Warning: This post contains a great deal of sex and violence

[beandelphiki]

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 in your social group - and that could have huge implications for public health measures to battle the growing obesity epidemic.

THIS JUST IN: DUMPING YOUR FAT LOSER FRIENDS AND HOOKING UP WITH SOME SKINNY PEEPS WILL MAKE YOU LOSE WEIGHT!

...And damned if the article don't say just that while assuring you, the reader, that this isn't the idea at all.

The article criticizes how having larger friends (I won't say "fat" in this case because I'm sure this includes people even I wouldn't consider fat) might relax your attitude toward bodies of various sizes and your own self-image, so that you aren't as bothered if you gain weight.

"In the past we've had this great stigma associated with obesity and overweight," Janssen said from Kingston, Ont. "But when you're around that all the time, it becomes the norm and it becomes more acceptable to you perhaps."

"And maybe it would contribute to weight gain or you're not as concerned if you are starting to put on the pounds, because . . . a lot of the people around you are looking like that as well."

With an estimated 60 per cent of Canadian adults being overweight (including 25 per cent who are obese), he said, "Obviously the stigma associated with obesity is going away."

...Except that I would say NOT, when this article refers to obesity as being "transmitted" as if it were a cold or the clap. WTF?



And in other news, look what LJ and Six Apart are doing THIS time (courtesy theclamsman) - the latest lj_biz post (note: several pages of comments, may load very slowly):

Just another clarification of our previous clarifications, that's all.

Seriously, what?

1. First they apologize for Strikethrough 2007, and promise to set things right, i.e. restore the targeted journals. Which they mostly seem to do.

2. Then they promise and swear that it will never, ever happen again.

3. Then they provide clarification after clarification of their policies. Which actually clarify...not much at all...and which don't seem to be different from the policies that led to Strikethrough in the first place. Except maybe they'll try actually READING people's bios next time.

4. Then (as theclamsman pointed out) after promising so many times to be good, they hold the Permanent Account sale.

5. Finally, just before everyone gets their HP books and are therefore avoiding the internet (credit again to the same clam-whatever guy for noting their timing), they come out with MORE clarifications:

They want to apply the fucking MILLER TEST to underage sex in fanfiction to decide if it's appropriate or not.

ON THE INTERNET.

WHAT. THE. HELL.

PLZ TO BE DEFINING "COMMUNITY STANDARDS" ON THE GODDAMNED INTARWEBZ, MR. BARAK.

You want community standards? I know where you can find some.

It's called:

F.A.N.D.O.M.

No, really.

Yeah, I know - greater fandom has fairly loose standards in general. (RPS, chan, non-con...the list goes on.) The standards vary from fandom to fandom as well.

But you know something, they're OUR standards. We fen are the ones IN the damned fandoms! WE are the ones that read the stories, WE are the ones who decide amongst ourselves what we believe has literary and artistic value, and WE are the ones who self-police when we believe something is obscene.

Which is not to say that everyone agrees on what's obscene in fanfic. There are some types of fic which are marginalized and considered squicky by most. Thing is, if there's an audience for it, then yeah - there will be a small corner of the internet for it.

But really, so what? The only people who read fanfiction are the fans. I have a really hard time believing that there's some pedo out there digging through fannish discussion posts on lj to find nuggets of Snarry chan. Come on now.


So some of fandom is upset over this. (At least, some of those who've caught wind of it, anyway.) Personally, I don't know that I'd be deeply worried just yet. (Witness self-reporting of an adult/minor NC-17 Snarry fic result in absolutely no action from LJ Abuse. We'll just have to see if that's their reaction when the heat isn't on them.)

What is mainly bothering me here is the fact that someone sees a need for this anti-obscenity stance to be voiced. That they felt they needed to call out fanfiction specifically. That, "we'll take down obscene material that's reported to us," in the TOS we all agreed to apparently isn't ENOUGH.

I'm sick of Six Apart throwing its weight around, really.

People on this site's staff have this striking resemblance to Canadian politicians. It's bizarre, really.

STANDARDS!

Comments

[teyla]

*facepalm*

I'll be over there, hiding under my blanket.

Seriously, wtf? ff.net went down this road, and it ended in what people now call The Pit. And they're not done yet over there. I'm still waiting for them to outlaw slash fanfiction on their site. The wary, sort-of-shocked way the readers on ff.net already treat slash, I don't think that many people would even complain.

LJ, if you're heading down this road, I am leaving am going to cry don't know what I'm gonna do. Just... don't, okay?

[ratkrycek.livejournal.com]

Went to read the article, only to get:

ADODB.Field error '800a0bcd'

Either BOF or EOF is True, or the current record has been deleted. Requested operation requires a current record.

/include/breadcrumbs.inc, line 33

Breadcrumbs... hmmm.

And the whole Strikethrough thing is really a mess. I wonder what's actually goin' on.

THERE IS A MOUNTAIN OF SAND IN MY VAG ABOUT THIS TOPIC AND I'M GOING TO SHARE IT WITH YOU NOW

[hry2007.livejournal.com]

On the one hand, the study has a point, it's more common to be overweight and this is making it more socially acceptable. On the other hand, it's basically suggesting discrimination as a means of addressing a public health issue. Researchers are supposed to describe situations. If they have a need to recommend solutions, it should be a variety of possible answers, not the one or two biased answers, let alone that are known to cause emotional damage.

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.

Re: THERE IS A MOUNTAIN OF SAND IN MY VAG ABOUT THIS TOPIC AND I'M GOING TO SHARE IT WITH YOU NOW

[hry2007.livejournal.com]

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.)

Re: THERE IS A MOUNTAIN OF SAND IN MY VAG ABOUT THIS TOPIC AND I'M GOING TO SHARE IT WITH YOU NOW

[hry2007.livejournal.com]

*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.

Re: THERE IS A MOUNTAIN OF SAND IN MY VAG ABOUT THIS TOPIC AND I'M GOING TO SHARE IT WITH YOU NOW

[hry2007.livejournal.com]

:/ I realize this is pretty US-centric, but hopefully it makes sense and some of the point are universal

Re: THERE IS A MOUNTAIN OF SAND IN MY VAG ABOUT THIS TOPIC AND I'M GOING TO SHARE IT WITH YOU NOW

[hry2007.livejournal.com]

P.S. Medicare/Medicaid overhead costs are ~2%, private insurance companies are at ~25%. That's right, the government is MOAR EFFICIENT!!!

[beandelphiki.livejournal.com]

Well, since the so-called "obesity epidemic" began in America, it would make sense to me to start analysis there.

Re:

[beandelphiki.livejournal.com]

To be a further bum, I don't have a lot of specific commentary to all of this besides, "Yeah." I mean, I agree - the overall picture is very complex. (And it's an oddity of our modern Western society that the rich are the ones who can afford to exercise.)

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?

[hry2007.livejournal.com]

The Medicare vs private insurance overhead difference shows that publicly funded health care is cheaper, therefore we should theorhetically be going to that.

Re:

[beandelphiki.livejournal.com]

BLEH, I apologize. I was typing a reply to you last night, and in the middle of it...passed out cold. I woke up on the floor. It's, uh, been a long week. And still the weekend to go. Shoot me, please?

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.

[hry2007.livejournal.com]

I dunno, I mean, there's quack research, but there's also a fair bit of legitimate evidence showing problems associated with obesity. Still, correlation =/= causation. The reason overweight people are often unhealthy isn't because of the excess fat, so much as the bad habits like poor diet and exercise that make them overweight.

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.

P.S.

[beandelphiki.livejournal.com]

Bah, sorry for the double comment. Also wanted to add:

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.

Re: P.S.

[hry2007.livejournal.com]

The 80% is is a female-specific number, I think it's 90 for men, IIRC.

34 inch ass... FUCK YOU... my 40 inch ghetto booty makes me healthier apparently

[siegeengine.livejournal.com]

Frankly, I don't know if this is so much Six Apart throwing their weight around, or if it's them caving like a house of cards under an angry mouse.

Ok.. that didn't make sense, but it has always seemed to me that whatever right wing christian coalition fundamentalist fear mongers that instigated Strikethrough 2k7 in the first place are continuing to put the screws to Six Apart, and they're running scared.

It's... well it's like everyone was screaming about in ST2k7, that a tiny group threatens a corporation with public defamation, and they scramble to create a defensible position.

Like Youtube.
Like U.S. television
like broadcast radio, and then satellite radio

they've found this power, and they're wielding it ceaselessly, and unless we get some sort of supreme court help, which is impossible in its current configuration, they will continue. (sorry, I got tired of capitalizing about halfway through this)

[beandelphiki.livejournal.com]

Well, true. I don't disagree with any of that.

And yet, I sorta feel like it's still Six Apart throwing around its weight with lj. Because this sort of thing just didn't happen before Six Apart got involved, and lj went from this user-created blogging site to a business. You know?