Mar. 25th, 2010 02:37 pm
telophase: (Jiraiya don't play that shit)
I really hate misleading articles and studies. Witness: this BBC news article on a study of women which suggests that you need to exercise at least an hour a day to stay slim.

It followed 35,000 women over 13 years, and only the women who exercised an average of an hour a day or more did not gain weight over that thirteen years.

You know how much the average weight gain over that thirteen years was? "The average age of the women was 54, and the average weight gain was 2.6 kg over the 13 year period."



I think a gain of five pounds in thirteen years is (a) not enough to call you "not slim" unless you happen to be, say, a cat, and (b) completely negligible when it comes to health effects. Not to mention that as you age, those who are slightly clinically overweight appear to have significantly lower mortality rates than those who are "normal" weight, so you probably want those five pounds if you were slim to start with.

I will be right up there saying that as we evolved in a high-exercise environment, getting lots of exercise is a good idea, but the health significance of that hour a day has nothing to do with the five pounds not gained and a lot more to do with how exercise conditions your muscles, bones, hormones, etc.

ETA: Gah, reading the article again made me even angrier. You see, the weight-gain preventative effect was only present in those of "normal" weight to begin with, and absent in those who were already overweight at the beginning of the study. So instead of saying that perhaps exercise doesn't have anywhere near as much to do with weight loss as previously thought, and that maybe it has a lot more to do with what we eat, they said instead that overweight people might have to exercise more, up to 90 minutes a day, to prevent weight gain of that eeeeevil five pounds.

I guess me losing 50 pounds in 2007 when exercising 20 minutes a day didn't really happen, huh? I made a vow that I wouldn't exercise more than an hour a day unless I was training for something specific, because for me, that felt too much like obsessive behavior. I'm trying to get into the exercise habit again because of the gains in health, the prevention of osteoporosis, the ability to stay active in my later years, etc.
telophase: (Default)
[livejournal.com profile] octopedingenue took me up on my offer to rant about the character of Sabretooth and how what Marvel did with him pushed me over the edge.

First off, I'm going to mention that it's been years, on the order of fifteen or so, practically decades since I read the books I'm talking about, so I'm hazy on the details, and I'll probably get some wrong or out of order. That's OK. We can all live with that. It's the larger narrative that's important, for the most part.

And it's really less of a rant than a history, with a couple of ranty bits in it. But one of them's really ranty.

Onward! )
telophase: (cat - bitch please)
Just ran across a study (re-analyzing old data from previous studies that came to opposite conclusions) positing a link between watching voer 2 hours of television a day as a young child and the incidence of ADHD.

Cut for abstract )

My big issue is not with the news that there may be a link, it's with the suggestion, "These results support the hypothesis that childhood television viewing may contribute to the development of attention problems and suggest that the effects may be long-lasting." Isn't it just as likely that kids with short attention spans prefer watching television because it fits better with their thought patterns? Correlation does not mean causation!

I bring this up because I've got anecdotal evidence that it doesn't have a damn thing to do with watching television: from the ages of 4 to 6 I was in the Serengeti National Park with no access to television whatsoever, and watched way less than 2 hours a day for the next few years because it took me that long to understand the concept of TV schedules. I'd just turn the TV on and hope that whatever I wanted to watch was on. (I don't think I started watching TV regularly until I was 9 or so, and then at the age of 15 we moved to the country and only got two channels, so I stopped watching it and didn't pick it up on a serious basis until I graduated college.)


I haven't read the full article yet, because it's not accessible online by my library at this point. They may address this point in the article, but it's certainly not in the abstract. (The other big problem is that the data is self-reported, not verified independently, so we can't really be sure of its accuracy. It's entirely possible that parents of children with attention problems may over-report TV viewing because they think it's part of the problem, or vice versa.)


Jan. 12th, 2007 11:08 pm
telophase: (gojyo screw you // yomigaere)
OK, farther into KHII right now. Still too much plot. Have just gotten to the Pirates of the Caribbean section and the "realistic" people are FREAKING ME THE FUCK OUT.

I also have weird qualms about the rushing around and opening chests (well, except for this pirate scenario when stealing is the in thing to do) especially if the owner is with me. I mean - in the Beast's castle, the Beast joins the party and wants to go rescue Belle rightwaythisveryminutenow, and I have to say: Hold on a second, dude, let me go LOOT your CASTLE RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU while your girlfriend is KIDNAPPED BY HEARTLESS. There's just something not right about that.
cut for bitching about women, and KHII spoilery stuff that's only spoilery if you haven't seen the Disney movies, because they attempt to follow the damn plot of every damn movie referenced in the game, and a couple of KHI spoilers )

But I kind of liked the section where they got thrown into the past and ended up looking like early Disney B&W characters. XD

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags