Talk:Obesity

Genetics as cause of being fat

The header of the "Causes" sections states that "A limited number of cases are due primarily to genetics, medical reasons, or psychiatric illness", while the subsection on genetics says that " The differences in BMI between people that are due to genetics varies depending on the population examined from 6% to 85%". The seperate article on genectics of besity at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetics_of_obesity says the same thing. This seems to me a fairly serious mismatch. Both sources (10.1093/epirev/mxm004 for the claim of 8% -85%, 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.29.020907.090954 for the "limtied" claim) are well cited, but the source for the limited claim doesn't actually adress genetics at all but is mostly concerned with food prices and calioric availability. I would suggest changing the header of the section from "A limited number of cases are due primarily to genetics, medical reasons, or psychiatric illness" to "Genetics contribute to obesity, with contributions between 6% and 85% reported depending on the examined population" (or something to this effect), citing 10.1093/epirev/mxm004. I feel that 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.29.020907.090954 is also not a good source for claums on "medical reasons or psychiatric illness" either, but am not sure how to reword this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:D4:770E:E9A2:58FC:FFD5:C647:8FF5 (talk) 09:52, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Protein to carbohydrate+fat ratio as cause of obesity

An excellent article about the cause of obesity by Simpson and Raubenheimer from 2005 with more than 300 citations: https://www.swissmilk.ch/fr/services/professionnels-de-la-sante/materiel-dinformation/low-carb-plus/-dl-/fileadmin/filemount/k/simpson-05-obesity-the-protein-leverage-hypothesis.pdf

Slur?

I saw this edit saying "obesity" is a slur. It seems to me that "obesity" and "fatness" are interchangeable in common parlance, but in case that section heading becomes the center of a naming dispute, is there any reliably-sourced basis for considering "obesity" a slur, that could be covered in this article? Or against such a label, or neutral about it? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:41, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

The editor's edit summary expresses their opinion that the word "obesity" is a slur. There is no evidence to support that opinion. If anything, the word "fat" is used more often as a slur to describe someone, but neither "obese" nor "fat" are inherently a slur. The use of the word "obesity" in the article in which that editor performed an edit clearly was not intended as a slur. General Ization ^Talk 16:47, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

There are certainly sources describing either term as derogatory. For example, Wadden and Didie. "What’s in a name? Patients’ preferred terms for describing obesity." Obesity Research 2003;11:1140–1146. ParticipantObserver (talk) 02:10, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Wadden also has a follow-up paper on the same theme. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3310899/#:~:text=When%20used%20by%20the%20public,weight%20(3%2C4). ParticipantObserver (talk) 02:16, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

The words "tall", "short", "white", "black", "brown", "rich" and "poor" can also be used in derogatory ways, but that does not make the words inherently derogatory, nor are they commonly perceived as such, which is generally what is meant by the term slur. Note that the edit that prompted the OP to bring the question here replaced the word "obesity" with "fatness", which your source reports can also be perceived as derogatory. General Ization ^Talk 02:20, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Also, an academic paper that identifies terms that patients "dislike" or that the authors deem "undesirable" in the context of building rapport with and treating patients who are medically determined to be overweight doesn't really address the question of whether or not the term obesity is a "slur". General Ization ^Talk 02:28, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what level of evidence you're seeking that this term is a 'slur'. I imagine it would be difficult to provide a reliable source indicating that most slurs are inherently slurs. Certainly the term 'obese' is commonly perceived as conveying implications of laziness, poor self-control, etc. Note that the OP asked (among other things) if there is a reliably-sourced basis against the use of such a label. And certainly there are reliable sources indicating that they are against the use of such a label. In non-medical contexts, the term 'obese' is often used as a form of reproach, intended to denigrate a specific person or group of people. Thus, a slur. It is commonly perceived as derogatory. Per the source I provided, "When used by the public, terms such as 'obese' and 'fat' often carry negative, demeaning social connotations. The term 'obesity' also is perceived to have negative connotations when used by health care providers to discuss patients' excess weight." It is commonly perceived as negative in a medical context, and demeaning outside of a medical context. ParticipantObserver (talk) 11:39, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Here are some additional sources indicating perceptions that the term is offensive: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/merseyside/8615839.stm https://torontosun.com/news/world/woke-academics-say-word-obesity-is-racist-and-should-be-scrapped-for-larger-bodies https://nypost.com/2022/05/18/university-of-illinois-chicago-wants-to-cancel-racist-word-obesity/ https://www.irishtimes.com/news/obese-a-derogatory-term-study-finds-1.713735 ParticipantObserver (talk) 11:45, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

And yes, I would agree that the term 'fat' is also problematic, for effectively the same reasons. I did not intend to suggest that I agreed with the original edit, only that there is in fact evidence that these terms are commonly perceived as slurs. ParticipantObserver (talk) 11:48, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I need some clarity here:

1. What changes to this article are being proposed?
2. Under what Wikipedia policy are the proposals being made?

All the discussion in the world is pointless - the above is meta discussion and speculation. Without proposed changes, and under what rubric, it falls into WP:NOTAFORUM. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:28, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I asked here in case editors familiar with this topic think there would be grounds to oppose a film article's section heading that uses "obesity" in it. If there was some reliably-sourced basis for that, a follow-up action could be to cover whether or not "obesity" is a slur (or a pejorative label or whatever) in this article. The section heading's change from "obesity" to "fatness" was changed back, but there has not been any more contentious editing on that front at this time. If there isn't a strong basis, then changing from "obesity" to "fatness" seems just an editor's POV rather being in line with the NPOV policy. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:34, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I think the OP pretty clearly expressed the potential for an edit, if not an improvement, that they were considering to this article in the first statement in this section. It isn't an edit I support, but I'm puzzled by your suggestion that the discussion is inappropriate. Not sure what policy should apply other than the general policy that supports the discussion of a proposed improvement to an article on the article's Talk page. General Ization ^Talk 20:38, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

@Anastrophe: Your return to address this promptly would be appreciated; otherwise, I can only say that drive-by comments that seem intended to chill a civil and constructive discussion among editors about improving an article seem to be counter to Wikipedia's culture as I know it. If you think it is "pointless", you are free, of course, to not participate in it. General Ization ^Talk 21:01, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

My apologies for a several-hours absence; I had other things to attend to. Suggesting it's a drive-by is a bit much, I've been here seventeen years, people do have other responsibilities besides Wikipedia. This is an asynchronous medium; it should not be out of bounds to not be instantly available to respond. I asked a simple and straightforward question; tossing out 'chill a civil and constructive discussion' is also unnecessarily confrontational. I would suggest, in this regard, we all 'chillax'.

I don't think my question was unreasonable. That people take offense to some things is hardly notable. People are offended it seems by a leaf falling in front of them these days. We do not kowtow to people's sensibilities here, generally speaking. There is an article on the phrase Nigger in the woodpile here on Wikipedia; prima facie offensive and objectionable, but a necessary article to explain the origin of the term and its history. Those who instigate 'offense' in order to silence or remove offensive things are out of bounds; those who insist on having every petty offense described and requiring apologia are also out of bounds.

If the coverage of the matter of a few people finding the medical term 'obesity' offensive is substantial enough, perhaps it could be mentioned; however, it's not strictly related to the medical condition described herein. I don't think the coverage is even remotely substantial enough to warrant. Changing topic headers in this article to appease the offended is a non-starter. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 22:55, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

To return to the conversation, @Erik, perhaps all we can conclude at this time is that obesity is a term that some people find objectionable, especially if it is applied or directed to them. However, it is a medical term that has technical uses, and its use in a header at the article you mentioned to refer to the means to artificially depict someone, who is not, as being extremely overweight is probably a good example of that usage. As used to refer to a medical condition that WHO estimates causes more than 4 million deaths a year, I don't see how we could describe it as a slur, except when and if someone chooses to use it that way, and, as I mentioned above, almost any adjective can be used as an insult in some context. I don't think that use requires specific mention at this article. General Ization ^Talk 21:46, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

That makes sense. I only ask because it seems related to people-first language. Another instance I can think of is that "hearing impaired" is disliked in general by the deaf and hard of hearing community. (See the end of the lead section for hearing loss.) I do not know enough about this particular topic and how to structure it, so I had wanted to ask. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:52, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Personally, I think it's fine in the header. I also think the offense that is taken at the term is notable and potentially worth describing as the OP suggested. And I disagree that the complaints about the term are not strictly related to the medical condition. All of the sources I pointed to earlier are focused on the term as a medical condition, in some cases suggesting that the offense taken by the term causes problems with the ability of people to seek and receive medical care, and most of the sources suggest that other names for people with the medical condition would be more acceptable while still allowing treatment of the medical condition (e.g., 'people with larger bodies' instead of 'people who are obese'). Considering this to be a 'petty offense' and equating it with being offended 'by a leaf falling in front of them' is remarkably dismissive given that these concerns are related to well-known and well-described problems that have notable negative impacts on the people involved (see Social stigma of obesity). As Erik suggests above, there are equivalent naming issues with other medical conditions. Hearing loss describes some of these problems: "Use of the terms 'hearing impaired', 'deaf-mute', or 'deaf and dumb' to describe deaf and hard of hearing people is discouraged by many in the deaf community as well as advocacy organizations, as they are offensive to many deaf and hard of hearing people." It is unclear to me why a similar description would be out of bounds in this article. ParticipantObserver (talk) 09:05, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

A section about the matters you describe would be fine. Changing any of the medical content or headers etc. to 'not hurt feelings' would not be supportable by policy. WP isn't censored. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 00:14, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

'Not be supportable by policy' is incorrect b/c WP:GRATUITOUS; selecting one inoffensive term over one offensive term is not censorship per se... editors are not required to select the most offensive term available to them. However, the term 'fatness' here is probably in fact less accurate in this particular context than the term 'obesity', and it seems that we are all in agreement that the use of the term obesity is fine in the header and that the medical content doesn't need to be removed. And that the OP's suggestion re: adding some text related to the reliably-sourced basis for considering "obesity" offensive might be covered in this article. ParticipantObserver (talk) 19:45, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

selecting one inoffensive term over one offensive term is not censorship per se... editors are not required to select the most offensive term available to them. Er, that's a faulty construct at best. There is no suggestion anywhere here that the 'most offensive' term be selected. And yes, selecting an inoffensive term over an allegedly offensive one is censorship after a fashion. It is conforming encyclopedic content to the emotional whims of those who claim offense, and removing the word they dislike. You would have to show overwhelming evidence that the term obesity is offensive to the vast majority of people - obese and not obese people. There's a significant difference between referring to disabled people throughout an article on disability as "gimps", and simply using a medical term in an article about that medical term/condition that a handful of people don't like. If someone edited the disability article and replaced all instanced of 'disabled' with 'gimps', it would be near-instantly reverted as vandalism, because it is overwhelmingly recognize that that is an especially offensive term to virtually all people, disabled and not disabled alike.

Is there overwhelming evidence that 'obesity' is offensive to the vast majority of people? If so, then the entire article needs to be renamed. If not, we refer to obesity as obesity.

But yes - at this point, we are reasonably all in agreement that the article as it stands doesn't need revision to remove the term obesity, and also that a section discussing perhaps all of the emotional consequences of slurs; meta-relevant effects on addressing obesity, and cultural response to obesity and offense taken to terms related to obesity may certainly be warranted. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 23:03, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Glad we all agree on the actions to be taken. Have a great day! ParticipantObserver (talk) 11:35, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2022 (2)

I want to change the "Other factors" section because I think that more can be said about sleep deprivation's role regarding obesity. I have a reliable source from the Harvard School of Public Health. This is an assignment for school as well. I would add 1-2 sentences saying "Chronic sleep deprivation may lead to weight gain either by increasing how much food people eat or decreasing the energy that they burn". I would also add that sleep deprivation could decrease energy expenditure because people who don't get enough sleep are more tired during the day and as a result reduce their physical activity". Section I would like to change: "A number of reviews have found an association between short duration of sleep and obesity.[159][160] Whether one causes the other is unclear.[159] Even if short sleep does increase weight gain it is unclear if this is to a meaningful degree or if increasing sleep would be of benefit.[161]". Citation: “Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.” Obesity Prevention Source, https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/obesity-prevention-source/. Jhsgp (talk) 04:48, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Can you please point specifically to the specific web page (or other source) where those claims are made? The main page at https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/obesity-prevention-source/ says nothing about sleep or sleep deprivation. Thanks. ParticipantObserver (talk) 09:08, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Closing edit request pending response Aaron Liu (talk) 21:14, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

NOVA episode.

There is a NOVA episode that may be helpful to the writers of this article, "The Truth About Fat". One of the topics it addresses is how Sumo wrestlers, who eat 10,000 calories per day in order to stay bulked up, are healthy. The episode is currently available to be seen on some "On Demand" functions and on YouTube on the "NOVA PBS Official" channel. Very interesting. Thank you for your time, Wordreader (talk) 01:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)