexual contact for a period of weeks or months, even if they experience no lessening of desire for such contact. This lowering of the bar for what constitutes a cure is mirrored by public health authorities touting short-term weight loss or small losses of body weight as evidence for the success of anti-obesity programs.

Indeed, the most striking parallel between attempts to turn gay people into straight people and efforts to turn fat people into thin people is that both almost invariably fail. The long-term success rate of such attempts is extremely low. When it comes to the various forms of conversion therapy, the medical establishment now acknowledges this. This acknowledgment, in turn, has helped medical authorities recognize that it does not make sense to label “homosexuality” a disease, and that therapy for same-sex sexual attraction is both unnecessary and more likely to do harm than good.

But when it comes to fat, the fear and disgust elicited in this culture by fat bodies (reminiscent of the reactions elicited traditionally by same-sex sexual relations) prevents the public health establishment from recognizing that the various “cures” it advocates for “obesity” have been demonstrated again and again to be every bit as ineffective as conversion therapy has been shown to be for “homosexuality.”

The pathologizing of gay and fat bodies springs ultimately from the same cultural source: the desire to ground moral and aesthetic disapproval in the supposedly objective discourse of science and health. It is true that fat people are at a higher risk for certain diseases (although the extent to which higher weight correlates with increased mortality and morbidity is greatly exaggerated). But trying to, for example, lessen the prevalence of diabetes by eliminating “obesity” makes no more sense than trying to lessen the prevalence of HIV infection by eliminating “homosexuality.”

The extent to which either one’s sexual orientation or one’s weight are chosen states is minimal. With rare exceptions, people cannot intentionally alter either their sexual orientation or their weight in a long-term way. Given all this, to label same-sex orientation or higher than average body weight as diseases stigmatizes those who are so labeled to no purpose, other than to express disapproval of deviance from social norms to which the stigmatized cannot adhere.

Telling fat people they ought to be thin is about as helpful as telling gay people they should be straight. It took many decades for the medical establishment to recognize that its “cures” for “homosexuality” did far more damage than the imaginary disease to which they were addressed, and that the biggest favor it could do for gay people was to stop harassing them. Fat people are still waiting for the same favor.


Link to article: https://www.salon.com/2012/08/28/anti_obesity_the_new_homophobia/?fbclid=IwAR0DF7e-8zMUr--hjpN_4SQ05fIMew5pF20R1DnEmb8qA2vOHbN2pBg3Tfo
 

BIG DADDY

kiwifarms.net
Glenn Gaesser, the last author of that cited scientific article, is a thin white man who does not look at all like someone who would be the champion of FA causes, or the kind of person who FA’s would normally give even an ounce of space to. A quick Pubmed search turns up a lot of articles with clickbaity titles, with half of those are still about fighting sedentary lifestyles and the mal effects of the western diet. He also has books for sale about why obesity is an overblown crisis, which gives me the impression he is playing devil’s advocate in the scientific community to make money by telling people what they want to hear.

Anyone who is even a little familiar with the community knows that scientists pretty much unanimously consider obesity to be on the level of smoking as far as how much it impacts your health, maybe worse. When you are obese, your gut microbiome completely changes, your electron transport chains are constantly overloaded (causing premature aging and increased cancer risk of almost all tissues due to increased radical formation), your brain is inflamed, your hormones become dysregulated, and your immune system undergoes a radical shift in cell composition to where it can’t perform functionally the same way it does in a healthy individual. In many cases dementia is now seen as a neuroendocrine disorder, and there is even some evidence that in some cases, learning disabilities may be caused by obesity. It is disingenuous to just look at lifespan as the only indicator of health. FA’s can really only seem reasonable when they quote select articles because most of the public will not go on pubmed to see what literature is out there, but 100% science is not a tool they can use to win this argument. They are literally better off looking like uneducated conspiracy theorists when they claim that scientists are just fatphobic and make stuff up. Make no mistake: this is akin to climate change deniers citing the one article published in the journal of Billy Bob U that supports their point of view and disregarding the 99% that don’t.
 

vanilla_pepsi_head

Heavens to Spergatroyd!
kiwifarms.net
In a way for FA's to become the ultimate victims of society, they now compare "fatphobia" to homophobia.
Here is an article all about it (It's an older article from 2012):

“Homosexuality” and “obesity” are both diseases invented around the turn of the previous century. Prior to that time, being sexually attracted to someone of the same gender or having a larger than average body were, to the extent they were thought of as social problems, considered moral rather than medical issues: That is, they were seen as manifestations of morally problematic appetites, rather than disease states.

The same medical establishment that pathologized same-sex sexual attraction and larger bodies also offered up cures for these newly discovered diseases. Those who deviated from social norms were assured that, with the help of medical science, homosexuals and the obese could become “normal,” that is, heterosexual and thin.

In the latter half of the 20th century these frames were challenged by gay rights and fat rights advocates. Within these movements, the words "gay" and "fat" had similar purposes. They were intended to depathologize what medicine called “homosexuality” and “obesity,” by asserting that different sexual orientations and body sizes were both inevitable and largely unalterable, and that being gay or fat was not a disease.

Over the past few decades, gay rights activists have had great success challenging what 50 years ago was the standard medical view that “homosexuality” constituted a disease. By contrast, fat rights activists still deal with a public health establishment that continues to reflect and replicate profound cultural prejudices when it advocates ineffective cures for an imaginary illness.

The extent to which the construction of “obesity” as a social problem has paralleled the history of the medical establishment’s construction of the concept of “homosexuality” can be seen by comparing the cures put forth for these purported diseases.

To a remarkable degree, attempts to cure obesity resemble attempted cures for homosexuality, with the key difference being that while our public health authorities have come to denounce the latter as ineffective, unnecessary and ultimately harmful, they continue to employ the most extreme rhetoric in regard to the former. For example, the goal of Michelle Obama’s Let’s Move! campaign is no less than to “end childhood obesity within a generation,” that is, to create an America with no fat children in it.

Consider the many parallels between the treatments advocated by those who claim being gay is a disease, and those being pushed by our public health establishment to “cure” fat children and adults of their supposedly pathological state.

The advocates of so-called conversion or reparative therapy believe that “homosexuality” is a curable condition, and that a key to successful treatment is that patients must want to be cured, which is to say they consider same-sex sexual orientation volitional. These beliefs mirror precisely those of the obesity establishment, which claims to offer the means by which fat people who want to choose to stop being fat can successfully make that choice.

Those who seek to cure homosexuality and obesity have tended to react to the failure of their attempts by demanding ever more radical interventions. For example, in the 1950s Edmund Bergler, the most influential psychoanalytical theorist of homosexuality of his era, bullied and berated his clients, violated patient confidentiality and renounced his earlier, more tolerant attitude toward gay people as a form of enabling. Meanwhile, earlier this year a Harvard biology professor declared in a public lecture that Mrs. Obama’s call for voluntary lifestyle changes on the part of the obese constituted an insufficient response to the supposed public health calamity overwhelming the nation, and that the government should legally require fat people to exercise.

Anti-gay and anti-fat zealots both try to build support for their initiatives by defining success down: Advocates of conversion therapy claim their treatments “work” if patients are able to achieve sexual potency in a heterosexual encounter, or are able to avoid same-sex sexual contact for a period of weeks or months, even if they experience no lessening of desire for such contact. This lowering of the bar for what constitutes a cure is mirrored by public health authorities touting short-term weight loss or small losses of body weight as evidence for the success of anti-obesity programs.

Indeed, the most striking parallel between attempts to turn gay people into straight people and efforts to turn fat people into thin people is that both almost invariably fail. The long-term success rate of such attempts is extremely low. When it comes to the various forms of conversion therapy, the medical establishment now acknowledges this. This acknowledgment, in turn, has helped medical authorities recognize that it does not make sense to label “homosexuality” a disease, and that therapy for same-sex sexual attraction is both unnecessary and more likely to do harm than good.

But when it comes to fat, the fear and disgust elicited in this culture by fat bodies (reminiscent of the reactions elicited traditionally by same-sex sexual relations) prevents the public health establishment from recognizing that the various “cures” it advocates for “obesity” have been demonstrated again and again to be every bit as ineffective as conversion therapy has been shown to be for “homosexuality.”

The pathologizing of gay and fat bodies springs ultimately from the same cultural source: the desire to ground moral and aesthetic disapproval in the supposedly objective discourse of science and health. It is true that fat people are at a higher risk for certain diseases (although the extent to which higher weight correlates with increased mortality and morbidity is greatly exaggerated). But trying to, for example, lessen the prevalence of diabetes by eliminating “obesity” makes no more sense than trying to lessen the prevalence of HIV infection by eliminating “homosexuality.”

The extent to which either one’s sexual orientation or one’s weight are chosen states is minimal. With rare exceptions, people cannot intentionally alter either their sexual orientation or their weight in a long-term way. Given all this, to label same-sex orientation or higher than average body weight as diseases stigmatizes those who are so labeled to no purpose, other than to express disapproval of deviance from social norms to which the stigmatized cannot adhere.

Telling fat people they ought to be thin is about as helpful as telling gay people they should be straight. It took many decades for the medical establishment to recognize that its “cures” for “homosexuality” did far more damage than the imaginary disease to which they were addressed, and that the biggest favor it could do for gay people was to stop harassing them. Fat people are still waiting for the same favor.


Link to article: https://www.salon.com/2012/08/28/anti_obesity_the_new_homophobia/?fbclid=IwAR0DF7e-8zMUr--hjpN_4SQ05fIMew5pF20R1DnEmb8qA2vOHbN2pBg3Tfo
You know, if this was written back when people thought faggotry spawned AIDS it would make a little more sense. Start showing me the fags and dykes who murder our health care system getting 9 different cholesterol/cardiac/diabetes medications, failed gastric bypass operations, and knee replacements by the age of 35. But those aren't weight related illnesses, I forgot, nvm.
 

JuniperFalls

kiwifarms.net
Anyone who is even a little familiar with the community knows that scientists pretty much unanimously consider obesity to be on the level of smoking as far as how much it impacts your health, maybe worse.
I am NOT a doctor, dietician or any other medical professional, but, at least where the younger deathfats are concerned, I think smoking would actually be less bad for them... or at least, it would take much longer for the badness to manifest.

There's something which many people here have pointed out about these HAES people -- something to the effect of "Yes, they're fairly healthy and mobile right now, but they're only in their 20s or early 30s -- once they get a bit older, the damage will REALLY start to show." Which for the most part is true of smokers too: a pack-a-day smoker in his 20s or 30s is probably going to be in pretty good shape and have decent wind and all that ... it's only after a couple decades of pack-a-day tobacco smoking that problems will start to kick in.

So, think of someone like Jude Valentin or her friend Arielle, only in their early 20s and already suffering serious quality of life issues from their weight -- "I can't get out of bed today, my joints hurt too much to move, my back is killing me, etc." If their main health vice were "a pack of cigarettes a day" rather than "an extra thousand or so calories of sugar every day," I'd still think "Hmm, if you keep up this bad habit you're going to be MISERABLE in your 40s and beyond...." but right this second, they'd actually look and feel better than they currently do. (ETA: And if they were smokers, they'd have at least 10 or 15 years of feeling reasonably good and healthy, until their lifelong bad habits started to catch up with them. But their obesity isn't a "this will cause problems when you're twice the age you are now" issue; it's causing them major problems already. Yet still they refuse to fix it in any way.)
 
Last edited:

LetThemEatCake

kiwifarms.net
Usually smokers' health starts to fall apart at a staggering rate starting in their early fifties, especially the men. That's when the first heart attacks happen, and the first signs of COPD appear, the blood pressure elevates .increasing stroke risk ... seen so many start to fall apart at this age and realise the damage is done after the first hospitalization and the riot act from the cardiac surgeon or the heart bypass. It'seven worse when they're overweight as well, as so many are.

It's very much the same as obesity as in it's cumulative damage and by the time it starts to show, 50 if not earlier the away people pile on the weight so young these days, you've considerably fucked yourself over in terms of the rest of your natural existence. Just like smokers with early COPD and heart issues need to quit immediately, losing weight will help, but once you've already damaged heart and lungs or joints and liver and given your body years of inflammation to get that cancers risk the roll, ypu're paying for that shit forever after. Once you've worn out the cartilage in your knees, it's gone and only a replacement joint is going to free you from years of pain and decreasing mobility.

Cumulative damage seems to be a very hard concept for some people. Apparently tomorrow never comes, except it does, and then you hear the regrets and the whining. I cannot understand why anyone under the age of fifty has taken up smoking nor do I understand why anyone can look at the health risks of obesity and think it somehow doesn;' apply to them. It's even weirder when obese people scream about why don't we pick on smokers instead. We already do at a systemic level. We're just getting started with you though and you're even more dense than smokers were about the health risks back in the day.
 

JuniperFalls

kiwifarms.net
Cumulative damage seems to be a very hard concept for some people. Apparently tomorrow never comes, except it does, and then you hear the regrets and the whining. I cannot understand why anyone under the age of fifty has taken up smoking nor do I understand why anyone can look at the health risks of obesity and think it somehow doesn;' apply to them. It's even weirder when obese people scream about why don't we pick on smokers instead. We already do at a systemic level. We're just getting started with you though and you're even more dense than smokers were about the health risks back in the day.
"Denial" is a real thing, especially among teenagers or very young 20-somethings whose brains (especially regarding long-term consequences) have not yet reached 100 percent adult level, and the idea "I personally will one day either get old and/or die" isn't REALLY real, the way it is with older people. So I can understand how a 23-year-old smoker can be in denial, especially considering that by most standards, that young 20-something smoker can still be in "good health" and "good shape" as measured by things like their blood pressure, cholesterol, heart rate, ability to walk or jog X distance without getting winded, etc. It's not until they're much older that the problems caused by their bad smoking habit really start to manifest, especially if they still refuse to quit.

But that's not the case with these young 20-somethings who are already suffering consequences from obesity and their bad eating habits -- unlike that "healthy young smoker," they already have the high blood pressure and cholesterol, the strained heart, the difficulty walking, and other problems. They're not in denial about what MIGHT happen to them a long time down the road .... they're in denial about what IS happening to them right now.
 

Diet Coke 4 Life

When I peek, it is in the line of duty.
kiwifarms.net
That batch of whining relating the trials and tribulations of homosexuals in society to fat fucks about made me MOTI. All the while, my brain was spinning with thoughts relating human societal construct to what so many of these dumb shits want to return to (save for giving up their convenience, their technology, and their everything else) - nature, that which is /so much better/ than human civilization and /so much more pure/ with /kind animals/ who would never stoop to the atrocities of man lolz.

Homosexuality in animals is noted. It's actually fairly prevalent in birds, with males forming life-long bonds with other males, noted in parrots, birds of paradise, flamingos, and penguins (just to name a few). Bonded male penguins have gone so far as to adopt eggs to raise them as their own, never breaking their coupling to join with females for reproductive purposes. It is, for most, not a choice - whether we're speaking of animals or of humans - but rather a facet of what makes that individual operate.

Obesity is /always/ a choice. If it was genetic, there would be hordes of obese animals in nature.

Animals only attain obese stature when removed from their natural environments - whether that be as pets in human households, in zoos, in human servitude, in agriculture, etc. Only in these conditions is food abundant and exercise not a requirement.

Animals in nature are forced into a nominal state (thin with very little body fat) due to the fact that they're in /nature/. Food scarcity exists. Even if they are in an environment where food is abundant, they are still maintained within their musculoskeletal norms due to the exercise that is forced upon them, whether it be in the travel required to reach their food sources (example - birds having to fly miles to find suitable food, like macaws having to fly to cliffs to eat clay that neutralizes toxins found in many nuts they eat throughout the jungles in which they live) or in the simple fact that they must run to live - if they don't run, they're eliminated swiftly by predators. Predators must run to catch their fleeing prey. Those that use traps like spiders (which yes, I know are maintained by the constrictions of their exoskeletons but bear with me) still must expend tons of effort to build their traps. Therefore, animals that are awake are almost always in motion, almost always burning calories, and always being kept fit (and some, like fish and oceanic mammals, have to maintain that motion while sleeping as well).

Humans /choose/ not to move because our society does not require it. Humans /choose/ to stuff their faces with far many more calories than their bodies need because food is always available (well, always where there's rampant obesity, anyway. In those areas where it's not, good luck finding an exceptional fatty). And while I will acknowledge that genetics may play some part in the body's ability to process certain macro and micronutrients from our food more or less efficiently thereby contributing to the ease or difficulty one has in shedding weight, gaining weight, or maintaining weight, there's no magical gene that says 'I'm genetically predisposed to be a landwhale.' Because that gene was bred out of the human animal back when we were fuzzy little rodents during the Cretaceous Era. The landwhales were eaten by dinos, never to breed again.

Fuck you, you dumb fat fuck. You're just lazy and refuse to stick to a sane diet and/or actually move more than is required to squish yourself into a restaurant booth.
 

thewiz

kiwifarms.net
Fat by Jen Recap

Random Vlog: Thank You’s, Walking, Talking & Chaffles!


1:33: Jen (while sitting in her mobility scooter) get a gift from a viewer Maggie. These gifts are off Jens e-begging wish list
She gets : reusable straws, and a duvet cover
6:39: So many DMs of encouragement (admits she doesn't try as hard as other youtubers)

10:46 Very fleming sounding voice, clear your damn throat! Some droning on, very boring.
11:36 She is now sitting outside on her mobility scooter. Goes on to announce her new weekly feature "awkwardness of the week" featuring her morbid obesity full body side show.

She does "8 little laps" daily. But today she will only do 6, because she saved a little old lady from taking out her garbage after the garbage fell on the lady. Our hero Jen!
13:30
1571354370369.png

Getting her exercise in (6 laps)
1571354450563.png

After one lap appears to be suffering, needs table support. Good thing her shirt is so loose in her neck she can breath easy. ( side note, why do all her shirt necks look like that? I cant figure it out)
Exercise ends after two laps


14:00 Recipe making time! Jens famous Chaffles
Just don't mind the stacks on stacks of fried pork skins (ITS DIET! )
1571354723718.png


20:06 After they are done, she announces "were going to kinda have a muckybong situation"

21:43
1571354957238.png


Jens eyes glaze... time for a sandwich (back in that mobility scooter)
Diet mayo, cheese, bacon sandwich (which she didn't mee-shur)

22:53 Jen enjoys her feast
1571355168584.png
1571355233056.png
1571355311763.png


24:47 Tells us how good it is, and low calorie ( more chewing with her mouth open)
25:59 She is going to stop eating on camera now because she has a wound on the roof of her mouth that hurts when she eats (smooches at the camera)

26:24 She feels awkward posting her full body shots, but wants to desensitize her feelings about it by posting more body shots.

She is a stubborn scorpio, people don't realize that says jen!
She saw something today, but wont tell the viewers what it was, but it gave her motivation.


If you want the full video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_0DQivgII8
 

BIG DADDY

kiwifarms.net
That batch of whining relating the trials and tribulations of homosexuals in society to fat fucks about made me MOTI. All the while, my brain was spinning with thoughts relating human societal construct to what so many of these dumb shits want to return to (save for giving up their convenience, their technology, and their everything else) - nature, that which is /so much better/ than human civilization and /so much more pure/ with /kind animals/ who would never stoop to the atrocities of man lolz.

Homosexuality in animals is noted. It's actually fairly prevalent in birds, with males forming life-long bonds with other males, noted in parrots, birds of paradise, flamingos, and penguins (just to name a few). Bonded male penguins have gone so far as to adopt eggs to raise them as their own, never breaking their coupling to join with females for reproductive purposes. It is, for most, not a choice - whether we're speaking of animals or of humans - but rather a facet of what makes that individual operate.

Obesity is /always/ a choice. If it was genetic, there would be hordes of obese animals in nature.

Animals only attain obese stature when removed from their natural environments - whether that be as pets in human households, in zoos, in human servitude, in agriculture, etc. Only in these conditions is food abundant and exercise not a requirement.

Animals in nature are forced into a nominal state (thin with very little body fat) due to the fact that they're in /nature/. Food scarcity exists. Even if they are in an environment where food is abundant, they are still maintained within their musculoskeletal norms due to the exercise that is forced upon them, whether it be in the travel required to reach their food sources (example - birds having to fly miles to find suitable food, like macaws having to fly to cliffs to eat clay that neutralizes toxins found in many nuts they eat throughout the jungles in which they live) or in the simple fact that they must run to live - if they don't run, they're eliminated swiftly by predators. Predators must run to catch their fleeing prey. Those that use traps like spiders (which yes, I know are maintained by the constrictions of their exoskeletons but bear with me) still must expend tons of effort to build their traps. Therefore, animals that are awake are almost always in motion, almost always burning calories, and always being kept fit (and some, like fish and oceanic mammals, have to maintain that motion while sleeping as well).

Humans /choose/ not to move because our society does not require it. Humans /choose/ to stuff their faces with far many more calories than their bodies need because food is always available (well, always where there's rampant obesity, anyway. In those areas where it's not, good luck finding an exceptional fatty). And while I will acknowledge that genetics may play some part in the body's ability to process certain macro and micronutrients from our food more or less efficiently thereby contributing to the ease or difficulty one has in shedding weight, gaining weight, or maintaining weight, there's no magical gene that says 'I'm genetically predisposed to be a landwhale.' Because that gene was bred out of the human animal back when we were fuzzy little rodents during the Cretaceous Era. The landwhales were eaten by dinos, never to breed again.

Fuck you, you dumb fat fuck. You're just lazy and refuse to stick to a sane diet and/or actually move more than is required to squish yourself into a restaurant booth.
This is a random aside but spiders can definitely get too fat. It just all shows up in the abdomen. This is a known health issue for pet tarantulas and other spiders apparently and overfeeding tends to shorten their lifespan.
 

About Us

The Kiwi Farms is about eccentric individuals and communities on the Internet. We call them lolcows because they can be milked for amusement or laughs. Our community is bizarrely diverse and spectators are encouraged to join the discussion.

We do not place intrusive ads, host malware, sell data, or run crypto miners with your browser. If you experience these things, you have a virus. If your malware system says otherwise, it is faulty.

Supporting the Forum

How to Help

The Kiwi Farms is constantly attacked by insane people and very expensive to run. It would not be here without community support.

BTC: 1DgS5RfHw7xA82Yxa5BtgZL65ngwSk6bmm
ETH: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
BAT: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
LTC: LSZsFCLUreXAZ9oyc9JRUiRwbhkLCsFi4q
XMR: 438fUMciiahbYemDyww6afT1atgqK3tSTX25SEmYknpmenTR6wvXDMeco1ThX2E8gBQgm9eKd1KAtEQvKzNMFrmjJJpiino