Being Fat in Big/Mid law?? Forum

[BVest]

Actually, it's very simple. Calories taken in vs. calories burned determines size. Amount / type of exercise determines body composition.

I think your equation is missing something. Or do you not poop?




(Like the book says: Everyone poops. Except hot girls).

[BVest]

[Fats are more prone to heart disease and other systemic diseases, such as diabetes. Treatment for those diseases costs a good deal of money, which the insurance companies pass on to the employer in terms of higher premiums. I'm not saying it's a sound move by the employer to criticize her like this, but the cost is likely in the back of their mind.

When you're 50. This a girl presumably mid-20s. Unless they're certain she'll make partner and are trying to budget 25 years down the road, the 37 y-o partner with tennis elbow is a bigger drain on their insurance budget... or even worse, the 5th year associate who's pregnant -- again!

Fats aren't protected like olds and knocked-ups.

Neither are 37 y-o's

[MyNameIsFlynn!]

I read "Being frat in BigLaw" and was looking forward to the inevitable bro stories and resulting discussion of fratty/NF firms.

[francesfarmer]

I'm proud of the internet right now because nobody has responded to my pro-fat arguments with "lol you must be fat"

3...2...1

[BVest]

I'm proud of the internet right now because nobody has responded to my pro-fat arguments with "lol you must be fat"

3...2...1

We can see the picture. Probably tip the scales around 20-25 lbs. (But then I look like a hairy almond with no pants on free bat day).

[Myself]

.

[lawhopeful10]

Probably gonna open a can of worms...

Okay, being overweight has a variety of causes, yada yada yada. I'll make the really bad assumption that this girl doesn't have a thyroid problem or whatever and that she's overweight because she doesn't exercise and inhales bad food all the time.

That being said, I really don't think there's anything inherently wrong with encouraging people to make healthier choices and live better lives. Obviously there are ways to present it and ways not to present it, but if a company is going to put its money where its mouth is and offer stuff like group gym plans and healthier options at events, it isn't unreasonable to expect employees to actually take advantage of these benefits. Heck, the company I work for now gives me money if I maintain a healthy weight.

Yeah, being in shape and more attractive helps in every aspect of life, especially careers where rich white dudes are in charge. I won a pitch competition to VC's in college mostly because I got one of the attractive people in class to dress like a skank and do the pitch I did the Q&A.

Ultimately, it's up to people to use or not use the information that's readily available and make good or stupid decisions. If somebody wants to eat junk all the time or go to Cooley at sticker, I can't stop them, but consequences are consequences.

Looks like I got scooped by someone else that lost weight. Good on you.

I'm not trying to argue because I'm lazy and leaving work in 8 minutes and I'm not particularly offended by your post, but that's just not really how being fat works. Some people are just naturally fat, and a lot of people are fat and healthy.

Like, how do you define fat? That's a problematic question in and of itself. The BMI system is completely fucked.

Actually, it's very simple. Calories taken in vs. calories burned determines size. Amount / type of exercise determines body composition.

Some people are naturally good at the LSAT. Others require more practice / study, but everyone is capable of getting a respectable score if they choose to. Same thing with weight. People can make all the excuses they want about being fat, but the fact is they haven't prioritized moderation / healthy lifestyles if they're obese.

It's really not that simple, and the criteria for determining whether someone is "obese" is deeply flawed itself. BMI charts are bullshit. If you disagree with that basic point I don't really know where to begin with you.

I think several different points are being made here causing confusion. On the one hand defining a term like fat or obese I'm sure is difficult, if studying the law reveals anything it's the inherent ambiguities in words. Y2Zipper seems to be arguing one should be accountable for their weight/appearance and that they are fully capable of altering others subjecting opinions of how overweight/obese they are. Whether you agree with this or not is different then attempting to isolate a precise threshold where one person is fat, obese, whatever and one person is not.

[SaintsTheMetal]

Actually, it's very simple. Calories taken in vs. calories burned determines size. Amount / type of exercise determines body composition.

Some people are naturally good at the LSAT. Others require more practice / study, but everyone is capable of getting a respectable score if they choose to. Same thing with weight. People can make all the excuses they want about being fat, but the fact is they haven't prioritized moderation / healthy lifestyles if they're obese.

It's really not that simple, and the criteria for determining whether someone is "obese" is deeply flawed itself. BMI charts are bullshit. If you disagree with that basic point I don't really know where to begin with you.

Actually, it's very simple. Calories taken in vs. calories burned determines size. Amount / type of exercise determines body composition.

I think your equation is missing something. Or do you not poop?

No, Redfactor is 100% right. Eat more calories than you burn and you gain weight, eat less calories and you lose weight. No magic. Most people depending on body size with ZERO exercise will burn somewhere 1500-2500 calories, eat less than your particular metabolism burns and you will lose weight (don't even need to step into the dreaded gym!)

As far as the pooping comment, yes calories from fiber carbs do not metabolize, so you don't actually need to count the 4 cals per carb, but again that can only decrease the actual calories you are consuming, there is absolutely no way to take in more calories than what is on the back of the box/wrapper/bag/whatever.

tl;dr (calories in) - (calories burned) = net weight gain
Fat people either have a problem of being ignorant of the actual macros of what they're eating, or a self-control problem, but usually both. Hint: your Panera Bread sandwich has almost twice as many calories as a Big Mac. Add in a soda and a bag of chips and you're near 1500 calories in that one meal.

whether you exercise or not will really only determine whether a calorie SURPLUS will be used to build muscle or fat, or similarly at a calorie DEFICIT exercise can minimize the amount of muscle burned.



edit: who cares about the BMI system (yes it does not work for athletes.) If you have a shit load of body fat, you are fat.
Quantitative measures are very difficult or inaccurate, whether BMI or BF%, but the simple visual test never fails.

[guano]

I don't know. I'm pretty big and there are attorneys here that are even more overweight. If it matters at all I think it only matters for women.

Not really. I used to do business with some blubber balls in the south. One of em was so freaking fat he was a topic of office conversation.

You don't ever want to be the topic of office conversation at other places.

Your shower shoes have fungus on them. You'll never make it to the bigs with fungus on your shower shoes. Think classy, you'll be classy. If you win 20 in the show, you can let the fungus grow back and the press'll think you're colorful. Until you win 20 in the show, however, it means you are a slob.

[BVest]

What the hell is that supposed to mean? Is it wrong to be pregnant?

Not at all. Point being there are plenty of reasons a business' health insurance premiums will go up due to utilization by perfectly healthy and even skinny people. Whereas someone young and overweight is not likely to cause such rises unless she is similarly situated. Her being overweight is not a factor.

[guano]

What the hell is that supposed to mean? Is it wrong to be pregnant?

Not at all. Point being there are plenty of reasons a business' health insurance premiums will go up due to utilization by perfectly healthy and even skinny people. Whereas someone young and overweight is not likely to cause such rises unless she is similarly situated. Her being overweight is not a factor.

Do you realize you're talking out of your ass?

[BVest]

What the hell is that supposed to mean? Is it wrong to be pregnant?

Not at all. Point being there are plenty of reasons a business' health insurance premiums will go up due to utilization by perfectly healthy and even skinny people. Whereas someone young and overweight is not likely to cause such rises unless she is similarly situated. Her being overweight is not a factor.

Do you realize you're talking out of your ass?

When was the last time you bought a group plan for a business. If it wasn't two years ago than you might want to rethink that.

[Anonymous User]

Well, if she's fat, not exercising and eating fries then I think it's fair for the firm to encourage her to lose weight. If a firm can encourage a smoker to not smoke or an alcoholic not to drink then they should absolutely be able to encourage a fatass not to be such a fatass. It will influence interactions with some clients, rock up insurance costs, etc.

If you look at medical data, the rate of obese non-smokers vs. in-shape smokers having major surgeries before 60 and dying young is substantially higher. So, they can discriminate against smokers, but not voluntarily fat people? That's unfair, and as a smoking marathon runner I'm offended.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Well, if she's fat, not exercising and eating fries then I think it's fair for the firm to encourage her to lose weight. If a firm can encourage a smoker to not smoke or an alcoholic not to drink then they should absolutely be able to encourage a fatass not to be such a fatass. It will influence interactions with some clients, rock up insurance costs, etc.

If you look at medical data, the rate of obese non-smokers vs. in-shape smokers having major surgeries before 60 and dying young is substantially higher. So, they can discriminate against smokers, but not voluntarily fat people? That's unfair, and as a smoking marathon runner I'm offended.

Where did anyone say that this described the woman in question? Also, cite for the comparison about major surgeries?

[t-14orbust]

During OCI, I believe that I may have been judged immensely for being overweight. I was 80 pounds overweight at the time. Since then I've lost those 80 pounds and interviews go much better.

That said, my confidence is much better since losing the weight as well. I also know that I asked every wrong question in the book during OCI, which I do not do now.

Was it the weight, the way I presented myself/answered questions/questions I asked, or a combination? I'll never know for sure, but I suspect weight played at least a partial role in my previous failures.

What are these wrong questions?

[guano]

What the hell is that supposed to mean? Is it wrong to be pregnant?

Not at all. Point being there are plenty of reasons a business' health insurance premiums will go up due to utilization by perfectly healthy and even skinny people. Whereas someone young and overweight is not likely to cause such rises unless she is similarly situated. Her being overweight is not a factor.

Do you realize you're talking out of your ass?

When was the last time you bought a group plan for a business. If it wasn't two years ago than you might want to rethink that.

When was the last time you did?

[splitsplat]

I'm proud of the internet right now because nobody has responded to my pro-fat arguments with "lol you must be fat"

3...2...1

ht and weight?

[BVest]

Do you realize you're talking out of your ass?

When was the last time you bought a group plan for a business. If it wasn't two years ago than you might want to rethink that.

When was the last time you did?

Did my question leave it that opaque? Two years ago. And for nine more years prior to that.

[guano]

Do you realize you're talking out of your ass?

When was the last time you bought a group plan for a business. If it wasn't two years ago than you might want to rethink that.

When was the last time you did?

Did my question leave it that opaque? Two years ago. And for nine more years prior to that.

I'm confused on the two year part.

Edit: you're saying you haven't done it in the past two years, yet are saying its been different these past two years. Care to explain?

[BVest]

Edit: you're saying you haven't done it in the past two years, yet are saying its been different these past two years. Care to explain?

Where did I say it's been different the past two years? I never said that.

What I did imply was that if you haven't done it for the in the last two years then you have no more recent experience than i do. I haven't done it for the last two years because I quit my job last year and haven't done it since 2011.

[NinerFan]

I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt and think that maybe they're just legitimately concerned for her health, but that's probably a bit naive.

But hey, at my big law firm, I can think of a good number of partner who are at least a bit overweight, and several who are noticeably obese. And at least a few were made partner in the last 5 years or so. So I don't think being fat in big law is going to torpedo anyone's career, unless you're at Davis Polk, who only hire beautiful people /atl troll

[guano]

Edit: you're saying you haven't done it in the past two years, yet are saying its been different these past two years. Care to explain?

Where did I say it's been different the past two years? I never said that.

What I did imply was that if you haven't done it for the in the last two years then you have no more recent experience than i do. I haven't done it for the last two years because I quit my job last year and haven't done it since 2011.

I just reread what you wrote a few times and I'm
Not sure I'm interpreting it correctly

[jawsthegreat]

I think bad decisions lead to weight gain. But it's a lot harder than some people think to lose weight for a variety of reasons.

E.g, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/scie ... found.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/magaz ... wanted=all

Edit: didn't mean to make anon.

The articles you linked don't support your point at all but actually support the idea that some people are just naturally fat.

Nobody is naturally fat. Nobody is naturally skinny. Some people just consume more calories than they burn. Yes, it is true that some people need more calories than others, but nobody is "naturally fat."

[09042014]

I think bad decisions lead to weight gain. But it's a lot harder than some people think to lose weight for a variety of reasons.

E.g, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/scie ... found.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/magaz ... wanted=all

Edit: didn't mean to make anon.

The articles you linked don't support your point at all but actually support the idea that some people are just naturally fat.

Nobody is naturally fat. Nobody is naturally skinny. Some people just consume more calories than they burn. Yes, it is true that some people need more calories than others, but nobody is "naturally fat."

Some people stay hungry even after they eat enough calories. That doesn't make them naturally fat, but it's pretty close.

[Person1111]

Actually, it's very simple. Calories taken in vs. calories burned determines size. Amount / type of exercise determines body composition.

Some people are naturally good at the LSAT. Others require more practice / study, but everyone is capable of getting a respectable score if they choose to. Same thing with weight. People can make all the excuses they want about being fat, but the fact is they haven't prioritized moderation / healthy lifestyles if they're obese.

It's really not that simple, and the criteria for determining whether someone is "obese" is deeply flawed itself. BMI charts are bullshit. If you disagree with that basic point I don't really know where to begin with you.

Actually, it's very simple. Calories taken in vs. calories burned determines size. Amount / type of exercise determines body composition.

I think your equation is missing something. Or do you not poop?

No, Redfactor is 100% right. Eat more calories than you burn and you gain weight, eat less calories and you lose weight. No magic. Most people depending on body size with ZERO exercise will burn somewhere 1500-2500 calories, eat less than your particular metabolism burns and you will lose weight (don't even need to step into the dreaded gym!)

As far as the pooping comment, yes calories from fiber carbs do not metabolize, so you don't actually need to count the 4 cals per carb, but again that can only decrease the actual calories you are consuming, there is absolutely no way to take in more calories than what is on the back of the box/wrapper/bag/whatever.

tl;dr (calories in) - (calories burned) = net weight gain
Fat people either have a problem of being ignorant of the actual macros of what they're eating, or a self-control problem, but usually both. Hint: your Panera Bread sandwich has almost twice as many calories as a Big Mac. Add in a soda and a bag of chips and you're near 1500 calories in that one meal.

whether you exercise or not will really only determine whether a calorie SURPLUS will be used to build muscle or fat, or similarly at a calorie DEFICIT exercise can minimize the amount of muscle burned.



edit: who cares about the BMI system (yes it does not work for athletes.) If you have a shit load of body fat, you are fat.
Quantitative measures are very difficult or inaccurate, whether BMI or BF%, but the simple visual test never fails.

Yeah, most of this post is junk science.