Thinner

I posted on the recent Fat Pack thread, but thought perhaps a subject header of it's own is best if I'm to avoid being steamrolled or simply derailing that worthwhile debate.

Basically, I'm the opposite end of

...*America's Terrible Battle with Obesity*...
("ya gotta get a gimmick," Sondheim might opine)

'cuz I'm thin

always have been

my grandfather was thinner and taller than me...hell everyone on my mother's side=thin(if one wants to beg the genetics question)

DEFINITELY not to catalyze the folderol over "who is the more victimized and demonized"...that would be people perceived as being overweight

...but, I too have been singled out because of my (lack of)weight

sometimes I've been "heavier" than others, but never have I been husky or plump or even fat

like I said, this subject isn't about victimization, but rather to illustrate the other side of the equation:



Who else experiences difficulty finishing large portions, feels overserved(foodwise) in restaurants, or, generally, feels out of step with the mores of the redblooded American diet?



a copy of my comment on that other thread:

I'm a pleasantly petite person no matter what I eat(and I eat whatever, whenever...metabolism! so wonderful! so enviable!...feh...)...so, maybe I don't have any dogs in the race. Except..."huge portions" I hate them[yes, I can doggy bag(hell, I doggy bag smaller portions)].

This begs host etiquette, but I despise the imposition to clean my plate or ask for seconds when I generally prefer (and need) to eat over stretches of time i.e. not gorge at one sitting. So...if I genuinely like the food made (with love) for me, but I can't cram down that "loving" extra portion AND ask for seconds...I'm somehow insulting my host!? It's the opposite end of the spectrum...I've always been encouraged to gain weight by people who barely know me and certainly aren't familiar with my personal weight spectrum. My favorite way to dine? Many courses(variety/diversity) over a relaxing period of time, or, more likely...bites here and there of one large balanced meal...I physically can't devour regular Midwestern servings in one sitting. Which is why I'm almost ridiculously happy when I do manage to clean my plate(usually if I'm trying to appease someone I'm unfamiliar with and I've skipped an earlier meal).
_________________

It's all well and good if you decide for yourself(individualism!) to lose or gain weight. But just as I've heard friends ridiculed by apparently-society-approved dipshits to their face/behind their backs about their (over)weight(and, in turn been entreated to not respond)...so to do this culture's assholes self-aggrandize and attempt to control the other(the other's nonconformist appearance) in a further neurotic attempt to entrench their own ridiculously defensive selves(which they would simplistically understand as a singular "self").

The "overweight" in society may take it upon themselves to modify their bodies(presumably at their own behest, not some horrendous prostration to an ignorant, semiotically-challenged, status-inclined public).

The ("overly")thin take it on the chin

And the health dangers in being naturally thin are...what, again?

Hmm...

I'm referring here to somatic codifications...not "diagnoses." There are psychological nexi tweaked in being perceived as "overly-thin"...how about those starlets routinely hounded as infotainment?

Christopher Gordon wrote:Hmm...

I'm referring here to somatic codifications...not "diagnoses." There are psychological nexi tweaked in being perceived as "overly-thin"...how about those starlets routinely hounded as infotainment?

When gossip media makes a bid deal about someone being thin, it is usually because they lost a large amount of weight suddenly. Also the relationship between the gossip media and celebs is a lot closer to that of coworkers than most people realize. The ones that don't want to be in the news or magazines usually aren't. Especially now, it is common for celebs to exploit embarrassing or negative information about themselves just to keep their names in the news. Sudden "thinnification" is considered a common publicity stunt, similar to getting pregnant, getting into a relationship, and going to rehab. Of course these things aren't always done just to get noticed, but they are more often then people think.

It annoys me, too, when I go out to a restaurant and I get a portion big enough for two with leftovers. Restaurants often give you so much, and if you're not going right home, you basically have to decide to either eat it all or have the rest thrown away. I wish portions were somewhat close to 'normal' (or at least what 'normal' oughta be.)

Slightly larger portions are nice (when you can get home to refrigerate them) because you can eat them the next day for lunch or serve them as a side dish. I don't like when portions are so huge you can hardly get through the entree since they stuffed you at the soup course, or you're still eating the leftovers for the rest of the week.

I used to be thin too. My mother told me it would catch up with me!

Last night for dinner I got a 1/2 portion of pasta, and it was still so huge I took half of it home. Crazy.

leek wrote:Last night for dinner I got a 1/2 portion of pasta, and it was still so huge I took half of it home. Crazy.

I hear ya. I recall last time I ordered a petite filet for dinner at a local steakhouse and it was like 8 ounces after cooking. That's petite? Considering a standard sized serving for meat is about the size of a deck of cards, 8 oz is a LOT of meat on its own.

It's really obnoxious when a 1/2 serving of pasta is still equivalent to an entire box of dried pasta. It's gimmicky and wasteful, and beyond that, you get palate fatigue after 1/3 of a serving. I get that far and not only am I completely stuffed, but I can't imagine ever wanting to eat it ever again.

Thank you. If there's one important, possibly malleable quotient, it's portion size. The monolith to combat though is a culture where quantity is perceived as quality; "getting your money's worth." I'm okay with taking leftovers home...if I don't eat it the s/o probably will, but I do not enjoy being put in the position(if I have post-meal plans) of sending half a plate back to the kitchen's trash. I don't like the actual waste, nor do I wish to be perceived as wasteful by my dining companions who may have the ability to clean a plate.

bnowell724 wrote:

Christopher Gordon wrote:Hmm...

I'm referring here to somatic codifications...not "diagnoses." There are psychological nexi tweaked in being perceived as "overly-thin"...how about those starlets routinely hounded as infotainment?

When gossip media makes a bid deal about someone being thin, it is usually because they lost a large amount of weight suddenly. Also the relationship between the gossip media and celebs is a lot closer to that of coworkers than most people realize. The ones that don't want to be in the news or magazines usually aren't. Especially now, it is common for celebs to exploit embarrassing or negative information about themselves just to keep their names in the news. Sudden "thinnification" is considered a common publicity stunt, similar to getting pregnant, getting into a relationship, and going to rehab. Of course these things aren't always done just to get noticed, but they are more often then people think.

You are correct, of course. My not terribly thorough comment(thinnification! of celebs) to "fat" people being perceived as unhealthy whereas as thin people "couldn't possibly be..."

...is that there are two sides to the coin. A body fascist will find something to oppose themselves against and deride(in an unfortunately socially-acceptable realm) whether it's an "unhealthy" fat person or a "sickly" thin person.

jpschust wrote:I hear ya. I recall last time I ordered a petite filet for dinner at a local steakhouse and it was like 8 ounces after cooking. That's petite? Considering a standard sized serving for meat is about the size of a deck of cards, 8 oz is a LOT of meat on its own.

Considering the common servings in steakhouses, a half pound steak, the same size as most barroom burgers, is quite petite.

The 3-ounce deck-of-cards size is the "diet-plate" serving; it's touted by nutritionists but any steakhouse that actually served such tiny portions as a matter of course would be out of business rapidly. I don't think you can even buy steaks that small in the grocery store, unless you're talking about minute steaks. On the other hand, the nutritionists want you to have 6-11 servings of carbs daily with your mini meat.

I have found that most restaurants are accommodating if you ask to split courses. For example, servers Rosebud -- champs among the "everyone gets a doggy bag" eateries -- are quite skillful at doing splitting at the table with a flourish.

From the restaurateurs' perspective, 25 cents worth of extra pasta makes a generous serving that most people perceive as good value. The number of diners offended by excess is likely quite small in comparison, even among people who don't actually eat it all. It's much better for your reputation to provide abundant portions than inadequate ones, and hearty eaters are most restaurants' bread-and-butter.

I just want some indication, from the menu or the waiter, of how big the portion is likely to be, so I can plan my meal properly.

A friend of mine in high school struggled with being underweight. She ate like a stevedore, but was always underweight -- to the point that her doctor ordered her to drink milkshakes because of female health issues. She bought her clothes in the boys' department and lamented her flat chest.

That's just one more example of genetic variation. People are perfectly willing to accept such differences in animals -- e.g. greyhounds and St. Bernards -- but somehow all people are supposed to fit a certain narrowly defined standard. It doesn't make sense.

I can certainly attest to the genetics theory.

I am very hourglass shaped. I have what I call a "fat" tooth, like others have a sweet tooth. We have mayo, butter, ice cream & other creamy delights in the house. I eat for a myriad of reasons, not the least but not the most urgent being taste & necessity.

My daughter, OTOH, who is almost 8, is thin as a reed. She eats everything, yet she naturally prefers fruit, vegetables & not much meat. Then of course, she does like her sweet desserts & candy, as I suppose most kids do.

Here's the thing: we are the only 2 in the house, she has never been influenced by anyone else's eating habits. So, if nurture is the key factor, this girl should be eating creamy fat laden foods, like I do. But it is her nature that makes her select the kinds of foods that she prefers, and its amazing that in that way, she is exactly like her father, who is 6' tall & 140 lbs. & also has an aversion to feeling 'full" and eating anything "heavy". His mother is the same way, as are most of his family.

She hasn't seen him since she was 15 months old, however, so how else to account for this except her genes?

LAZ wrote:That's just one more example of genetic variation. People are perfectly willing to accept such differences in animals -- e.g. greyhounds and St. Bernards -- but somehow all people are supposed to fit a certain narrowly defined standard. It doesn't make sense.

True, but even St. Bernards have their healthy weight and their healthy diets, just as do greyhounds. And they're a lot closer than you would think unless one or the other is doing ssome level of extreme activity. Most greyhounds and st. bernards kept as pets mainly lay around during the dya and can maintain a pretty similar diet. There are certainly variables for humans, but there are quite a few dieting generalities that apply to all humans.