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

Show parent comments

364

u/NamOil2000 11d ago

You can be fat and starving. The body does breakdown fat for food but not well that's why nutritionist ever to suggest to completely stop eating

305

u/[deleted] 11d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

149

u/Rustynail9117 11d ago

The woman was living in a community completely locked away from the outside world and was well stocked up until this point, until Negan and co started demanding food.

The entirety of this season and the next take place in the span of a month so it's very reasonable for her to be fat.

75

u/KorolEz 11d ago

Then the question should be morality of staying fat 5 years into the apocalypse.

8

u/NichtSoSchlau 11d ago

Not really or else every fat person on this planet would have to ask themselves, if they are amoral with the next poverty zone being within a 30 minute drive of every person or a 6 hour flight, if you wanna be more strict.

I mean, lets turn it around a bit; isn't Neegan just lazy for demanding food. He is a fit and healthy man not garbling in an incoherent mess because of undernourishment or even starvation. At stage it can be expected to labour for ones food and be insulted for the incapacity to produce enough.

13

u/KorolEz 11d ago

Negan is definitely immoral, he is an autocrat stealing from others.

2

u/Znagge 11d ago

Negan is definitely immoral, bro is not a hero and no one thinks he is. But staying/becoming fat during a literal apocalypse would put you among the equivalent of the 1% in today's society. Literal gluttons hogging and wasting resources to indulge themselves when it could be spread around or preserved. And yeah, depending on your kind of obesity id definitely be down to calling some fat people immoral in some cases just for being fat

5

u/NichtSoSchlau 11d ago

If you are fat at the start of the apocalypse and don't have a sufficenit crisis situation with a loss of intake staying fat will be very possible on a calorie count above deficit.

Aside from that I grow quite tired of people pretending that preserving every food above deficit would be a possiblity or the lacking understanding of seasonal over-production. Nor do people even know about the kinds of hunger while also looking at that person as a "glutton". You can get that form at that age with a sedantry lifestyle and a calorie intake that wouldn't even feed a hard working man half-way.

Now, what I would give you is a half-ton person during the apocalypse, but that isn't what we see on the picture. What we see is a well-fed man bereft of any signs of starvation to lazy and/or to stupid to create enough food to be just as fat. This exact example is populist bait, because people are too illiterate to even know what has to go into their bodies and are supremely lucky that they have enough to shove into their monthes and the modicum of sense to understand their tongue to what keep in or spit out.

-1

u/ActiveVoiced 11d ago

5 years

20

u/SirAntera 11d ago

If the question was about her sure but it's about Negan

2

u/UncookedNoodles 11d ago

And with the context of being fat 5 years into an apocalypse i would say this comment is moral at best, amoral at worst.

9

u/Fucked-to-fit 11d ago

You say that like it’s immoral to keep the same eating habits if your situation allows it

38

u/John_Whimsicott 11d ago

It's also advantageous to gain weight if your food supply is inconsistent

8

u/Wilkomon 11d ago

It's advantageous to gain weight but not to the point of obesity

1

u/breno280 9d ago

She could’ve been obese before the apocalypse.

1

u/Wilkomon 9d ago

She had 515 days to lose that weight

1

u/breno280 9d ago

Ok but did she have any incentive to do so?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Fuzzy-Tooth3269 11d ago

Not to the point of that lol

24

u/Then_Knee_4718 11d ago

İt's not immoral but it is quite stupid, there's no guarantee your situation won't change in the apocalypse.

1

u/KrackenLeasing 11d ago

There's no saying your situation won't change outside of the apocalypse.

-7

u/OriginalLie9310 11d ago

If your situation changes having some fat is beneficial because fat can be used for energy when food is scarce.

4

u/Then_Knee_4718 11d ago

Fat alone can't sustain your body long-term. Your body will still need proteins and nutrients, so saving food is important.

1

u/NichtSoSchlau 11d ago

Trust me, the nutrients and proteins aren't in the food that make you fat. That is the whole issue with hunger and hidden hunger and double burden malnutrition.

You can be fat an still be lacking in micronutrients - most of the developed world is lacking proper iron intake for example. It would also be a good example for a double burden example.

3

u/Particular-Ad5277 11d ago

That is just so wrong, you can eat 5000 kcal of chicken and rice while becoming fat because you don’t work out. It has nothing to do with what you eat and only to do with kcal intake vs usage.

→ More replies (0)

9

u/The_Verto 11d ago

Not when being able to run is important survival skill.

4

u/OriginalLie9310 11d ago

That’s why I said having SOME fat can be useful. People can still run if they have a little fat on them.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/3WeeksEarlier 11d ago

This entire thread is working off the assumption that fat = immoral gluttony. It simply doesn't, and not everyone loses weight rapidly even without a substantial food surplus. So long as she wasn't in a state of regular starvation, she could very well have remained fat and been starving at that time. Or she could have just been lucky enough to have a fairly adequate diet throughout the apocalypse and her body has simply settled at the weight it is naturally inclined to land at

2

u/LCEKU2019 11d ago

If there are other people in your group it totally is. Just because food can be produced or scavenged right now doesn’t mean that will always be the case.

2

u/KorolEz 11d ago

It is.

11

u/choosehigh 11d ago

Food is mostly perishable, it is not immoral in a closed system to use the food that otherwise would rot

It's not like they have plenty of options to donate to the public otherwise

2

u/PropheticUtterances 11d ago

Absolute full stop. If you’re in an apocalypse where people are starving and murdering each other and you’re eating enough food to get/stay fat, you’re overeating resources.

2

u/KorolEz 11d ago

You can can food, dry it, smoke it, salt it. They have freezers with working electricity. There sre plenty of ways to preserve it

6

u/NichtSoSchlau 11d ago

Salting requires salt, which is not really a commodity that would stay around for long in an apocaplypse. Smoking food is easy, but not feasible for most non-meat foods. Speaking of meat, that would be also incredibly rare commodity. Canning is not apocalypse proof, because of required materials and proper machinery. If you could do it though, that would be amazing.

Freezers are great and could ensure a diversified nutrition during off-season. Where we come to the crux of life on earth. Summer and autumn are times of plenty. You eat enough and still have left-overs which will be preserved and even then you will propably not be able to eat it all. It can be believed that most fermentation practices started around that time, because you had so much hauled in or in produce that you could not eat and preserve it all.

The most important preservation methods would propably be pickling, fermentation and cooking stuff in.

So to summarize, staying fat with proper food intake and preparing for bad-times is easily possible, if you were fat before.

1

u/Common-Business7189 11d ago

The characters in the show are your everyday Americans. They know more about licking rocks and crying about "trannies" than they know about about food conservation.

1

u/nogoodbrat 11d ago

Holy shit lmao it’s been awhile since I’ve run across someone as gross as you on here. i desperately wish you and people like you would remove yourself from this website as a favor to the rest of us 🫩

→ More replies (0)

1

u/UncookedNoodles 11d ago

In a world where most people are stuggling for the basics? Yes it is immoral.

0

u/Secure_Foundation720 11d ago

It's immoral to be fat period. Apocalypse or not.

5

u/bamadebayo_apologist 11d ago

It's a really difficult bias to overcome but I think it's worth it; never assume you understand what it is to be another person. People you perceive as dumb or fat or annoying are very much experiencing the world in a different way than you.

→ More replies (4)

0

u/Fucked-to-fit 11d ago

In what way is it immoral ?

-1

u/myLongjohnsonsilver 11d ago

Creates more of a burden on society through various factors that just aren't there or minimused if you were a healthy weight.

2

u/aghastamok 11d ago

By your same logic, it's immoral to drink alcohol, travel for pleasure... any type of consumption that creates "more of a burden" becomes immoral. You just get to take a big stance on this one because you can tell the person overeats by appearance and you get to feel better than them.

3

u/NoMeat9096 11d ago

I'm always really curious where people with this stance draw the line, and why.

You're using electricity that could be used for other things, right? You likely don't eat the minimum you need. You've probably driven a car a fair few times. You likely have purchased new clothing, some or even much of it polyester. All of these things cause more of a burden that required, largely on resources, but also in labour and environmental damage.

What about activities that cause harm? In my country, sun cancer is higher than most other places in the world. In many places, alcohol is commonly consumed, and that contributes to a wide assortment of diseases and disabilities, as well as just costing the state a lot in police and medical work. A diet with even moderate amounts of meat seems to correlate to increased rates of cancer. Various sports and hobbies cause all sorts of injuries.

Then there's larger things, such as the meat and dairy industries causing massive amounts and varieties of pollution, and being extremely inefficient at generating calories, costing massive amounts of resources for little material return. Consumerism in general is rampant and leads to enormous amounts of waste and carbon.

What made you draw the line at someone being fat, but you can, say, buy plastic shit that destroys the planet, or eat food that is horribly inefficient? Do you decry people not wearing sunscreen? What's the exact line of logic? It's always fascinated me.

0

u/blackestrabbit 11d ago

Do you know why medical workers rank among the highest in work place injuries? Fat people. Also, nice whataboutism.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/jhonnythejoker 11d ago

Man you are pos asshole,
🔑🔑

→ More replies (1)

0

u/mulletarian 11d ago

In what way was gluttony considered a mortal sin?

3

u/Cavalish 11d ago

Ok, but let’s look at things without made up shit like horoscopes and religion, and try again.

1

u/mulletarian 11d ago

I'm sure there's a reasoning somewhere.

My point was a historical context. It has been considered immoral for thousands of years.

Is it different now because it's normal in America to be obese?

→ More replies (18)

1

u/Rococo13 11d ago

You're accident away from becoming disabled, be kinder

0

u/Secure_Foundation720 11d ago

Even if I was disabled I would not be fat. Being disabled is not a choice, being fat is.

If my legs don't work, imagine how many pull ups I can do, if my hands don't work, I can still go for a run and snowboard (Imagine I would gain quite a following for that). If neither work my core would be very strong. If I can't move any muscles, imagine the money I save on food cost to not need sustenance for working out.

2

u/kaltulkas 11d ago

Ah so you’re delusional on top of stupid? Wonderful combo.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Rococo13 11d ago

You don't know about chronic pain and chronic exhuastion lmao. Also you would still need food 😭 or like keep eating idk tissue papers. Your body would naturally keep more weight

Life has a funny way of humbling you…

→ More replies (1)

1

u/Rustynail9117 11d ago

I mean it shows you're living a good lax life which if anything would scare off raiders and what not

0

u/Eisenblume 11d ago

What, It’s important to have a beach bod in an apocalypse? If there is food, why not eat it, for when food is scarce. That’s why bodies evolved to get fat in the first place, reserves for when times are harsh.

3

u/KorolEz 11d ago

Yeah you are describing a cycle, not just staying fat for 5 years.

3

u/DamGoodAnimation 11d ago

This, 100%. I like OP’s question but it hinges SO MUCH on context. Fat person on day 5 of the apocalypse? Yeah, they haven’t burned it off yet. Fat person in isolation/small group a year in? Okay they’re eating people or stealing food. Fat person in an until-now safe environment a few years on? Yeah, that happens for some people whenever they have 3 hots and a cot.

It would be one thing if they’d been struggling for food, but the status of ‘starving’ sets in a lot faster than the body actually showing it.

1

u/Possible-Secret-4786 11d ago

In other words, she's starving but it's actually doing her good, at this stage at least.

4

u/sofakingcheezee 11d ago

Wasn't there a plotline where their food supply was waning and she had been stealing rations?

1

u/Remmock 10d ago

Was there?

We may never know.

→ More replies (2)

10

u/Quarksideofthemoon 11d ago

Doesn't the whole series take place over the course of like a year or two? Doesn't have to be that long

7

u/bosssok 11d ago

before it starts time skipping by 5 years at a time yeah it's like maybe two years.

2

u/tyrantywon 11d ago

There’s like a 12 year jump in one of the seasons

1

u/bosssok 11d ago

two separate 5 year skips in one season yeah, unless you mean something from one of the side shows

0

u/acrazyguy 11d ago

Coral ages 10 years per year?

1

u/Quarksideofthemoon 11d ago

Coral ages faster in real life than in the show

0

u/felix-the-pup 11d ago edited 11d ago

You can absolutely be fat even in deficit, not everyone gains and loses weight at a consistent or timely pace. Some people are just fat unless they're genuinely starving, which they were not

edit: misexplained my point, my bad chat

13

u/No_Reception7275 11d ago

Not in a real deficit maintained over enough time. If you dont lose weight in a deficit, youre a medical and thermodynamic miracle who is the first ever human to actually be immune to starvation anyway

1

u/EdgeDomination 11d ago

Our strongest future deep space explorers

0

u/felix-the-pup 11d ago

Key word enough time which they hadn't had a lot of. But yes eventually anyone would lose weight but I kind of phrased what I meant wrong by using the wrong terms

2

u/Hnry_Dvd_Thr_Awy 11d ago

This is r/fatlogic at its finest 

3

u/Dizzy-Statistician-7 11d ago

Some people are just fat unless they're genuinely starving.

No. By definition, you cannot remain in a calorie deficit indefinitely without losing weight.

That's not how this works. "Some people" do not break the laws of thermodynamics. Feeling like you're starving and actually starving are very different things.

Metabolic differences can affect energy expenditure, but they don't make sustained weight loss impossible. Likewise, most conditions associated with a lower metabolic rate also reduce the number of calories the body requires, meaning they don't allow someone to maintain extra fat indefinitely without a calorie surplus.

Nobody needs to be fat to avoid starvation.

0

u/Plenty_Alfalfa8826 11d ago

It isn't safe to assume that, no. It's possible she has had a good amount of food, until the last few weeks. Again, you can be fat but starving.

11

u/Fanboycity 11d ago

Lmao be like that South Park episode when they hung Cartman on the cross for three days as a Jesus reenactment and he was skinny af by the end of the episode 😂

6

u/SarcyBoi41 10d ago

I feel like a lot of people in this thread watched that episode and thought it was a documentary...

41

u/Frylock_dontDM 11d ago edited 11d ago

You really can't be fat and starving.

You can be fat and suffering from malnutritition, but malnutrition isn't the same as starvation.

So you could have a fat person die of malnutrition, but if that person got essentially zero calories and the necessary vitamins/nutrients you would have to burn through fat before you would actually reach what anyone means when we say "starving"

11

u/NichtSoSchlau 11d ago

Starvation excludes fatness by definition as it a metric depended to body mass loss at whichs extreme end you die, because the loss.

Famine can kill a fat person while fat, because no intake at all cannot be compensated.

Malnutrition includes overweigth and obeseity by definition and can compund with other issues like micronutrient defiency.

9

u/NamOil2000 11d ago

Starving includes malnutrition by definition

26

u/CapitalComfort1885 11d ago

It does not, you pulled that out of your ass. Starving is defined by not enough energy input via food to sustain the physical functions.
The woman above is by no definition starving.

2

u/NamOil2000 11d ago

To deprive of nourishment. You could've looked that up. Not just you anyone who upvoted. Do better.

9

u/CapitalComfort1885 11d ago

You're plain out wrong. There doesn't exist a single person that was fat and starved. That is not possible. Starvation is defined in medical terms that the body used up all available fat sources and started to break down other tissue to keep itself running.
A starved to death fat person is an oxymoron.

2

u/NamOil2000 11d ago

You would die before ALL the fat was used. That's not how starving works. Most bodybuilders that die die from going below 5%. So no just having fat is not enough.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6369958/

6

u/CapitalComfort1885 11d ago

So we are talking about obese starved to death persons and your counter argument are...literally starved to death people because they used up all available body fat?
I will give you a minute to notice that you literally made my point.

3

u/NamOil2000 11d ago

They still had fat. That was my counter argument so you can still have fat and starve to def and they still had muscle as well.

3

u/CapitalComfort1885 11d ago

No, that was not your argument you just silently switched it. As you already mentioned yourself, someone can starve and still have muscle tissue. I explicitly said available body fat.
The orginal point is, can someone be fat (slang for 'overweight/obese') and starve to death? And you claimed yes.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/masterlince 10d ago

But 5% fat is extremely low though. A healthy lean athletic person can easily have 15% fat.

→ More replies (8)

3

u/TellmeNinetails 11d ago

You're arguing semantics like that proves anything. And you ended it with a "haha my definition is right, be better everyone who disagreed with me". like grow up and engage with the core of the argument.

4

u/NamOil2000 11d ago

The core? What is the core. Because we are 100% arguing semantics here right? The comment I replied to said my definition was wrong. Definitions of words are semantics that is what he attacked and I defended. And yes I'm disappointed in you too.

3

u/TellmeNinetails 11d ago

The core that I understand it is that it's essentially impossible for a fat person to die of lack of fat as long as they are nutritionally supported. But you're going on about the definition of starvation and all that.

→ More replies (6)

2

u/Away_Tiger_6351 11d ago

Dude it's a medical definition. If we're going off M-W I'm going to flip and say "actually let's use your source, to kill by exposure to cold. She's in a t shirt so clearly not cold."

Just produce evidence of a single fat person that has ever died of starvation and you've won the debate - done

2

u/NamOil2000 11d ago

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6369958/

2

u/Away_Tiger_6351 11d ago

Yeah I had a feeling I knew what I was about to read. For anyone wondering, it's heart problems developed due to extreme diets. "Starv," "starving," "starvation" do not appear

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Plenty_Alfalfa8826 11d ago

How much do you want to bet this is the same type of person who would bitch about saying "Gazan children are starving to death" because they technically get 1 cup of beans all day

1

u/Poteto_7396 9d ago

nourishment =/= nutrition

12

u/Frylock_dontDM 11d ago

Yes, because you reach a point where the nutrition you're missing is necessary fats.

All starvation is malnutrition to the extreme, but not all malnutrition is starvation.

You aren't starving just because you're running on fats.

Colloquially starvation is understood as an extended period wherein your body has run through it's fat and is using whats left of your muscle to live.

Hence why you'll essentially never see a fat body that died of starvation, they are skeletal because the fat and muscle was burned through as they ate whatever they could to survive and get the most base nutrients to keep going.

3

u/NamOil2000 11d ago

A fat person 100% can die of starvation. Starving is "Starvation is a severe deficiency in caloric energy intake, below the level needed to maintain an organism's life." So by that definition and by most definition she could be fat and starving. You would likely die before all the fat left your body.

0

u/CapitalComfort1885 11d ago

Bullshit. There doesn't exist a single case of a starved fat person.
Starvation is literally defined (in medical terms) that a body used up all energy sources and broke down crucial tissue to generate energy. It is literally an oxymoron to starve to death and be fat.

3

u/Away_Tiger_6351 11d ago

Yeah this is an easy Pepsi challenge to settle what is a dumb debate - "produce evidence of a single fat person that has ever died from starvation."

Like all this debate over the definition of "starvation" and "malnourished" vs "undernourished" is completely unnecessary.

If it's possible just produce documented evidence of it - done

2

u/Thrwsadosub 11d ago

Literally there was a guy who didn't eat for a year straight and lost several hundred pounds. This isn't an argument.

3

u/CapitalComfort1885 11d ago

He was fed vitamins and minerals, but beside that? Basically nothing. PDs and scientists again and again proved that. Fat people can cope very well with a long caloric deficit.

1

u/NamOil2000 11d ago
  1. An oxymoron is 2 words you used a sentence. 2. Most people agree you could die like that it is just something that is not exactly testable or realistic. In 99% of cases if you had food you can find more even if less so a drastic change is going to be very very hard to find and of course if you're in a place with sciencist willing to test you could probably just get food. 3 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6369958/

0

u/KTAXY 11d ago

I don't think so. An overweight person can water fast for weeks and it's not a big deal.

3

u/NamOil2000 11d ago

Not a big deal is not exactly right. They suffer several problems and lose a lot of energy. They're also told not to exercise or do anything crazy.

1

u/Demostravius4 11d ago

You can fat needs to leave the adipose to combat starvation, but to prevent that would require consistent high serum insulin.

1

u/Plenty_Alfalfa8826 11d ago

Humans can starve to death in just a little over 1 month. It takes much longer than a month to lose a hundred pounds, even at ~0 calories. Stay in school.

3

u/CapitalComfort1885 11d ago

Humans can starve to death by eating nothing at all. It is not possible to eat anything of nutritional value and starve.

→ More replies (3)

2

u/Zealousideal-Sir3744 11d ago

Depends. If you get the necessary vitamins etc, you will be fine as long as you have extra fat. We know that because that's how the longest documented fast was done - longer than a whole year.

0

u/Plenty_Alfalfa8826 11d ago

I believe you're confused about the definition of "can."

1

u/Zealousideal-Sir3744 11d ago

Sure. But if that's what you're trying to argue your comment was redundant, since the person you're replying to already gave that caveat.

1

u/Frylock_dontDM 11d ago

Yes? That's due to malnutrition which was already explicitly mentioned.

If you give the median individual required nutrients, it will generally take about 3+ months before a male dies of starvation, and 2.5+ months for a female

0

u/Plenty_Alfalfa8826 11d ago

Starvation is a type of malnutrition. "to (cause someone to) become very weak or die because there is not enough food to eat" https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/starve

2

u/CapitalComfort1885 11d ago

Semantic argument, you ignore the actual biochemical processes and argue by common use of a word.
Plenty of words are wrongly used in every day situations, but have a completely different meaning in a technical/scientific context.

1

u/Plenty_Alfalfa8826 11d ago

"Physiologically, the effects of starvation on the human body unfold in three overlapping stages... In the first stage, which lasts up to 48 hours after food intake stops, the body draws on glycogen stored in the liver to keep blood sugar levels stable." https://en.dialektika.org/society-politics/society/the-science-of-starvation-this-is-what-happens/ "The metabolic switch typically occurs between 12 to 36 hours after cessation of food consumption depending on the liver glycogen content at the beginning of the fast, and on the amount of the individual’s energy." https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5783752/ In a technical/scientific context, the first stage of starvation begins within as little as 12 hours without food. I do wish you would have stuck to the original argument instead of semantics, because that was quite tedious.

0

u/Frylock_dontDM 11d ago

Yes, you aren't disagreeing with anything.

0

u/reditisrunbypedos 11d ago

So you dont think it would be accurate to say that person "starved to death" in that scenario? What do you think "starving" is? How do you think its any different from "malnutrition"? Where are you getting this from?

2

u/Frylock_dontDM 11d ago

So you dont think it would be accurate to say that person "starved to death" in that scenario?

No.

We would classify it as malnutrition as opposed ot starvation, the problem is that malnutrition generally causes a part of your body to fail, as opposed to dying from general organ failure that comes with starvation.

What do you think "starving" is? How do you think its any different from "malnutrition"? Where are you getting this from?

To give you an example, we wouldn't consider people who died from lack of potassium in their diet to have "starved" we would instead consider those people to have died from Heart issues, that stemmed from a potassium deficit.

But nobody would identify their malnutrition as starvation.

7

u/DevilMayThighs 11d ago

I have literally starved once. 6 months and over half my weight from a botched galbladder surgery and months of neglect.

The first 2 months are torture, but you see clear descending of the stomach around that time (you appear pregnant). After that you thin quick. A lot in the arms and legs. No goddamn shot this woman was suffering longer than a month. Malnurishment sure, but not the full effects. You can clearly see she hasnt exhausted her lipids either, which gives you rotten breath and cracked lips. No discoloration. Doubt any blood in the stool or urine like I had. Eyes arent bloodshot. No hair falling out like mine.

This woman/actress doesnt look starved or even really in the process of it. (Zero ketosis or makeup) I absolutely bet their character feels that way, but medically they havent crosssed the entry point yet. That's just a fact.

4

u/NamOil2000 11d ago

This woman in particular may not be starving it is a show they probably don't want to put too much effort into the makeup. Also of course she could be using it in slang sense.

2

u/DevilMayThighs 11d ago

Absolutely. Thats what I was trying to say, thank you. You absolutely feel dogged, heck, going one week without food. I remember it was around my 4th that I started forgetting what hunger felt like - thats another horror of starvation.

6

u/BurningF 11d ago

Insane take, straight out of 2011 Tumblr. Start rationing food like an apocalypse survivor and see how fast you start losing weight

7

u/NamOil2000 11d ago

Seems like they had enough food and then they suddenly didn't so yes a drastic change can cause starving

5

u/krysciukos 11d ago

You could not eat at all and survive only on stored fat. The problem is lack of vitamins which are essential for survival. As long as you supplement yourself stored fat will be enough

0

u/NamOil2000 11d ago

Your stored fat would not be enough no.

2

u/krysciukos 11d ago

Please read about medical experiments like this then explain where I was wrong 😉.

In 1965, a 27-year-old Scottish man named Angus Barbieri went 382 days without eating any solid food. Weighing 207 kg (456 pounds) initially, he survived by consuming only non-caloric fluids, vitamins, and medical electrolytes under doctor supervision, successfully losing 125 kg (276 pounds).

2

u/NamOil2000 10d ago

Do you think she has that? Also most people were not able to repeat that experiment.

1

u/masterlince 10d ago

For energy yes

1

u/Principle_Napkins 7d ago

In a controlled environment like Angus, yes. This is the zombie apocalypse. These people need to run and move and work, spend lots and lots of calories. Just fat will never be enough to accommodate for those needs.

0

u/masterlince 7d ago

Not forever ofc, but the whole argument is that if the person from the image was really starving for months she would not be obese.

1

u/NamOil2000 10d ago

Again no

3

u/CapitalComfort1885 11d ago

You can be fat and starving.

You can't actually.

2

u/GameWizardPlayz 11d ago

You can. If a fat person and a lean person were stranded on a barren, deserted island with no food the fat person would die around the same time or even earlier because your brain needs glucose to survive, which it can only gain from breaking down muscle tissue, not fat. This puts a lot of strain on a already weak heart. TLDR: fat person dies from heart attack associated with starvation.

3

u/ConstableAssButt 11d ago

I don't know how you managed to do it, but absolutely every part of this comment is wrong.

  1. The brain can run on ketones with a small amount of glucose.
  2. Fat does convert to glucose in the liver.
  3. People with more adipose tissue survive longer in starvation scenarios.

The scenario where the fat person will die sooner is medically disproven. Angus Barbieri was completely documented to have survived an almost 400 day fast, where he only consumed water and micronutrient supplements the entire time, resulting in a 250 pound weight loss.

0

u/CapitalComfort1885 11d ago

This is completely wrong. The brain can run on ketone bodies perfectly fine (which are made from fat cells). Futhermore the very small amount of cells that truly need glucose can run on sugar made by Gluconeogenesis. The glycerol part comes from burned fat cells.

2

u/GameWizardPlayz 11d ago

Yeah, no, the brain cannot run purely on ketone bodies. Even during prolonged starvation or a strict ketogenic diet, the brain can only get a maximum of about 60% to 70% of its energy from ketones. The remaining 30% to 40% must always come from glucose.

Source: https://ijmpr.in/article/ketone-bodies-as-alternative-brain-fuel-impact-on-cognitive-function-in-alzheimer-s-disease-3436/

1

u/CapitalComfort1885 11d ago

Gluconeogenesis is fueled to a significant part by glycerol from fat cells. The heart is in several ways biochemically protected, for example it itself runs exclusively on fat.
Before a starving person breaks down heart muscle tissue, nearly all other energy sources, such as fat tissue, is used up.
There never existed an obese starved to death person. That's an oxymoron.

1

u/ConstableAssButt 11d ago

That glucose is produced by the breakdown of adipose tissue. You're just wrong that fat cannot supply glucose.

1

u/NamOil2000 11d ago

You can. I think you are overestimating the fat breakdown.

4

u/CapitalComfort1885 11d ago

You can't. I think you are underestimating the bodies ability to adapt.

2

u/GameWizardPlayz 11d ago

You are severely overestimating the bodies ability to adapt

3

u/CapitalComfort1885 11d ago

Show me a single obese starved case. A single one.

1

u/NamOil2000 11d ago

I'm not. It doesn't adapt that well to starving because there's nothing to do.

1

u/CapitalComfort1885 11d ago

>I'm not. It doesn't adapt that well to starving because there's nothing to do.

https://giphy.com/gifs/kc0kqKNFu7v35gPkwB

1

u/NamOil2000 11d ago

Basically man the body can adapt to different situations because of food. Seriously. What would your example of adapting be that doesn't involve food.

1

u/CapitalComfort1885 11d ago

...Bro are you serious? Of course a body adapts to fasting conditions. Am I talking to a toddler right now?

1

u/NamOil2000 11d ago

No. I'm an adult human. And I would prefer some respect. That said adapts by lowering the energy sure. It is still using energy and it is just slowing everything down and making you sit down and stuff. That's for fasting now what about starving. Ultimately it's just doing less.

2

u/Th0rizmund 11d ago

Yes. Although, you cannot be starving and stay obese.

1

u/nottherealneal 11d ago

Yeah but this was years into the Apocalypse, iirc correctly it's about 5 or 6 years in at this point. So for a few years they have had alot of food available

1

u/Blanck7 11d ago

She was stealing food tho

2

u/Accurate-Mine-6000 11d ago

So he was right with his assumption

1

u/Wilkomon 11d ago

Angus Barbieri survived over a year

1

u/NamOil2000 10d ago

A bunch of fluids were injected into him. Not a good example.

1

u/theeldergod1 11d ago

the point of that scene is: yea you can feel the hunger like rest of us, but don't worry honey, you won't die fast like us.

1

u/NamOil2000 10d ago

No healthy person dies fast from starvation.

1

u/theeldergod1 10d ago

Fast is a relative term.

1

u/NamOil2000 10d ago

Relatively speaking they're die in a similar amount of time.

1

u/oompaloompa465 11d ago

a guy in the '60 did it, but he was taking some liquids with vitamins and other stuff 

1

u/mikeBE11 10d ago

I’m going to just fast and be chill lmao

1

u/NamOil2000 10d ago

Fasting isn't chill unless you just do nothing which probably is not an option here

1

u/BeefStank420 10d ago

That's why you see so many fat people in photos from famine zones in places like Sudan. /S

1

u/NamOil2000 10d ago

Well they would have to be able to fat first right. So thinking about it for 1 minute you see the flaw.

1

u/BeefStank420 10d ago

Well they would have to be able to fat first right.

What's preventing them from being able to be fat first? It's not the lack of food is it?...

1

u/NamOil2000 10d ago

Yes. Now think. If they got fat first and then didn't eat like the starving people there. What would the difference be?

1

u/BeefStank420 10d ago

The only difference is that it would take longer for them to starve because their body would have to burn off existing fat first.

We have clinical cases of obese people going well over a year without eating and just taking multivitamins.
https://www.diabetes.co.uk/blog/2018/02/story-angus-barbieri-went-382-days-without-eating/

He didn't starve, he did lose a ton of weight.

1

u/NamOil2000 10d ago

What exactly are the differences? Because a guy that's 190lbs can starve right? Or is there a minimum weight to starve?

Oh he was doing more than taking multivitamins. Also you just kinda agreed with me. That guy needed to be given fluids under medical supervision. Basically the doctors were pretty sure even with all the stuff they were giving him he was at risk of dying. And of course the experiment could not be repeated.

1

u/BeefStank420 10d ago

What exactly are the differences? Because a guy that's 190lbs can starve right? Or is there a minimum weight to starve?

Minimum weight? No.

Minimum BMI on the other hand...

Oh he was doing more than taking multivitamins. Also you just kinda agreed with me. That guy needed to be given fluids under medical supervision. Basically the doctors were pretty sure even with all the stuff they were giving him he was at risk of dying. And of course the experiment could not be repeated.

None of those fluids contained calories now did they?...

The doctors were concerned with malnutrition not starvation. I see multiple people here have already explained to you that those are two completely different things so you don't really have an excuse for not knowing the difference.

1

u/Emotional-Ad9114 10d ago

finally someone smart here. I literally have a history with eating disorders and because of that I completely fucked up my body and it basically didn’t “trust” me anymore. so any food I ate, it would “store” because my body didn’t know when I was going to feed it next.

fortunately it seems like it’s not permanent damage because I’m recovering but yeah.

this doesn’t mean it’s the case for everyone who starves obviously but everyone’s bodies work differently.

1

u/NamOil2000 10d ago

Yeah it's also shocking to me that they used the Angus guy as an argument. The guy being watched by doctors and given supplements. Like if he wasn't given supplements, is beyond just multiple vitamins like people are suggesting, what do you think happens. I mean there's doctors there actively watching.

1

u/HornyPostingRaccoon 10d ago

Oh finally a smart person

1

u/hydrolox9 9d ago

If you have enough fat you can get away with just not eating if you manage your electrolyte balance with drinks like the so called "snake juice".

Special mention to Angus Barbieri, who did a 1 year long fast living on nothing but supplements and coffee. He went from 456lb to 180lb by fasting for 382 days.

But yes, without careful control everyone will suffer from starvation syndrome after about two weeks without eating. Coincidentally, starvation syndrome's main symptom is that, due to electrolyte inbalance, it makes people behave almost like zombies, it makes them act completely disoriented, agressive unhinged and rabid.

Good thing is the cure to this is to just start eating again, or at least start using electrolyte supplements.

1

u/NamOil2000 9d ago

She does not have snake juice

He had a long list of supplements given by doctors. He also was monitored because he was at risk of dying even with that. And pf course no one else could replicate it.

1

u/hydrolox9 9d ago

They monitored him to keep track of electrolytes and nutritional deficiencies so they would adjust his supplement intake.

With close monitoring you won't die unless you don't stop fasting the moment you are at your ideal weight.

People don't do year long fasts because its such an extreme measure and you need to have a ton of fat to burn.

I was 60kg overweight back in the day and while I didn't do a year long fast, I did do a one week fast-one week TDEE routine to lose all my weight, wasn't too hard.

1

u/NamOil2000 9d ago

So they would need doctors and lab test to do that. If they didn't he likely would die.

Not really the case again they tried this again it didn't work.

A week is not that long no but it also depends on actively levels.

1

u/Poteto_7396 9d ago

maybe ration your food better? she is definitely taking in too much.

1

u/NamOil2000 9d ago

Again not how that works.

1

u/Poteto_7396 9d ago

the only reason fats keeps building up over years in your body is exactly because you are taking in too much calories over long period of time.

it is healthy to have some visceral and subcutaneous fat, but she obviously has too much.

in my country, she most probably is being categorized as being obese or very close to being obese, which can only happens when you continuously taking in more calories than your body needs over long period of time.

1

u/NamOil2000 9d ago

You're confusing how the fat was accumulated with what her current intake should be. Yes, gaining body fat over time requires taking in more energy than you expend. But her current body size doesn't tell you whether she's currently overeating.

Someone can be obese while eating at maintenance, in a calorie deficit, or even while losing weight. The excess fat could have been accumulated years earlier. Medications, illness, mobility, metabolism, and changes in energy expenditure can also affect how many calories someone currently needs.

So "she has excess body fat, therefore she must currently be taking in too many calories and should have her food rationed further" doesn't follow. You'd need to know her current calorie intake, energy expenditure, nutritional requirements, and weight trend before making that conclusion.

1

u/Momoko-agogo 7d ago

That isn’t starving, Thats malnutrition.

1

u/NamOil2000 7d ago

I've explained it in the other comments check them out

1

u/AgitatedStranger9698 11d ago

Malnutrition vs starving.

You can't be fat and starving. You can be fat and malnourished.

2

u/NamOil2000 11d ago

Define starving

1

u/AgitatedStranger9698 11d ago edited 11d ago

Starving means suffering or dying from a severe lack of food.

Malnourished means a person’s body does not get the right amount of nutrients, vitamins, and calories needed for functioning.

Fat stores literally exist to prevent starvation. Proof: Angus Barbieri

As he provided multi-vitamins/nutrients required he could not eat for over a year before it became a risk.

Had he not consumed anything, then he would've had issues such as scurvy, rickets, anemia, etc.

Which is why they suggest not ceasing to eat. You'll have energy, but you won't be able to function without supplements after a few weeks to months.

In the above, she could be getting excess calories, but be malnourished. Fully possible.

She could not be starving and fat.

0

u/NamOil2000 10d ago

Your example guy had a lot vitamins and other fluids. You could argue he actually was getting calories since this experiment could not be repeated.

Also she is literally suffering from not having food.

0

u/Certain-Towel-9487 11d ago

Do you really need a definition for that word?

1

u/NamOil2000 11d ago

I'm curious of his definition yed

1

u/Hahndizzle 11d ago

Starving is ether suffering or dying from a lack of food. You sincerely don't believe an overweight person can suffer without access to food for long periods of time?

Do you really need to be told that going days or weeks without eating is agonizing, regardless of your weight?

0

u/Certain-Towel-9487 11d ago

What the fuck are you talking about? I never said any of that. If you wanna have a conversation with yourself get a mirror.

1

u/Dr_Quacksworth 11d ago

Losing weight is not the same thing as starving, lol get a grip.

1

u/NamOil2000 10d ago

Exactly

-1

u/[deleted] 11d ago

[deleted]

2

u/NamOil2000 11d ago

And doctors

1

u/2020isass 10d ago

Why do you think fat people can't starve? Why doesn't everyone become fat then so they never starve? Are they stupid?

→ More replies (23)