‘These changes may reduce the chances of conception for overweight women, and may even have long-term health implications for the children of overweight and obese women.’
The latest study found that eggs from women who are overweight or obese were significantly smaller than eggs from women of healthy weight, and less likely to reach a crucial stage of development called the ‘blastocyst’ at around five days after fertilisation.
Researchers found embryos from overweight and obese women that reached the blastocyst stage did so on average 17 hours faster than comparable embryos from women of a healthy weight.
This acceleration in early development meant fewer cells were formed in blastocysts from overweight and obese women, which could have a deleterious effect on the placenta – the ‘support system’ for the growing baby.
And there we have it, the reason for our double standards, that gender gap, between men being a bit chubby and birds being fat. Don’t forget, they’re using “healthy” here to mean a BMI of 25. Which is actually pretty skinny when compared to the general population (as we keep being told). But any even vague history of the evolution of sexual attraction is going to mean that we men are attracted (with an awful lot of variation around that mean of course) to women who are fertile.
No, not because we’re omniscient about what makes women fertile. But because we’re the descendants of those men who found women who were fertile attractive enough to pursue.
And if fat birds are less fertile than skinny ones (to modern eyes “skinny”) then that explains what’s going on. Yes, pneumatic rather than flat all over (that hip to waist ratio is also indicative of fertility in other studies) but the inhabitants of BeastDate are considered unattractive for good evolutionary reasons.
Good, now that’s solved that’s the end of much feminist complaining, isn’t it? Facts do trump feelings?