#genetic factors in diabetes

[diabetesreversalprograminindia]

How Genetics Affects Type 2 Diabetes?

This article is originally published on Freedom from Diabetes website , available here. You want to know, is type-2 diabetes is genetic or not? The answer is yes. But it is depend upon some factors. It is something in your environment that actually triggers it. For proof, we can look at identical twins. They have identical genes. Yet if one twin gets type 2 diabetes, the other twin's risk is three in four at most. Lets understand genetic diabetes symptoms?

Frequent need to visit the washroom.

Increase in appetite

Fatigue

Lack of clarity in vision

Repeated infections

healing wounds

Now the question is type 2 diabetes genetic, can it be reversed or not. To know it please click here. If you found this blog useful, please recommend it and share it with others!

Also please connect with me on my website, Facebook page, and YouTube if you want to stay in touch or give me any feedback!

Thank you!

[karmaphone]

hate those ads that are like 'the RISK of type 1 diabetes is REAL' like can we not fearmonger over literal genetics thanks

[health-and-fitness-care]

High blood pressure system and causes information

Increased blood pressure in the arteries is a medical disease known as hypertension, or high blood pressure. It’s a vital component of cardiovascular health that has broad effects on general wellbeing. This illness usually takes time to manifest, and until problems happen, it frequently remains asymptomatic.High blood pressure is caused by a number of variables, such as underlying medical…

[3rdbogwitch2theleft]

Shoutout to all my fellow possessors of limited medical history. Adoptees, children of single parents, adult children of parents who passed away young, people who come from families that don’t talk about illness. 

Every time we visit the doctor we prepare for a barrage of unanswerable questions armed only with our considerable sense of humor and a lifetime of guesswork. 

“And was that on the paternal or maternal side?”

“I have no paternal medical history. That’s actually one of the reasons I want to do this bloodwork.”  

3 minutes later

“And this cousin, is that the paternal or maternal side?” 

“You think in the space of the last three minutes I hired a PI and tracked down my birth father and got a full family history from him?” 

[fatliberation]

oh wow im really interested about your review of glp-1 agonists study. can't waut to read it if you ever publish it!

also have you seen those studies about calorie deficit prolonging life in mice? i'vr been thinking for a while what to say to people that bring it up besides obvious "we are not mice and our metabolism is different, etc." i wonder if you have any thoughts on this topic

Thank you, it's basically one big summary of all of the studies I've been referencing on this blog but in formal paper mode! I will let y'all know when it's up on my ko-fi soon.

So, I just did some reading and the evidence for calorie restriction prolonging lifespan is not very strong, even in mice, so it's definitely not something that a human (or any other mammal) should take as fact. We also know that calorie restriction is the leading cause of eating disorders in humans and leads to weight cycling, which is linked to cardiovascular disease, stroke, diabetes and altered immune function.

Some quotes I pulled from two separate mice studies:

"In summary, our initial belief that the rate of aging is directly proportional to caloric intake (with obvious limits at the higher and lower ends of the spectrum) has now been shown to be incorrect. DR (Dietary Restriction) works through a variety of mechanisms, as evidenced by the fact that its pro longevity and pro health effects vary based on several modifiable study design factors including: the diet composition, age of onset, feeding regimens, and genetics and sex of the organism. The fact that nutrition influences aging in many animal models is nevertheless valuable, and given our incomplete understanding of aging itself, it continues to provide an avenue of investigation that is not even close to reaching its full potential."

"Despite repeated claims in the literature implying that ER (Energy Restriction) extends the life span of virtually all species (3), there is considerable evidence that this effect is not universal. ...In cohorts of mice derived from wild-caught ancestors, Harper et al. (7) did not observe a significant extension of life span following ER. Notably, the effect of ER on longevity of different strains of inbred mice is also selective. For instance, whereas the life spans of C57BL/6 and B6D2F1 mice are extended by ∼25–30% in response to a 40% decrease in energy intake, the same regimen has no demonstrable effect on the longevity of DBA/2 mice (8), suggesting that genetic background is a factor in determining the longevity extension effect of ER."

[championlaura222]

I'm sick of the moraliazation of illness/disability. I see it a lot when it comes to type 2 diabetes. I'm sick of the idea that it's just "fat person disease." Talk to pretty much any doctor and they'll tell you that the main factor in type 2 diabetes is genetics. My mom's side has a higher likelihood for type 2 diabetes, my dad's side does not. Despite my dad being extremely overweight for much of his life, not even a sign! My Nan had some weight gain in her 50s, not that much from how much she weighed, and she ended up with it. There's no "right" way to be ill, I'm tired of the stigma around the idea that a person "does it to themselves" and thus is okay to ridicule and not listen to. In fact, Weight in general has more to do with genetics than most other factors! Think about how many people live off redbull and fast food and don't gain weight from it! And even if someone did get sick because of their actions, you shouldn't go around ridiculing them over that!

[mindblowingscience]

The levels of caffeine in your blood could affect the amount of body fat you carry, a factor that in turn could determine your risk of developing type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular diseases. Those are the findings of a 2023 study that used genetic markers to establish a more definitive link between caffeine levels, BMI, and type 2 diabetes risk.

Continue Reading.

[scientia-rex]

Hysteria isn't a fucking thing

ok fun fact: I'm rapidly becoming a cult favorite doctor among our local privileged elderly white ladies, which I have mixed feelings about, but the #1 reason is that I just don't leap to "anxiety" as an explanation for symptoms unless the patient tells me "I am anxious, and then I feel these symptoms, and when I am not anxious, I don't feel these symptoms."

The sheer number of women I've seen who've been told for years to decades that the only thing wrong with them is anxiety is fucking staggering, in this Year Of Our Lord 2023, and I just keep digging. We checked a basic lab panel, sure. CBC. No anemia. CMP. Kidneys are fine. (Electrolytes are basically always going to be fine if someone is well enough to walk into my office under their own power to talk to me. Exception is mild chronic hyponatremia.) And we check thyroid. TSH and free T4. We check blood sugar. A1c, if the fasting is a little weird. Fasting insulin, if I'm still suspicious. We check cortisol. Inflammatory markers--ESR and CRP.

And eventually, if the symptoms support it, or right away, depending on my level of suspicion, we check rheumatological labs for abnormal autoimmune function. Anti-nuclear antibody. Rheumatoid factor. There's at least a dozen you can check, and which ones you should check is always a matter of debate and also of expertise that I 100% lack. We are out in the sticks. There are no "local" rheumatologists for me to send people to.

But a couple of weeks ago I found a woman--she has bipolar disorder and has been told for decades that's all that's wrong with her--who has an anti-centromere antibody titer that's fucking through the roof. I found an anxious 19-year-old with an ANA of 1:1380. And yesterday I found out why a sweet elderly woman I've seen for a year or two now started feeling crappy months ago: her rheumatoid factor is over 90.

Rheumatological disorders are always difficult. Our understanding of them varies from "pretty good, actually, and here are useful treatments" to "Well I Guess That Exists." Labs aren't always a slam-dunk and even labs plus symptoms can give you misleading impressions. Your immune system can decide that virtually any short chunk of protein is an enemy, and the problem with that is that your body is made up of many, many, many short chunks of proteins, so the odds that you'll develop some kind of antibody against yourself just keeps going up over your lifetime. Immune disorders tend to travel in packs; there's a clear genetic element to it, so the more first-degree relatives (parent, sibling, child) you have with any kind of autoimmune disorder (including Type 1 diabetes), the higher your risk of any kind of autoimmune disorder is, and if you already have one autoimmune disorder, you're at higher risk for developing another one.

But I think it's precisely because they're difficult that a lot of mainstream primary care prefers to pretend they don't exist, rather than try to sift through the utter fucking mess that is Mixed Connective Tissue Disorders, a title that has fallen out of favor since I learned it in my third year of med school. And women are at higher risk for autoimmune disorders than men. And older women are at higher risk than younger women.

So if I, as a family doc, just keep digging, just keep poking at the tangled knot of symptoms, there's a decent chance I will uncover something interesting. Hopefully something treatable. Sometimes we have nothing to treat with, and I just get to offer someone more understanding of their disorder, which feels pretty paltry but is better than the casual dismissal of "You're just anxious."

Never, ever, ever take anxiety as a diagnosis for a symptom other than anxiety. Not even as a rule-out. Keep those symptoms as an open question mark on the patient. Don't say "anxiety" just so you can close the door. And damn sure don't do it to women.

I'm actively working on learning more so I can be more helpful, in our Rheum-less community, so if you have good lectures or books, please drop me a lead.

[a-d-nox]

what's a dna (asteroid 55555) persona? what can a dna persona chart show you?

hypothetically, your dna chart can tell you more about the genetic predisposition of your health, what genetic diseases and mutations you are at risk for, your ancestry, and your genetic traits.

mini disclaimer: genetic/ethnicity/ancestry can be a delicate subject for a lot of people - this is is topical post about what the planets and houses could mean. i am not a doctor or geneticist - this chart can not be used to diagnose health issues/problems or anything else with 100% accuracy.

sun

your genetic identity, your projected vitality, genetic predispositions you should pay attention to, genetic prominence, genetic connects to royal/famous/infamous individuals, and/or how your genetics are different from your ancestors / what makes you an individual (not a clone - or perhaps different from a twin)

moon

what you inherited from your mother, your family's heritage, how your ancestors have adapt/evolved to make you who you are today, neanderthal ancestry ratios, hereditary menstrual issues, genetic fertility factors, and/or the brca / pcos / uterine fibroids gene

mercury

genetic mental health conditions, neurological conditions/diseases, taste/smell/hearing, how you can change your genetic "fate," what genetics can be forgot, aptitude to speak the languages of your ancestors, and/or how your daily routine affects your genetics (nature versus nurture)

venus

genetic attraction / who you attract to create viable offspring that is meant to survive, your genetic beauty, your ability to preform self love (aka your ability to cope with hereditary depression and anxiety), genetic hair type, genetic femininity (xx, x0, xxx, etc), genetics you share with a majority of your family, values and festivities with have due to heritage, genetics diabetes, genetic cheerfulness versus depression, and/or pcos gene

mar

genetic confidence in public speaking, competitiveness that makes your genes superior to past generations, genetic athleticism / muscle composition, genetic masculinity (xy, xxy, etc), genetic dominance, and/or prone to violence (neanderthal influence)

jupiter

where you are lucky in the genetic lottery, where you have an abundance of genetic information, where are successful in breaking genetic trends, your opportunity to beat the genetic odds, your knowledge of your genetic makeup, genetic blessings, where you can afford to be optimistic about your health, and/or genetic predisposition to macular degeneration

saturn

what you should work hard to be your genetic makeup, genetic health challenges, what you inherited from your father, genetics fears/anxieties, how long you can live if you are healthy, your genetic limitations, ancestry, genetic deficiencies, and/or the effort you make to beat your genetics

uranus

genetics of social anxiety, sudden changes historical genetics - where you are the first in your family diagnosed with a genetic mutation/disorder, what makes you genetically unique, and/or shocking/unexpected ancestry/origin

neptune

genetic alcoholism/escapism, hidden genetic knowledge or ancestry, delusions surrounding your heritage, disappearance of heritage, and/or the fascination you have with your ancestry and genetic

pluto

genetic transformation, the power in your genes, genetic sex, destructive genes, you genetic projected death, regenerative genes, your obsession with your genetics and heritage, and/or your genetic evolution

1h

genetic identity/self, outward physical traits / appearance, physical body, physical genetic build, genetic individuality, and/or passion for genetics

2h

genetic wealth, effort you put in to beat your genetics, genetic material, values surrounding your heritage, genetic stability, giving/receiving your heritage, and resources surrounding your genetics

3h

how your genetics are communicated, genetic mental health issues and disabilities, your opinions about your heritage, how you can consciously fight your genetics, genetic relationship with your siblings, interest in your heritage and genetics, and/or information you have on your ancestry and genetics

4h

genetic/familial origins and roots, your parents genetics, how you were treated in childhood based on your genetics, heredity traits, traditions you upload because of your heritage, and/or genetic femininity

5h

your children's genetics, creative methods of celebrating your heritage, who you are attracted to based on genetics/ethnicity, vacations you take to reconnect with your heritage/ethnicity, hobbies/festivities/traditions that are related to your ethnicity, and/or genetic fertility (pcos, fibroids, etc)

6h

how your daily routine is affecting your genetics or rather triggering your genetics, your genetic health, how fitness/hygiene/medication/diet can benefit for life expectancy because of genetic factors, the self improvement you do to fight genetic pre-destiny, how consistency aids/harms your health, how you help others to better understand their origin, and/or genetic analytics

7h

your significant others' ethnicity/heritage, genetic attraction, genetic attractiveness, contracts with genetic storage banks (for instance mine is in a 23&me storage data bank), how others treat you based on your genetics, and/or genetics share with those in your family

8h

dna mutations, projected longevity based on your genetic makeup, changes you should make to live longer, how much time invest into getting to know more about your genetics and heritage, what you inherited from your ancestors genetically, genetic reproductive rates, assets of your ethnicity, secrets about your ethnicity, the spiritual transformation that occurs when you learn more about your heritage/roots, and/or trauma related to race/ethnicity/heritage

9h

beliefs/religion/ideologies associated with your roots, what can learn about your heritage/ethnicity, languages associated with your roots, where your ancestors immigrated or where they emigrated from, genetic ethics, and/or what you can learn about your ancestors

10h

your genetic legacy/offspring, what the world believes your origins are, how you can beat genetics, long-term health goals you may have, what you inherit from your father, and/or genetic experts in your life

11h

what you gain from having knowledge of your ancestors, genetics you share with a half sibling, what makes you genetically unique, how technology can help you learn more about your genetic background, social awareness you have others ethnicities/culture/heritages, and/or how your genes manifest

12h

how you can heal using your genetic information, the hidden features of your genetic code, your projected age, how well you sleep based on your genetics, mental health issues you have a predisposition to, genetic fears you have in place so that you can survive, what you don't know about your genetics, and/or how you should restrict yourself to promote longevity/vitality

like what you read? leave a tip and state what post it is for! please use my "suggest a post topic" button if you want to see a specific post or mythical asteroid next!

click here for the masterlist

click here for more asteroids that aren't getting more attention than this

want a personal reading? click here to check out my reading options and prices!

© a-d-nox 2023 all rights reserved

[transmutationisms]

this hasn't happened to me in a long while, but when I was a kid getting weighed I remember a doctor pulling out a separate BMI chart for Asians with lower cutoffs. this was around a decade ago. no doctors have done this since. is that like, normal? or in any way meaningful?

'normal', unfortunately yes---I don't know that I've heard of doctors actually making up charts for this but it is a commonly held belief among physicians and epidemiologists that BMI cutoffs should be lower for Asians than for whites, because Asians supposedly have higher rates of weight-correlated adverse health outcomes (diabetes, CVD, &c) at the same BMIs.

meaningful is a different matter. there are two major and really damning issues with this belief:

firstly, the (handful of) studies documenting this disparity have all the same issues as any other medical literature on weight and health. we don't actually have good evidence to say that weight causes these health outcomes; it's difficult to disentangle environmental factors, or the fact that disease can often cause the weight gain itself, as in the case of diabetes or 'metabolic syndrome'. weight stigma, not interchangeable with weight itself, has a massive and documented negative effect on health outcomes. also, as far as I can tell, most if not all of the studies on this particular question seem to have been done using Asian-American subjects specifically, so that opens a whole host of further statistical ambiguities: you're talking about immigrant populations in the US. physicians love to interpret shit like this as evidence of biological racial differences instead of probing questions like: does this suggest that Asian immigrants to the US are subjected to forms of marginalisation that cause particular health effects? and the usual critiques of weight science include the problem that long-term deliberate weight loss is not achievable for th vast majority of people save through the development of behaviours that would otherwise be identified as eating-disordered, so BMI chart cutoffs are of pretty limited value for individual health guidance even if we were confident in their causal relationships.

secondly, and arguably even more fundamentally, any data that purport to differentiate people on the basis of race are data that are using an invented social category, not a 'natural' or biological one. there are absolutely health outcomes and conditions that affect different populations at different rates or with varying effects. but 'Asian' is not a coherent category genetically, epigenetically, historically, physiologically, or anything else. it's no more a 'real' biological grouping of people than 'white' or any other racial category. these are social designations, they're not biological facts. medicine that purports to display sensitivity to marginalised groups by reifying the biological ideology that defines them is reactionary at its core, and is not even solving the problems people think it is. when we lean on the idea of racial health disparities, we're basically relying on a crude average of a whole bunch of different people and groups who have been socially slotted into one 'race' category. this doesn't help people; on the contrary, it often obscures the actual rates of particular health issues in different populations: for example, the gene responsible for sickle cell anemia is common in families from many parts of the world, and sickle cell anemia is not a 'race-based disease' but an inherited genetic disorder. the allure of 'innate racial differences' as an etiological explanation is still pervasive and pernicious in medicine as elsewhere. Rana Hogarth talks about this in the epilogue to Medicalising Blackness, and I've also heard Iris Clever discuss it in conferences, although to my knowledge her published work focusses more on the epistemological architecture of genetic and anthropological databases. anyway my point is that, even if we solved all the issues raised in part 1 above and were confident that we had indeed pinpointed BMI cutoffs causally linked to adverse health effects, it still would be harmful and not helpful to set these cutoffs on the basis of 'race', which is a social system of categorisation and marginalisation and has no biological basis or 'natural' justification.

[certifiedsexed]

I'm about to go for my first cervical exam soon. I kind of know what to expect, but i also want to know if there's any way to make it easier?

The doctor I'm having it with has made it VERY clear that if i feel at all like I need to stop, she will and the unrelated appointment I had with her went well. I'm just a little nervous going into it

Also my grandma had uterine cancer (alive and well, don't worry) My mom said we'd all have to get exams more often because of this, but the doctor I went to recently didn't seem to think I did. I've done some very light googling and read that only about 5-10% of cancer cases get passed down genetically, but uterine cancer gets passed down about 10% of the time. Should I be getting tested more often?

Okay.

Honestly, I'm not sure on ways to make it "easier" beyond bringing someone you trust with you. It's a fairly quick exam usually and not associated with pain [unless you have certain conditions that make it painful], so I don't know exactly what else to recommend.

It sounds like you've got a good doctor so far! That's great. It makes sense you'd be nervous, especially for your first time. It can be a little nervewracking, which is why I do suggest bringing someone with you.

I'm assuming if this is your first cervical exam, you're pretty young, so its not likely you need extra exams for uterine cancer even if your grandmother had it.

Uterine cancer usually develops when you're much older and unless you have added risk factors like PCOS and/or diabetes, its very unlikely you need to start extra exams yet.

Though keep in mind, I'm not a medical professional so I could totally be wrong.

Hope this helps, though! Let me know if you have any other questions. <3

[covid-safer-hotties]

Also preserved on our archive

NIH-funded study focused on original virus strain, unvaccinated participants during pandemic.

Infection from COVID-19 appeared to significantly increase the risk of heart attack, stroke, and death for up to three years among unvaccinated people early in the pandemic when the original SARS-CoV-2 virus strain emerged, according to a National Institutes of Health (NIH)-supported study. The findings, among people with or without heart disease, confirm previous research showing an associated higher risk of cardiovascular events after a COVID-19 infection but are the first to suggest the heightened risk might last up to three years following initial infection, at least among people infected in the first wave of the pandemic.

Compared to people with no COVID-19 history, the study found those who developed COVID-19 early in the pandemic had double the risk for cardiovascular events, while those with severe cases had nearly four times the risk. The findings were published in the journal Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology.

“This study sheds new light on the potential long-term cardiovascular effects of COVID-19, a still-looming public health threat,” said David Goff, M.D., Ph.D., director for the Division of Cardiovascular Sciences at NIH’s National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), which largely funded the study. “These results, especially if confirmed by longer term follow-up, support efforts to identify effective heart disease prevention strategies for patients who’ve had severe COVID-19. But more studies are needed to demonstrate effectiveness.”

The study is also the first to show that increased risk of heart attack and stroke in patients with severe COVID-19 may have a genetic component involving blood type. Researchers found that hospitalization for COVID-19 more than doubled the risk of heart attack or stroke among patients with A, B, or AB blood types, but not in patients with O types, which seemed to be associated with a lower risk of severe COVID-19.

Scientists studied data from 10,000 people enrolled in the UK Biobank, a large biomedical database of European patients. Patients were ages 40 to 69 at the time of enrollment and included 8,000 who had tested positive for the COVID-19 virus and 2,000 who were hospitalized with severe COVID-19 between Feb. 1, 2020, and Dec. 31, 2020. None of the patients had been vaccinated, as vaccines were not available during that period.

The researchers compared the two COVID-19 subgroups to a group of nearly 218,000 people who did not have the condition. They then tracked the patients from the time of their COVID-19 diagnosis until the development of either heart attack, stroke, or death, up to nearly three years.

Accounting for patients who had pre-existing heart disease – about 11% in both groups – the researchers found that the risk of heart attack, stroke, and death was twice as high among all the COVID-19 patients and four times as high among those who had severe cases that required hospitalization, compared to those who had never been infected. The data further show that, within each of the three follow-up years, the risk of having a major cardiovascular event was still significantly elevated compared to the controls – in some cases, the researchers said, almost as high or even higher than having a known cardiovascular risk factor, such as Type 2 diabetes.

“Given that more than 1 billion people worldwide have already experienced COVID-19 infection, the implications for global heart health are significant,” said study leader Hooman Allayee, Ph.D., a professor of population and public health sciences at the University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine in Los Angeles. “The question now is whether or not severe COVID-19 should be considered another risk factor for cardiovascular disease, much like type 2 diabetes or peripheral artery disease, where treatment focused on cardiovascular disease prevention may be valuable.”

Allayee notes that the findings apply mainly to people who were infected early in the pandemic. It is unclear whether the risk of cardiovascular disease is persistent or may be persistent for people who have had severe COVID-19 more recently (from 2021 to the present).

Scientists state that the study was limited due to inclusion of patients from only the UK Biobank, a group that is mostly white. Whether the results will differ in a population with more racial and ethnic diversity is unclear and awaits further study. As the study participants were unvaccinated, future studies will be needed to determine whether vaccines influence cardiovascular risk. Studies on the connection between blood type and COVID-19 infection are also needed as the mechanism for the gene-virus interaction remains unclear.

This study was supported by NIH grants R01HL148110, R01HL168493, U54HL170326, R01DK132735, P01HL147823, R01HL147883, and P30ES007048.

About the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI): NHLBI is the global leader in conducting and supporting research in heart, lung, and blood diseases and sleep disorders that advances scientific knowledge, improves public health, and saves lives. For more information, visit www.nhlbi.nih.gov.

About the National Institutes of Health (NIH): NIH, the nation's medical research agency, includes 27 Institutes and Centers and is a component of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. NIH is the primary federal agency conducting and supporting basic, clinical, and translational medical research, and is investigating the causes, treatments, and cures for both common and rare diseases. For more information about NIH and its programs, visit www.nih.gov.

NIH…Turning Discovery Into Health®

Study Allayee, H, et al. COVID-19 Is a Coronary Artery Disease Risk Equivalent and Exhibits a Genetic Interaction With ABO Blood Type(link is external). [2024] Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology. DOI: 10.1161/ATVBAHA.124.321001

[olderthannetfic]

https://www.tumblr.com/olderthannetfic/742116226529099776/that-is-in-fact-the-part-we-disagree-on-there?source=share

A lot of stuff like this feels like the kind of concern trolling that makes people want to cure diabetes by harassing fat people about their diets.

Yes, diabetes is bad, and yes there isn't as much f/f fic as m/m. But your f/f ship being a rarepair isn't caused by fanfic authors being pro-gay, and worldwide diabetes statistics aren't caused by fat people enjoying dessert.

You can't focus on something that's only tangentially related to a large problem and think that yelling at people to stop enjoying things will cure the world. You have to do real activism.

Yelling at m/m shippers for writing too much gay smut makes you a homophobic jerk and discourages them from writing f/f, while doing absolutely nothing about sexism in society.

Yelling at fat people for eating sweets makes you a fatphobic jerk and makes people feel bad about their bodies and encourages them to eat less healthy diets (starving yourself leads to health complications!), while doing absolutely nothing to prevent what is ultimately a genetic disorder.

--

TBH, both could be looked at as access problems to a degree too.

"Healthy" diets (a complicated topic, obviously, but go with me here) can be out of reach either financially or logistically. Other factors for making that genetic predisposition turn into actual diabetes have a lot to do with money and time and the involuntary parts of people's lifestyles.

Similarly, while there absolutely is plenty of media full of female characters with great dynamics with each other, and people who strongly prefer this stuff are already seeking it out, it's also the case that a lot of the truly massive fandoms form around things with 300-million dollar advertising budgets. Those things tend to be sausagefests. Effects on the resulting fanfic are predictable.

It's not just about what's possible but about what's convenient. If [desirable lifestyle thing X] isn't the first one most people encounter every morning, it may just not happen. People don't have infinite time, attention, and will to make that change. They're fucking busy.

Pester Hollywood studios and deal with food deserts first. People having "bad taste" will take care of itself.

[realcleverscience]

Well, at least some of us are smart creatures of the night.

~~~

"Previous studies have associated 'eveningness' to detrimental health outcomes, including putting them at greater risk of type 2 diabetes and heart disease, and even a 10% higher risk of early death compared to 'morning people.' Night owls have also been linked to having a higher rate of psychological and neurological disorders.

Genetics studies have indicated that morning-night sleep preferences is closely tied to our biology, ... Recently, it's even been tied to evolution, linking attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and 'eveningness' with something deemed the Watchman Theory. It suggests that for the nearly three quarters of ADHD sufferers who report sleep problems, including "bedtime resistance," it might be traced back to hunter-gatherer days, when those genes and time-shifted circadian rhythms made a certain group of people excellent at keeping watch over tribes late into the night...

After adjusting for health and lifestyle factors, such as chronic disease, smoking and alcohol intake, the researchers found that night owls scored around 13.5% higher than morning people in one group, and 7.5% higher in another group. What's more, morning people had consistently lower test scores across the board, with even the 'intermediate' types – those who considered themselves more somewhere in the middle – doing 10.6% and 6.3% better than early risers."