- Before dismissing the criticism of Jennifer Lawrence's weight in "The Hunger Games" as another example of the unrealistic expectations of female beauty in Hollywood, take a second look. On the surface, critics writing that a few years ago “Lawrence might have looked hungry enough to play Katniss, but now, at 21, her seductive, womanly figure makes a bad fit for a dystopian fantasy about a people starved into submission” might seem harsh. Another penning an observation about her "lingering baby fat" could also seem unduly harsh. However, the reason Lawrence’s size and weight are an issue is not because she is being called FAT or unattractive, but rather because the movie's plot involves a starved nation in which people are hunting for their very survival. Oddly enough, Lawrence herself admits she knew that playing Katniss meant having a fierce, hunter-esque look and yet she purposely did not diet for the film in order to make Katniss a more fearsome competitor. "Katniss is meant to be a hunter; she’s meant to be scary," she said." "Kate Moss running at you with a bow and arrow isn’t scary." No, but Kate Moss on coke wielding a salad fork toward the one piece of lettuce she can eat for the day might be. Predictably, defenders of the fragile psyche of women who cannot possibly endure criticism that they don’t look the way others expect them to have risen to Lawrence’s side and wondered why only actresses are subjected to this type of criticism and not their male counterparts. As that theory goes, Liam Hemsworth may have been a bit too muscular for the famine-tastic world of “The Hunger Games.” Lawrence’s co-star, Stanley Tucci, also came to her defense. "Big-boned? (Those critics) should go make their own movie … that's ridiculous," he opined. Glad that’s all been settled…………
- Oppression of Tibetan exiles: It’s not just a Chinese thing. India enjoys the hobby too and after a Tibetan exile set himself on fire in Delhi earlier this week and later died, Indian police and paramilitaries have launched a sweeping security crackdown to prevent further protests or self-immolations during the visit of the Chinese premier, Hu Jintao. Yes, the simple truth that one person – in this case Tibetan exile Jamphel Yeshi – can ruin it for everyone holds true. Yeshi suffered burns over 90 percent of his body after dousing himself with gasoline during a protest on Monday and alarmist local officials worry that more Tibetans will follow suit to protest at Chinese policies in their homeland. Yeshi’s death brings the total number of Tibetans who have died via self-immolation to about 30 and another dozen have been seriously injured in the past 13 months in similar protests, mainly inside China. Hu is visiting Delhi for a two-day summit of emerging nations, along with leaders from Brazil, Russia and South Africa. In explaining the oppressive crackdown prior to his arrival, senior police official Dharmendra Kumar cited "international security concerns" to justify a ban on protests and press conferences by Tibetan activists in Delhi. "The law and order shouldn't deteriorate in the capital during the Brics summit," Kumar said. Right, because protests and riots are going to ruin your perfect society. To combat any possible demonstrations, hundreds of armed security personnel patrolled areas of the Indian capital where Tibetans live. They erected barricades and barred people from leaving their homes. However, a police spokesman was quick to deny hat thousands of Tibetans were under effective house arrest. "There is no confinement. We are just keeping watch to make sure they are not coming into [the area] where the summit is happening," Rajan Bhagat said. Right, make sure they don’t enter that area by placing them under de facto house arrest. The irony is thick because India offered a haven to the Dalai Lama, the Tibetan spiritual leader, when he fled after a failed uprising against Chinese rule in 1959. More than 100,000 exiles currently live in India. China still blames the Dalai Lama, who is based in the Indian town of Dharamasala, of creating unrest among the Tibetan population in China. India seems to subscribe to the same theory, at least when it’s convenient…………
- A week or so ago, the Denver Broncos felt great about their quarterback position. They signed free agent and future hall of famer Peyton Manning, found a trade partner to take the Tim Tebow headache off their hands and had every free agent receiver and tight end dialing them up to ask for a job because playing with Manning sounded great. It’s worth wondering if the Broncos still feel that way given the growing speculation that several teams around the league have had serious doubts about Manning’s arm strength and overall physical strength and have expressed those doubts dating back to well before the four-time MVP underwent four procedures on his neck. Sure, Manning turned in a 33-touchdown, 17-interception, 4,700-yard season in Indianapolis the last time he set foot on a field, but reports surfacing this week indicate that teams around the AFC have noted a significant decline in his flexibility and velocity in recent years, perhaps due initially to age but likely compounded by his neck injuries. “The falloff was significant on film,” one scout from an AFC rival said of Manning’s performance circa 2010. “He showed stiffness and lost athletic traits.” The same scout pointed out Manning’s diminished velocity and said that while his throwing motion remained solid, the speed on his throws was down significantly. “His rotation was fine, his accuracy was fine. But as far as the ball getting from Point A to Point B, and how much time he was giving defensive backs to drive on the football, there was enough there for concern.” Other scouts and team executives have expressed similar concerns and although the Broncos obviously felt good about what they saw when they worked him out and what their doctors told them after examining Manning, there remain serious questions about how a 36-year-old who was already fighting a losing battle against age is going to be better or even as good as he once was following multiple procedures on his neck and a season away from the game. Enjoy the ride, Broncos fans…………
- Is having two weirdos of questionable sanity living in a home with 125 square feet of living space sound from a health-and-well-being standpoint? This question seems relevant in the case of Christopher Smith and Merete Mueller, two self-professed minimalists who pent the last 10 months building the tiny home of their dreams. The result of their grand designs on minimizing their housing footprint is, well, small. “It's 19 feet long wall to wall,” Smith said. “The interior square-footage is about 125 square feet.” The interior of their Boulder, Colo. Home consists of a sitting area, kitchen and bathroom. A vaulted ceiling allows for a sleeping loft that can accommodate a queen-size mattress. “The interior looks a lot bigger than the exterior,” Mueller said. No, no it does not. The obvious query for anyone looking at the humble dwelling from outside its cramped confines is why, as in why would someone choose to live that way? “When we set out it was to show that a normal person, who never built anything before, can take on a project like this and finish it," Smith said. Their design incorporates several sustainable elements, including: reclaimed windows, beetle-kill lumber, solar power and a composting toilet. "It’s just a five-gallon bucket that you put peat moss and sawdust in,” Smith said. “You'd be surprised how well it works and how much it doesn't smell.” When a person finds themselves defending the relative absence of odor from their composting toilet, reassessing the direction of their life seems like a wise move. Prior to building their mini-home, Smith and Mueller lived in a townhouse with approximately 90 percent more room. They originally designed it as a second home to be placed on land they purchased. During the building process, they visited other tiny homes and their perspective changed. Theirs and other tales of tiny domiciles have been documented for a film called “Tiny: A Story About Living Small", which is scheduled for release this spring………….
- The list of foods a person can eat to supposedly become or remain thin has two new entries: ground green coffee beans and chocolate. The first of the two entries comes from a study led by Dr. Joe Vinson, a professor of chemistry at the University of Scranton. Vinson and his team studied people 22 to 46 years old for 22 weeks and found that 16 overweight men and women lost an average of 17 pound when they took the green (unroasted) coffee beans in supplement form. Participants did not change their diet and were physically active. During the study, they also received a placebo for a time and lost more while on the supplements than while on placebo. The higher their dose of coffee beans, the greater their weight loss. Why? Vinson isn't sure. "We don't think it's the caffeine in it," he admitted. The study’s viability is also called into question by the fact that it was funded by Applied Food Sciences, which makes the green coffee antioxidant supplement. Vinson shared his findings Tuesday at the annual meeting of the American Chemical Society in San Diego, right around the time a study led by Dr. Beatrice Golomb of the University of California at San Diego showed that people who eat chocolate regularly tend to be thinner. Golomb’s study examined 1,000 participants and measured calorie intake and body mass index. Participants who ate chocolate a few times a week were, on average, slimmer than those who ate it occasionally. Researchers believe this could be due to ingredients that promote weight loss in spite of the loads of calories found in most chocolate products. For this study, regular chocolate consumption was related to lower BMI despite consumers’ elevated calorie intake. Even when other factors, like time spent exercising, did not alter those results. A key distinction to be made in terms of the benefits derived from eating chocolate in the study is that the frequency of consumption was more important than the amount eaten. For chubby folks looking for an excuse to plow through a whole box of Russell Stover’s or king-size Snickers bar and feel good about doing so, Golomb’s team said there is only a 1 percent chance that their findings could be explained by chance alone. For the other side of the debate, the study is good in that it proves only that a link exists and not exact causality. "Our findings appear to add to a body of information suggesting that the composition of calories, not just the number of them, matters for determining their ultimate impact on weight," Golomb said. Whatever you say, doc. Now stop excusing FAT people on account of antioxidant compounds supposedly improving lean muscle mass and reducing weight. For more on the research, dig in to the latest issue of Archives of Internal Medicine………..
No comments:
Post a Comment