The Fat Nutritionist

Anri

Rookie
Joined
Nov 4, 2012
Posts
541
Karma
34
I stumbled across this website run by a woman with a nutrition degree who is obese. Basically she defends the "fat can be healthy" side of the argument and is very very delusional if you ask me.

She believes that it is "normal" and fine to overstuff yourself sometimes and to eat whatever foods you want.

"I can help you get to a friendly place with food and your body.

So, I call myself fat because not only am I fat, I’m also not especially bothered by it. Because the size of my body, and your body, is morally neutral. Fat doesn’t equal lazy or ugly or even, necessarily, unhealthy."
Okay... In what world is fat not lazy or unhealthy?

http://www.fatnutritionist.com/index.php/the-body-of-marilyn-monroe/

^^^In that article she does analyze the argument over Marilyn Monroe's size and agrees that she was never "fat" compared to today's "fat" definition.

http://www.fatnutritionist.com/index.php/eat-food-stuff-you-like-as-much-as-you-want/

^^^Her explanation on being able to eat "whatever you want" but still saying we should make healthy-ish choices?


This woman is all over the place. She has a lot of knowledge yet she still defends obesity as if it is no big deal. She knows what food is healthy and she knows what quantities are healthy. My issue here is...

IF SHE KNOWS SO MUCH, WHY IS SHE SO FAT?

Any thoughts, ladies?
 

slenderous

Worker Bee
Joined
Aug 16, 2013
Posts
528
Karma
178
Location
England, UK
What follows is the definition of normal eating, written by my nutritional hero, Ellyn Satter.

Normal eating is going to the table hungry and eating until you are satisfied. It is being able to choose food you like and eat it and truly get enough of it—not just stop eating because you think you should. Normal eating is being able to give some thought to your food selection so you get nutritious food, but not being so wary and restrictive that you miss out on enjoyable food. Normal eating is giving yourself permission to eat sometimes because you are happy, sad or bored, or just because it feels good. Normal eating is mostly three meals a day, or four or five, or it can be choosing to munch along the way. It is leaving some cookies on the plate because you know you can have some again tomorrow, or it is eating more now because they taste so wonderful. Normal eating is overeating at times, feeling stuffed and uncomfortable. And it can be undereating at times and wishing you had more. Normal eating is trusting your body to make up for your mistakes in eating. Normal eating takes up some of your time and attention, but keeps its place as only one important area of your life.

In short, normal eating is flexible. It varies in response to your hunger, your schedule, your proximity to food and your feelings.
I sort-of agree with her definition of "normal eating" however I do not believe that anyone truly eating normally will be fat, or obese. Also I think over-eating very occasionally when exposed to unusual food, to which access is usually limited (e.g. having two courses at an haute cuisine restaurant or a piece of specialty cake after lunch on your birthday) is normal. It is not ever normal in day-to-day existence.
 
V

Vladislava

Guest
I disagree with her on two major points:

You should NOT eat for emotional reasons (happy, sad, bored). That's misusing food, and there are better ways to deal with those situations. (Also, being happy, sad or bored accounts for like 95% percent of people's emotional states, so by her logic, people would be eating constantly. Which is exactly what obese people do.)

Also, you should NOT eat when you're not hungry. That food would taste so much better if you ate it when you were hungry. So eating it without hunger means that you're just wasting it.

@slenderous, I completely agree with you about the rare exceptional times when overeating is ok. Like you say, it's NOT normal to overeat on a regular basis.

She seems to conflate the concepts of prevalence and desirability. Just because a lot of people DO misuse and abuse food doesn't make that the ideal approach. It's like drinking too much and getting wasted and hungover - lots of people do it, but it's obviously not the best way.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

misscat

Rising Star
Joined
Feb 5, 2012
Posts
1,051
Karma
657
I just don't understand how this is "nutrition", I feel like this is just how average people eat, but she takes bigger portions. I don't even understand what she's talking about, it's ridiculous, and she's a complete phony.
 
Joined
Sep 15, 2012
Posts
195
Karma
6
Location
"Discipline is the practice of committing yourself
I disagree with her on two major points:

You should NOT eat for emotional reasons (happy, sad, bored). That's misusing food, and there are better ways to deal with those situations. (Also, being happy, sad or bored accounts for like 95% percent of people's emotional states, so by her logic, people would be eating constantly. Which is exactly what obese people do.)

Also, you should NOT eat when you're not hungry. That food would taste so much better if you ate it when you were hungry. So eating it without hunger means that you're just wasting it.
I agree, the mindset of eating should be on being thankful and gracious for what's in front of you in the moment, and fueling your body with the right foods to get through the day. Emotions should not be in the equation at all. When you let your irrational mind (emotional) come with you into the kitchen, you become susceptible to irrational thoughts and ultimately end up eating things you'll regret.
 

Intrinsicality

Grand Dame
Joined
May 20, 2012
Posts
2,109
Karma
2,596
Location
Galloping off on her high-horse somewhere.
What is with these fatties and their obsession with Marilyn Monroe?

She was a total f-ing mess!!!

C'mon!!! Really? I DO NOT understand this fascination with being like Marilyn Monroe?! She is nothing to base your body-image goals on! You throw PR and marketing in front of the most appalling product and it can make ANYTHING seem godly with the seas parting and the cherubs singing.

And this woman? She is so out of wack.

People who CANT lose weight, WANT guidance and she doesn't want to promote the discipline necessary to get yourself back on track?! She is making herself obsolete - why the hell would I go to a 'nutritionist' who tells me I can eat how much ever I want - whatever I want - whenever I want with no better reason than "I want to"??!?! This would be when I am already doing that and LACK the tools to make a different judgement!!!!

You must go to her if you are insane!?! Isn't it Einstein who said "Insanity; is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

Ugh. Such Horse***t.
 

Intrinsicality

Grand Dame
Joined
May 20, 2012
Posts
2,109
Karma
2,596
Location
Galloping off on her high-horse somewhere.
Oh and...I just wanted to add;

I just read her 'about me' page...and it turns out she's not a registered dietitian and she is only a 'diet tech', LOL....that's like asking for an opinion about my broken and bleeding leg from a physiotherapist and not the orthopedic surgeon.

Well, that figures.
 

gettingthere

Worker Bee
Joined
Feb 28, 2012
Posts
320
Karma
152
Oh and...I just wanted to add;

I just read her 'about me' page...and it turns out she's not a registered dietitian and she is only a 'diet tech', LOL....that's like asking for an opinion about my broken and bleeding leg from a physiotherapist and not the orthopedic surgeon.

Well, that figures.



Seems a little hypocritical of her, doesn't it?
 

ZeroDiet

SkinnyGossip Royal
Joined
Jan 22, 2012
Posts
3,758
Karma
5,501


Seems a little hypocritical of her, doesn't it?
And the dumb get dumber... Most people don't know much about science, but the ones who do, know a fucking TON. A fat nutritionist is the equivalent of a sick, dying doctor - self-rendered useless.

(Except she's not even a nutritionist... more like broscience nutrition enthusiast)
 

Gabe

Rookie
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Posts
72
Karma
17
Age
28
Location
New York, NY
This is unrelated but had to share because the thread title reminded me of an incident I once had. When I was 15 my mom forced me to see a nutritionist because she thought I was anorexic and this was her solution. It definitely didn't go well because this woman's mission was to convince me to gain weight and triple the size of my meals etc. while I continued to defend a light, nutrient rich diet. I tried to follow some of her advice just to placate her/my mother, but then I noticed that each week she seemed to be getting bigger and bigger. I couldn't help thinking that no one in their right mind, least of all myself, could take advice from a fat (and gaining) nutritionist. It was almost comical how much she was ballooning and yet telling me to slather on the peanut butter... then she finally reveals she's pregnant!!
Woosh. At least there was a reason for her looking huge, but man was that a disturbing couple of months.
 

skinnieminnie

Rising Star
Joined
Jun 8, 2013
Posts
1,498
Karma
825
Location
New York, New York
her site is so fucking stupid i don't have the mental energy to actually read it...I opened the link, saw the picture of Marilyn Monroe and immediately closed the window because I really do not need to see another article about her being a role model for fat people or whatever :rolleyes:
 

saladdays

Rookie
Joined
Jun 3, 2014
Posts
246
Karma
41
Location
USA
Ugh...I know a nutritionist in real life. She was slightly (amazingly) overweight and a total idiot. She's the mother of one of my "friends" in high school. I talked to her briefly about calorie intake, carb - fat - protein ratio etc. and, honest to god, she literally told me that I needed to be eating 2400 calories a day. This was before I even used to exercise as much as I do now. Of course I knew that she was full of shit. She told a sedentary 5'6 17 year old to eat twice as much as I should have been eating...:superpuke::superpuke::superpuke:

Their pantry was also always stacked with instant potatoes, candy (more candy than you can imagine), breads, cakes, muffins, etc.

Oh and she was an amazing nutritionist, honest to god, because her daughter was diagnosed as diabetic at 16. Oh, but it's "genetic" of course.

Basically, fats always try to defend their "extensive knowledge about nutrition and health" by covering up the fact that they clearly don't know anything. And if they do, why don't they apply it? That's even worse in my opinion. I wouldn't go to a dentist with no teeth. Fuck me if I ever even make eye contact with a fat nutritionist. I might lose my head. :lol:
 

icehalo

Worker Bee
Joined
Feb 9, 2012
Posts
775
Karma
249
Location
USA
her site is so fucking stupid i don't have the mental energy to actually read it...I opened the link, saw the picture of Marilyn Monroe and immediately closed the window because I really do not need to see another article about her being a role model for fat people or whatever :rolleyes:
:lol::lol::lol::lol: sooo much right now

Seriously, why must Marilyn Monroe be the icon of "real women have curves" / "real men love curves" ? It's so dull. And all of the people who reference Marilyn Monroe for this purpose, look substantially bigger/worse than her.

I found it interesting that she provided this as one of her reasons for working toward a dietetic internship: "The fifth, and most important reason: I originally entered nutrition as a way of doing something positive for fat people."

Something positive for fat people? It seems to me she means that she aims to try to "normalize" being fat in society--because somehow being fat should be "normal." Well, it isn't normal for animals, which we are. When a dog or a cat becomes fat, it is because we made it fat by our ill choices. Likewise, when humans become fat, it is because of their ill choices. Of course, some things do make weight gain/loss harder for some people, like thyroid conditions, but these are not the norm anyway. And when someone does have one of these types of conditions, it is good to try to ameliorate your condition so that you can be more "normal"--which, I think, is generally slim, not fat. By generally slim, I definitely don't mean SG-skinny standards, and that's fine for the general population in terms of health and nutrition.

I just wouldn't want to go to a dietician who exhibits excessiveness and believes that is normal.
 

Nata

Rookie
Joined
Mar 22, 2012
Posts
247
Karma
38
Location
Chicago


Seems a little hypocritical of her, doesn't it?
I know I'm late to the conversation, but I just stumbled on this thread. I think the main problem with her approach is that she is conflating health/nutrition with politics. I believe fighting the social stigma that is leveled against fat people is a valid political goal. No one deserves, for example, to lose opportunities for advancement in a career they are good at because of social prejudice against the way they look--even if weight it's something that's possible to control, like weight. A person's size should not dictate their morality in other aspects of their life. So in that one respect, she's onto something.

However, it is downright ignorant and dangerous to use false science in order to advance that political goal. While it's not morally wrong on a person level, it is unhealthy to be fat. Period. And it is taxing on society's resource to treat the health problems that come from being overweight (in this way, I can understand how people see it as a moral issue). Sure, fat people should not be treated as second class citizens as a result, but to claim that they are healthy? That's just irresponsible, especially coming from a "scientist" like herself.

For example, she claims in this post that not getting enough nutrients is the only thing that can harm a person--that eating too much food cannot ever be bad for you. That's just is deluded, and clearly a justification for unhealthy habits.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Nata

Rookie
Joined
Mar 22, 2012
Posts
247
Karma
38
Location
Chicago
Also, the idea that no food is "bad" in and of itself: True, no food is morally bad, but lots of foods are bad for you physically. It doesn't mean you can never eat them, but it's crazy to act like all foods are created equal. She's defending her right to be unhealthy by making accusations of people who actually try to limit their diet to things that benefit them. She's implying that there are only two options --to be fat and happy, or be thin and miserable. That's a logical fallacy. It's possible to choose things that nourish you and feel good about that choice. Some self-imposed limitation is necessary if we want to be our healthiest selves for as long as we can. Saying otherwise makes her seem realllly uninformed and untrustworthy as a "health professional."
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Delirium

Super Star
Joined
Aug 19, 2014
Posts
1,112
Karma
1,210
Location
Viking Central
I know I'm late to the conversation, but I just stumbled on this thread. I think the main problem with her approach is that she is conflating health/nutrition with politics. I believe fighting the social stigma that is leveled against fat people is a valid political goal. No one deserves, for example, to lose opportunities for advancement in a career they are good at because of social prejudice against the way they look--even if weight it's something that's possible to control, like weight. A person's size should not dictate their morality in other aspects of their life. So in that one respect, she's onto something.

However, it is downright ignorant and dangerous to use false science in order to advance that political goal. While it's not morally wrong on a person level, it is unhealthy to be fat. Period. And it is taxing on society's resource to treat the health problems that come from being overweight (in this way, I can understand how people see it as a moral issue). Sure, fat people should not be treated as second class citizens as a result, but to claim that they are healthy? That's just irresponsible, especially coming from a "scientist" like herself.

For example, she claims in this post that not getting enough nutrients is the only thing that can harm a person--that eating too much food cannot ever be bad for you. That's just is deluded, and clearly a justification for unhealthy habits.

My main problem with her approach is exactly that she refuses to accept that obesity is unhealthy in and of itself. When you refuse to listen to the biological arguments against obesity, and why it's bad for us (and the children), and instead turn the argument around as an attach on the attractiveness of your body, it is very frustrating. I've said it on this site before, but there is a big difference between saying that obesity and overeating is unhealthy, and saying that it is unattractive. I often find that fat activists willfully conflate the two in order to support their argument, then go on to champion their cause of not needing to comply with society's beauty standards. When you then have people such as the Fat Nutritionist supporting their claims that their bodies aren't unhealthy, and it's all down to what people find attractive/unattractive, they feel more justified in their own cause, and argumentation's for it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Nata

Rookie
Joined
Mar 22, 2012
Posts
247
Karma
38
Location
Chicago
I've said it on this site before, but there is a big difference between saying that obesity and overeating is unhealthy, and saying that it is unattractive. I often find that fat activists willfully conflate the two in order to support their argument, then go on to champion their cause of not needing to comply with society's beauty standards. When you then have people such as the Fat Nutritionist supporting their claims that their bodies aren't unhealthy, and it's all down to what people find attractive/unattractive, they feel more justified in their own cause, and argumentation's for it.
This is a really good point. Acknowledging that obesity is unhealthy is not, in and of itself, an attack on people who have or prefer overweight/obese bodies on an aesthetic level. When we're talking about health, it's not about whose body is right and whose body is wrong. It's fair game to defend your physical preferences and your right to feel beautiful in your own skin--everyone deserves that--but that doesn't change the medical fact that excess weight is taxing on your body. So even if you're eating healthy fats and fish and avocado and fruit all day, the fact remains: if you're obese you're unhealthy. Even if you like what you see in the mirror. Self-confidence can't reverse heart disease or rebuild your overstressed knee joints.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

Delirium

Super Star
Joined
Aug 19, 2014
Posts
1,112
Karma
1,210
Location
Viking Central
This is a really good point. Acknowledging that obesity is unhealthy is not, in and of itself, an attack on people who have or prefer overweight/obese bodies on an aesthetic level. When we're talking about health, it's not about whose body is right and whose body is wrong. It's fair game to defend your physical preferences and your right to feel beautiful in your own skin--everyone deserves that--but that doesn't change the medical fact that excess weight is taxing on your body. So even if you're eating healthy fats and fish and avocado and fruit all day, the fact remains: if you're obese you're unhealthy. Even if you like what you see in the mirror. Self-confidence can't reverse heart disease or rebuild your overstressed knee joints.

Well said!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user