Why are taxpayers forced to pay millions to find out why most lesbians are obese?

(NaturalNews) The federal government has financed questionable scientific research in the past, but some projects simply defy belief, let along reasonable explanation. Such is the case regarding a $3.5 million study into lesbian obesity.

As reported by MRCTV (Media Research Center), the study is being financed through the National Institutes of Health. Also, reports the Washington Free Beacon, the cost of the study has grown steadily.

Titled "Sexual Orientation and Obesity: Test of a Gendered Biopsychosocial Model," the study's authors claim it "is one of the most critical public health issues affecting the U.S. today," according to the abstract.

"Racial and socioeconomic disparities in the determinants, distribution, and consequences of obesity are receiving increasing attention; however, one area that is only beginning to be recognized is the striking interplay of gender and sexual orientation in obesity disparities," the abstract says.

The WFB noted that the cost of the study has doubled since it was first discovered in 2013, meaning the U.S. Department of Health & Services has continued to endow the study with grant money.

Stay on top of breaking news on women's health at www.womenshealth.news

How much tax money is 'self esteem' worth?

The WFB noted further:

Since, the study that is examining why three-quarters of lesbians are obese, but gay men are not, has survived sequester cuts, and continues to produce results such as the discovery that gay men have a "greater desire for toned muscles" than straight men.

Another scientific paper associated with the research concluded that lesbians have lower "athletic-self esteem" that may lead to higher rates of obesity.

A paper published in June which was co-authored by the study's lead investigator, S. Bryn Austin, an associate epidemiologist at Brigham and Women's Hospital and pediatrics professor at Harvard Medical School, said that young males tend to think a lot about their muscles.

"Latent transition analyses revealed that sexual minority males (i.e., mostly heterosexual, gay, and bisexual) were more likely than completely heterosexual males to be lean-concerned at ages 17-18 and 19-20 years and to transition to the lean-concerned class from the healthy class," according to the paper. "There were no sexual orientation differences in odds of being muscle-concerned."

The authors of the paper also said that young men should probably be "screened" to see if they are too preoccupied with their biceps.

"Both heterosexual and sexual minority males are at risk for presenting body image concerns and weight- and shape-related behaviors that may have deleterious health consequences," said the paper. "Results suggest the need for screening for concerns and behaviors related to leanness and muscularity in early adolescence among all males, regardless of sexual orientation."

But there have been no further disclosures or findings published regarding the central premise of the study – why lesbians tend to be more overweight percentage–wise versus straight women.

Why fund this study at all?

In fact, when the question was put before subscribers to a reddit for actual lesbians in 2014, some who commented merely parroted the NIH study's premise, namely that "it is now well-established that women of minority sexual orientation are disproportionately affected by the obesity epidemic."

That's not really a conclusion, though – just the premise – meaning, researchers are no closer to understanding why three–quarters of lesbians, according to the study, are overweight.

Despite millions of taxpayer dollars already spent.

"Obesity is one of the most critical public health issues affecting the U.S. today. Racial and socioeconomic disparities in obesity are receiving increasing attention; however, one area of disparities that is only beginning to be recognized is the striking interplay of gender and sexual orientation," says the study.

But is this more important than, say, care of veterans, which is chronically underfunded and subject to sequester cuts, or childhood obesity – which is largely due to the proliferation of processed GMO foods?

Maybe a better use for this money would be to not use it at all, given the fact that the country is so heavily in debt.

Sources:

http://www.mrctv.org

http://freebeacon.com

http://projectreporter.nih.gov

http://www.reddit.com

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24347406