or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Retail's prejudice against the obese
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Retail's prejudice against the obese - Page 4

post #46 of 67
ken, just an example of how poorly you seem to grasp the information that you are trying to process - the very enthic groups that you are talking about, pacific islanders and native americans, very often have a strong genetic inclination towards obesity. this is theorized as due to surviving so many generations on such limited diets and in such difficult circomstances. people whose ansestors were fat aren't that likely to be fat or obese - people whose ansestors had trouble making it through the winter (or the dry season) and needed to have very economical metabolisms have a genetic tendency to be obese. you could make the same genetic argument - since genetic tendency towards obesity is closely correlated with genetic groups that developed in exceptionally harsh enviroments, and since these same people needed to have powerful, flexible minds to survive, they are genetically more inclined to be intellegent. that is just an example of the poor logic of your thinking here.
post #47 of 67
I am truly appalled by the incivility, not to mention intellectual poverty, of much of what I've read of this thread (with the notable exceptions of Gorgekko, Globetrotter, JBZ & StevenRocks, all of whose comments demonstrate a degree of enlightenment others would be well advised to cultivate). I suppose it's no wonder that stylish people are so often assumed to be superficial and insensitive: not only does that seem to be true of a good many, but they compound the offense by being perversely proud of attitudes of which any gentleman would be ashamed.
post #48 of 67
Each time I go to the US (couple times a year) I am amazed at the quantity of food is included in a regular serving. A "standard" cup of extremely sweet soda is basically a bucket. And it is common to see people eat all day long. I agree that some people have a harder time losing weight than others but it is mainly a question of habit. And the worst thing is this is gradually become the norm in Europe too.
post #49 of 67
Walter, the size of servings in the U.S. is one of the reasons for which it takes some effort not to overeat. Especially when your parents trained you not to waste food or money.
post #50 of 67
Then parents should reconsider the education and control what their kids eat. After all they are no garbage cans.
post #51 of 67
but you are right, here, walter. sizes are huge in the US, and many people, espectially the poor, eat foods that are packed with transfat and high fructose corn syrup. and it is coming your way, too. When I first visited amsterdam 20 years ago (and yes, technically you are a totally fucking different country) I was amazed at all the people riding bikes while wearing nice clothes, as a form of transportation. now all the people I know in holland live in the suburbs and spend 2 hours a day in their cars. ' it is happening all across western europe, and american style food and portion sizes will be available there soon, too. and you can do what I do - keep your kids away from the tv, keep processed foods out of the house, keep your family moving around as much as possible, and hope that it is good enough. but it probrably won't be enough....
post #52 of 67
Quote:
Then parents should reconsider the education and control what their kids eat. After all they are no garbage cans.
hey, you are one seriously unpleasant little puppy, aren't you?
post #53 of 67
Quote:
Quote:
(Walter @ April 20 2005,07:37) Then parents should reconsider the education and control what their kids eat. After all they are no garbage cans.
hey, you are one seriously unpleasant little puppy, aren't you?
Yes but I know I am your hero. Good point for keeping your kids away from excess junk food.
post #54 of 67
Quote:
Quote:
(Walter @ April 20 2005,07:37) Then parents should reconsider the education and control what their kids eat. After all they are no garbage cans.
hey, you are one seriously unpleasant little puppy, aren't you?
globe are you confusing "unpleasant" with "being European'? (hee hee)
post #55 of 67
Quote:
Quote:
(globetrotter @ April 20 2005,07:40)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walter,April 20 2005,07:37
Then parents should reconsider the education and control what their kids eat. After all they are no garbage cans.
hey, you are one seriously unpleasant little puppy, aren't you?
globe are you confusing "unpleasant" with "being European'? (hee hee)
Hey that is a pretty good one.. You are right : a gentleman should always be witty and laugh at his own jokes.
post #56 of 67
Quote:
Quote:
I'm just curious what you mean.  I think both attractiveness and intelligence follow independent normal distributions in the population.  I also think neither is a measure of the worth of a person or a justification for treating a person differently.
I'm talking about race, not physical attractiveness. It's just theory, no more. Some people think, because Native Americans, New Guineans, etc. evolved in a population not dense enough to support epidemic diseases, and in a society not advanced enough to prevent or treat fatal accidents, that their wit, cunning, and retention of knowledge is greater than that of whites (just for example), whose main means of survival for many thousands of years has been disease resistance. It's complicated, and there's volumes written on the subject, but that's the jist in a sentence.
When you say "evolved," I think genetic differences, so if that's not what you mean, then the above would be equivalent to saying that coastal populations developed better sailing skills than landlocked populations.  I.e., it's an adaptation that has nothing to do with physical selection. If you are saying those traits are due to genetic differences, there must be some research of which I'm not aware that ties "wit, cunning, and retention of knowledge" to genetics.  If you're considering those traits a subset of general intelligence, than the above example isn't supported by any research I've seen on genetic influence on intelligence.  Can you point me to any of the research on this? Mandatory disclaimer -- I'm just interested in the sociology aspects of the above.  I don't think it can or should be used to justify poor treatment of obese people. dan
post #57 of 67
Quote:
Quote:
(ken @ April 19 2005,00:35) Quote I'm just curious what you mean.  I think both attractiveness and intelligence follow independent normal distributions in the population.  I also think neither is a measure of the worth of a person or a justification for treating a person differently.
I'm talking about race, not physical attractiveness. It's just theory, no more. Some people think, because Native Americans, New Guineans, etc. evolved in a population not dense enough to support epidemic diseases, and in a society not advanced enough to prevent or treat fatal accidents, that their wit, cunning, and retention of knowledge is greater than that of whites (just for example), whose main means of survival for many thousands of years has been disease resistance. It's complicated, and there's volumes written on the subject, but that's the jist in a sentence.
When you say "evolved," I think genetic differences, so if that's not what you mean, then the above would be equivalent to saying that coastal populations developed better sailing skills than landlocked populations.  I.e., it's an adaptation that has nothing to do with physical selection. If you are saying those traits are due to genetic differences, there must be some research of which I'm not aware that ties "wit, cunning, and retention of knowledge" to genetics.  If you're considering those traits a subset of general intelligence, than the above example isn't supported by any research I've seen on genetic influence on intelligence.  Can you point me to any of the research on this? Mandatory disclaimer -- I'm just interested in the sociology aspects of the above.  I don't think it can or should be used to justify poor treatment of obese people. dan[/quote] dah, in any event, the effect of evalution on the genetic build of people in the past 5,000 years or so is pretty slight, compared to the previous 500,000. the evalutionary effect on societies and cultures is much more pronounced in that time frame, but that doesn't appear to be what ken is trying to discuss.
post #58 of 67
post #59 of 67
Obesity is not purely genetic, but is largely an effect caused by poor lifestyle choices. By and large, people in the States are of the same genetic stock as people in Europe/Africa/Asia, and incidences of obesity are lower on those continents (and most people in Europe are not starving.) That said, all human beings should be treated with respect. You may, on the other hand, decide not to serve larger people. I good number of high end LA boutiques don't stock above an 8 (or 29 in jeans) in women's sizes, or above a 36 waist in men's sizes. This may be for purely economic reasons. One boutique owner I knew told me that by and large, (no pun intended) her customers were size 4 to 6, and with a sizable number size size 0 and 2, and *some* size 8. She told me that she used to carry size 10, but that the clothes always went to clearance.
post #60 of 67
Somehow I've always had very little faith in these studies - remember the FDA contended (often vigourously) for over 25 years that anabolic steroids had no impact on muscle/strength gain. Panzer
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Retail's prejudice against the obese