Warning: This post contains a great deal of sex and violence
The internet is annoying tonight. I'll provide you with some links to demonstrate.
When I logged on, this came up on my homepage: And so on and so on: Obesity 'socially contagious,' study finds
A landmark study has found that whether those closest to you are overweight or slender can significantly influence your own body shape and that of others ( Read more... )
When I logged on, this came up on my homepage: And so on and so on: Obesity 'socially contagious,' study finds
A landmark study has found that whether those closest to you are overweight or slender can significantly influence your own body shape and that of others ( Read more... )
I'm getting really burnt out on the term overweight as defined by the BMI being used to berate EVERYONE who isn't a size 6. Doctors and nutritionists I've talked to have said, and I'm pretty sure I've read the same online, that the overweight range is a fairly recent addition to the BMI. It was put in not because being overweight itself is unhealthy, but because overweight people tend to gain weight over time and become obese, which is unhealthy. It's basically a warning to get in shape, not a problem in it's own right. Furthermore, it ignores more recent research that factors in bone structure. For instance, hourglass-shaped women have healthier hearts, a waist-to-hip ratio greater than 80% is considered unhealthy, and being chesty isn't harmful unless you have back issues because of it. It's extra fat on the abdomen that's the biggest factor, IIRC women should have waist <35 inches, and men <38. Also, those in the overweight category are better able to fight off infection, particularity seniors, and women with extra meat on their bones are much less likely to get osteoporosis.
Reply
This isn't to ignore the fact that a lot of people, obese and overweight especially, should be working out more and eating healthier. But what's the cause of the problem? Several things:
*The US is the only industrialized nation that spends <10% of it's net income on food, because of our ridiculous supply levels. This is in large part because of the ag revolution of the past 20 something years that continues to this day. Technology has exponentially increased our supply of wheat, corn, soybeans, that sort of thing (including the meat products we get from our overabundance of said products), faster than it has evolved for produce.
*Farmers have to either use current technology to financially keep up, or if they're the lucky few on unpolluted land as per EPA standards and that have the money and training to convert, they can go organic, raise open range livestock, and/or diversify their land to raise higher paying products (in particular fish farming, grapes (wine is a booming industry because of current economics, the farmer makes more and the public can actually afford it now) fruits, etc)
*Shitty, over-processed "food", especially the simple grains that are known to contribute to obesity, are both more affordable and easier to prepare, a big concern for single parents. Calories/dollar is a big concern when you barely make the rent.
*Meat is cheap, because the livestock industry is being taken over by big business, which doesn't lose sleep at night over paying Mexicans 3 bucks an hour, abusing the ever-living fuck out of chickens, etc. The US government has ~15 year waiting list for Mexicans to legally immigrate here (despite the fact that we stole half of Mexico in the 1800s and have been financially suppressing them ever since). So, rather that let their own children starve, because believe it or not, brown people are human too, Mexicans risk their lives for jobs where they will be suppressed, physically and mentally injured, etc, in the hope that maybe their grandkids will be okay. Why the US uses such racist quotas, rather than look at which immigrants if legal could help our economy, is way the fuck beyond me.
*(On a related note, I don't know why we suppress immigrants. Not only is it hugely immoral and against the ideals of this nation, the working class is the group adding the most to the economy, by spending more of their income than the wealthy.)
Reply
*With all our cheap food and sedentary jobs, the only way poor families can keep in shape is through exercise. Gym membership is easy to put at the bottom of the list of priorities, because it's time-intensive, and it requires finding a babysitter. Also, a lot of small towns simply don't have one.
*Public transit is a joke almost everywhere if existent at all, and very few places are both pedestrian/bike-friendly and poor-friendly.
*40-45 million Americans don't have health insurance. Of those that do, you get what you pay for. Despite evidence that preventive care is much cheaper in the long run, it's considered a luxury. The notion of something like gym membership or Weight Watchers enrollment being covered is considered socialist and outlandish.
*Big pharmaceuticals have lobbyists in DC to buy politicians, as a means of insuring that we are kept alive well into our 80s, but at the same time unhealthy enough to buy their products. Preventive care, contraception, HIV research, why, that all hurts the bottom line. Let's keep everyone fat and diabetic through victim-blaming and stirring shit through right-wing "Christian" organizations /sarcasm
*Money >>>> Physical and emotional well-being. People working 30-40 hours a week, especially those with families, living meagerly but healthfully are looked down upon and have less influence in their communities.
*Western culture attaches a lot of emotional value to being a certain shape. Rather than being able to look in the mirror and say "Let's work on X, Y and Z" in a detached problem-solution fashion, thick women are made to feel shitty about themselves. This leads to yo-yo dieting, and they gain the weight back during a depressive phase, because they've given up on the rat-race, et cetera. Emotional value is attached to food, it's not called comfort food for nothing. And if you've only got a few pounds you want to shed, people will silumtaneously tell you "Yeah, you'd be so hot if only you lost a few pounds" and "ZOMG be careful be blah blah blah everyone who wants to be thinner MUST be turning anorexic".
I could go on and on, but the point is, obesity researchers never discuss the actual causes, because then we'd have to ZOMG EVOLVE OUR CULTURE.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
The U.S.-specific information is interesting, because I didn't know it.
I'm not sure I understood your point about Medicare vs. private insurance companies, though. What's the significance of the differing overhead costs? *feeling sorta dim* I barely have an idea what Medicare is, to be honest, but it's government-provided health care? Is that federal, or state-to-state?
Reply
Reply
I had enough presence of mind to save what I was writing, so here we go.
*
Actually, I am far less inclined to believe these days that weight is much of a health risk at all.
A few months back, Scientific American Reports did a big story on the claims of books like The Obesity Myth. (Have you heard of/read that one?) Their conclusion: said claims are more truthful than they are out to lunch. Assuming I'm remembering this all correctly enough (I hope I am):
-Nearly all so-called "obesity experts" run weight-loss clinics, and they have huge influence in the narrow field of "obesity research."
-Even studies funded by the weight-loss industry do not tend to find more than minimal differences in health risks between those with "healthy" BMIs, "overweight" BMIs, and "obese" BMIs.
-The studies that appear to find a difference worth noting don't control for diet, exercise, etc. When various factors are controlled for, weight itself appears to have almost no statistically significant negative impact on health whatsoever.
-The BMIs at which there finally appears to be a [small] health risk due to weight: around 34 for whites, 38 for blacks. (How many people do YOU know with a BMI of 34? That's a very small portion of the population!)
-HOWEVER, there IS a statistically significant health risk for those with a BMI below 20 or so. Even the studies that are funded by the weight-loss industry find this risk. And yet, the lower bracket for "healthy" is set at 18.5. (Although I've actually noticed recently that some sources have raised that lower bar. Which is interesting.)
-All of your own last sentence there as well. Plus people in the "overweight" range recover faster from illnesses requiring hospitalization, and are less likely to die in the hospital.
...Basically, the data used to support the idea that being overweight OR obese is unhealthy is cherry-picked, exaggerated and even outright LIED about.
(I can't personally find any other explanation for the 18.5/20 BMI discrepancy besides plain lying about study results. And that both freaks me out and pisses me off.)
I agree with the first sentence of your second comment: the main health issues are diet - eating healthier, not necessarily less - and exercise. But we're all probably less inclined to eat well and exercise than we would be otherwise, because those things are tied so tightly to the concept of losing weight: something for which I think virtually everyone in North America has emotional baggage.
Reply
Even with all that in mind, the diet industry for the most part isn't a solution, because it's mostly fueled by quick fixes and yo-yo dieting. The real solution involves addressing the social issues I mentioned, but that won't happen until politicians acknowledge the connections.
Reply
a waist-to-hip ratio greater than 80% is considered unhealthy
I think that's something which needs to be placed in context, like the BMI. (Which too often isn't.) I just wouldn't want to see that misused the way the BMI has been. (For example, my mother has a friend whose husband is a weightlifter. He's 250lbs of rock-hard muscle, but he can't get life insurance because his BMI is too high. Insurance agents who've never clapped eyes on him are convinced he's "obese.")
How I first ran into the waist-to-hip ratio: I found a site with a "health calculator," intended to give you some sort of assessment of overall health, based on information you entered like height, weight, if you smoke, hours of physical activity, etc. And it turned out my waist-to-hip ratio (at the time) was 0.82. But that's 28 inches divided by 34. And I STILL got a message telling me that I'm "apple" shaped and need to talk to my doctor about losing weight. Um...?
I thought I must have entered something wrong. I did it over three times before I finally concluded (with some bewilderment) that the site WUZ BROKE.
The "calculator" apparently wasn't designed to weigh all the information you gave it as a whole. Like, uh, BMI calculators insurance agents apparently use to avoid needing a health assessment made by a human being.
Reply
34 inch ass... FUCK YOU... my 40 inch ghetto booty makes me healthier apparently
Reply
Leave a comment