Turn on thread page Beta

Eating Disorders- who is to blame? watch

Announcements
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rts)
    i don't think the majority of eating disorders are to do with peer pressure, i think it is due to depression. which may or may not be caused by peers.
    i merely stated peer pressure as an example- i don't think it's always that either.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    happysunshine...

    Eat too much in the first place, imo if someone is overweight, there usually is little excuse. I have the opinion despite people saying it's good to be curvy, evidence points that being overweight increases well most diseases and chance of dying before you could.
    Yes but surely there's a distinction between being overweight and 'curvy'? Someone who is at the top end of the normal weight range on say, a body mass index is very likely to be curvy. This person would be perfectly healthy and not overeweight. So it is fine to be 'curvy'. All curvy means that you have relatively big boobs, hips and bum and there literally isn't anything wrong with that, especially when you consider it's proven that people with that body shape are more fertile.


    Maybe not quite McDonalds alone but fast food and proccessed foods that are easily advertised and avaliable make healthy eating less likely.
    Aren't you contradiction yourself - on the one hand you're saying people have a choice to eat healthily, then you make out like their slaves to advertising!

    I suppose having a media showing slim people is good, showing fatter people would give the impression again, that it is a really positive thing to be big, and it isn't as I mentioned earlier.
    Again you're contradicting yourself - you're saying that celebs are putting themselves through an uhealthy reigeme to be slim, then saying that it's a good thing! Its about striking a balance - realising that it's not healthy to be overweight but also not healthy to be ridicioulsly underweight like most celebs are!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    After reading this thread, I went to several online BMI calculators and frankly, got a bit confused. What is the normal BMI? The BBC says it's 18.5-25, but then says a BMI of 19.8 is underweight. The weight loss institute states that a BMI under 20.7 is underweight.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Yes but surely there's a distinction between being overweight and 'curvy'? Someone who is at the top end of the normal weight range on say, a body mass index is very likely to be curvy. This person would be perfectly healthy and not overeweight. So it is fine to be 'curvy'. All curvy means that you have relatively big boobs, hips and bum and there literally isn't anything wrong with that, especially when you consider it's proven that people with that body shape are more fertile.
    I'm talking about the people who are unhealthily fat yet are labelled 'curvy'. I'm not saying it's unhealthy to have 'relatively big boobs, hips and bum'. It's funny when people who have none of these are still called curvy and yet the thin girls who do are never labelled that. It also pisses me off how in magazines particuarly thin girls are called sticks, and 16 stoners are called curvy. I don't think that is fair at all.
    Aren't you contradiction yourself - on the one hand you're saying people have a choice to eat healthily, then you make out like their slaves to advertising!
    Contradiction, no? People do have a choice to eat healthy, but people follow advertising. I don't see that as a contradicition.
    Again you're contradicting yourself - you're saying that celebs are putting themselves through an uhealthy reigeme to be slim, then saying that it's a good thing! Its about striking a balance - realising that it's not healthy to be overweight but also not healthy to be ridicioulsly underweight like most celebs are!
    Again, no contradiction. Sure they are unhealthy, but rather than seeing a bunch of 20 stone celebrities who stuff themselves on doughnuts, it's best to see slimmer people even if they don't get their the right way, so that people try to be healthily slim.

    It is about striking a balance, and keeping fit and healthy is the best option. Even if it is true if big people do really do those things, it is not good to have all that weight on, it's been prooven.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mysticmin)
    After reading this thread, I went to several online BMI calculators and frankly, got a bit confused. What is the normal BMI? The BBC says it's 18.5-25, but then says a BMI of 19.8 is underweight. The weight loss institute states that a BMI under 20.7 is underweight.
    It really depends on what race and gender you are.

    Generally, doctors say 18-25 is normal for Caucasian females.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by happysunshine)
    I'm talking about the people who are unhealthily fat yet are labelled 'curvy'. I'm not saying it's unhealthy to have 'relatively big boobs, hips and bum'. It's funny when people who have none of these are still called curvy and yet the thin girls who do are never labelled that. It also pisses me off how in magazines particuarly thin girls are called sticks, and 16 stoners are called curvy. I don't think that is fair at all.

    Have you ever thought that calling someone large curvy is to spare their feelings and to boost their morale. What's the point in people going around feeling crappy about themselves? It's hardly going to motivate them to lose weight. As for calling thin girl's 'sticks'. It seems to me that 'stick' is only used as a derogatory term for celebrities who are unhealthily underweight, e.g. Posh Spice or Sophie Dahl, otherwise it's rarely used as an insult.

    Contradiction, no? People do have a choice to eat healthy, but people follow advertising. I don't see that as a contradicition.
    I'm sorry i'm still not with you? To say that people have 'choice' and then to imply they're influenced by advertising is a contradiction, unless your saying that they don't have the necessary information to make sensible choices, which could be possible, I suppose.

    Again, no contradiction. Sure they are unhealthy, but rather than seeing a bunch of 20 stone celebrities who stuff themselves on doughnuts, it's best to see slimmer people even if they don't get their the right way, so that people try to be healthily slim.

    It is about striking a balance, and keeping fit and healthy is the best option. Even if it is true if big people do really do those things, it is not good to have all that weight on, it's been prooven.
    I really don't agree with you to me it makes no odds whether we're inundated with images of 20 stone or 6 stone celebs - if both are unhealthy then neither can be positive role models.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BloodyValentine)
    What does everyone think about the Atkins diet?
    evil
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mysticmin)
    After reading this thread, I went to several online BMI calculators and frankly, got a bit confused. What is the normal BMI? The BBC says it's 18.5-25, but then says a BMI of 19.8 is underweight. The weight loss institute states that a BMI under 20.7 is underweight.
    It varies hugely between body types. If you want a good estimate of you're body fat go to the doctors, where they use pinchy things to measure subcutaneous fat and stuff.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by eleenia)
    Have you ever thought that calling someone large curvy is to spare their feelings and to boost their morale. What's the point in people going around feeling crappy about themselves? It's hardly going to motivate them to lose weight. As for calling thin girl's 'sticks'. It seems to me that 'stick' is only used as a derogatory term for celebrities who are unhealthily underweight, e.g. Posh Spice or Sophie Dahl, otherwise it's rarely used as an insult.
    I appreciate calling people that to "spare their feelings", but if you can call a naturally thin girl skinny and stick which in my opinion are derogatory, why have a nice name for an overweight person? It is used a lot, my sister for instance was called it a lot and she is very sensitive, imagine the uproar if they called her fat?

    I'm sorry i'm still not with you? To say that people have 'choice' and then to imply they're influenced by advertising is a contradiction, unless your saying that they don't have the necessary information to make sensible choices, which could be possible, I suppose.
    I don't see what's so hard to get? People have the choice to eat healthily, but bad advertising makes them choose sometimes not to. And yes, most people aren't well educated on nutrition.

    I really don't agree with you to me it makes no odds whether we're inundated with images of 20 stone or 6 stone celebs - if both are unhealthy then neither can be positive role models.
    Don't agree with me then. If both eat unhealthily, the more weight you have on will more likely make you iller. Celebrities that have starved themselves show it is better to be slimmer than obese, and if it was teamed with food education then people would be better off.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mysticmin)
    After reading this thread, I went to several online BMI calculators and frankly, got a bit confused. What is the normal BMI? The BBC says it's 18.5-25, but then says a BMI of 19.8 is underweight. The weight loss institute states that a BMI under 20.7 is underweight.
    It depends a lot on your age. This only works for adults. Teenagers, specially those in puberty, are quite often outside this range without it being any concern for their wellbeing. The BMI index is merely an indication of an aproximate ideal from a medical perspective. Its not a catastrophe if you are a few points outside the "normal" index, but it means you could benefit from losing/gaining some weight. Also, teenagres are well adviced to consult a doctor before making any drastic impacts on their diet and weight as we are not only more sensetive with regard to the medical implications, but also more likely to develop eating disorders if we push ourselves to far.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by happysunshine)
    Don't agree with me then. If both eat unhealthily, the more weight you have on will more likely make you iller. Celebrities that have starved themselves show it is better to be slimmer than obese, and if it was teamed with food education then people would be better off.
    This is entireley a question about magnitude. Anorexia can be health concern just as serious as obesity, it is just not very normal that people fail to get enough nutrition in todays society. HAving said that people have recently dies from mad diets. I heard a girl in the US got low on potassium on suffered a hearth atack after following one of the nowdays so popular protein diets.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    This is entireley a question about magnitude. Anorexia can be health concern just as serious as obesity, it is just not very normal that people fail to get enough nutrition in todays society. HAving said that people have recently dies from mad diets. I heard a girl in the US got low on potassium on suffered a hearth atack after following one of the nowdays so popular protein diets.
    I think that just about sums up anything I would have said in reply to you happy. As for what else you said - I agree that it people get upset by being called 'sticks' then yes, the media should avoid the term in the same way as avoiding 'porker'. I just always thought that because the world is so thin-obsessed that if people were called sticks they'd be chuffed to bits.
    And I also agree with you that people are probably very misinformed about nutrition - how can we not be with so many faddy diets, and practically every day we're told something we thought was good for us isn't and vice versa. So, I think we agree on most things except for being too thin being better than being too fat. Maybe that's because, like I've said before in this thread, I've had anorexia and still suffer the health problems now. I think some other people posting on this thread have similar experiences (if not worse) and will probably agree. But I do realise that most of what you've been saying is a call for healthy eating, and with that I totally agree.
    Ps I've just re-read my post and I seem to be in a very agreeable mood! (New hair cut).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by eleenia)
    I think that just about sums up anything I would have said in reply to you happy. As for what else you said - I agree that it people get upset by being called 'sticks' then yes, the media should avoid the term in the same way as avoiding 'porker'. I just always thought that because the world is so thin-obsessed that if people were called sticks they'd be chuffed to bits.
    And I also agree with you that people are probably very misinformed about nutrition - how can we not be with so many faddy diets, and practically every day we're told something we thought was good for us isn't and vice versa. So, I think we agree on most things except for being too thin being better than being too fat. Maybe that's because, like I've said before in this thread, I've had anorexia and still suffer the health problems now. I think some other people posting on this thread have similar experiences (if not worse) and will probably agree. But I do realise that most of what you've been saying is a call for healthy eating, and with that I totally agree.
    Ps I've just re-read my post and I seem to be in a very agreeable mood! (New hair cut).
    I can add myself to the list of peopel having problems keeping the weight UP. Im not anorectic, and I dont try to diet or anything. My apetite just fails to keep my BMI above 18.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    I can add myself to the list of peopel having problems keeping the weight UP. Im not anorectic, and I dont try to diet or anything. My apetite just fails to keep my BMI above 18.
    Have you been to the doctors about it?
 
 
 
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.