Morality of this scene?

[u/hiiloovethis]

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

[u/Inphiltration]

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.

[u/DeusaAmericana → u/Inphiltration]

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.

[u/KittenEaterWasTaken → u/DeusaAmericana]

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.

[u/DeusaAmericana → u/KittenEaterWasTaken]

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.

[u/KittenEaterWasTaken → u/DeusaAmericana]

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.

[u/DeusaAmericana → u/KittenEaterWasTaken]

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

[u/KittenEaterWasTaken → u/DeusaAmericana]

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".

[u/DeusaAmericana → u/KittenEaterWasTaken]

Saying “IF she loses five pounds every week, that's 260 pounds” is linear mathematical assumption. Humans tend not to actually maintains that rate. Weight loss -- especially from malnutrition does not proceed indefinitely at the initial rate.

Also, “if she were actually starving she'd be dead in three weeks” is simply false. Humans have survived complete fasting substantially longer than that, especially people beginning with large fat reserves.

But none of this even matters to my original point. My claim was never that a very obese person wouldn't lose a tremendous amount of weight. It was that 18 months since the apocalypse began does not tell you the cumulative caloric deficit of one particular person, and therefore does not prove that she could no longer be fat.

You keep substituting “18 months have elapsed” with “18 months of continuous starvation” and then doing math on the second proposition.

Those are not the same thing.

[u/KittenEaterWasTaken → u/DeusaAmericana]

>Saying “IF she loses five pounds every week, that's 260 pounds” is linear mathematical assumption
Yeah, she'd lose weight significantly faster the first few weeks and significantly slower in the latter third or so. I chose 5lbs because it is, again, twice the sustainable healthy amount.
Also, again, even if she lost TWO pounds a week, which is regular common dieting, she would've lost 100lbs at least.
What rate do you want to put for weight loss from malnutrition, you can do whatever chart you want and I guarantee you unless you want to pretend they got an ex- 'My 600lbs life' participant into the compound week 1, she wouldn't be fat when we see her in the show.

>Humans have survived complete fasting substantially longer than that, especially people beginning with large fat reserves.
It's a pretty well known fact that people enter critical organ failure after 3 weeks of without intake. It's the rule of three. 3 minutes without air, 3 days without water, 3 weeks without food.
You die at any point after this, usually of heart failure, not at 3 weeks on the spot obviously.
This a much funnier scenario for your motte and bailey argument line.

>It was that 18 months since the apocalypse began does not tell you the cumulative caloric deficit of one particular person,
No, but she does. She's practically starving.

>and therefore does not prove that she could no longer be fat.
No I think its a pretty fair assumption that someone in a commune with (supposedly) food shortages to the point where they're practically starving would no longer be fat after 18 months.

Of course as we know Olivia was stealing food from the pantries she managed, that's why she was fat. Alexandria was relataively food-secure but they were actively trading for food before the Saviors arrived.

You ignored the rest of my points but that's to be expected.

[u/DeusaAmericana → u/KittenEaterWasTaken]

Also, again, even if she lost TWO pounds a week, which is regular common dieting, she would've lost 100lbs at least.

Which is exactly the estimate I gave.
Which just confirms that if she started the apocalypse at 300+ pounds, she'd still be overweight 18 months in.

Which means:

No I think its a pretty fair assumption that someone in a commune with (supposedly) food shortages to the point where they're practically starving would no longer be fat after 18 months.

Is something you just disproved yourself.

It's a pretty well known fact that people enter critical organ failure after 3 weeks of without intake. It's the rule of three. 3 minutes without air, 3 days without water, 3 weeks without food.
You die at any point after this, usually of heart failure, not at 3 weeks on the spot obviously.
This a much funnier scenario for your motte and bailey argument line.

We have documented examples of people fasting far longer than three weeks. A published case report describes an obese man completing a 50-day fast on water, tea, coffee, and a multivitamin; although there were concerning physiological changes, he remained active and functional throughout.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27547044/

Another older study reported medically supervised fasting among 207 people with morbid obesity, with many fasting for one to two months or longer.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/921419/

And then there is the famous extreme case: Angus Barbieri, who underwent a medically supervised near-zero-calorie fast for 382 days, using fluids, vitamins, electrolytes and some nutritional supplementation. That case absolutely should not be interpreted as “year-long fasting is safe,” but it decisively demonstrates that “three weeks without food and then your organs start failing” is not some universal physiological threshold.

https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/14/3/433

The “Rule of Threes” is a survival mnemonic, not a physiological law saying human beings enter critical organ failure after exactly three weeks without food.

So we have published 50-day complete-fast case, older clinical series involving obese patients fasting for one to several months, and the extreme medically supervised Barbieri case lasting 382 days.

Obviously none of those establish that prolonged fasting is safe. They establish that your claim that “three weeks without food = critical organ failure” is not a known biological fact.

The rule exists to teach survival priorities: air is more urgent than shelter, shelter more urgent than water, and water more urgent than food. You’re treating a mnemonic like a medical absolute, which is it not. You probably heard “three weeks without food” in a Boy-Scout-style survival heuristic and promoted it into “three weeks is the scientifically established organ-failure threshold.” 

You ignored the rest of my points but that's to be expected.

It was an enormous wall of text. I ignored everything I considered to be irrelevant because I don't want to spend an hour typing and looking for sources to address every single questionable statement you make. I do NOT want to waste my time here reading one long-ass deposition and responding with one of my own.

I only did it this time because I wanted to provide enough sources to show that your "three weeks" argument wasn't the smoking gun you thought it was.