These girls aren't very bright, are they?
Some of the idiots are now leaning on some Canadian study that supposedly says that out of 11,000 people, those who were obese had lower mortality than those of normal weight.
This says nothing about morbidity, or those who contract serious diseases because of their weight and end up having it managed for the rest of their lives by the healthcare system. That lower mortality risk could very easily be a testament to the Canadian healthcare system, not to any notion that obesity is inherently safer. The higher morbidity would also support the notion that obesity is much more expensive (higher acquisition rate of diseases, more time spent dealing with them albeit doing so successfully in many cases). Jezebel and the rest of the fatty-defense brigade won't dive into that one.
I was pleased to see that quite a few of the comments pointed this out quite clearly:
"proletarian_tenenb… an hour ago
This headline is embarrassingly misleading. The data shows that, IF YOU HAVE A DISEASE ALREADY, then more weight can lead to better outcomes. It says nothing about disease prevalence in thin people versus overweight people.
Honestly, the science writing on here is some of the worst I've seen on the internet. I would likely have to venture on to a creationist website to find writers less capable of interpreting basic research."
Zuleikha Reply
"Yeah, Jez science writing is terrible. I don't know why Jezebel doesn't hire someone who can actually handle reading research papers to write up science. I had to defend an ev psych research paper on Jezebel because the article about it was so horrible. I'm a cultural anthropologist by training. You know science writing is bad when it leads a cultural anthropologist to defend an ev psych study!"
MoonDusted Reply
"Yep. Tracie Egan Morrissey doesn't even seem to understand that you can't even come close to "proving" her statement without determining causality. Most science reporting is bad, but this is truly, truly terrible,"
Professor Pink Reply
"I have to agree--there are things Jez does well. Science writing is SO not one of them.
justme35 Reply
"But how can they prove they are better for being fat and that thin people should all be ashamed of themselves if they actually read the studies?
Ever since the redesign of the comments these main pages have become an all-out anti-skinny women rant."
Femzoil2 and 1 more Reply
"Haven't you heard? "Science reporting" on Jezebel runs two ways:
If a study supports what we want to believe: it's strong, definitive evidence that is unassailable. It's hard proof!
If a study doesn't support what we want to believe: the sample size is wrong, the methodology is questionable, and the researchers are biased. It's junk science!"
Some went as far as to say that jezebel is a "shitstain on the progress of women in science".
CoronaExtra and 2 more Reply
"Jezebel has really become a shitstain on the progress of women in science."
And this commenter didn't get shot down immediately! People actually agreed!
colorisnteverythin… Reply
^"I know. There are SO MANY of us on here that say this every time and are clearly educated enough to comment on these issues. Not everyone writes scientific papers or publishes in/ reads peer-reviewed work all day. Can they not find someone who does?"
Professor Pink Reply
^"Harsh, but true."
I was surprised to see such comments get so much support. If even many of the jezebelites aren't buying this kind of crap, then there is hope for the rest of society.
Some of the idiots are now leaning on some Canadian study that supposedly says that out of 11,000 people, those who were obese had lower mortality than those of normal weight.
This says nothing about morbidity, or those who contract serious diseases because of their weight and end up having it managed for the rest of their lives by the healthcare system. That lower mortality risk could very easily be a testament to the Canadian healthcare system, not to any notion that obesity is inherently safer. The higher morbidity would also support the notion that obesity is much more expensive (higher acquisition rate of diseases, more time spent dealing with them albeit doing so successfully in many cases). Jezebel and the rest of the fatty-defense brigade won't dive into that one.
I was pleased to see that quite a few of the comments pointed this out quite clearly:
"proletarian_tenenb… an hour ago
This headline is embarrassingly misleading. The data shows that, IF YOU HAVE A DISEASE ALREADY, then more weight can lead to better outcomes. It says nothing about disease prevalence in thin people versus overweight people.
Honestly, the science writing on here is some of the worst I've seen on the internet. I would likely have to venture on to a creationist website to find writers less capable of interpreting basic research."
Zuleikha Reply
"Yeah, Jez science writing is terrible. I don't know why Jezebel doesn't hire someone who can actually handle reading research papers to write up science. I had to defend an ev psych research paper on Jezebel because the article about it was so horrible. I'm a cultural anthropologist by training. You know science writing is bad when it leads a cultural anthropologist to defend an ev psych study!"
MoonDusted Reply
"Yep. Tracie Egan Morrissey doesn't even seem to understand that you can't even come close to "proving" her statement without determining causality. Most science reporting is bad, but this is truly, truly terrible,"
Professor Pink Reply
"I have to agree--there are things Jez does well. Science writing is SO not one of them.
justme35 Reply
"But how can they prove they are better for being fat and that thin people should all be ashamed of themselves if they actually read the studies?
Ever since the redesign of the comments these main pages have become an all-out anti-skinny women rant."
Femzoil2 and 1 more Reply
"Haven't you heard? "Science reporting" on Jezebel runs two ways:
If a study supports what we want to believe: it's strong, definitive evidence that is unassailable. It's hard proof!
If a study doesn't support what we want to believe: the sample size is wrong, the methodology is questionable, and the researchers are biased. It's junk science!"
Some went as far as to say that jezebel is a "shitstain on the progress of women in science".
CoronaExtra and 2 more Reply
"Jezebel has really become a shitstain on the progress of women in science."
And this commenter didn't get shot down immediately! People actually agreed!
colorisnteverythin… Reply
^"I know. There are SO MANY of us on here that say this every time and are clearly educated enough to comment on these issues. Not everyone writes scientific papers or publishes in/ reads peer-reviewed work all day. Can they not find someone who does?"
Professor Pink Reply
^"Harsh, but true."
I was surprised to see such comments get so much support. If even many of the jezebelites aren't buying this kind of crap, then there is hope for the rest of society.
Know your enemy and know yourself, find naught in fear for 100 battles. Know yourself but not your enemy, find level of loss and victory. Know thy enemy but not yourself, wallow in defeat every time.