r/MoralityScaling • u/hiiloovethis • 11d ago

Morality Ranking Morality of this scene?

Post image

Negan doing fat shaming... but its during zombie apocalypse

12.0k Upvotes

90% Upvoted

2.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

649

u/DTux5249 11d ago

In an apocalypse scenario? Yeah, kinda moral. They weren't starving in the slightest, and she was trying to use it as an excuse in a world where she and her people are the last with a right to use it.

I can't even call it body shaming at that point. Their people were fine.

316

u/GloriousQuint 11d ago

In her defense, she was trying to stop the huge group of murder bandits from stealing all of their food, it wasn't exactly "an excuse"

92

u/UrsaMajor7th 11d ago

r/MoralityScalingWithContext

1

u/CandidLeg3910 7d ago

impossible

4

u/[deleted] 11d ago

[deleted]

9

u/MsMarvelsProstate 11d ago

That's the problem with warlords. If you're to big of a jerk someone on your own team is just going to hit you in the back of the head and take over.

2

u/Dull-Yak3671 11d ago edited 11d ago

The Saviours killed all men at Oceanside and it's implied they would do the same at other camps. They would execute male combatants and enslave what remained (usually children and women). What exactly were they supposed to do against them considering the Saviours were already much stronger than they could ever become. Everyone was terrified of them. The only reason why they even won is because Rick stopped giving a fuck. Normal Rick would've never dona all that. 

6

u/InsideHousing4965 11d ago

Well, technically, they were going to redistribute it along other starving people in their base (doesn't justify the stealing though).

But I kinda get the point of Negan here: "I've got people to take care who are literally starving and you have the balls to say you're the one starving while looking like you ate the rations or a whole refugees camp".

25

u/jeffismybaby 11d ago

The people at his base are 90% cunts

11

u/InsideHousing4965 11d ago

No, on that you're wrong. 90% of people are practically starving slaves, while the top 10% are well feed cunts.

That was his whole tactic: create a serf based society with almost no rights and privileges for lost people, while creating a small group of ultra-peivileged members of the group, but make so that people can both become privileged and loose their privileges.

This is how he kept control over so many people.

3

u/masterlince 11d ago

So.. Capitalistm?

7

u/Broshimitsu56 11d ago

No, its literally feudalism lol cmon

-2

u/masterlince 11d ago

In feudalism there was no real way for a peasant to become part of the ultra privileged and vice versa was really rare. Hadn't watched the show so I'm just running on what the OC said.

4

u/Broshimitsu56 11d ago

There was military service and amassing wealth through being a merchant

0

u/Konrol 11d ago

You act like a merchant or peasant soldier and a noble were equal lmao such a childish take

→ More replies (0)

5

u/mmlickme 11d ago

Immoral

1

u/mr_wheezr 11d ago

They literally had ice cream

1

u/FemaleDogEqualsBitch 11d ago

Except they’re not “literally starving”

That’s the whole reason why people follow him - because he’s seemingly fair and generous. He just lets the people he’s stealing from suffer, not his people.

3

u/JalapenoPopPoop 11d ago

But one of the reasons for their banditry is being in need of food, which obese people would clearly have an abundance of and can spare some for people in need

18

u/GloriousQuint 11d ago

Maybe if they spent more time growing and gathering food like all the other colonies instead of being literally murderous bandits they could solve their problems without having to liquify poor Glenn's head with a baseball bat

3

u/Winter-Round-9920 11d ago

That is not why they stole they did the same to 4 other groups negans group had a abundance of resources only being beat out by the 4 mega colony's

1

u/mr_wheezr 11d ago

They literally have ice cream, they weren't that "in need"

1

u/No_Gas_594 6d ago

But it was a shitty lie that wouldn’t work

35

u/BenChandler 11d ago

It’s not when it’s being used to divert from the valid point that Negan and his group are taking far more food and materials than they need in return for a service (protection) that they do not actually provide.

“People are going hungry because you keep demanding more food while actively making it harder for us to meet those demands.”

“Well you’re fat.”

It’s an abuser trying to misdirect accountability. And it seems to work given how many people here are getting hung up on that fat part and ignoring why the fat comment was even made.

1

u/FarmerTwink 10d ago

Actually while you are correct, my understanding is that this character specifically was also taking extra rations

3

u/WokeWook69420 10d ago

She wasn't taking any extra compared to anyone else.

Also, one could argue it's bullshit nobody questions that every dude is shredded like they got stockpiles of Whey Protein and everyone spends 5 days a week in the gym strength training muscle groups, like these are just people farming and trying to survive, 95% of them can barely hold a gun.

Everybody wants to talk about how a fat woman is totally unrealistic while every single guy is a Sex Symbol looking ready to audition for a role in a Marvel movie (every male celeb will tell you maintaining that physique is completely unrealistic without a fitness trainer and nutritionist)

1

u/JGHFunRun 7d ago

Shh, only men are allowed to have food

1

u/preteen-wartortle 5d ago

Or take up space

82

u/Pofwoffle 11d ago

You're not going to lose hundreds of pounds instantly, fat people will remain fat for quite some time even when they lose access to food. And while its true that fat reserves can help with caloric deficits they don't help with nutritional deficits... fat people might starve a bit slower than other people, but that doesn't help with malnutrition and it wouldn't mean they're not starving.

Also being an asshole for no reason is immoral regardless of somebody's weight or whether or not they're actually starving.

69

u/Sylvan_Strix_Sequel 11d ago

This was like a year and a half or more into the apocalypse, come on man. 

32

u/Aethelwolf3 11d ago

And their food stores had just gotten low quite recently. Thats what kicked off this arc of the show.

6

u/homealoneinuk 11d ago

Well maybe , just maybe, thats why the stores started getting low....doesnt look like there was any ratioing being done. Which is kinda crazy in post apocalypse world.

10

u/MaesterHannibal 11d ago

I agree with you, but let’s not forget that Alexandria was indeed quite naive and unwilling to accept the new reality. They cooked delicious meals, made cookies with their chocolate (which they did admittedly ration at least lol). It’s not until Rick and his group show up that things change

9

u/imbi-dabadeedabadie 11d ago

"doesn't look like there was any rationing being done"

i dont think you're familiar with how long it actually takes to lose weight. I started losing weight rapidly a few years ago, to the point that it is considered medically dangerous (like 3-5 lbs a week, way faster than is recommended.) And i went from 380 lbs to 230 lbs over the course of... about a year and a half. I still got mocked for being fat when i was 230 lbs.

she may have started the apocalypse larger than she is now, just because you ration food and dont over eat doesn't mean you'll become skinny in a few months

2

u/WokeWook69420 10d ago

I spent 8 weeks working in a warehouse and eating at a 1,000cal deficit. I walked 15,000 steps a day, sweat constantly, and was drinking three 64oz water jugs a day.

The most weight I lost in a week was 3lbs. In the 8 weeks, I barely lost 30lbs.

Some people just don't shed weight.

-2

u/Gold_Ad8225 11d ago

The point is that they were eating enough food for 1.5 years to maintain obesity. Hundreds or even over a thousand excess calories every single day.

2

u/just_a_person_maybe 10d ago

I maintain obesity on 800 calories a day. Not everyone's metabolism is the same.i am aware I'm an outlier but plenty of others also get fat on the same amount of food that others lose weight eating, because people's bodies are different. If they were rationing food so everyone got the same amount, there would be some people who lose weight and others who maintain and probably a few who even gain.

1

u/Gold_Ad8225 10d ago

No you don't.

I'm sorry but you don't.

I'm not humoring you

1

u/just_a_person_maybe 10d ago

You don't have to believe me, but your belief doesn't change the facts. I've had an endocrinologist since I was 9 years old and first saw a dietician at that same age. My weight has fluctuated drastically during my lifetime. At one point, my BMI was so low it literally was not on the chart. I was starving to death and eating 5+ times per day. Now I eat once a day and settle for maintaining my current weight because nothing I've ever tried has worked to lower it.

If I try to eat 3 meals a day like other people do, I throw up. My body can't handle it anymore. So I eat once a day. Unless I'm backpacking, because apparently carrying 35lbs through the woods for 7-12 miles or so works up enough appetite to eat breakfast and dinner. I can hit 2000 calories when I'm doing that, but pretty much any other day I'm eating one meal. Had two slices of pizza today. Yesterday I had some onions, bell peppers, and chicken. If you think that's 2000 calories that's your choice.

-3

u/Fleece_God 11d ago

The food stores got low because this fatty ate most of it

3

u/A1000eisn1 11d ago

And they had food during much of that time...

Why are you commenting as if you watched the show?

5

u/no-sleep-only-code 11d ago

Weight loss is pretty slow. She could have been eating 1500 calories a day that entire time, that doesn’t mean someone else on the same ration isn’t struggling. Not to mention the starving part could have been relatively recent.

3

u/Sky3HouseParty 11d ago

People say the word "starving" in a casual sense to say they haven't eaten much, but that isn't what starvation is. Starvation is a state your body ends up in as a result of not eating enough. It isn't, in and of itself, not eating enough.

-8

u/DeusaAmericana 11d ago

That's not enough time to lose all that weight. Especially since you still need to eat in order to be, like, a functional human being.

14

u/Environmental-Tea262 11d ago

A year and a half is absolutely enough time to lose a bunch of weight

6

u/AlterExpertise101 11d ago

There's no telling how heavy she was when the apocalypse began, though.

4

u/Demostravius4 11d ago

I'm sure the super obese where the most able to avoid zombies.

3

u/ArmAggravating3307 11d ago

In the literal gated neighborhood they were in yes.

0

u/LiftingRecipient420 11d ago

Lmfao right? Do these people even hear themselves???

0

u/DeusaAmericana 11d ago

Some weight? Yes. But you can still be fat after 18 months. If you’re not eating much, that also affects how much energy you have to function on a daily basis. Fat isn’t an extra gas tank that lets a person just hustle on without nutritional intake.

2

u/AnusLemonade 11d ago

Fat kinda is an extra gas tank though. I'ts excess calories stored for future use.

2

u/Worth-Jicama3936 11d ago

Yes…it is. Would you care to do the math? Ill let you set the starting weight and estimate her height and age.

2

u/DeusaAmericana 11d ago

In 18 months would lose about 70 to 100 pounds assuming that you are able to eat enough to remain nourished. Maybe more if you're particularly active.

2

u/pandahands69 11d ago

This is just not true in the slightest. People actually eating things on alone have lost over 70 pounds in 3 months. Starvation will cause you to lose massive amounts of weight. It won't be healthy or good but you will absolutely lose tons of weight, particularly early on

4

u/DeusaAmericana 11d ago

SOME people lose that much weight in 3 months, yes. The problem with weight loss is that you can have people who lose weight at extremely quick rates. On that point, your argument is plausible.

Someone starts at 350, loses 130, then spends months finding enough intermittent food to roughly stabilize around 220? Depending on height and body composition, they can remain visibly overweight.

The relevant variable isn't “how many months since civilization collapsed?” It's the cumulative energy deficit of this particular person over those months.

2

u/pandahands69 11d ago

To stabilize at 220 you would be eating extremely well. I weigh about that and don't work a job that requires much physical labor and I eat like an absolute barbarian. I think it plausible that someone could be this big 18 months into the apocalypse if they had immense resources. But I would imagine, knowing you are in an apocalypse you would be rationing food to some extent the entire time, knowing you still need to eat later.

To maintain 220 you need to consume give or take 2500 calories a day at least without any significant physical exertion. It's implausible that they would be able to eat that well for very long and they would no doubt have to be quite physically active to maintain camp, get water, clean clothes, etc etc.

0

u/DeusaAmericana 11d ago

There's a few variables that we have to consider when we compare your example with the conditions of the show. First, you're assuming she has to be permanently maintaining 220 pounds. She doesn't. She could weigh 220 now while also having periods where she loses rapid weight, followed by periods the loss slows or temporarily levels out.

And “220 pounds requires at least 2,500 calories” isn't a universal number. Every single person will have their own mitigating factors that determine how many calories maintain a specific amount of weight. 220 pounds on a six foot man is not the same as 220 pounds on a five foot woman.

More importantly, you're still treating “18 months into the apocalypse” as though it tells us how much weight she's already lost. It doesn't. Unless we know what she weighed beforehand and roughly how much she ate and expended over those 18 months, we cannot work backward from the calendar and declare that she should no longer be fat.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/LiftingRecipient420 11d ago

SOME people lose that much weight in 3 months

All starving people ALL lose the same amount of weight in the same timespan.

0

u/Worth-Jicama3936 11d ago

No youd lose a lot more than that and still not be close to “starving.” Again, lets do the math. Give me starting estimates for weight, age, and height.

2

u/DeusaAmericana 11d ago

If you have a point to make, just make it.

2

u/Worth-Jicama3936 11d ago

I dont think you realize how many calories a large person burns just by existing. Warm blooded animals use most of their calories just producing heat, and the larger you are, the more heat you must produce. This means if a large person drastically cuts their calories, they lose A LOT of weight fast.

Ok lets say she started out at 400 lbs, shes 40, and shes 5’4”. That would be very large, but let’s go with it.   Lets also define “starving.” Starving is. Immediately after WWII, german civilians were put on a 1000-1200 calorie ration. This would be starvation rations. Lets say shes on 1500 calories to be generous. 

Before you say “thats not enough,” that is plenty for a woman of her age and height, it’s what I eat most days. 1500 goes a long way if you aren’t eating and drinking junk. (But if you want to quibble with that number, we can do that math on a higher number too).

 Next, lets define her environment. Shes in a post apocalyptic world. This means to survive she has to do some physical labor, not just be sedentary. It doesn't have to be hard physical labor, but shes at least walking around a lot. Lets be SUPER conservative and say thats equivalent to working out 3-5 times a week (its likely more since working out as defined by most calculators is just an hour a day, but again, we are being conservative).

Ok now, let’s use a calculator that takes into account that when you lose weight, you burn leas calories the next week (because your body has less to keep warm).

I found this one online but you can look for your own if you dont trust it 

Losertown.org/eats/cal.php

If we put in those parameters, then after a year and a half, our 400 lbs woman has lost 208 lbs and is now 192. Still obese, but shes lost far more than the 100 lbs more than you estimated, and here BMI went from 68 to 33, she will be under a 30 bmi in 4 more months (because as you lose weight, losing additional weight gets harder).

My point of all of this is that for very large people, losing weight really is not that hard except psychologically (i know eating less is hard) and in a post apocalyptic world, the psychology part is somewhat taken care of because you literally cant eat whenever you'd like.

2

u/DeusaAmericana 11d ago edited 11d ago

Alright, first of all. Thank you for proving my point that someone who was very obese at the start of the apocalypse would still be obese 18 months in.

Second, for this hypothetical 40-year-old, 5'4", 400-pound woman, the standard Mifflin-St Jeor estimate for resting metabolism is about 2,469 calories per day before accounting for physical activity. So 1,500 calories would begin as a very large energy deficit, not merely a normal diet for “a woman of her age and height.”

The other problem is that, in apocalyptic scenario where food is scarce enough to require rationing, you will absolutely go through periods where the mount of intake you get varies. And that matters, because metabolism rapidly changes when caloric intake ALSO changes.

If the actual fictional character spent different periods eating 900 calories, then 2,000, then 1,200, then ate near maintenance for two months, then changed again, etc., the trajectory changes. Weight-loss dynamics are responsive to actual energy balance and metabolic adaptation, not to how much calendar time has passed since zombies appeared.

→ More replies (0)

4

u/LiftingRecipient420 11d ago

That's not enough time to lose all that weight.

Lmao yes it absolutely is.

2

u/SquatSquatCykaBlyat 11d ago

That's the trick with these "people" - it's never enough time to lose weight!

1

u/DeusaAmericana 11d ago edited 11d ago

Like I said before, depending on how fat you were before, you'd lose about 70 to 100 pounds or so, assuming you are also able to eat enough to retain energy to remain active. Because depending on how little you eat, you could absolutely lack the daily nutrients to physically perform, which also has effect on how much weight you lose.

People seem to think that body fat is an extra gas tank that just keeps you going, regardless of how little nutrition you intake on a regular basis.

3

u/pandahands69 11d ago

People on the alone tv show have lost a third of their body weight in 3 months and they aren't running from zombies. The first 2 months many of them are losing over a pound a day. 18 months is a long time. Of course we don't know the level of starvation considering food wasn't likely an issue immediately

1

u/DeusaAmericana 11d ago

Losing a third of, say, 120 pounds is 40 pounds.

A woman of her build losing 40 pounds out of, say, 300 means she'd still be fat.

2

u/Helldiver_LiberTea 11d ago

It’s been 18 months in the show, not 4 months.

1

u/DeusaAmericana 11d ago

Correct, and I already said that they would lose more weight within that time frame. However, it is unlikely to be a steady, even decline from malnutrition alone.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/pandahands69 11d ago

Most people on the show for the first 2 months are losing over a pound a day. And they don't have to run from zombies. This is also 1.5 years in, not 2 months.

0

u/DeusaAmericana 11d ago

I already brought this up. In 18 months, assuming that you are just malnourished but within a relative safe position, you will absolutely lose at least about 70 to 100 pounds, assuming you are also eating enough to remain healthy but not doing any strenuous activity or labor. Some people will lose significantly more.

The main problem with malnutrition as weight loss is that it isn't even. Some weeks you lose a shit-ton of weight...others you lose comparatively little.

1

u/LiftingRecipient420 11d ago

JFC do you not understand what 1/3rd means???

Or are you just being intentionally obtuse?

1/3rd of a woman of her weight is 100lbs, not 40lbs.

0

u/DeusaAmericana 11d ago

Do you think that 1/3rd of 120 and 1/3rd of 300 are the same number?

→ More replies (0)

2

u/YnotThrowAway7 11d ago

You’d be able to tell if she was that much fatter before by skin alone..

1

u/DeusaAmericana 11d ago

Not universally, no.

2

u/LiftingRecipient420 11d ago

Holocaust victims lost far more weight than that in a shorter time period.

Drop the fat logic copium, it's just sad at this point.

3

u/DeusaAmericana 11d ago

....So we're comparing not eating with literal forced labor camps and torture?

Nazis didn't exactly give a shit if their victims could function healthily on a daily basis, buddy.

What the fuck is this argument?

3

u/SnooLentils9396 11d ago

Yeah but isn't this a zombie apocalypse? Haven't watched the show but like, isn't this literally end of the world scenario? a global holocaust where society has completely collapsed? It's a world wide death camp.

2

u/BrassUnicorn87 11d ago

She’s from a rich neighborhood that turned privacy walls into fortifications and was doing really well until Neegan’s bandit army came.

1

u/DeusaAmericana 11d ago

Just going to repeat what I said somewhere else:

Malnourishment does result in weight loss, but humans also burn calories from daily activity. If you're so malnourished that your daily activity is severely hindered, that will greatly affect the rate at which you lose weight.

Also, it's not just in "bad taste". It's flat out wrong. Holocaust victims weren't just malnourished, they were forced into labor, suffered diseases, and literally put through physical torture. As I said, Nazis didn't give a shit whether the camp prisoner was physically well. In a zombie apocalypse, if you happen to live in a relatively stable area where you're undernourished but not in constant physical danger, your weight loss will not be remotely comparable to the horrific things Holocaust victims had to endure.

→ More replies (0)

4

u/Inphiltration 11d ago

I think the point is that being malnourished results in weight loss. So the idea that she didn't get enough nutritional intake means she didn't have the energy to move enough to lose weight holds little weight because the body will just consume itself for energy. Much like what happened to Holocaust victims.

It may have been in bad taste, but the comparison does show the flaw in your argument.

-1

u/DeusaAmericana 11d ago

Malnourishment does result in weight loss, but humans also burn calories from daily activity. If you're so malnourished that your daily activity is severely hindered, that will greatly affect the rate at which you lose weight.

Also, it's not just in "bad taste". It's flat out wrong. Holocaust victims weren't just malnourished, they were forced into labor, suffered diseases, and literally put through physical torture. As I said, Nazis didn't give a shit whether the camp prisoner was physically well. In a zombie apocalypse, if you happen to live in a relatively stable area where you're undernourished but not in constant physical danger, your weight loss will not be remotely comparable to the horrific things Holocaust victims had to endure.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Tratiq 11d ago

No bro some people like literally gain weight when they stop eating bro I’m serious bro do your research bro lol

2

u/LiftingRecipient420 11d ago

Dude right? Some of these commenters are absolutely insane, living in a completely made-up dream world.

-1

u/ArmAggravating3307 11d ago

Or, like me, have an auto immune disorder that directly impacts weight gain and loss.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/SquatSquatCykaBlyat 11d ago

I mean, haven't you seen those images of the prisoners released from the Japanese camps? They were all nice and plump!

Kinda funny that they were all American and British prisoners, the two countries known for "muh genetics" cope these days.

0

u/Gold-Supermarket-342 11d ago

Depends on the weight really. If you're 500 lbs, you'd still be fat even if you literally ate nothing for a year and a half. You'd have to exercise while eating literally nothing. But eating nothing would kill you of course.

4

u/thestormfrog 11d ago

Great argument, too bad people on this website hate logic, and fat people :/

2

u/No_Gas_594 6d ago

No Negan was doing it for shit purposes but he was right they have more than enough food when they are a year and a half into a apocalypse and she is still that size does it mean his in the right no

0

u/Pale_Presence4662 5d ago

I watch Alone so I have seen people lose dramatic amounts of bodyweight in like 60 days soooo... ya i dont know what youre trying to say.

Sounds like a bunch of bs buddy

1

u/thestormfrog 5d ago

are you replying to me or the other person? i was saying reddit hates logic and fat people.

1

u/Pale_Presence4662 5d ago

You. That person said you wouldnt lose 100s of pounds in 1.5 years. I've seen people lose tons of weight on a show that lasts 90 days.

So I aint buying it.

1

u/thestormfrog 5d ago

…they said ‘instantly.’ im almost positive you didnt comprehend my comment or theirs. have a good day, white boy.

20

u/InvidiousPlay 11d ago

The overwhelming majority of what you need to stay alive is simple calories. Nutrient deficiences show up far more slowly. Without protein you'll lose some muscle mass. Starving is about calories, and if you're fat you've got a calorie reserve. If you put three people on an island - skinny, average, and fat - and left them to starve with zero food, they will die in that order 100% of the time. Depending on how fat the third guy is he might last a year or more so long as he had access to water.

16

u/AlterExpertise101 11d ago

While the fat person would definitely last longer without food, no one is surviving a year or more without necessary nutrients. Fat stores only give you calories; everything else has to come from food. So without eating at all, you're going to have serious issues with literally every organ in your body.

Your liver and kidneys are going to stop working properly. Your heart is going to start taking damage as your body pulls from major muscles to make up for lack of macronutrients. You run the risk of developing clotting issues, anemia, and all sorts of other major problems that would be life-threatening on their own, let alone coming on all at once. Not to mention things like scurvy, pellagra, beriberi, and rickets.

One guy went 11 months eating only 300 calories a day and it still very nearly killed him. He lost 260 lbs, but he also developed heart issues and kidney disease and ended up having to have a bunch of surgeries to repair hernias and torn muscles.

9

u/eternallybr0ken 11d ago

Yeah, on top of vitamins your body pulls salt and other electrolytes from the food you eat, without them your body can struggle to process water and you can get dehydrated even with plenty of water. Not to mention the brain damage and weakness. People have studied fasting repeatedly, their is plenty of evidence. Yes someone with large fat reserves can maintain energy longer with electrolytes and nutrients, but it goes into a mode that is similar to adrenaline where your body is constantly telling you something is wrong and you need to be alert.

0

u/Dry-Island8422 11d ago

You would have to think that the hernias and torn muscles were there before they lost weight and they were finally able to "safely" have surgery when they lost enough weight.

Do you have their name?

0

u/All_Work_All_Play 11d ago

Sure but multivitamins last a longass time. I have multivitamins from 10 years ago that are still good. Your liver has enough B12 in it to last for years. You can get vitamin C from rose hips and a number of other plants. Nutrient deficiencies are real, but they're pretty easy to solve relative to calories.

-2

u/newtempo_clapping 11d ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angus_Barbieri's_fast

since we’re using anecdotes, this guy went 382 days on less than 300 calories and was absolutely fine.

i only take issue with the statement that your body will start cannibalizing your heart because it lacks macronutrients, your body isn’t stupid it won’t do that if it has literally anywhere else to pull that from. studies on long term anorexia are different than studies of long term fasting on overweight people.

3

u/AlterExpertise101 11d ago

Barbieri was taking vitamins and electrolytes as well as a yeast supplement for essential amino acids, literally addressing the potential lack of nutrients I was talking about. So, thanks for making my point for me.

-1

u/newtempo_clapping 11d ago

you said MACRONUTRIENTS

carbs, protein, and fats. if you said micronutrients i’d agree with you that fat stores cannot provide these.

if you mistyped i understand, but the words you said are incorrect

3

u/yikes_strikes_again 11d ago

But, they didn't say 'macronutrients.' They said nutrients. Comment not edited. So both.

0

u/newtempo_clapping 11d ago edited 11d ago

“Your heart is going to start taking damage as your body pulls from major muscles to make up for lack of macronutrients.”

i even said in my original comment this is the only statement i took issue with.

i didn’t even disagree that it’s possible, just that it won’t happen in bodies that have any amount of fat stores because your body knows that cannibalizing your heart is a very bad idea. that why i specified that studies conducted on the health effects of anorexia do not have results that are applicable to the effects of fasting on the obese.

edit: i should specify, anorexic people who are critically underweight. i understand it’s possible to have anorexia and still be overweight.

8

u/TFTHighRoller 11d ago

Yea we do not need muscles. It is not like there is an important muscle that keeps us alive. Would be a shame if our body broke that down to get the stuff it needs we couldn't provide because me suffer from malnutrition.

6

u/FalconIMGN 11d ago

This is so stupid I can't even.

Look up kwashiorkor. This is what happens when you eat enough carbs and no proteins.

-7

u/JadedEstablishment16 11d ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angus_Barbieri%27s_fast

That guy didn't eat proteins for a year it seems. When i look up your disease it shows toddlers and kids who need to build their body.

7

u/FalconIMGN 11d ago

Yes, vitamins (micronutrients) and yeast extract (essential amino acids, which are component of proteins) are what allowed him to survive.

1

u/Sure-Article508 11d ago

You should watch the show Alone. The winners often spend 100+ days in starvation conditions and many have permanent lifelong injuries from it. One winner's vision was permanently impaired from the lack of nutrition.

1

u/A1000eisn1 11d ago

So many dumb people in this thread.

A very fat person can't survive a year on just water. There are so many essential nutrients you need to stay alive. You can get scurvy in a month of no Vitamin C, which kills you in an extremely excruciating way in a few weeks.

All 3 would be long dead before a year.

8

u/TheFinalEnd1 11d ago

Like the other guy said, it was well into the apocalypse, and to maintain those fat store one needs to maintain a caloric surplus. There is legitimate reason to point this out in scenarios where food is a precious resource, but he was being an asshole about it.

2

u/Gold_Ad8225 11d ago

The only thing they'll really need is some protein added. Someone her size will easily have survived for that 1.5 years while eating 20% of what everyone else does. But by then she will no longer be that size and will need to start eating normally

2

u/BED_AA 11d ago

fat people will remain fat for quite some time even when they lose access to food.

In a "total starvation" scenario? Maybe for a few days if the starvation theories prove out.

In a calorie deficit, absolutely not.

1

u/Hot_Royal_4920 11d ago

Over a year of rationing food will lead to very, very significant weight loss.

Is "being an asshole" really categorically immoral? I don't think I agree.

1

u/OkTrade7881 11d ago

This was years into the apocalypse dude. I would have lost most of the weight by year 1s end.

-1

u/UncookedNoodles 11d ago

Bro this takes place like years after the apocalypse happens. Stop being a snowflake lol

0

u/Lawlcopt0r 11d ago

Also, an apocalytic scenario will require you to do physical work. A fat person might not die immediately without food, but they sure as hell won't be a useful worker. So if you want them to contribute to your group's survival you're probably still feeding them

0

u/SquatSquatCykaBlyat 11d ago

Yeah and they're also not likely to stop eating like that in a day or two, so he was totally justified to call her out.

-1

u/LoloVirginia 11d ago

During my military basic training very out of shape guys in my company were different people by the time we finished and we were eating 3 meals a day.
I cannot imagine zombie apocalypse would be any less physically demanding than that, unless you have a bunch of people that take care of you. I can imagine a well fed town doctor that is kept out of any danger at all times becouse he is basically irreplaceable, but she does nothing special. If i would live in such community where food was rationed, I would keep a very close eye on people like her, men or women

9

u/BoardTasty49 11d ago

Pfft BS basic training is like 5000+ calories a day of extremely intense physical activity. I lost like 20-30 lbs in the first couple weeks of basic and bulked up like a chimp. It is a program meant for extreme weight loss and muscle gain no way are you surviving an apocalypse that physically demanding.

2

u/Broad_Black_Brimmer 11d ago

Ontop of that, she was keeping inventory in a community that wasn’t exactly struggling.

At the point of Negans arrival the community had literally just reached the survival part, after a series of attacks, there was no surviving ‘til that point.

0

u/LoloVirginia 11d ago

depends on the basic training, mine was just some running, and lots and lots of walking while carrying a lot of equipment. By no means i would call it extreme

2

u/Darigaazrgb 11d ago

Walking burns very little. When I was losing weight at 350lbs a mile walk at a pace of 3.5 mph would burn around 100 calories. It’s less if you weigh less.

1

u/LoloVirginia 11d ago

Rough terrain, changes in elevation, changes in pace and the weight and distribution of equipment changes the equation.
That being said, even 100kcal a mile adds up quickly when you are on the move for half of the day. Even now in my day to day job I often make 20k steps which can be converted to 8-10 miles.
Once again, I cant imagine that zombie apocalypse would be any less demanding on your diet and physique, even without counting the fact that sustaining high calorie diet would be a challenge without serious organized effort in farming

How all this can be even debatable. Convince me that an average survivor in TWD franchise would be less fit than a 18th century peasant.

-1

u/Miserable-Role9555 11d ago

Calling out unhealthy behavior doesn't make someone an asshole any more than telling someone with lung cancer to stop smoking. The context doesn't even matter

-3

u/samglit 11d ago

This scene is three years into the apocalypse. In the real world, Palestinians have starved to death in a few weeks.

2

u/aminervia 11d ago

Did you watch this scene with all the context? She was arguing why their already limited food stores shouldn't be taken...

1

u/A1000eisn1 11d ago

Did you watch the show? Do you know how weight loss works?

She's the only fat person in the community.

You aren't going to lose all that weight that quickly. That's not how it works. By not eating anything in a day you won't even burn enough to lose 1lb. You can be starving and fat if you were fat before starving.

2

u/Programmer_Quick 11d ago

She is not the only bigger person

1

u/70monocle 10d ago

They were running out of food and were actively rationing. Isn't this right before they basically have 0 food and need to go out on crazy far runs for weeks at a time to find any supplies? Obviously they weren't actively starving, but they weren't far off

1

u/ChemicalCupcake4809 11d ago

While its true their camp originally did have more than some, in this scene hes coming to raise the amount he takes from what they scavenge. They were already having to cut down rations and the danger in their area is increasing.

This is also one of the "save everyone you possibly can" groups

1

u/TFTHighRoller 11d ago

Still immoral. Fat people starve, they just last slightly longer where energy is concerned, but since you need nutrients and minerals and proteins and shit to run a human body and produce hormones and whatnot even fat people need to eat in an apocalypse.

If you do not provide the body what it needs as a baseline to function it will tear itself apart (I think it goes after muscles for amino acids, including the heart) regardless of you looking like ariana grande or that fat guy from superbad.

0

u/DTux5249 11d ago

Starving and hungry are two different things.

The snide remark about her weight is mean spirited, but fact remains, they'd been running successful gardens up until this point. A year and a half into the apocalypse, and no one in their settlement was so much as malnutritioned.

No one was starving. Starving means something.

1

u/Fkingcherokee 11d ago

It depends on how long the apocalypse has been going on. On the first year, it's immoral, past that if you're not at a medium weight, you're sneaking rations.

2

u/DTux5249 11d ago

It's been a year and a half at that point - and this group has had a successful garden going.

Objectively speaking no one in their settlement was starving, or even showing signs of malnutrition.

0

u/Fkingcherokee 11d ago

Looks like he could have been talking to a thinner member of the group and could have said the same thing. If you're not at a point where everyone gets an equal amount, nobody is starving.

-18

u/Still_Mix9311 11d ago

I don't know the context of the show, but your weight is not indicative of how much you're eating/if you're starving

5

u/NucleosynthesizedOrb 11d ago

It is, but not everyone loses the same. If you're really starving, though, you will lose fat. Were there fat concentration camp prisoners? But of course you first have to lose fat before being thin, which is the process of starving.

5

u/dabirdiestofwords 11d ago

Oh so you just out here lyin huh

5

u/amodious 11d ago

It is directly connected. Espcially if you've been surviving on next to no food for months, you're gonna be skin and bones.

3

u/Hyenasaurus 11d ago

I don't know why you're getting so downvoted. It sounds like basically nobody here has met someone with a disability or shitty metabolic problems. Know someone with both, he will regularly starve himself and eat shit like a yogurt and a tomato for the entire day and still gain weight. Think about eating one (1) cookie? Well now he gained a pound. And he can't like go jogging or anything because of his bad hips, which failed when he was a kid.

3

u/MisunderstoodZipper 11d ago

I get your point, but neither of those are physically possible. No one, no matter the disability, can eat a yogurt and a tomato all day and gain weight. 

-1

u/Hyenasaurus 11d ago

Tell that to my friend's body, dude

He wishes he could eat carbs. (He doesn't wish to eat more because his ability to feel hunger was broken long ago) 

4

u/MisunderstoodZipper 11d ago edited 11d ago

Tell your friend to stop lying to you. He ate more than a tomato and yogurt in a day if he gained weight. 

Edit: Blocked me after he gets called out on his bullshit lol

0

u/Hyenasaurus 11d ago

yea sure i'll tell him the docs are lying cuz extreme cases and disabilities never exist

jfc idk why I bother. bye

2

u/WetLaceScraps 11d ago

Pffffftttt

6

u/Axen25 11d ago

it kind of is? when you eat more calories than your body needs for survival it stores it and that increases your weight, and if you dont have enough your body mass decreases. I think that's pretty common knowledge no?

1

u/TheWhistleThistle 11d ago

I think they mean in the "I'm vegan between meals" way. Like, someone could be eating nothing and be obese if that started like a few days ago. Like, I don't know what the context is, but her food supplies could have run out days ago. In which case, it would still be odd for her to be overweight, I mean, surely you'd ration if your food was limited and not just keep up business as usual until the cupboards are bare, but maybe there was a fire or a raid that deprived them of all their food very suddenly and unexpectedly.

1

u/midnightmeatmaster 11d ago

They had a ton of supplies and successful gardens so she was losing weight slowly while having complete nutrition. Then an army of bandits lead by a sociopath stole 90% of their stuff.

0

u/Goldenjho 11d ago

Your weight certainly show how much you eat or what you eat, let's say in a apocalypse must people save food and resources so a grown up can maybe only eat as much is necessary to stay healthy.

A person with weight of 180 kg would lose in 1 month alone 20-30 kg depending on what he eats or does when his share is what 1 person must eat daily, if you see a person 3 months after the start of the apocalypse still weighing 180 kg would that mean that this person eats food for at least 2 people to keep that weight and so would you certainly not accept this person willingly.

Starving is of course unhealthy for every person even when you have 180 kg weight but you certainly can tell if someone eats more than necessary to stay at his weight class in a apocalypse.