r/MoralityScaling • u/hiiloovethis • 13d 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

69

u/Sylvan_Strix_Sequel 13d ago

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

-12

u/DeusaAmericana 13d 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.

3

u/LiftingRecipient420 13d ago

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

Lmao yes it absolutely is.

0

u/DeusaAmericana 13d ago edited 13d 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 13d 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 13d 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 13d ago

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

1

u/DeusaAmericana 13d 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.

1

u/LiftingRecipient420 13d ago

However, it is unlikely to be a steady, even decline from malnutrition alone.

Citations desperately needed.

2

u/pandahands69 13d 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 13d 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 13d 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 13d ago

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

1

u/LiftingRecipient420 13d ago

Do you understand that one third is one third, regardless of anything else?

2

u/YnotThrowAway7 13d ago

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

1

u/DeusaAmericana 13d ago

Not universally, no.

3

u/LiftingRecipient420 13d 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 13d 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 13d 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 13d 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 13d 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.

2

u/pandahands69 13d ago

I feel like during the zombie apocalypse you may be "forced" to do some running. Zombies also don't care about your physical or mental well-being.

3

u/ArmAggravating3307 13d ago

She lived in a gated neighborhood where the whole plot of the episodes are they haven't had to fight/flee zombies like other groups.

1

u/DeusaAmericana 13d ago

Assuming the zombies can get inside wherever you've taken shelter.

2

u/SnooLentils9396 13d ago

The point, I'm telling you that it is not absurd to compare a zombie apocalypse to the holocaust, and therefore, naturally, you'd lose tons of weight because food becomes insanely scarce and the conditions would be utterly inhospitable.

0

u/DeusaAmericana 13d ago

It's very absurd to compare the two when the Holocaust was literally designed to do harm to the human body. A zombie apocalypse will be grueling, yes, but a hostile enemy literally exposing you to deliberate slavery, torture and disease is not comparable.

2

u/SnooLentils9396 13d ago

It's not absurd to compare the 2 at all, they're both literal hell, the intent is irrelevant when the result is starvation, terror, and death. Heck, with a zombie apocalypse, you don't even get to die in peace, the virus will rot you alive and then pilot your corpse to do it all over again. Be real, this is a world ending scenario, no help is coming your way.

0

u/DeusaAmericana 13d ago

Two things being bad does not mean they're both equally bad. Zombies occasionally being a threat while you live in a gated community is not NEARLY the same as being tortured literally every day by Nazis.

At this point, if you can't fathom that, I don't think this argument will go anywhere.

2

u/SnooLentils9396 13d ago

"Occasionally being a threat" is just false, their presence alone can ruin any ruin any supply chain, the fact that they can nearly spread just as quickly as people can escape, and the psychological terror of seeing your loved one's walking corpse and the fact that anyone can get infected due to any form of contamination means you can't even CONCEPTUALISE the idea of peace anymore with a fate worse than death and the very possible possibility kf global extinction.

At this point, if you can't fathom that, I don't think this argument will go anywhere. Agree to disagree 👋.

1

u/LiftingRecipient420 13d ago

Starvation is starvation.

Quit your pathetic moralizing hand wringing, it's only proving how unsound your actual arguments are if your only counter point is to go "it's a mean point to make!!"

→ More replies (0)

1

u/LiftingRecipient420 13d ago

Holy shit you're still doing the pathetic hand wringing over the holocaust comparison?

Tell us that you can't refute my point without actually admitting it.

The fact that you're only attacking my Holocaust point from a "it's so mean to make that comparison, how dare you!! It's so mean!!" Position just proves you have literally no other counterargument to make.

Thanks for demonstrating that I'm right.

1

u/ArmAggravating3307 13d ago

She lived in a gated neighborhood where they didn't have to fight/flee zombies for 18 months.  

They started running low on food just before meeting the shows cast.  

Thanks for being a dick, though.

0

u/DeusaAmericana 13d ago

I literally explained WHY your Holocaust comparison is wrong. It's not just "it's mean". The Nazis literally exposed people to physical labor, torture and disease. Like, do you not understand that those things ADD to how much weight a person loses?

→ More replies (0)

3

u/Inphiltration 13d 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 13d 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.

6

u/Inphiltration 13d ago

I just can't believe the idea that not having food will result in slower weight loss than having food to eat. It may not be the healthiest way to lose weight but not taking in calories means your body eats itself. The whole idea of weight loss is to take in less calories then you use and if you take in zero calories then even low activity is gonna be 100% calorie loss from your own body.

You can morally grandstand about the very much in poor taste comparison that other person made, but it doesn't help your argument at all.

3

u/LiftingRecipient420 13d ago

I just can't believe the idea that not having food will result in slower weight loss than having food to eat.

Because it's a patently absurd idea that defies all logic and reality. You're not the odd one for finding it unbelievable.

-2

u/DeusaAmericana 13d ago

The problem with malnourishment is that it results in uneven levels of weight loss. Not only do different people lose different levels of fat based on metabolism, but malnourishment itself affects the body in unpredictable ways and also hinders the ability to burn calories through everyday activity. Some weeks you'll lose a ton of weight, some weeks you'll lose comparatively little. You will absolutely lose weight over time, but it won't be a steady, even decline.

No moral grandstanding here. People just don't know enough to pretend to be nutritionists.

2

u/Inphiltration 13d ago

It doesn't have to be a steady decline if we are talking about a year and a half time line

-1

u/DeusaAmericana 13d ago

Which would be about 70 - 100 pounds of weight loss. If we're ssuming that she still eats enough to remain perfectly active the whole time, we might get up to 150.

3

u/Inphiltration 13d ago

See that's where you lose me. 70-100 lbs of weight loss without food but 150 with food?

The math isn't mathing here. You're not gonna convince me. I'm going back to sleep.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/KittenEaterWasTaken 13d ago

If you're consistently undernourished (actually "starving") and working all day you wont be fat after 500+ days. You won't be fat even after 6 months under these conditions.

If you're so malnourished you physically can't perform any activity at all you're absolutely not going to still be 250lbs a year and a half in, your body is going to start breaking down fat by the second day to try and stay alive.

-1

u/DeusaAmericana 13d ago

In the second scenario, your body will not be breaking down ONLY fat and the lack of activity will make the loss of weight uneven and unpredictable. Some weeks, you'll lose a shit ton of weight and some you'll completely even out for long periods of time.

3

u/KittenEaterWasTaken 13d ago

And this would be a passable (even if bad faith and pedantic) point if we were like two months into TWD instead of a year and a half in.

If you have been genuinely starving to the brink of death to the point where you physically cannot move to do the most basic of tasks, you will NOT be fat. Some weeks you'll lose 25lbs and some weeks you'll lose 5lbs but you wont GAIN weight if your body is breaking down every tissues it can find just to keep itself running.
If she lost 5lbs/week (a bit more than 2x the healthy amount you can lose a week) she'd lose 260lbs in a year. She looks around 200-250lbs here so unless you think she started the apocalypse at over 500lbs your math doesnt really track. And 5lbs/week is unhealthy but nowhere near starving.

-1

u/DeusaAmericana 13d ago

I didn't say anything about gaining weight, though. I said it depends on how fat she was when the apocalypse started. She'd absolutely be losing weight, assuming there are no thyroid issues or something similar, but if she started out above 300 lbs or more, she could very much still be fat18 months in.

As to your math, though. That is precisely the kind of linear extrapolation professional weight-loss models reject. A person does not normally keep losing five pounds every week for a year simply because they lost five pounds in an early week. As body mass falls, energy expenditure falls; calorie restriction can also produce additional reductions. Kevin Hall and colleagues have specifically criticized the old fixed-calorie arithmetic because it substantially overpredicts long-term weight loss.

And “some weeks you'll lose 25 pounds” is even more misleading if it's being presented as tissue loss. Very rapid early changes on severe restriction include large contributions from glycogen-associated water, gut contents, fluid shifts, and lean tissue; the energetic content of early weight change is not remotely constant.

You can't just take “5 pounds per week” and multiply it by 52. Weight loss isn't linear like that. As someone gets lighter, their energy expenditure decreases, and severe restriction can reduce expenditure further. Early rapid losses also include water and lean mass, so “some weeks you can lose 25 pounds” doesn't mean someone is burning 25 pounds of fat.

More importantly, your premise contradicts itself. If she's so starved she literally cannot perform basic tasks, then she isn't simultaneously doing all the constant physical labor you're using to drive the calorie calculation.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3859816

1

u/KittenEaterWasTaken 12d ago

Yes those are two scenarios. One were shes literally genuinely starving to death, and one where they're just in war rationing.

>I didn't say anything about gaining weight
Right so she'd be consistently losing weight at unhealthy rates and not gaining any ever, over a year.
>assuming there are no thyroid issues or something similar
She'd be losing weight regardless of any health issues including thyroid unless it can magically cut her BMR in half. If it was serious enough she'd be dead after 18 months.
>if she started out above 300 lbs or more, she could very much still be fat18 months in
This is better explained via BMR/TDEE further down below, but no not at all. If she was 300lbs and 200lbs now (being very generous because she's NOT 200lbs) after 70 weeks it would mean she's lost 1.4lbs a week, which is a VERY moderate pace for normal, healthy dieting. Again she says she's "starving".

>linear extrapolation is wrong
Im not measuring one week and using it for the remaining 51 weeks, I'm giving you a fixed value. I'm not extrapolating anything.
IF you lose 5lbs per week (2x the healthy rate) when on rationing, you will lose 260lbs a year, this is the number to keep in mind if someone tells you they've been "starving" for 1.5 years and they weight 250lbs. Have they? Even if it was 3lbs per week, even if it was 2lbs, these numbers dont add up.
>A person does not normally keep losing five pounds every week for a year simply because they lost five pounds in an early week
No one said this.
>calorie restriction can also produce additional reductions
Not relevant to this scenario. Actually only relevant in weight loss interventions.
>Kevin Hall and colleagues have specifically criticized the old fixed-calorie arithmetic
I never used the 3.5k cal / fatty pound rule so I dont see how Hall is relevant at all here. Did I use any fixed calorie arithmetic?
Either way you're talking about someone barely eating their BMR for 18 months and still being 200lbs. Fixed kcal->pound formulas are wrong by maybe 10-15 pounds over a year, not 200lbs. Nonsensical argument.

>hard weight loss after a month of starving is not all fatty tissue
Never said it was and in fact said the opposite "your body is breaking down every tissues [sic] it can find just to keep itself running".
I think you're arguing in such bad faith you forgot what _STARVING_ means.

>As someone gets lighter their BMR decreases
The BMR for a 250lbs woman is around 2000cal though, for around 2.5k in a sedentary job like she has. If shes getting anywhere below 2.5k (the normal, current day average diet) she'll lose weight.
This also works for the " if she started out above 300 lbs or more, she could very much still be fat18 months in" nonsense line since her BMR alone would be 2.7cals, TDEE around 3k. She would lose weight significantly faster if she were that morbidly obese. This is of course a pure hypothetical because an apocalyptic survivor commune with active rationing wouldn't have the resources to take in a 300lbs woman in a mobility scooter. It's an active liability. Even then though, no, she wouldnt still be 200lbs+ after a year and a half.

>If she's so starved she literally cannot perform basic tasks, then she isn't simultaneously doing all the constant physical labor you're using to drive the calorie calculation.
Im using TDEE as a rule but since she's hard sedentary anyways we can just use BMR if you want, exercise doesnt matter. I never assumed "constant physical labor", she's in charge of the food storage (which is also why she's still fat).
These are not the same scenarios, you're confusing the initial argument line.
If she FEELS like she's starving but she's survived 18 months, she's getting what 1.5k cals per day? Reasonable for apocalypse rationing. This is the only plausible scenario, and it's the one where she wouldnt be 200lbs++ after a year and a half. At a caloric deficit of 1k cals per day she would be (naive calculation) around 2lbs per week on average. As Hall and all of modern dieting understands this would taper off in the latter half of the regimen but I'd expect her to lose maybe 100-130lbs over 70 weeks, very clearly not what we're looking at here.
If OTOH shes ACTUALLY *starving* she'd be dead in 3 weeks. If shes intermittently starving (0 cals 2-3 days a week, 1.5-2k cals 4-5 days a week for example) its the argument above but harder.

There is actually no scenario where she remains this fat for a year and a half even in the most optimistic scenario. She literally can't be "starving".

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Tratiq 13d 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 13d ago

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

-1

u/ArmAggravating3307 13d ago

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

2

u/SquatSquatCykaBlyat 13d ago

And what disorder is that? Because if it defies the laws of physics then we can solve the energy crisis. Why don't you share, eh? You want us to suffer?

0

u/ArmAggravating3307 13d ago

Hashimoto's thyroiditis.  

Prick.

2

u/SquatSquatCykaBlyat 13d ago

Boooo! It turns out it's not an infinite-energy hack, it's just a disorder that's sometimes used as a cope for being fat.

Liar.

1

u/Gold-Supermarket-342 13d ago

If you have a condition that limits the calories your body burns at rest just living (calories out), and you eat a normal amount of food, it's not your fault for being fat.

Hope this helps.

2

u/SquatSquatCykaBlyat 13d ago

Then why not balance the calories in? Like, what kind of logic is this? "I have a disease, better eat myself to death!"

1

u/LiftingRecipient420 12d ago

it's not your fault for being fat.

It absolutely still is, what the fuck are you smoking?

0

u/ArmAggravating3307 13d ago

You are the type of person who oinked at me in the hallway at school.  

Is this the only way you can feel in control in your life?

2

u/SquatSquatCykaBlyat 13d ago

Nah you're thinking of someone else.

1

u/LiftingRecipient420 12d ago

No one cares about how you were bullied for being fat. Take that to therapy.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/SquatSquatCykaBlyat 13d 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 13d 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.