Timothy Birdnow

It's time to talk turkey here; according to a recent study obese people are fat and stupid, and weak willed to boot.

A recent study examined the brains of overweight people and found that their brains had different amounts and distribution of grey and white matter. According to the article in the Telegraph:

"overweight people are less intelligent than people who are do not have weight problems , a provocative study claims.

Overweight men and women have less grey and white matter in key areas of the brain, it suggests. They also have greater impulsiveness and "altered reward processing", the study said.

The researchers said that their findings could explain why overweight people make poor diet choices - they do not have the mental capacity to control themselves.

The theory is likely to prove controversial as weight loss campaigners have emphasised that the issues behind weight problems vary from individual to individual.

The research involved sophisticated brain images of 32 adults - 16 men and 16 women - selected from the US city of Baltimore, in Maryland."

End excerpt.

Now, why would you conduct such a survey on residents of Baltimore, who are primarily black (thus skewing the pool already)? African American culture is more forgiving of weight, and black people tend to eat more fried foods and sugar than their white or asian or hispanic neighbors. This doesn't prove that the weight has anything to do with the stupidity or weakness of will. Also, this is BALTIMORE, you know, the city that rioted and burned itself down because they were angry about a police killing. How bright are people who destroy their OWN neighborhoods when they are angry? If you are looking for people with serious cognizant dissonance and a lack of emotional control you couldn't find a better place. Oh, and they are overwhelmingly Democratic. If anything, this study should be used to illustrate the weakness of mind and will of Democrat voters and clients of the State.The

Makes perfect sense; study people who live off the dole and don't work, who riot and burn their town down for evidence they lack self control and tie it to their obesity.

Let us chew a little more fat:

"The researchers measured Body Mass Index, a commonly-used measure of how overweight a person is, and body fat percentages and compared them to differences in brain structure and function.
Work out BMI

Lead researcher Chase Figley, an assistant professor in the department of radiology at the University of Manitoba, said that the brain scans were "very thorough".

He said they covered changes across the whole brain, but also "specific networks".

In particular he was interested in the "salience network", which he described as the "seat of motivation, willpower, and the ability to persevere through physical and emotional challenges".

The results showed that there was "no significant difference" in terms of white matter between people who had a normal weight and people who were overweight.

"These changes could further affect the ability of overweight individuals to exert self-control and maintain healthy lifestyle choices"Prof Chase Figley

In a surprise twist, people with a higher BMI actually had slightly more grey matter overall.

However, looking at specific networks on the brain a different picture began to emerge. In particular, heavier and fatter people had less white matter in the salience network.

There were also differences in the dorsal striatum, an area of the brain involved with habitual behaviour.

Professor Figley told the National Post, a Canadian newspaper: "It stands to reason that these changes could further affect the ability of overweight individuals to exert self-control and maintain healthy lifestyle choices."

He added that it was not clear if the brain differences predispose certain individuals to becoming fat, or vice versa.

However, he said: "There are previous studies that imply elevated body fat can cause these sorts of brain changes."

End excerpt.

Well, well, well; we come back to the old BMI nonsense.

Body Mass Index has been the cornerstone of what is considered healthy for a long time, yet it is astonishingly unusefull. Created by a Belgian statistician (naturally a "miserable fat Belgian bastard!") and NOT a doctor or nutritionist or even a chef the BMI index is just a very useful tool, because it assumes people are not just similar but identical and that there is a strict formula where x is to y in the same proportions in the ideal person. This means that bodybuilders, who are often quite heavy because of the extra muscle mass, are obese according to their BMI, while someone emaciated by cancer is just hunky dorey, because his BMI falls into the "proper" range even though he may be skeletal. It also does not take into account the distribution of fat; someone with heavy hips is classed the same as someone with a fat stomach (pear v. apple) and that just isn't helpful as the pear shape is far preferable in terms of health.

So we see with their modeling that the researchers are using a rather two dimensional snapshot, much like the global warming models which often assume crazy things (like the atmosphere has no upper limit.)

The telegraph article says people who used drugs or had mental illnesses were excluded but fails to say how; likely the test subjects answered a questionaire, and just as likely there were lies on them. I suspect they PAID their test subjects. If you live in the ghetto and want to make an easy fifty bucks or so why not lie?

At any rate, this study appears quite flawed to me. It no doubt belongs in the waste bin, along with the overcooked chicken and the uneaten vegetables that Michelle Obama foists off on school children.

O.K., so what is MY point? This is another example of government funded studies at the service of our glorious leaders, who seek to control what we eat and how we eat it. See, it's not politically possible to intervene in diet, which is a freedom so basic as to be unenumerated in the Constitution without some compelling state interest. So, as with global warming, science must come to the rescue, provide a compelling interest to allow the regulation of a natural human activity. If a link between the brain and the brawn can be established then it follows that the government can regulate caloric intake - especially where children are concerned. It becomes a amatter of "preventing abuse", which is really a matter for state control of children, a way to break the power of the family over the individual.

There has been a recent move to do what liberals do best, to bully and shame overweight individuals. For example bioethicist Daniel Callahan of the Hastings Center argues for bullying and intimidating fat people:

"People don't hate being fat enough, basically, according to Hastings Center bioethicist Daniel Callahan. In an editorial published in the Hastings Center Report, he argues that nothing -- not diets, drugs, sugeries, nor appeals to our health -- is working, and goes on to make the case for fat-shaming people until they start eating more salad.

"An edgier strategy is needed," is his (earnest and entirely devoid of irony) way of putting it.

The edgy strategy he came up with entails "social pressure combined with vigorous government action." Callahan likens it to the campaign to end smoking: The combination, in his experience, of being criticized, sent outside, and taxed for his "nasty habit" was the motivation he needed to quit.

"The force of being shamed and beat upon socially," he writes, "was as persuasive for me to stop smoking as the threats to my health."

End excerpt.

Huh? I suppose he advocates the same for homosexuals, who likewise suffer serious health issues due to their behavior. I made this exact argument a while back in The Gay Food Nazis and furthermore argued the Left wants people to be fat and stupid. It is quite strange how their interventionist, nay, abusive approach to one health problem is so different from another, one where sexual choice is involved. They rail against obesity which stems from eating food - an absolute necessity to any organism - while they demand total acceptance of sexuality on any level - sexuality is, of course, a strong biological impulse but hardly necessary to survival and it can be put aside. So you are morally culpable if you do what you must in the wrong way but a sympathetic figure, perhaps even heroic, if you take your pleasure in a dangerous or destructive manner.

Somebody please explain that to me; it makes my head hurt.

And what of obese gay people? Do liberals want to obuse them or coddle them? What about obese transvestites? I would say they would put them over their knee for a good spanking but that is apt to make them even fatter...

Modern day liberals are anything but; they are totalitarian in outlook. Mussolini described Fascism as totalitarian, and he meant it in a good way; society was, in his paradigm, intimately involved in all aspects of life for the betterment of the People (and HE would decide what was for their betterment.) There are practical considerations, too; fit the yoke and you will eventually get the beast to labor for you. One does not jump on a wild stallion and ride into the sunset; first the bit must go into the mouth. That is the first step, and the final enslavement of the masses starts with deciding what goes in OUR mouths.

Which, sadly, is what happened in Baltimore a long time ago, so it should come as no surprise that the fat residents of Baltimore also showed stupidity and weakness of will. Too many of them have eaten food that is not their own and lived a life devoid of productive labor or intellectual exercise. Take welfare, live in HUD housing, sit all day watching television, and vote Democrat! Well, there is a price to be paid for that.

Let's add this one to the junk science pile.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:20 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 1694 words, total size 11 kb.