Alright. I wasn't going to post about today's CNN headline
Thinner is better to curb global warming, study says. Quite frankly, it's the sort of day when reading about how thin people contribute less to global warming just makes me want to trade in my compact car for an SUV stocked full of red meat.
But the article was posted in
kissmyassvogue and I felt I had to post a response. The response was so long, I figured that I might as well post it here.
Bring on the Devi rant:
Does it take more energy to move a fat person? Of course it does. It's simple logic.
Here's the thing: Why highlight a study which draws a logical conclusion that anyone with a basic grasp pf math can arrive at?
I could also say that, on average, it likely takes less energy to move a short person than a tall person or a teenager than a middle-aged housewife. Both statements have a high probability of being true. If you look at the data, we're not just getting larger. We're also getting taller and living longer.
Once you get past the fact that they're even treating this study as newsworthy, you then have the following gems:
Thinner people contribute less to global warming, according to a new study.Sorry. That's a dangerously generalized tidbit to lead off with. All you have proven is that it takes more energy to move a fat person from location A to location B. A person's contribution to global warming far exceeds this one factor. The OP mentioned that she bikes for her commute. I drive a small car and combine trips to use fewer gas. I also rarely eat red meat (beef production and shipment is also a significant global warming factor).
The study offers this novel approach to the global warming problem as U.S. lawmakers discuss the future of climate change legislation.Novel approach? Why have they just mentioned U.S. lawmakers? Is there an implication that lawmakers should be doing more to help stem the obesity epidemic? Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, kids.
Using statistical models, the authors compared the distribution of BMI in the United Kingdom in the 1970s -- when 3.5 percent of the population was obese -- with a prediction for the country's BMI distribution in 2010, reflecting 40 percent obesity.I don't know what the BMI charts are like in the UK BUT in the United States and Canada, the definitions of "obesity" and "overweight" changed in the 1990's. Overnight, millions of people found themselves in a new category.
And why are they using predictions for 2010 instead of data from a few years ago. Obesity rates have actually started to stabilize in some countries so using a prediction seems somewhat risky.
In terms of energy expenditure, the average food product travels 1,500 miles to get to your table, he said.Interesting. Do you know what I eat when dieting? Lots of fruit and vegetables that are not grown in Canada. Food which has to travel a greater distance to get to my kitchen table. Does anyone remember the Aitkins craze? Lots of people losing weight while eating a whole lot of red meat (see earlier point about beef production).
There are a few other points I take issue with as well but I'm tired.