I find this whole discussion fascinating. First, I would like to point out that my original reaction was to the statement "This is why you have an obesity problem, America.". I highly doubt that it is just because of a drive-through ATMs and I find that statement too flippant. I am in Canada, and I think we have an obesity problem, too, just probably not as bad as the folks down south. I think the core problem is diet and exercise.

Second, and again speaking only for Edmonton, Alberta, there aren't hundreds of these things around. I know of 2 drive-through ATMs in the whole south-west area of the city, and they are specifically at the large bank branches. They exist, there just aren't everywhere. The only people probably using them are folks that bank at that bank.

Third, as charliem mentioned, we also have hundreds of these mini-ATMs around everywhere. They are very convenient, but they come with a $1-3 transaction fee on top. Most of my transactions are with credit/debit cards, so cash is pretty rare. When I need it, I don't feel like handing out extra monies to 3rd parties. If I need some cash I will probably go to the bank near my house that has this drive-through. I doubt parking my car and going inside to the ATM will help me lose weight

She said she'd accept money to lose weight! So, any cost, step right up.

Well said. You couldn't possibly be the bmacs I'm playing words with friends with right now, could you? >> ^bmacs27:

The ultimate issue is "is it a choice?" Homosexuality is not considered a "choice" and thus is not considered "fair game" for criticism. Similarly a lot of data is showing that metabolic set points are not a "choice" or at least they're determined at a young age. Granted, you could starve yourself and exercise into losing weight, but the success rates long term are very low. People who try generally get depressed because they are forcing their body to operate in a way it doesn't want to simply to conform to social norms. The parallels with homosexuality continue. I mean, gay people could act straight. They just don't want to. Further, there is little data to suggest health issues associated with weight once you control for other lifestyle choices (exercise, diet, smoking, etc). Many people exercise everyday, eat a healthy diet, lead healthy lives, and are just fat. Honestly, it's the last bastion of socially accepted prejudice.

Yes, thank you, you put it so much simpler than I do!
In reply to this comment by Thumper:
Your views are inconsistent because you're suggesting her obesity is somehow impactful on others. If it's not that then your suggesting you're concerned for her health. If you're so concerned for her health (or others) then what about her mental health (or ours)? Arguably the most important form of health. You already admitted there is no polite way to tell a stranger that is probably already aware, that their weight is a health concern. I don't see how promoting forwardness with disregard to one's reaction/ feelings is any bit healthier. Not to mention the whole bully awareness month - which this is just a guess, but, doesn't that specifically entail "we" as a society passing stronger consideration for others feelings?

This is where we need to draw the line on the whole obesity/ drug addict comparison. There is NO NEED to throw tough love at an overweight person. Even if you succeed in pushing them to lose weight - you're changing the very foundation of personal relationships. Where does the bully draw the line at school? "Stop being so dorky?". Oh and I'm not a fan of letting our children carry such moral burdens. Their parents should lead by example. Lets not build a world where people push one another into choices even if they are good for them. Let's let freewill be freewill. If you really want to make a difference - befriend them, get close to them, within the "YOU can say that to me" walls. Actually give a shit about the person and not the idea of people. Stop treating that woman like an negative average in a large container and more like a PERSON.

Problem solved. Become their friend - follow time-tested relationship rules and then, and only then, can you relay such private and impactful information to them.

>> ^scannex:

I am not sure how my argument is nihilistic at all.
I am not sure what mold you think I am promoting, aside from not being in a state which has been, by all available science, deemed to be u healthy. (read: not obese)
I am happy to address where you think my view is inconsistent, can you please elaborate?
Re feeling: I think that is fair, to a point. But to me, the spectacle this woman made of herself for someone writing her a private communique over the internet does not warrant ANYWHERE near this attention.
She chose to shine a spotlight on something perfectly hidden, for the purpose of, I don't know... you tell me? To stop imaginary bullying (in her case explicitly here)? To not feel bad about being overweight? I really don't know anymore. Its a bizarre reaction to wantonly make a spectacle of someone suggesting you lose weight.
You pretend to care for the health of others yet there is a perverse nihilistic undertone to your entire argument. The only thing in this for you is to point out that "people" should fit a mold that you and your constituents have deemed appropriate. Which furthers strengthens the overall bizarre and inconsistent view you're slinging. Shouldn't your dismissal of common morals/ sensibilities completely free you up from trying to impress or coincide with a particular group? The thing that bugs me the most is that you seem to completely ignore this person's feelings. It's as if, for the purposes of your argument having a body you have obfuscated her feelings or anyone else's for that matter.

>> ^scannex:

So your counter to the point of it being a behavior, is that it is term applied as the result of a series of behaviors which is a combination of over-eating and lack of exercise?
You must be kidding.
And sorry I have to put words in your mouth above, because aside from divine intervention I am not sure what mysterious factors cause one to be obese unless you are referring to genetic disorders/thyroid problems. Have fun finding a source on what % of obese Americans that covers.
It is behavioral, and its remedy is behavioral. I certainly will not say its an EASY behavior to modify (see previous arguments on leptin/dopamine), but you need to deal with it.
Also regarding what is impressionable you are simply incorrect. If you believe a child with two overweight parents that is the result of those parents having an idle lifestyle and providing garbage food for their kids isnt impactful youre dead wrong.
But here you go, some backup for that concept. From the AACAP
No one is advocating mocking is the right thing to do. And if you think this guys letter came from a place of hate or mockery I suggest you reread it. There really is no indication of that to me. It comes from a place of concern, even if that is misguided. You want to crucify this guy for trying to (perhaps poorly) encourage this woman to lose weight and that really isn't the right ethic either.

_{I realised why your comments annoyed me so much: they remind me of those MRA-holes who try to defend the missteps and/or bile of privileged/sexist people and then see them as being persecuted or "witchhunted". I can only hope I am wrong in seeing a connection.}

To the substance: you completely miss my point, go after strawmen, and then try to defend the unethical while falsely accusing the anchor and myself of persecuting a person (instead of criticising a... you guessed it, behaviour).

Yes, certain behaviour causes and/or aggravates obesity, but do you see her glamourously binge-eating junkfood while telling the news? Unlike a meth addict, there are plenty of overweight people who are overweight of no fault of their own. In fact, the example you give about obese parents having a higher chance of having obese children supports my point, not yours. Children of obese parents have a higher risk of being obese genetically, as well as environmentally, and that has nothing to do with imitating the parents' behaviour (but it's their fault, right? They should just exercise and not eat what their parents feed them, right?). Of course the parents who feed their children junkfood are responsible for their child's obesity, but what does that have to do with an overweight woman being on TV? Not to mention that even that can be more complex, since there are socio-economic factors, what with the US's terrible education system and the fact that its cheapest high-calorie food (i.e. what poor/hungry people will buy) is 98% corn-syrup (yes, I made that stat up, but the point remains). Finally, obesity can be a side-product of mental health issues / eating disorders (but then maybe you're the kind of ignorant douche who'd tell people with depression to just stop wallowing in self-pity and be happy; I hope not).

You go on in your second comment to, on your own admission, redefine what a behaviour is so it can suit your argument. Say the following phrase, out loud if need be, to realise how ridiculous your argument is:

"The woman on the TV is behaving/being overweight/fat/obese". See what I mean?

Finally, you accuse her of "wanting to crucify the guy". Did you even read my points 1) & 2) above (you know, the ones you ignored in your answer)? The "guy" is not being attacked (you'll note he has been left anonymous), what he is saying/doing is. His letter is being taken as an example to call out a certain kind of behaviour, one which is rampant in our society, and doing much harm. Whether his letter is a well-intentioned yet ignorant expression of misplaced concern (at best, and highly unlikely) or a surreptitious piece of condescending shaming (much more likely*) is irrelevant. It's anti-bullying month, and she's saying "people, don't do this, and here's why".

Your more recent comment is a perfect example of why what she's doing is of utmost importance:

the spectacle this woman made of herself for someone writing her a private communique over the internet does not warrant ANYWHERE near this attention.
She chose to shine a spotlight on something perfectly hidden, for the purpose of, I don't know... you tell me? To stop imaginary bullying (in her case explicitly here)? To not feel bad about being overweight? I really don't know anymore. Its a bizarre reaction to wantonly make a spectacle of someone suggesting you lose weight.

If what he said was not reprehensible, who cares if it's made public (note once again that no names are named)? Shaming people or projecting one's narrowmindedness on them is all fine, but shhh, don't shed light on it! It's just a private message on the internet, it does no harm! (because we all know that there is no bullying, shaming, sexism, etc. on the internet. Nuh-uh)

When only one side of an exchange says "shhh, don't tell anyone about this, it's private" you usually have a bad situation; and the fact that you would defend the letter-writer and his "right" to not have his error called out does not suggest anything good about your own mindset, either.

In conclusion, it is all the more to this woman's (and her husband's/colleagues') credit that she/they took a "seemingly" (to the thickest out there) innocent letter to expose this form of abuse; a harmful remark need not be shocking or particularly vulgar to leave its mark, and it can even come from good intentions. Maybe some people watching will realise that the words they themselves speak/write are harmful, even if not intentionally, and will be more aware of it in future, while others might realise that the words they heard/read were not so innocent after all, and that they should stop beating themselves up for feeling guilt/shame/self-hate when in fact they've been being worn down by ignorant and/or hurtful attacks.

_{*It would be quite easy to analyse just how ignorant and condescending this letter is, not to mention borderline sexist (try imagining this person writing the same letter to Chris Christie, for example, replacing "girls" with "boys"). Analysis starter kit for you: "choice/habit/lifestyle", and the cornerstone phrase "Surely you don't..."}

Your views are inconsistent because you're suggesting her obesity is somehow impactful on others. If it's not that then your suggesting you're concerned for her health. If you're so concerned for her health (or others) then what about her mental health (or ours)? Arguably the most important form of health. You already admitted there is no polite way to tell a stranger that is probably already aware, that their weight is a health concern. I don't see how promoting forwardness with disregard to one's reaction/ feelings is any bit healthier. Not to mention the whole bully awareness month - which this is just a guess, but, doesn't that specifically entail "we" as a society passing stronger consideration for others feelings?

This is where we need to draw the line on the whole obesity/ drug addict comparison. There is NO NEED to throw tough love at an overweight person. Even if you succeed in pushing them to lose weight - you're changing the very foundation of personal relationships. Where does the bully draw the line at school? "Stop being so dorky?". Oh and I'm not a fan of letting our children carry such moral burdens. Their parents should lead by example. Lets not build a world where people push one another into choices even if they are good for them. Let's let freewill be freewill. If you really want to make a difference - befriend them, get close to them, within the "YOU can say that to me" walls. Actually give a shit about the person and not the idea of people. Stop treating that woman like an negative average in a large container and more like a PERSON.

Problem solved. Become their friend - follow time-tested relationship rules and then, and only then, can you relay such private and impactful information to them.

>> ^scannex:

I am not sure how my argument is nihilistic at all.
I am not sure what mold you think I am promoting, aside from not being in a state which has been, by all available science, deemed to be u healthy. (read: not obese)
I am happy to address where you think my view is inconsistent, can you please elaborate?
Re feeling: I think that is fair, to a point. But to me, the spectacle this woman made of herself for someone writing her a private communique over the internet does not warrant ANYWHERE near this attention.
She chose to shine a spotlight on something perfectly hidden, for the purpose of, I don't know... you tell me? To stop imaginary bullying (in her case explicitly here)? To not feel bad about being overweight? I really don't know anymore. Its a bizarre reaction to wantonly make a spectacle of someone suggesting you lose weight.
You pretend to care for the health of others yet there is a perverse nihilistic undertone to your entire argument. The only thing in this for you is to point out that "people" should fit a mold that you and your constituents have deemed appropriate. Which furthers strengthens the overall bizarre and inconsistent view you're slinging. Shouldn't your dismissal of common morals/ sensibilities completely free you up from trying to impress or coincide with a particular group? The thing that bugs me the most is that you seem to completely ignore this person's feelings. It's as if, for the purposes of your argument having a body you have obfuscated her feelings or anyone else's for that matter.

I am not sure how my argument is nihilistic at all.
I am not sure what mold you think I am promoting, aside from not being in a state which has been, by all available science, deemed to be u healthy. (read: not obese)

I am happy to address where you think my view is inconsistent, can you please elaborate?

Re feeling: I think that is fair, to a point. But to me, the spectacle this woman made of herself for someone writing her a private communique over the internet does not warrant ANYWHERE near this attention.
She chose to shine a spotlight on something perfectly hidden, for the purpose of, I don't know... you tell me? To stop imaginary bullying (in her case explicitly here)? To not feel bad about being overweight? I really don't know anymore. Its a bizarre reaction to wantonly make a spectacle of someone suggesting you lose weight.

You pretend to care for the health of others yet there is a perverse nihilistic undertone to your entire argument. The only thing in this for you is to point out that "people" should fit a mold that you and your constituents have deemed appropriate. Which furthers strengthens the overall bizarre and inconsistent view you're slinging. Shouldn't your dismissal of common morals/ sensibilities completely free you up from trying to impress or coincide with a particular group? The thing that bugs me the most is that you seem to completely ignore this person's feelings. It's as if, for the purposes of your argument having a body you have obfuscated her feelings or anyone else's for that matter.

>> ^hpqp:


3) Obesity is not like smoking. Yes, they are both health problems, but unlike smoking, being obese is not a behaviour. It can be caused/aggravated by certain behaviour, among many other factors. But while a behaviour can be inhibited while in front of others (e.g. not smoking in front of kids/a camera), you cannot "stop being obese". This brings out another distinction, namely that, while seeing people smoke can entice impressionable minds to do the same, seeing someone who is fat will not make one want to be fat as well. Seeing an overweight person on TV having a job or living a normal life might, on the other hand, give hope to people who are mocked and discriminated against for their weight issues, something which does not undermine in the slightest the struggle against obesity.
/rant


So your counter to the point of it being a behavior, is that it is term applied as the result of a series of behaviors which is a combination of over-eating and lack of exercise?
You must be kidding.

And sorry I have to put words in your mouth above, because aside from divine intervention I am not sure what mysterious factors cause one to be obese unless you are referring to genetic disorders/thyroid problems. Have fun finding a source on what % of obese Americans that covers.

It is behavioral, and its remedy is behavioral. I certainly will not say its an EASY behavior to modify (see previous arguments on leptin/dopamine), but you need to deal with it.

Also regarding what is impressionable you are simply incorrect. If you believe a child with two overweight parents that is the result of those parents having an idle lifestyle and providing garbage food for their kids isnt impactful youre dead wrong.
But here you go, some backup for that concept. From the AACAP

No one is advocating mocking is the right thing to do. And if you think this guys letter came from a place of hate or mockery I suggest you reread it. There really is no indication of that to me. It comes from a place of concern, even if that is misguided. You want to crucify this guy for trying to (perhaps poorly) encourage this woman to lose weight and that really isn't the right ethic either.

Well, how can I possibly counter that.
Your self asserted grasp on eating disorders far outstrips mine.
Also, Your comparison to Ebola is a ridiculous straw man that any reasonable person should be able to differentiate.
Normalization related to weightgain is the effect of a society getting ever fatter and people becoming less and less concerned with it, or less likely to avoid emulating it because it has every day prevalence and gains acceptance.
For your consideration here is Normalization

Your argument about a given method or therapy (I am not saying this guys letter was either) having a necessary outcome of positive would discredit EVERY attempt at getting someone to lose weight, as no method has 100% success or is necessarily "good/positive".

The act of pointing out that someone is heavy isn't nice. But, denying that vanity can cause people to want to change is just silly.

You trying to claim that my argument is that this is my preferred method is also silly and another straw man.

The implications/effect of this guys letter, as I am sure he is experiencing is by no means known, or reliable from individual to individual.

Every line of your post is more concerned with using falsified assertions of my position to try and better your argument all while failing to include references or anything substantive to debunk my actual arguments. It is not working.

>> ^NinjaInHeat:

I don't know what to say except again that it's pretty obvious you don't know the first thing about eating disorders.
How exactly does the American obesity problem equals the "normalization" of it? That's like saying the normalization of Ebola is a problem in Africa.
I'll give you this much, your idea of dealing with a problem is definitely an effective one.
Making a person super self-conscious about their physical appearance is a very effective way of having them change it. The problem here is that you to understand that effective doesn't necessarily equal good/positive.
Your idea of the proper way to deal with these issues is a scary one, more so for the fact you don't even realize what the implications of it are.

@Duncan And yet this is the commonly suggested course of action for those overweight. Eat 1000-1200 calories a day, and exercise. That's a recipe for disaster. Further, your claim that if you intake fewer calories than you expend you will lose weight. This is not necessarily true. Your body is not a bunsen burner. That's why we have terms like "metabolism" as in so and so has a high metabolism or a low metabolism. In other words, some people can eat and eat and eat, and their body will simply convert the excess energy into heat. For others, that energy is stored as fat. My claim is that there are people for whom prolonged caloric restriction will not result in continued weight loss. Instead the body will continue to store the energy it receives as fat and your brain will be deprived of the energy it needs to allow activity levels necessary to burn anything off. Even with continued restriction. There are cases (e.g. with OCD patients) that prolonged weight loss can be achieved, but often it's simply impossible.

With regards to "life-style change," I agree. It's necessary. However, losing weight isn't. Much more success has been reported encouraging an active lifestyle. Eat until you are sated. That's okay (assuming you don't have a broken sensory system in that regard). People that pursue this approach will usually not lose weight, but they will become healthy. All of their bio-markers (e.g. cholesterol) often come into check. They are active, happy, and healthy. Yet still, people would somehow feel justified sending them a letter telling fatty to get off their ass.

I'll give an example. I watched my girl eat 1200 calories a day for six months. She's 5'2" at 180. The first month of this brought her down to 165/170, but the following five brought her no further. I watched her. She measured every meal with a measuring cup. She's also a geneticist, so she knows a thing or two about the relevant biochem. She was depressed as hell, and her activity level dropped. She was miserable and didn't even really lose substantial weight.

Now, she bikes at least 10-12 hilly miles a day, swims a couple miles three times a week, and does yoga. She eats when she's hungry and stops when she's full. She eats healthily for the most part, but rewards herself with a sweet now and again. Every measure known to correlate with health shows that she is healthy despite her weight. People call her fat all the time. There's just no need. Her doctor doesn't, because many doctors these days know BMI is a bullshit measure. She's not a weird case. I mentioned by buddy the pullup champ in a previous post. The dude was vegetarian in boot camp. He doesn't have an ounce of fat on him, and can do effectively perpetual pushups. He's technically "obese." For a medical term, it's about as useful as "idiot."

The fact is evidence is mounting that your disposition towards retaining fat probably has more to do with what was eaten by your mother during pregnancy than anything you do in your lifetime (other than maybe early childhood). Your body has a weight it would like to keep, and it will succeed in keeping it. If people would just change the societal pressure towards becoming healthy rather than losing weight people doomed to carry extra pounds wouldn't have to feel like outcasts, and would probably be more likely to pursue the correct goal. Instead, most people here seem to think it's okay to berate strangers about their weight. Let them talk to their doctor. If their doctor is good with it, you probably should be too.

@scannex Dude... are you really citing a marketing campaign for weight loss pushers? I bet you I could find data that shows the effectiveness of penis enhancement pills too. If you took a few you might find you like 'em thick ;-). Try some primary literature, and I'll respond in kind.

Try to refute this claim: "Overweight or mildly obese individuals with otherwise normal bio-markers show no decrease in life expectancy from normal."

If you can't, then tell me why it is okay to berate someone about their weight knowing nothing about their health overall?

You keep using the word diet as something you can just go on and off of. That's the problem; 'Going on a diet' implies that it's temporary. What's needed to eat and live healthy is a permanent lifetstyle change. In other words, you don't stop the diet. The previous diet is what led to getting overweight in the first place, so of course they gain the weight back if they start eating like that again. Exercise all you want, if you take in more calories than you expend, you will gain weight. If you expend more calories than you take in, you will lose weight. It doesn't matter if you have a problem with that, or if people get depressed, or if you just straight up don't think it's a health issue (it is), that's how it works. That's why this argument takes place when this issue is brought up. It really is just a matter of will power and education on nutrition. How much will power's needed depends on the person, along with their knowledge on nutrition and eating well. Breaking these long standing habits can be incredibly tough, but not impossible.

There's a lot of grey area in the discussion of being overweight and healthy/fit/etc. If you have terrible eating habits, exercise will only make things a bit better; it wont magically counteract all the negative aspects of your body composition, or of the food you eat. The effect food can have on a person astronomically outweighs the potential effects of exercise. That's in no way saying exercise is pointless, but if you're diet's not in check, the exercise alone is like ordering a diet coke with your ten cheeseburgers.
>> ^bmacs27:

You guys aren't listening to what I'm saying. There is nothing wrong with eating right and exercising. I have a problem with caloric restriction, or as it is commonly called "dieting." Further, I have a problem with judging health from weight or BMI. There is very little data to back that up, and in fact the data suggest that a low BMI is actually more problematic than a moderately high 30ish BMI in terms of life expectancy. My issue is that it's been so ingrained in people to associate weight loss (an aesthetic issue) with fitness (a health issue). There are plenty of people that are fit, and no matter what they do, will carry extra weight.
To me "eating right" means eating healthy foods, e.g. whole foods, fruits, vegetables, proteins as your primary nutrition rather than fatty and heavily sweetened foods. Exercise is the most important part of the equation. The data shows that so long as you are not sedentary you can pretty much eat and weigh whatever with little to no health consequence.
The depression does not come simply from the lack of eating, and thus the cessation of a rewarding activity. It comes from the diversion of energy away from active use (e.g. in the nervous system) and towards the restocking of fat stores. In other words, you'll never lose weight, and instead will just be bummed out all the time.
You talk of "millions of people" that have successfully lost weight. I'd like to see a data that shows a diet emphasizing caloric restriction leading to long term reductions in weight. Every study I've seen shows that diets of that sort yield short term weight loss although subjects generally reacquire the weight within a year of stopping the diet, and report depression during the diet. Prove me wrong.

You guys aren't listening to what I'm saying. There is nothing wrong with eating right and exercising. I have a problem with caloric restriction, or as it is commonly called "dieting." Further, I have a problem with judging health from weight or BMI. There is very little data to back that up, and in fact the data suggest that a low BMI is actually more problematic than a moderately high 30ish BMI in terms of life expectancy. My issue is that it's been so ingrained in people to associate weight loss (an aesthetic issue) with fitness (a health issue). There are plenty of people that are fit, and no matter what they do, will carry extra weight.

To me "eating right" means eating healthy foods, e.g. whole foods, fruits, vegetables, proteins as your primary nutrition rather than fatty and heavily sweetened foods. Exercise is the most important part of the equation. The data shows that so long as you are not sedentary you can pretty much eat and weigh whatever with little to no health consequence.

The depression does not come simply from the lack of eating, and thus the cessation of a rewarding activity. It comes from the diversion of energy away from active use (e.g. in the nervous system) and towards the restocking of fat stores. In other words, you'll never lose weight, and instead will just be bummed out all the time.

You talk of "millions of people" that have successfully lost weight. I'd like to see a data that shows a diet emphasizing caloric restriction leading to long term reductions in weight. Every study I've seen shows that diets of that sort yield short term weight loss although subjects generally reacquire the weight within a year of stopping the diet, and report depression during the diet. Prove me wrong.

>> ^scannex:

The normalization of obesity is a problem. The letter while technically unkind was done in a calm and constructive manner.
This woman IS in the public eye, and she does have the capacity to change her appearance.
People in this thread have drawn all sorts of parallels that just do not work, such as homosexuality.
A proper parallel would be something that is negative to her health, negative to the health of those that choose to follow her example, and something that is remediable...
Her obesity, by overwhelming odds is likely to be a behavioral issue, not a medical issue.
Therefore a more proper parallel would be her smoking while in front of the camera. Its not healthy, it is difficult but possible to modify the behavior, and it sets a poor example.
Do we bully people every time we tell them not to smoke? This woman did not appreciate being eluded to as fat. End of story, this guy wrote her a letter. He didn't soapbox in front of her kids school.


If millions lose weight by exercise and eating right and a few are clinically depressed because of it, I think that speaks to a psychological/neurological issue.

Or, they just haven't found the right foods to eat. I'd go insane if I ate rice cakes everyday, but it's not my body's fault that I'm depressed.

Yeah she is obese. How does pointing out the obvious help anybody? You think he wrote this email to her because perhaps it had never occured to her to lose weight? I'm not saying obesity is ok but honestly girls have a bad enough negative body image without people pointing out the flaws. Her weight doesn't effect anybody outside of her family so don't be a creep and write emails pretending that she's a bad role model or some shit.

The ultimate issue is "is it a choice?" Homosexuality is not considered a "choice" and thus is not considered "fair game" for criticism. Similarly a lot of data is showing that metabolic set points are not a "choice" or at least they're determined at a young age. Granted, you could starve yourself and exercise into losing weight, but the success rates long term are very low. People who try generally get depressed because they are forcing their body to operate in a way it doesn't want to simply to conform to social norms. The parallels with homosexuality continue. I mean, gay people could act straight. They just don't want to. Further, there is little data to suggest health issues associated with weight once you control for other lifestyle choices (exercise, diet, smoking, etc). Many people exercise everyday, eat a healthy diet, lead healthy lives, and are just fat. Honestly, it's the last bastion of socially accepted prejudice.