Jump to content

Cosmopolitan Tryin To Pass Bein Morbidly Obese As Healthy


GMFlop

Recommended Posts

Weight doesn’t always have an exact correlation with being unhealthy - what I would argue is the person degrading the women in this article is rather mentally unhealthy, and I am sure they do lots of sit ups. Let fat people be fat - and you can just keep being a dumb ho despite your thinness xx

Link to comment
  • Replies 80
  • Created
  • Last Reply

This kind of posts are so unnecessary. Really. There's a lot of people who are obese and are healthy af, and visceversa, tons of people who look amazing and have a very unhealthy bodies. It really is different for everyone, If you dont know about their situation (and even if you do, tbh) YOU DONT HAVE THE RIGHT TO JUDGE. By saying all this stuff in the comments all you do is keeping the stigma alive that they need to be ashamed of their appearence, to be ashamed of who they are (aren't we all in the community fighting to be accepted as we are?). If obesity is a diseas as bad as any other then we souldn't allow people on wheelchairs be on covers of magazines, or people with mental illness, or cancer. Is none of our business whatever happens with their body and the choices they make, we ALL deserve to be happy with ourselves NO MATTER WHAT, just make sure YOU are happy with your body and mind and shut the f___k up. 

Please, Jordan, get this down or add a warning on the title or something.

Link to comment

Unsurprisingly this entire thread is toxic. What’s unhealthy is the numerous amount of people addicted to coke or ****** (or whatever else is in Southern California) who end up on the cover of a health magazine. We all know the industry is full of *****, yet I don’t hear a single thing about those celebrities who opening or privately struggle with **** abuse ending up on  the cover of a magazine. What is the point of telling an obese person that they can’t be healthy because of being obese? There are people who spend their lives trying to live up to whatever BS standard exists regarding ‘health.’ 
 

Try kindness.

Link to comment

Wow at the comments on here :gross_britney_ew_sick_red_sunglasses_cringe_disgusted:

When I saw the first cover with the plus size lady doing a Warrior 2 pose I thought dayum shes got a strong core that pose is hard to hold and balance (ex-yogi here :hiii_britney_wave_glaad_2018_waving_hello:) and i know its even harder for people that have more weight on their limbs. 

The second thing is that I do feel the title This is healthy is a bit misleading, but I haven’t read the article. As a person that has had issues with their weight (up and down) and having friends who didnt eat or ate too much I can tell you that a healthy mind is needed before you can address your weight issues. That said, maybe a fitting title could have been Healthy Mind First  or whatever. 

Last, I don’t see the need for being mean or body shaming. Being over weight is uncomfortable and these people know that. If someone feels confident in their body we should celebrate that and hope they use that confidence to make more healthy decisions :lemmetellu_telling_preaching_yelling_talking_points_finger:

 

Link to comment

Wow some people really believe that obesity has nothing to do with physical health and you can be healthy at every size. Yes there may be some studies that supports this opinion but remember there are also serious studies that support the flat earth theory. The important thing when it comes to researching is you have to look at the scientific CONSENSUS because there are all kinds of bizarre researches out there with very questionable conclusions. Cherry picking individual studies to fit your narrative is not a great way to prove your point. :cheese_Britney_awkward_cringe_eek:

Link to comment
On 1/6/2021 at 12:28 PM, thebritmaster said:

Yes, they are https://www.universityhealth.org/wellness-tips-information/everyday-health/obesity-weight-management/about-morbid-obesity

This is the kind of medical disinformation perpetuated by these problematic magazines calling morbid obesity “healthy” :kyliecry_crying_tears_jenner_wipe_sad:

These women are not morbidly obese, even by the standards of your random internet link. I wish you had taken the time to read the rest of my post. 

...and what medical disinformation are you talking about. I didn't agree with calling them "healthy" either...just not "morbidly obese" 

Link to comment
On 1/7/2021 at 5:13 AM, moodringz said:

This kind of posts are so unnecessary. Really. There's a lot of people who are obese and are healthy af, and visceversa, tons of people who look amazing and have a very unhealthy bodies. It really is different for everyone, If you dont know about their situation (and even if you do, tbh) YOU DONT HAVE THE RIGHT TO JUDGE. By saying all this stuff in the comments all you do is keeping the stigma alive that they need to be ashamed of their appearence, to be ashamed of who they are (aren't we all in the community fighting to be accepted as we are?). If obesity is a diseas as bad as any other then we souldn't allow people on wheelchairs be on covers of magazines, or people with mental illness, or cancer. Is none of our business whatever happens with their body and the choices they make, we ALL deserve to be happy with ourselves NO MATTER WHAT, just make sure YOU are happy with your body and mind and shut the f___k up. 

Please, Jordan, get this down or add a warning on the title or something.

 

And yes the title extra and misleading.

Could have called them “plus size” - this is the widely accepted industry standard term.

If any female Exhale members are insecure about their weight or bodies what kind of message does this send?  @Jordan Miller

Link to comment
On 1/8/2021 at 1:28 AM, Pbloem19 said:

Wow some people really believe that obesity has nothing to do with physical health and you can be healthy at every size. Yes there may be some studies that supports this opinion but remember there are also serious studies that support the flat earth theory. The important thing when it comes to researching is you have to look at the scientific CONSENSUS because there are all kinds of bizarre researches out there with very questionable conclusions. Cherry picking individual studies to fit your narrative is not a great way to prove your point. :cheese_Britney_awkward_cringe_eek:

What legitimate intelligent studies from reputable science publications “support” the flat earth theory

A science publication doesn’t “support” a paper/theory. This is not the American news with political interests like Fox. They publish papers based on legitimacy and importance, and competition. Everything is verified and legitimatised before publication.

Science is not about news (or fake news), which you are referring to. It’s an industry about searching for answers to very complicated questions using facts, evidence and years of accumulated and verified legitimate info. 

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Justin Woodpond said:

What legitimate intelligent studies from reputable science publications “support” the flat earth theory

A science publication doesn’t “support” a paper/theory. This is not the American news with political interests like Fox. They publish papers based on legitimacy and importance, and competition. Everything is verified and legitimatised before publication.

Science is not about news (or fake news), which you are referring to. It’s an industry about searching for answers to very complicated questions using facts, evidence and years of accumulated and verified legitimate info. 

Take your flat theory bs analogy and ridiculous notions somewhere else. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

I never said the papers that support flat earth theories are legitimate I only said they exists. Scientific publications may be verified but they may not be 100% legitimate. Otherwise all scientific publications will have 100% correct outcomes. They may use improper methodology, they may not have a big enough sample size to come to the conclusion, the study may be not peer assessed. Believe it or not, scientific publications can have totally wrong conclusions. All I said is people need to look into the consensus instead of cherry picking. Because there’s tons of studies with totally different outcomes regarding the same topic. It’s the reader’s responsibility to check the credibility and legitimacy of the studies they refer to. It’s also their responsibility to learn about the outcome of other studies of the same issue before they come to their conclusion. So stop twisting my point and take your elitism else where.

Link to comment
12 hours ago, Pbloem19 said:

I never said the papers that support flat earth theories are legitimate I only said they exists. Scientific publications may be verified but they may not be 100% legitimate. Otherwise all scientific publications will have 100% correct outcomes. They may use improper methodology, they may not have a big enough sample size to come to the conclusion, the study may be not peer assessed. Believe it or not, scientific publications can have totally wrong conclusions. All I said is people need to look into the consensus instead of cherry picking. Because there’s tons of studies with totally different outcomes regarding the same topic. It’s the reader’s responsibility to check the credibility and legitimacy of the studies they refer to. It’s also their responsibility to learn about the outcome of other studies of the same issue before they come to their conclusion. So stop twisting my point and take your elitism else where.

When a publication like Nature (one of the most esteemed), accepts a submitted paper to publish, they are always peer review it (no exceptions), and there are certain criteria to abide by 1. Provides very strong evidence for its conclusions. 2. Novel 3. Of extreme importance to scientists in the specific field. Ideally, interesting to researchers in other related disciplines 4. Should represent (this is very important) an ADVANCE  in understanding likely to influence thinking in the field.

The publication is not going to loose their reputation by publishing bogus papers or ones that take science backwards to the dark ages. Everything that is reported must be original scientific research (the main results and conclusions must not have been published or submitted elsewhere) of outstanding scientific importance. 

Using the conspiracy led flat earth theory as an example when discussing the topic of obesity and health is preposterous. That is a theory that has been expelled from the scientific realm for centuries. It is not novel or original, it is not important or vital, it is not fact or up for debate in the scientific community. It is a conspiracy. It is dark age lore.

Science is based on fact and evidence. Not hearsay. Not conspiracy theories. Legitimate scientific publications follow that. If they don't then they are not legitimate, let alone scientific publications. They are publications who publish whatever. 

If you are trying to get your point across further, you should use a different and scientifically relevant example like are genetically modified livestock and foods harmful in the long term, are antidepressants actually worse for the patient, is microbiome health the key to happiness, are saturated fats not actually harmful to our heath, etc. These are current scientific topics that are being studied and debated with no clear or definitive outcome yet.

The definitive answer on he flat earth theory was answered years and years ago and is not up for discussion in the scientific field. If you are still reading publications that think otherwise. Then are only worth as much as the toilet paper you use on your tush.

 

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Justin Woodpond said:

Is this conversation about  semantics vs syntax?  Or is it about the "legimacy" of scientific publications? Or is it about twisting points?

What a deviation.

I am not a scientist per se (though I have a degree in Biochemistry and an advanced one in the medial sciences), and I have never ever come across any professional in the science or medical profession/academia that would publish in, or reference, any publication that is not a legitimate one. Maybe I need to lower the standards or caliber of people I associate with. 

When a publication like Nature (one of the most esteemed), accepts a submitted paper to publish, they are always peer review it (no exceptions), and there are certain criteria to abide by 1. Provides very strong evidence for its conclusions. 2. Novel 3. Of extreme importance to scientists in the specific field. Ideally, interesting to researchers in other related disciplines 4. Should represent (this is very important) an ADVANCE  in understanding likely to influence thinking in the field.

The publication is not going to loose their reputation by publishing bogus papers or ones that take science backwards to the dark ages. Everything that is reported must be original scientific research (the main results and conclusions must not have been published or submitted elsewhere) of outstanding scientific importance. 

Using the conspiracy led flat earth theory as an example when discussing the topic of obesity and health is preposterous. That is a theory that has been expelled from the scientific realm for centuries. It is not novel or original, it is not important or vital, it is not fact or up for debate in the scientific community. It is a conspiracy. It is dark age lore.

Science is based on fact and evidence. Not hearsay. Not conspiracy theories. Legitimate scientific publications follow that. If they don't then they are not legitimate, let alone scientific publications. They are publications who publish whatever. 

If you are trying to get your point across further, you should use a different and scientifically relevant example like are genetically modified livestock and foods harmful in the long term, are antidepressants actually worse for the patient, is microbiome health the key to happiness, are saturated fats not actually harmful to our heath, etc. These are current scientific topics that are being studied and debated with no clear or definitive outcome yet.

The definitive answer on he flat earth theory was answered years and years ago and is not up for discussion in the scientific field. If you are still reading publications that think otherwise. Then are only worth as much as the toilet paper you use on your tush.

Yes the flat earth example is a bit extreme but the only point that I’m trying to make here is there are ridiculous research papers published on less legitimate publications. Not all scientific publications are like Nature. There are publications dedicated to prove creationism. All I’m trying to say is people should not irresponsibly form their opinion after reading ONE study. What’s wrong with that? I guess I should have used another analogy like anti vaxx studies but does it change the message I’m trying to convey? Or should people just take whatever they read as the absolute truth? I only want people to be more critical with the information they acquire instead of cherry picking the studies that fit their narrative. 

Link to comment
10 hours ago, Pbloem19 said:

Yes the flat earth example is a bit extreme but the only point that I’m trying to make here is there are ridiculous research papers published on less legitimate publications. Not all scientific publications are like Nature. There are publications dedicated to prove creationism. All I’m trying to say is people should not irresponsibly form their opinion after reading ONE study. What’s wrong with that? I guess I should have used another analogy like anti vaxx studies but does it change the message I’m trying to convey? Or should people just take whatever they read as the absolute truth? I only want people to be more critical with the information they acquire instead of cherry picking the studies that fit their narrative. 

Indeed. I agree, it would have been better to use a different example. Regardless, we are on the same page now. 

Link to comment

 

Being fat is different than being obese.

Being obese is unhealthy. Ask from any doctor and he will tell you that.

Put an overweight woman over a magazine cover titled "This is healthy" is peak consumerism. And of course it's the Cosmopolitan magazine which is KNOWN for toxic things.

Spoiler

r/ShitCosmoSays - When men feel more relaxed with their friends men, Cosmo has to shame and insult them of course

Spoiler

r/ShitCosmoSays - 8 Reasons Why Cheating Isn't Actually That Bad

 

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

We noticed you're using an ad blocker  :ehum_britney_um_unsure_confused_what:

Thanks for visiting Exhale! Your support is greatly appreciated 💜  

Exhale survives through advertising revenue. Please, disable your ad block extension to help us and continue browsing Exhale. 🙏

I've disabled ad block