Main
THE MAIN RULE: ALL TEXT POSTS MUST CONTAIN "MAIN" OR BE ENTIRELY IMAGES (INLINE OR EMOJI)
(Temporary moratorium on main rule to encourage more posting on main. We reserve the right to arbitrarily enforce it whenever we wish and the right to strike this line and enforce mainposting with zero notification to the users because its funny)
A hexbear.net commainity. Main sure to subscribe to other communities as well. Your feed will become the Lion's Main!
Good comrades mainly sort posts by hot and comments by new!
State-by-state guide on maintaining firearm ownership
Domain guide on mutual aid and foodbank resources
Tips for looking at financials of non-profits (How to donate amainly)
Community-sourced megapost on the main media sources to radicalize libs and chuds with
Main Source for Feminism for Babies
Maintaining OpSec / Data Spring Cleaning guide
Remain up to date on what time is it in Moscow
view the rest of the comments
I think that Huffington Post article has some good points about how obesity should be addressed on a personal level and how the American medical system will never be able to actually address this issue. But I don't think they approach the weight/health problem very well. They mention that weight isn't inherently tied to health because 1/3 to 3/4 of obese patients may show no signs of high cholesterol or insulin resistance. However, obesity is like smoking in that you could take a cross section of smokers and find that a large portion of them are healthy. The real issue is that being obese or smoking are drastically increasing the odds of negative medical outcomes in the future.
I'll post some sources about BMI tomorrow, however I direct you to this study which shows that it's not as simple as fat = bad https://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/02/health/study-suggests-lower-death-risk-for-the-overweight.html
Oh I agree that you can't say fat=bad I was referring more to higher levels of obesity, which as that NYtimes article says is a large risk. The issue with that NYtimes article though is that the study isn't really drawing a meaningful conclusion. Saying mortality rate is the end all be all is very misleading. I'm hoping that's just an issue with the pop science reporting of the times and not the actual study, because the link to the actual study is dead.
Ah yeah that's what I feared. It's similar to that study that was going around on reddit that claimed veganism is bad because vegans have a higher overall mortality rate but it also failed to take into account correlating factors. The amount of shitty science and shitty science reporting being done cannot be good for convincing the general public to trust the science of climage change.