Today is your day for taking up a seat and a half on the bus, using the full width of the corridor and not giving a fudge about what other folk think.
Go on, treat yourselves to a second scone with your elevenses

Jesus what manner of cyclonic gust is needed to upend a whalepig behemoth? Was she a tall fattie?Leinsterman wrote:A few weeks ago it was really really windy and I was up in the local shopping centre. One of those morbidly obese fatties (the 150kg+ types) was walking by the entrance. A strong gust of wind blew and managed to blow her over.
Funniest thing was that she was stuck and couldn't get up She was like an overly-inflated turtle stuck lying on its back flailing wildly to stand up.
World Obesity Day
danny_fitz wrote:World Obesity Day
No size 20 models are an abomination as bad as the perfect 6.Scrummie wrote:So we can’t promote size 0 models as they’re not acceptable role models but size 20 and above’s grand.
We can’t advertise smoking as it’s the leading cause of cancer but we can sympathise and promote obesity which is the second leading cause of cancer.
Someone somewhere needs to get a grip.
I don't think the aim of this day is to 'promote' obesity.Scrummie wrote:So we can’t promote size 0 models as they’re not acceptable role models but size 20 and above’s grand.
We can’t advertise smoking as it’s the leading cause of cancer but we can sympathise and promote obesity which is the second leading cause of cancer.
Someone somewhere needs to get a grip.
Womack wrote:I don't think the aim of this day is to 'promote' obesity.Scrummie wrote:So we can’t promote size 0 models as they’re not acceptable role models but size 20 and above’s grand.
We can’t advertise smoking as it’s the leading cause of cancer but we can sympathise and promote obesity which is the second leading cause of cancer.
Someone somewhere needs to get a grip.
Smoking is an interesting example as smokers are more-or-less stigmatised which, although it's not something I'm particularly keen on, is arguably a big factor in the number of smokers falling (although there are other factors, eg vaping, smokers dying and the lack of tobacco advertising). So I guess you could argue that stigmatising the obese could have the same effect.
It's fairly clear though that the obese are stigmatised, despite the very odd example of tokenism in 'promoting' size 20 models or whatever. I've always argued that this stigmatisation doesn't seem to be reducing the rate of obesity, so I would question what it achieves.
It seems clear to me that there are certain parallels between smoking and over-eating/under-exercising/being obese. I'm not claiming they're completely analogous, but at a basic level, both are self-evidently bad for health, attractiveness and popularity, yet people still do them. That suggests to me that we are talking about an addictive disorder of some kind.
To raise the example of another addictive disorder that has been discussed at length on this bored, we stigmatise problem drinkers/alcoholics to a certain extent, for quite natural and obvious reasons. But once they have accepted they have a problem, generally they will meet with sympathy and support. Either way, there is widespread recognition of addiction and a need for therapy and support to overcome the addiction. And yet alcoholics (arguably) wreak far greater pain and suffering with their habits than the obese do, for all we may find the latter objectionable.
I'm not really intending to support or argue with anything with this, but reading these threads I always feel that there is a willful refusal to acknowledge any potential complexity or question the reasons why people become obese, what we can do to help them, and what society can do to bring the obesity rate down. The stigmatisation is already there and in my view, it ain't working.
Womack wrote:I don't think the aim of this day is to 'promote' obesity.Scrummie wrote:So we can’t promote size 0 models as they’re not acceptable role models but size 20 and above’s grand.
We can’t advertise smoking as it’s the leading cause of cancer but we can sympathise and promote obesity which is the second leading cause of cancer.
Someone somewhere needs to get a grip.
Smoking is an interesting example as smokers are more-or-less stigmatised which, although it's not something I'm particularly keen on, is arguably a big factor in the number of smokers falling (although there are other factors, eg vaping, smokers dying and the lack of tobacco advertising). So I guess you could argue that stigmatising the obese could have the same effect.
It's fairly clear though that the obese are stigmatised, despite the very odd example of tokenism in 'promoting' size 20 models or whatever. I've always argued that this stigmatisation doesn't seem to be reducing the rate of obesity, so I would question what it achieves.
It seems clear to me that there are certain parallels between smoking and over-eating/under-exercising/being obese. I'm not claiming they're completely analogous, but at a basic level, both are self-evidently bad for health, attractiveness and popularity, yet people still do them. That suggests to me that we are talking about an addictive disorder of some kind.
To raise the example of another addictive disorder that has been discussed at length on this bored, we stigmatise problem drinkers/alcoholics to a certain extent, for quite natural and obvious reasons. But once they have accepted they have a problem, generally they will meet with sympathy and support. Either way, there is widespread recognition of addiction and a need for therapy and support to overcome the addiction. And yet alcoholics (arguably) wreak far greater pain and suffering with their habits than the obese do, for all we may find the latter objectionable.
I'm not really intending to support or argue with anything with this, but reading these threads I always feel that there is a willful refusal to acknowledge any potential complexity or question the reasons why people become obese, what we can do to help them, and what society can do to bring the obesity rate down. The stigmatisation is already there and in my view, it ain't working.
Danny, I see and to a certain extent agree with your pointdanny_fitz wrote:Womack wrote:I don't think the aim of this day is to 'promote' obesity.Scrummie wrote:So we can’t promote size 0 models as they’re not acceptable role models but size 20 and above’s grand.
We can’t advertise smoking as it’s the leading cause of cancer but we can sympathise and promote obesity which is the second leading cause of cancer.
Someone somewhere needs to get a grip.
Smoking is an interesting example as smokers are more-or-less stigmatised which, although it's not something I'm particularly keen on, is arguably a big factor in the number of smokers falling (although there are other factors, eg vaping, smokers dying and the lack of tobacco advertising). So I guess you could argue that stigmatising the obese could have the same effect.
It's fairly clear though that the obese are stigmatised, despite the very odd example of tokenism in 'promoting' size 20 models or whatever. I've always argued that this stigmatisation doesn't seem to be reducing the rate of obesity, so I would question what it achieves.
It seems clear to me that there are certain parallels between smoking and over-eating/under-exercising/being obese. I'm not claiming they're completely analogous, but at a basic level, both are self-evidently bad for health, attractiveness and popularity, yet people still do them. That suggests to me that we are talking about an addictive disorder of some kind.
To raise the example of another addictive disorder that has been discussed at length on this bored, we stigmatise problem drinkers/alcoholics to a certain extent, for quite natural and obvious reasons. But once they have accepted they have a problem, generally they will meet with sympathy and support. Either way, there is widespread recognition of addiction and a need for therapy and support to overcome the addiction. And yet alcoholics (arguably) wreak far greater pain and suffering with their habits than the obese do, for all we may find the latter objectionable.
I'm not really intending to support or argue with anything with this, but reading these threads I always feel that there is a willful refusal to acknowledge any potential complexity or question the reasons why people become obese, what we can do to help them, and what society can do to bring the obesity rate down. The stigmatisation is already there and in my view, it ain't working.
I think describing excessive weight gain as an 'addictive disorder' is incredibly infantilising and shifts blame away from individuals.
For the vast majority of overweight people their predicament is a choice, a choice to drink too much beer/wine, a choice to eat too much processed high calorie low nutritional value food, a choice to do minimal physical activity.
64% of adults in the UK are classed as being overweight, or put another way that’s 29,508,608 people. For a minority of unlucky sods they have conditions, physical or psychological that make weight control exceptionally difficult, what excuse does everyone else have and why should the NHS pick up the tab for those piss poor choices.
Why is that shocking? Is they supposed to pretend you're not fat? Is they supposed to pretend it's healthy? Would you rather they just didn't hire you because your weight is too much of a liability?"On another occasion, I was asked by HR if I would agree to have a clause put in my contract to say that if I had sickness that was directly related to my weight my employer would not necessarily pay me sick leave... that was shocking... shocking."
Yes it shocking, as a rugby board would people here who play be happy to sign a waiver that said if you get injured playing we wont pay you sick leave as after all its clearly a lifestyle choiceMog The Almighty wrote:Why is that shocking? Is they supposed to pretend you're not fat? Is they supposed to pretend it's healthy? Would you rather they just didn't hire you because your weight is too much of a liability?"On another occasion, I was asked by HR if I would agree to have a clause put in my contract to say that if I had sickness that was directly related to my weight my employer would not necessarily pay me sick leave... that was shocking... shocking."
What it was alcoholism or smoking or something else? Would it be shocking then?
5'7", 67kg, 30" waist.ukjim wrote:everyone on this thread post accurate height weight waist measurements please.
There's a difference between lifestyle choices that, in the round, are beneficial for your health and wellbeing and ones that just aren't, though. There are all sorts of subsidiary benefits from sport/exercise like the camaraderie of a team, sense of purpose etc.Witchfinder General wrote:Yes it shocking, as a rugby board would people here who play be happy to sign a waiver that said if you get injured playing we wont pay you sick leave as after all its clearly a lifestyle choiceMog The Almighty wrote:Why is that shocking? Is they supposed to pretend you're not fat? Is they supposed to pretend it's healthy? Would you rather they just didn't hire you because your weight is too much of a liability?"On another occasion, I was asked by HR if I would agree to have a clause put in my contract to say that if I had sickness that was directly related to my weight my employer would not necessarily pay me sick leave... that was shocking... shocking."
What it was alcoholism or smoking or something else? Would it be shocking then?
5'5", 82kg, 30-32" waist depending on makesockwithaticket wrote:5'7", 67kg, 30" waist.ukjim wrote:everyone on this thread post accurate height weight waist measurements please.
Do I get to call the obese selfish, lazy pigs now?
Rugby doesn't make you sick.Witchfinder General wrote:Yes it shocking, as a rugby board would people here who play be happy to sign a waiver that said if you get injured playing we wont pay you sick leave as after all its clearly a lifestyle choiceMog The Almighty wrote:Why is that shocking? Is they supposed to pretend you're not fat? Is they supposed to pretend it's healthy? Would you rather they just didn't hire you because your weight is too much of a liability?"On another occasion, I was asked by HR if I would agree to have a clause put in my contract to say that if I had sickness that was directly related to my weight my employer would not necessarily pay me sick leave... that was shocking... shocking."
What it was alcoholism or smoking or something else? Would it be shocking then?
182cm (annoyingly damn close to, but not quite 6'0 even), 93kg, 34" waist (that's my jeans-size anyway)happyhooker wrote:5'5", 82kg, 32" waistsockwithaticket wrote:5'7", 67kg, 30" waist.ukjim wrote:everyone on this thread post accurate height weight waist measurements please.
Do I get to call the obese selfish, lazy pigs now?
I'm an unusual shape
ffs man stick to one measurement system.sockwithaticket wrote:5'7", 67kg, 30" waist.ukjim wrote:everyone on this thread post accurate height weight waist measurements please.
Do I get to call the obese selfish, lazy pigs now?
What is sick pay? Haven't had that cover in fifteen yearsMog The Almighty wrote:Why is that shocking? Is they supposed to pretend you're not fat? Is they supposed to pretend it's healthy? Would you rather they just didn't hire you because your weight is too much of a liability?"On another occasion, I was asked by HR if I would agree to have a clause put in my contract to say that if I had sickness that was directly related to my weight my employer would not necessarily pay me sick leave... that was shocking... shocking."
What it was alcoholism or smoking or something else? Would it be shocking then?
Pffft, idiosyncratic use of measurement systems is about as UK as queuing and roast dinners, a tradition I will proudly continue.ukjim wrote:ffs man stick to one measurement system.sockwithaticket wrote:5'7", 67kg, 30" waist.ukjim wrote:everyone on this thread post accurate height weight waist measurements please.
Do I get to call the obese selfish, lazy pigs now?
also are you some sort of anorexic hobbit?
You cheeky scamp!ukjim wrote:everyone on this thread post accurate height weight waist measurements please.
0.98 fathoms 2786 ounces 1.7 cubits.sockwithaticket wrote:Pffft, idiosyncratic use of measurement systems is about as UK as queuing and roast dinners, a tradition I will proudly continue.ukjim wrote:ffs man stick to one measurement system.sockwithaticket wrote:5'7", 67kg, 30" waist.ukjim wrote:everyone on this thread post accurate height weight waist measurements please.
Do I get to call the obese selfish, lazy pigs now?
also are you some sort of anorexic hobbit?
Slim, athletic gentleman of below average stature is my preferred nomenclature, but I suppose yours works too.
one missing there dannydanny_fitz wrote:You cheeky scamp!ukjim wrote:everyone on this thread post accurate height weight waist measurements please.
5' 11"
82kg
Or perhaps lessen their grip on the bag of chips.Scrummie wrote:So we can’t promote size 0 models as they’re not acceptable role models but size 20 and above’s grand.
We can’t advertise smoking as it’s the leading cause of cancer but we can sympathise and promote obesity which is the second leading cause of cancer.
Someone somewhere needs to get a grip.
This is my issue with "fat acceptance". There's no recognising that there's a problem that needs to be solved. It's the opposite, where the obese people are sticking their heads in the sand and pretending that it's all OK.Womack wrote:To raise the example of another addictive disorder that has been discussed at length on this bored, we stigmatise problem drinkers/alcoholics to a certain extent, for quite natural and obvious reasons. But once they have accepted they have a problem, generally they will meet with sympathy and support. Either way, there is widespread recognition of addiction and a need for therapy and support to overcome the addiction. And yet alcoholics (arguably) wreak far greater pain and suffering with their habits than the obese do, for all we may find the latter objectionable.