While nothing in this article is entirely false or necessarily fat logic, my point in posting it is that so many of their points are frequently used by fatlogicians to claim that they're healthy, or HAES, or the whole "you can't look at someone and tell their health" argument.

There have been tons of posts here of the typical arguments, and this blog post (while informative and accurate when read with a neutral or logical mindset) unfortunately solidifies issues like:

• I'm heavy, but it's mostly muscle
• My bloodwork is good, so being fat isn't affecting my health
• My doctor just wants me to lose weight because I'm fat, even though I'm "healthy as a horse"
• I'm fat but I'm emotionally healthy (which typically isn't true for these people anyway) and trying to lose weight will risk that
• There are plenty of unhealthy "skinny" people so there must be healthy fat people

I guess my main point of what annoys me about this article is that, while what they're saying is true, I feel like they should have emphasized more that for someone aiming to better their health, the first priority should be to get in a healthy BMI range or, at the very least, out of the obese BMI ranges. Once your within that range priorities in health vary greatly and just depend on you. I know there are people who find it helpful to not obsess over the numbers and to just focus on health, which is a perfectly fine and great way to lose weight. But even then the goal is still to reach a level of health that would put you in that healthy BMI range, even if you're not thinking of it explicitly in those terms.

I just feel like this article appeals less to those people and more to the HAES type.