There is an epidemic of obesity, and no one knows what is causing it.
One item, however, is worthy of investigation. Females with early andrenarche, (early pubic hair) in addition to going boy crazy at a disturbingly early age, tend to become obese when they finally reach puberty and their figure finally catches up with their behavior and further enables their behavior.
And these days, pretty much all girls have what once would have been called early andrenarche. So, abnormal hormones first, abnormal fat later.
So, could be that whatever is causing the obesity epidemic, is the same thing as in causing declining masculinity in males and early sexual behavior in females.
Note that the absence of a father is risk factor for early andrenarche, suggesting that the problem might not be estrogen in the water supply, but metaphorical estrogen in the metaphorical water supply.
In the ancestral environment, early sexual behavior in fatherless females would have been a survival mechanism. In the absence of a father, and the absence of Uncle Sam the big pimp, need a sugar daddy. So, when the state makes fathers weak, that weakness tends to make their daughters into fat sluts.
If early andrenarche correlates with obesity, the interesting question, to which I don’t have the answer, is: Does late (by modern standards) andrenarche correlate to less obesity? Obviously it correlates to less promiscuity.
Andrenarche can be delayed by the drug spironolactone, (safe for girls, unsafe for boys) and parents alarmed by early sexual behavior sometimes treat their daughters to delay andrenarche – the humane and reversible alternative to clitoridectomy. Perhaps all girls should have andrenarche delayed to what used to be normal. Pubic hair is an indicator of sexual interest – you probably don’t want your daughters developing pubic hair earlier than their other secondary sexual characteristics.
[…] Source: Jim […]
I suspect that it’s something simpler. You might notice if you go to a more normal country for a while or grow your own food that the stuff you get in American stores, which 95% of the population lives on, is remarkably tasteless. I mean, just plastic. Probably somewhere in the breeding process which results in optimal looks and storage the genes for taste are lost, and probably so are the corresponding nutrients. Given cheap food which is nutrient-poor, Americans eat more of it, becoming obese and starting puberty earlier.
The other possibility I can think of is that the standard massive application of chemicals to control plant life processes (inhibit/induce ripening, etc.) might have something to do with it: http://agriinfo.in/default.aspx?page=topic&superid=2&topicid=2044
We know that plant signaling molecules often have a significant crossover effect on us-that’s why we drink coffee and smoke cigarettes. So why should it be any different here?
Very few Americans actually get fresh food from the grocery store. It’s mostly fast food or pre-packed meals for most people. And you can forget about finding a women who will cook for their families. Almost every women I’m acquainted with is prideful about their lack of cooking skills.
Their burrito covers and french fries still gotta come from somewhere.
Oh please. The “tasteless industrial American food” thing is such a canard. I’ve had plenty of meals in plenty of foreign countries, and I’ve had my share of home-grown backyard produce and eggs, and it all tastes the same as American grocery store food.
I don’t doubt you feel better about eating real food from “more normal countries,” and enjoy it more, but I bet you’d fail to tell the difference in a blind taste test.
I can definitely tell the difference between American supermarket cucumbers and tomatoes and Israeli ones. You won’t deny that at least there are flavor differences between breeds and storeability differences, and that they don’t necessarily coincide?
I would agree to bet on the basis of a blind taste-test any day, and I’m with B on this one for three reasons:
1. I garden myself, which means some decisions with regards to what to plant. My basic principle is to select those items for which there is a distinct advantage in flavor from home-growing vs. what I typically can expect to get at the local grocery stores. Tomatoes, strawberries, melons, and herbs get a fair share of my space, mostly because I can consume them within moments of ideal ripeness. The superiority in flavor is immediately obvious.
2. I don’t know about Israel, but I’ve been blown away by the quality and flavor of produce in France and Mediterranean Europe. You can definitely taste the difference vs. the US. If I had to guess, it’s a function of the proximity from production to market, but I’m not sure how they do it. I’ll tell you this though: we used to be able to do it for certain fruits and have given up for economic reasons.
There used to be a lot of waste from over-ripe, soft, and rotting peaches, nectarines, and apricots, and you had better eat them quick, but the good ones you got were juicy and sweet and with great texture and flavor. Now I notice that I get ones with great shelf life are bland and hard like water chestnut and taste like biting into drywall or cardboard. If I had the land I’d set up my own grove, and the blossoms are gorgeous in the spring.
The funny thing is that I still can get the old grocery store fruit experience, but I have to go to the Korean supermarket, where those old ways are still practiced, and I can rely on the pickyness and ride the wave of the freshness-obsession of the rest of the clientele to ensure a goof product.
3. I have lots of farmer’s markets around where I live, and belong to a CSA which picks the product the day they dole it out, and again, the difference is obvious and worth paying extra and making a special trip for, even if I’m not quite sure how best to prepare my kohlrabi allotment.
I still want a blind taste test. When you get bad produce from an American supermarket, or good produce from an Israeli farmer’s market, it confirms the pattern. When you get good American produce or bad Israeli produce, you shrug it off as an aberration.
I’ve lived in Mediterranean Spain, agriculturally-protectionist South Korea, and India, and I haven’t noticed a difference. Maybe my palate just isn’t sophisticated enough, but I’ll believe my own experience. Using food to gain status and separate the in-group from the out- is an old, old trick that keeps coming back in new forms.
I think its just fat chicks getting puberty early, which would be easily explained since some of the hormonal triggers for puberty depend on calorific intake and stored reserves to reach a certain level. I too have noticed that late bloomers tend to be skinnier.
But your arguments about no dads leading to fat sluts seems odd and incoherent. You see two observations, ostensibly correlated, and you draw causation without hesitating.
Yes, but strong fathers also make sure their children eat well and thus are skinnier.
When it comes to fat girls I always tell the story of a Asian girl who came home after a couple of years of American schooling. She’d become quite chubby, so her family locked her in their house for a month and fed her strict diet until she lost the weight. With strong families it’s quite easy to keep children thin.
Fat causes early menarche. Not obvious that it causes early andrenarche. Early andrenarche causes fatness.
Timing suggests causality. Absent father first, early andrenarche next, then sexual promiscuity, then normal menarche, then obesity shortly after menarche.
Not having a father correlates with a woman having her period earlier. Nobody points out the race and R/k selection, except for Rushton.
It’s not so much that Americans eat fast food or tasteless food as what is added to the food. Meat animals in America are fed estrogens to make them gain weight. Soy products, used as a vegetable protein and added to a lot of prepared foods, also contain chemicals similar to estrogens. Those traces of estrogen after a lifetime of eating them will result in not only obesity but a degree of sexual ambiguity.
You may be right, but America is certainly not the only place where people get plant estrogens from soy: have you ever been to north-east Asia and seen the remarkable amount of tofu that people eat?
Granted, the tofu is a visible source of soy, whereas in America it’s a hidden additive, so it might be hard (although no doubt worthwhile) to get hard numbers.
Hard numbers could convince me otherwise, but for now my impression is that plant estrogens alone can’t account for how much more frequently one sees obese people in America as opposed to north-east Asia.
NE Asians are probably significantly better adapted to soy and they’re almost all still skinny fat anyway (high bf% at a low body weight).
problem might not be estrogen in the water supply, but metaphorical estrogen in the metaphorical water supply.
some queer on reddit just told me that “Game of Thrones is way better than LOTR, largely because it acknowledges and embraces normal human sexuality. Greek mythology is way better than the New Testament in part because most of the figures are sexually understandable.”
What do you say to that?
The amazing thing is, Greek mythology is sexually tame compared to what kids are exposed to these days, and nobody ever gives them anything else.
You say that the queer’s idea of “normal” is queer.
That’s great. How to adjudicate? If only there was an institution in our culture that hired really smart people so they could teach literary criticism. Oh wait, there is – but it’s captured by progs and Jews. Maybe I could argue popularity or enduring popularity. Mein Kampf is pretty popular, isn’t it?
No, there’s no way to argue with it as a neoreactionary. The best we can do is laugh at them and retreat to our caves where we keep the fire of civilization alive and watch the shadows on the wall.
Religious conservatives say “God hates fags”.
Neoreactionaries think they’re wrong – God just love viruses.
that’s not the NRx party line on queers, just a conjecture. St. Paul the Apostle thinks that queers are degenerates driven to commit shameful acts by their perverted passions.
No, the conjecture is that it’s caused by a virus (or some other parasite).
The fact (therefore DE party line) is that promiscuous sodomy incubates disease and that without social pressure people given to homosexual behavior are quite promiscuous and have a disturbing tendency to pressure pubescent boys into sexual relationships that cause those boys to grow up to become catamites / sodomites themselves.
“”… it’s captured by progs and Jews … Mein Kampf is pretty popular, isn’t it?” Apparently.
what if I told you [morpheus.jpg] the Jewish conspiracy was real and far from the whole story?