I can help you when you start paying attention.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Printable View
I can help you when you start paying attention.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I'm not going to reread that pointless discussion to find out why I'm off on a different tangent to you. I don't care.
Do you think I ever pay attention? I just argue for the sake of it, it doesn't even matter what we're arguing about. I'm defending fat people here, do you think I actually give a fuck about fat people? No. I just like arguing.
About fat shaming:
If everywhere you looked, fat was praised, if it was considered hot and virtuous to be fat, do you think more people would be fat than they are today?
The answer is yes, yes you do think that, because it is correct and you like being correct.
By transverse, it must be true that making being fat socially unacceptable would result in fewer fat people.
Fact: fat shaming is godly work. It makes the world a better place by corralling people into living happier lives. I bet I wouldn't have gained the excess fat I did if I thought it would have meant a great deal of ridicule. In fact, when I chose to neglect my health and gain weight, part of the rationale behind it was "it doesn't matter, nobody's gonna treat me differently." The irony is that people did actually treat me differently, just in a very passive way. I was never once fat shamed, but the way people treated me (like how attracted women were to me or how respectfully men treated me) changed significantly.
Moral of the story: Western culture needs about 30 years of masculine-infused testosterone injections in order to recover from its extreme wussification.
I know. Because I realized this, I don't debate you.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
But you've been debating me for years!Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
You had me thinking you were legit for years.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
It's like you've never opened a single history book or looked at a single statistic, yet you claim to be some kind of biological truth-divining machine when it comes to human nature.
This is nearly as funny as the tape commercial but with all the laughing on the inside and none of it expressed audibly.
The hubris of wufwugy cannot be muffled!
I'm legit sometimes. In fact, probably most times.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I fashioned the post specifically to get a rise out of you. How does it feel? You know, gettin' wuf'd? Not everybody experiences the pleasure of gettin' wuf'd. Moms love it!Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Seriously though, it's not like I said anything that's wrong. Imagine I'm John Goodman in Big Lebowski. Sure, I didn't prove my point, but am I wrong? Am I wrong?
The tell is when your points show that you read what the other person said.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
http://i.imgur.com/zjxOtTf.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/kpo.gif
Haha I real lol'd.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I'm not an expert on the physiological affects of nutrition, but I'm pretty sure that you can't just count calories and think you're healthy. All calories are not created equally when applied to the human body.
Simple example: how the body processes the two most basic sugars, glucose and fructose. Extra glucose is kept in the bloodstream as a backup supply of energy, eventually being shuttled to fat stores when glucose blood levels get too high. But fructose goes a completely different pathway -- it's either immediately used for energy or it's immediately stored as fat.
So if you eat a high-sugar diet every day and then sit around for a few hours before getting any exercise, chances are that the type of sugar in that meal will have a pretty significant impact on your body fat %.
Metabolism is often described as the most complex and nonsensical known system in the universe. There have been all sorts of hypotheses regarding how certain types of calories could have certain types of effects on body composition, yet when the studies are conducted, the effects don't appear.Quote:
Originally Posted by NightGizmo
When it comes to body composition, after the nutritional baseline is accounted for, research does not show that it matters the source of calories beyond that. Even with things like alcohol, where consumption of it supposedly means that every other calorie in the system is stored as fat, the research just doesn't show that it yields a body composition change if it doesn't provide a calorie change first. If we use our common sense about metabolism, the absolute last thing anybody should do while trying to lose weight is consume alcohol; but the studies just don't back that idea up. Due to the extreme complexity of metabolism, we're not really even sure why (IIRC).
That said, there are a bunch of dietary protocols that can be used that more successfully hit the calorie points dieters aim at. This is why people like ketogenic diets. They make it easier to keep calories low. But if those people instead of consuming all that extra fat instead consumed a bunch of extra carbs (at the same calorie levels), studies show that a calorie is a calorie is a calorie.
It may be great to keep in mind what calories are. They're units of energy, nothing else. The same way an inch is an inch is an inch, a calorie is a calorie. There aren't any metabolic tricks that allow a body to use less energy than it needs. It doesn't seem to matter where the body sends the energy it receives; if it needs to burn tissue to make up for a caloric deficit, it will do it.
I'd first like to know what studies say a calorie is a calorie. The truth is that a fair percentage (around 25%) of protein calories are converted to heat during digestion. Not the case for fats or carbs. Moreover, there is a big difference between how calories affect satiety depending on their source, which you seem to understand but which also contradicts your argument somewhat.
Second, the keto diet is a bad diet. It was originally designed for treating intractable epilepsy in children. It also happens to make overweight people lose weight because fat calories are more filling than calories that come from refined carbs. So they eat less calories. The same effect would happen if you replaced a high carb diet with eating tree bark. You'd soon get full and eat less calories. The Atkins diet has the same premise but emphasizes protein and fat as replacements for carbs rather than just fat alone.
The problem with any of those three solutions to weight loss is that they're not sustainable. This is because the diet is essentially unbalanced. For one, your body has a hard time digesting protein and fats, the former causing strain on the liver in particular. For another, neither protein nor fat contain much of the vitamins one needs to be healthy, such as vitamin A, many of the B vitamins, C, and K, that are found in fresh fruit and veg. If you severely restrict protein as well you'll lose even more nutrients. So while you may lose weight and sustain that weight loss using one of the above diets, you will suffer from the same nutritional deficiencies as the obese person who gets all their carbs from sugar and starches. You'll be less sick than they are because you're not fat and not having the same blood sugar swings but you'll be sick all the same.
A healthy, balanced diet consists of a lot of fresh fruits and veg and some whole grains, nuts and legumes, with smaller portions of meat and dairy. These provide a balanced nutrition. Because the complex carbs contained in such a diet don't lead to swings in blood sugar, they also don't lead to the extra hunger associated with the more typical western style diet high in processed foods. Therefore one will maintain a healthy weight.
The reason people like the keto or Atkins diets is because they see themselves quickly losing weight and feeling better. What they don't feel until it happens are the long-term effects of nutritional deficiencies and/or excess protein/fat consumption. They also like the idea of eating rich, tasty foods while losing weight a lot better than eating low-calorie high fibre foods that are actually much better for them and have the same effects on their waistline. Given the choice between eating bacon and eggs cooked in lard and iced with peanut butter and some celery, carrots and an apple, it's not surprising the keto and Atkins diets have an appeal. But like I said, they're not sustainable for anyone who actually wants to be slim and healthy as opposed to just slim.
My comments are not about healthy diet, but changes in body composition.
Keto has a hunger blunting effect. The long term negatives you discuss are not known. Lots of keto dieters can easily get higher vitamins and minerals than conventional dieters.
A calorie is still a calorie regardless of the thermic effect of food (TEF). 1000 calories of protein still gives you 1000 calories. It's just that metabolizing it expends more calories than other types of packaging, so the net ends up being lower than with other types of calories. Saying that 1000 calories of protein is like 750 calories is shorthand and not technically accurate. Diet protocols include TEF, which accounts for this. If you're on a high protein diet, your caloric expenditure calculations increase; it is not that you can mislabel your intake as lower. Regardless, the effect is marginal. It is extremely hard and unreasonable to achieve much of an increased deficit by switching more macros to protein.
Let me add a clarification.
The common statement from fat loss specialists that "a calorie is a calorie" is more about combating common ideas claiming otherwise. For example, people claim that on certain diets their bodies are more effective at burning calories. That's not true, at least not beyond a baseline of nutrition. Or people say things like certain types of food turn to fat more easily therefore not all calories are the same regarding fat loss. That too isn't true. You can think of fat as excess calories. It doesn't matter if you eat a certain food that goes more directly to fat stores because if you're at a calorie deficit, the body pulls that deficit out of fat stores. You'll lose more weight on 1000 calories of pizza than 1500 calories of broccoli.
Continuing the last bit.
You'll lose more weight on 1500 calories of broccoli and chicken than 1500 calories of pizza. But it will be very little (usually not even noticeable), and it will be because the body is expending more calories.
I know a keto diet will make a person lose weight - i said as much. So will the tree bark diet, and so will the Atkins diet, so will forced starvation. The point was it's a bad diet like the others are because it isn't balanced. It's that simple.
"Lots of keto dieters can easily get higher vitamins and minerals than conventional dieters." Based on what scientific study? Again you should try to back up what you say with some evidence. I find it hard to imagine someone eating virtually no carbs is getting adequate (i.e., any) fiber, or vitamins A or C from fats.
What scientific studies are you citing to support your claims?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Balanced according to what?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Keto is not zero carb (although it can be).Quote:
"Lots of keto dieters can easily get higher vitamins and minerals than conventional dieters." Based on what scientific study? Again you should try to back up what you say with some evidence. I find it hard to imagine someone eating virtually no carbs is getting adequate (i.e., any) fiber, or vitamins A or C from fats.
There isn't any evidence that very low carb has negative long term effects. However, there are reasons to believe that it could. Even Eskimos consume moderate carbs (from fresh raw meat). We just don't have the data to know its effects on humans over a lifetime.
However, the data we do have suggests that there shouldn't be anything wrong with a "normal" keto diet, which comes to an average of maybe 50 grams of carbs a day (probably higher, actually). This because most people can sustain keto at <50 grams of carbs and refeeds, which make for much more than 50 grams of carbs, are typical.
Personally, my longest stint of keto averaged 25 grams of carbs/day and my vegetable intake was much higher than normal. Keto doesn't recommend replacing needed nutrients with fat; it recommends that after nutrients are satisfied to make up the remaining energy needs (calories) with fat. Keto is about getting the molecule the body uses for energy (ATP) from different sources; this isn't about vitamins and minerals. Most of what we eat serves the purpose of providing energy, not of providing vitamins/minerals.
Do I need scientific proof that vitamins and minerals are good for you? And that some of them are only found in fruit and veg?
Sorry I will have to look up my sub to 1928 journals of nutrition.
Balanced according to having appropriate levels of nutrients, such as the things I mentioned (vitamins, minerals, fiber).Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
It doesn't matter what most of what you eat does, if you lack in certain things you are going to suffer.
Wait, 100 of your calories came from carbs and you were eating MORE vegetables than usual? Please tell us what you were eating before...there's 147 cal in one cup of cooked veg btw.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
How about fruit - i take it there wasn't any room for that in your keto diet?
Even better, just take us through a typical food intake for one day on your keto diet. I think that would be really enlightening.
I've never been a fruit person, but it can be had in very low quantities. Still, there aren't any known needed nutrients exclusive to fruit. The smart thing, however, is to include some level of fruit just in case there are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
My typical keto diet is a lot of meat and broccoli, mushrooms, onions, cabbage, lettuce. This is because I do a lot of stir fry and salads on keto. When not on keto, well, I tend to eat more typically, which reduces the vegetables because there's not that many in burgers, burritos, or whatever.
Macros and micros are different. When we talk carbs, we're talking macros. There isn't any evidence that humans need dietary carbs, but there also isnt enough to conclude that we don't. Still, ketones and fat oxidization for energy covers every form of energy the body needs other than some small amount of glycogen for the brain (which the body naturally can supply through gluconeogenesis).
Well you can't have both 25g of carbs a day and 'a lot' of anything with carbs. Maybe two servings of veg a day and one of fruit. Forget grains entirely.
Here's a guy promoting a 20g carb diet. Note most of the things he calls one name are actually another (e.g., pancakes with no flour in them).
http://www.ibreatheimhungry.com/2014...menu-plan.html
Day 1: Cream cheese, eggs, bacon and coffee with heavy cream for breakfast. Cheese strings for a snack. Ham and cheese rolled in cream cheese and eggs with mayo and a little bit of spinach for lunch. (I'll just stop there).
Does this really seem like a healthy diet?
I know the difference between macros and micros. But I'm not sure you understand the significance of micros to a healthy diet. I don't think anyone's ever tried to argue that you need carbohydrates per se to survive. It's the other things that tend to be bundled in with them in their natural form that seem pretty important. If the carbs were all that mattered a person would be just as healthy eating x servings of sugar a day as the same amount of fruit and veg. Don't hear anyone arguing that's the case, and obviously most would argue the very opposite.
Nutrition is bollocks. I mean if you want peak health, then sure you need all the vitamins and minerals, but "need" is a funny word... my diet is utter shite, and I'm healthy, and fit enough to walk for miles, or cycle across a county.
Let's see... on a good day...
Breakfast... 2 eggs with 4 slices of granary toast, tea
Lunch... maybe some cheese and crackers, tea
Dinner... maybe cottage pie and mash, or fish and chips, or lasagne, tea
Snacks... chocoloate, tea, biscuits, tea, tea
I eat hardly any fruit or veg. There might be some peas and carrots in my cottage pie, or some onion and tomato in my lasagne, but it's small quantities. I'm not dead.
So bollocks to what the so called experts say. The secret to good health is clearly tea.
Yes, absolutely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
You demand scientific evidence to refute your claims, therefore you need to cite the scientific data which supports your claims.
Whether or not your claims are "common sense" or "sound right" is scientific nonsense. The whole point of scientific method is to accept this and develop a rigorous systems to root out the BS we are so ridiculously prone to believe as a species. There's plenty of evidence to support the fact that the scientific method only works at all when we're at our utmost diligent to not be persuaded to believe anything on the basis of whether it "feels right."
So, please. Cite the scientific data which supports your view or rephrase your argument away from the scientific angle and onto your own feelings and what you understand. If you're not actually educated by the science, then don't claim to the veracity of your beliefs as though you are.
It's all good. No need to apologize.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I'm sure there's plenty to scrutinize, given the almost 100 years of advances to physiology and medicine since the 20's.
Give him an inch, he can just say "there's common consensus amongst the vast majority of respectable scientists" and not have to back anything up, that's a cheeky back door for anyone who wants to be lazy while using "science" to support their case.Quote:
You demand scientific evidence to refute your claims, therefore you need to cite the scientific data which supports your claims.
Or many servings of low carb vegetables. Which provide the micros and fiber one doesn't get in meat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
This is one iteration of unnecessarily low carbs.Quote:
Here's a guy promoting a 20g carb diet. Note most of the things he calls one name are actually another (e.g., pancakes with no flour in them).
http://www.ibreatheimhungry.com/2014...menu-plan.html
Day 1: Cream cheese, eggs, bacon and coffee with heavy cream for breakfast. Cheese strings for a snack. Ham and cheese rolled in cream cheese and eggs with mayo and a little bit of spinach for lunch. (I'll just stop there).
Does this really seem like a healthy diet?
I addressed this. It is easy to go beyond micro needs with a keto diet.Quote:
I know the difference between macros and micros. But I'm not sure you understand the significance of micros to a healthy diet. I don't think anyone's ever tried to argue that you need carbohydrates per se to survive. It's the other things that tend to be bundled in with them in their natural form that seem pretty important. If the carbs were all that mattered a person would be just as healthy eating x servings of sugar a day as the same amount of fruit and veg. Don't hear anyone arguing that's the case, and obviously most would argue the very opposite.
Here you go then.
http://advances.nutrition.org/content/3/4/506.full
Pretty nitty if you ask me. If I claim the Earth is round or other "common sense" things you'll forgive me if I don't have a reference handy.
I say I'm healthy but I've got a bitch of a cough. Cold + smoking = cough.
Tea soothes though. Tea heals the bad things that smoking does. Tea is the antidote to smoking. It's undoing all the bad.
Blissful naivity is a wonderful thing.
You've only added 5 grams or 20 cal of carbs to what's 'unnecessarily low'.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Alternately, I could just talk a load of shite from the beginning, never back any of it up, and insist I'm right regardless of all the evidence to the contrary. Not that that ever happens on the internet. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I know you're having a dig at wuf here, but this describes me more accurately.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Actually it's a dig at everyone including myself.
You're not as far off as one may think.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
The micros humans need are pretty basic. Most everything beyond that is just for energy (you can think of the body tissues themselves as energy too).
We know very little about what micronutrient choices can be made to improve longevity and health. Outside of basic malnutrition, health and longevity seem to boil down to genetics and body composition.
So are you saying that as long as you don't starve yourself, health and longevity depend entirely on genetics and body composition?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
By the way Wuf, how much is Donald Trump going to win the election by?
FWIW this study is saying something a bit different than you may think. I can maybe explain later. The short of it is that the studies evaluated here don't (at least for the most part) show that vegetables and fruits are healthy. They show associations (not causality), and when you dig into the details of a lot of the elements, even the associations are really weak. For example, the abstract mentions vegetables and fruits are viewed as healthy because antioxidants. Well guess what there is little (or no, IIRC) research that shows antioxidants in diet do things like prevent cancer. That stuff is in vitro.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
When did I do that? I stated that keto can exist at ~50g carbs/day and I've stated that one of my own versions has a much different breakdown than the one you presented.Quote:
You've only added 5 grams or 20 cal of carbs to what's 'unnecessarily low'.
This is not actually saying anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by conclusion of cited source by poopadoop
Um, here?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
You're a scientist right? You understand that people have to understate their conclusions as part of the culture, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
No. I'm saying that there isn't evidence to conclude (there's barely even evidence to suggest it) that beyond basic nutritional needs doing things like eating more vegetables will make you live longer or healthier. Researchers have found extremely wide dietary choices not really changing much. Body composition and genes do change much, however (wait and exercise I think).Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
An example is that I don't know of any examples of studies that show people who eat a certain special diet live longer because of it. There are tons of confounding factors in the research. Also it appears that if there are differences made from dietary choices, they're relatively small. It would be something like two groups of people with the same genes, basic nutrition, exercise, body composition, and environments, but one consumes lots of fish oil, maybe the fish oil one lives a year or so longer, but really we just don't have the evidence to say that; we just know that it could maybe be true.
Seems not nitty, since you linked to something not relevant to your claims.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
This suggests that you don't have any scientific studies you are familiar with which motivate your position.
I am a physicist. We absolutely demanded substantial amounts of proof that the Earth is round, which was first provided when Eratosthenes measured the circumference in ~240 BC.
I can cite more recent references if you like.
Yes, but the study you cite is at most laying the groundwork for future studies. At most it's saying there is a dearth of scientific conclusions here and here and here and here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
But ok, just for fun let's unpack it a bit more:
"Epidemiologic studies support that dietary fiber is linked to less CVD"
seems pretty unequivocal: more fiber = less cardiovascular disease.
"... and probably has a role in obesity prevention. "
guardedly positive.
"Because fruit and vegetable intake is so low in U.S. studies, it is not possible to isolate the effects of any particular fruit or vegetable fiber or category of fruits or vegetable (fresh, processed, starchy, etc.) on health outcomes in these studies."
You can't say which fruit or veg is better than others for providing quality fiber.
" Fiber is most concentrated in dried fruits and cooked vegetables, just because water is removed and fiber concentrated. Fruits, vegetables, and legumes vary widely in nutrient content so should not be expected to have similar physiological effects. Although dietary guidance is supportive of a more vegetarian eating pattern, including increased servings of fruits and vegetables, the scientific support for these recommendations is mixed in an evidence-based review. "
Irrelevant.
"Prospective cohort studies find weak support for the protectiveness of fruits and vegetables against chronic diseases,"
Weak support, so not conclusive. But not evidence against either. Does not diminish the value of fiber against CVD.
"... yet intake of fruits and vegetables in U.S. cohorts is low."
The argument here I think is that since people eat low numbers of fruit and veg there is a floor effect that may make the evidence harder to determine statistically (I think - not sure why else it's worth mentioning).
" Additionally, few randomized controlled trials have been published on the addition of fruits and vegetables to the diet and changes in biomarkers or health status. "
Because these studies aren't done, that means there is insufficient evidence one way or the other.
"Nutrients in fruits and vegetables, such as dietary fiber, vitamins, minerals, and phytochemicals, including polyphenols, all provide support for the biological plausibility that fruits and vegetables play a role in health."
We know (or believe at least) that these things are good for you and they're found in high levels in fruit and veg.
"Food form may play a role in satiety. Fiber added to drinks appears less effective than whole fruits or vegetables in enhancing satiety. Limited studies suggest that whole-fiber foods may slow gastric emptying compared with liquid foods with added fiber."
Fiber fills you up.
"Both epidemiologic and experimental fiber studies are linked to improved health status. Fiber is an accepted nutrient and a short-fall nutrient, so public health messages to increase fiber consumption are warranted. Intakes of fruits and vegetables are also widely promoted, both for the content of fiber and other nutrients. Whenever possible, the entire fruit or vegetable, i.e., peel and membrane, should be consumed to increase fiber consumption. Satiety studies also suggest that closer to “whole” may have advantages, although the mechanisms for this effectiveness are not known. Fiber is definitely an active component of fruits and vegetables and a reason to continue to support their consumption."
Based on fiber content alone, it is reasonable to promote eating fruit and veg.
And you should when dealing with a relatively simple question. When we're talking nutrition there are too many variables to draw perfectly airtight conclusions from. So one can at best make reasonable educated arguments. Or just talk shite.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
p.s. Actually the earth isn't strictly round since it bulges at the equator due to the centrifugal force from rotation.
It is no accident they said "is linked to less" and not "reduces." The difference is that one is playing to a hope and the other is calling to statistical significance.
"probably" means not based on any known data, but "feels right"
If you can't say, then what are you even saying?
Weak support is, again, not a statistically significant result, but they're going to mention it, anyway.
Providing support for plausibility is not a scientific conclusion.
Fiber filling you up is not shown by anything in this report to have data behind it suggesting it's a good thing.
Exactly. So your "reasonable educated arguments" are subjective and you are talking about your feelings and what you understand, and not scientific conclusions, so the veracity with which you asserted your claims was, perhaps, hyperbolic... or just shite. Am I right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
:highfive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I know, right!
It is no accident they said "is linked to less" and not "reduces." The difference is that one is playing to a hope and the other is calling to statistical significance.
<<< noooo. One is science humble talk, the other is arrogant brashness. At no point do they mention anything about statistical significance (which itself is a dubious means of determining 'truth'). You can't prove things in nutrition with the same certainty as you can in physics. So you can't apply the same language of surety in your arguments.
"probably" means not based on any known data, but "feels right"
<<< That's your interpretation, it's not mine. But I agree it's open to interpretation.
If you can't say, then what are you even saying?
<<< You're saying it's not known. What's wrong with that?
Weak support is, again, not a statistically significant result, but they're going to mention it, anyway.
<<< It's unclear what 'weak support' means in this context. It can mean the results are varied, the effects are generally small, or that the methods employed are open to question. The fact that it's weak support means you cannot draw strong conclusions, not that you're conclusions must be wrong.
"Providing support for plausibility is not a scientific conclusion."
<<< True.
Fiber filling you up is not shown by anything in this report to have data behind it suggesting it's a good thing.
<<< Given the previous discussion on the benefits of eating fruit and veg. vs. keto diets on weight loss, fiber filling you up becomes relevant. When you're full you eat less (this is the idea behind Keto and Atkins diets). So by filling you up, fiber has an incidental health benefit of weight control. They probably don't explain this all in that article because it's commonly understood (or at least commonly believed) .
mojo, now do the same with global warming.
Reasonable educated arguments could be argued to be 'speculative', but calling them 'subjective' implies they weren't reasonable or educated, but based on emotions.There may be varied amounts and qualities of evidence but the best current conclusion is still one based on an objective weighing of the available evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
So, based on my understanding of nutrition, there are good reasons to think a diet rich in fruits and vegetables is healthier than a diet high in fat, yes.
:highfive:
back at ya.
My back of napkin: 80% chance he wins >50% of the vote, 50% chance he wins >53% of the vote, 20% chance he wins >56% of the vote.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I don't follow the diet you were referencing. Not all keto is bacon and cream. You can do keto with chicken and a dumptruck of bok choy and mushrooms.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I don't think we can actually prove it's not just normal temperature fluctuation at the moment, can we? I'm sure Wuf knows.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
This is a better article on fruit and veg than the first one i posted.
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutriti...es-and-fruits/
Instead of bogging things down by getting comprehensive, I'll respond to one point with a point that has relevance to everything else.
This is not unequivocal. "Linked to" means that the researchers found that populations that had one thing also had another. That's it. "Link" is what I meant by association.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Body composition is a common confounding variable in studies that show links between diet and health. Obviously, better studies control for that variable, but not as many studies do this as one might think, and it's only one of innumerable variables. Add to this the fact that the study methods are not the highest level of study type (double-blind), but are pretty low types (I forget the technical terms for them, but assessments of procured data instead of conduction of trials). Add to this that the biological sciences can be said to up to 66% "fail rate" in producing correct results. Cool link. The situation is just hairy.
If it interests you, learning how to read scientific literature was a skill I had to develop. I remember back when I learned virtually the very first logical lesson I've ever learned, that correlation /= causation. My mind was blown. I needed to know what other logic mistakes I was making.
I like you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I've been wondering about this, because wrong is wrong regardless. I see a good deal of bias in the types of guesses people make. For example, we tend to think that vegetables are healthy; therefore, when we see inconclusive data on the health of vegetables, we tend to assume if the data were conclusive it would probably show that they're healthy at least to some degree. But the fact of the matter is that they could simply be not healthy; the data isn't telling us one way or another. Like MMM said, the data is telling us that we need more data and that this is one of the first places we should look.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
If we're going with associations, we should all move to Japan, be poor, female, and eat little other than fish. Or something like that.
I'm not kidding. A confounding variable in the longevity of certain Japanese types really is that maybe they're not as stressed out as the rest of us, for whatever reason. It could have nothing to do with what they eat. Or it could have everything to do with it. We just don't know.
The first section, the one on cardiovascular disease, doesn't claim any controlling for confounding variables. It appears that all the people who ate "better" could also have exercised more too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
FWIW, I would love to find research that suggests vegetables improve health. If you showed me some studies that demonstrated that eating 7 servings of vegetables a day instead of 2 raises IQ by 5 points, I'd be all over that shit.
BTW MMM you might really dig that link I posted. It strikes me as something you would like.
Not necessarily based on emotions, but personal, nonetheless. Wuf and I could cite a year's worth of reading where we each thought we were being reasonable, while the other was not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
The educated angle in interesting. People of "equal" education may not agree on things. I know that physicists argue like feral cats when put in a closed room with only each other for company. We are pretty united on most physics, but the boundaries inspire heated emotions. None of our opinions are "unreasonable" but we put different weights on different aspects of complicated subjects. The point is that we argue because we don't know, yet. Once we know, it's not worth arguing anymore. That's nothing to do with our reason or education and everything to do with being a human with a different background and specific training than every other human.
Subjective just means that it's not a scientific finding. Some topics defy a truly scientific level of study. Control groups among human populations are practically a fantasy, which causes massive slow-downs and false positives.
When it comes to nutrition, the experts are divided. There are many camps saying different things and none of them seems to have "the most" credibility... I mean... we're restricting this to a discussion of experts with equal credibility.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
My man!Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I'm a huge fan of Derek Muller and Veritasium.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I've read his Doctoral thesis. It's about multi-media presentations in physics, the data behind it, and the data needed. Pretty central to what I do, and he's posting regular content on YouTube, so I'm a big fan.
It's still still, "... can ...," and not "... does ..." over and over.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I prefer your first article, actually.
At least the first article was pointing in a direction of further studies.
I wouldn't say experts on nutrition are 'divided'. I don't know of any experts who say fruits and vegetables aren't important, for example. They may argue over what the guidelines should emphasize the most or how they're worded but they agree on the basics as far as I can tell.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
A point that may be interesting: as far as I recall, studies don't even show that we need fiber for proper bowel function. It could just be that people who eat more fiber also consume more water and micros like magnesium, and thus have better bowel function.
I think the evidence on balance favours my view. I know it isn't completely unequivocal but as I've said there's limitations to what they can prove given all the variables involved.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I'm curious to what would satisfy you in terms of evidence? A longitudinal study over an entire lifetime with all participants matched in all respects? Half would eat 5 fruit and veg a day and the other half none? Because that study's not going to happen...
Aubrey de Grey is an example of a biologist (albeit not a dietician) who claims something along the lines of there not being evidence that we can improve our longevity and health through diet (outside of the basics, like making sure we're having bowel movements without developing hemorrhoids).Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I love me some Aubrey de Grey. If I was a billionaire, I'd fund his research and we'd defeat the diseases susceptible from aging because of it.
Meet the research biologist's Joker.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Cool fava. It sounds like his youtube content may be related very much to his field of study? Correct?Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Maybe I should watch his channel. I only saw that video because of reddit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42QuXLucH3Q
Watching this and wondering where he gets the idea that 90% of the hypotheses people are testing are false? Who are these idiots testing all these bad ideas lol?
The overall issue is actually a valid issue one though, as there is replicability crisis in science. My colleague and I are actually writing a paper on this. A lot of the problem has to do with using null hypothesis significance testing, and there's some other things that he mentions like p-hacking and low power. He doesn't mention some of the ways in which the crisis has been overblown though. For example, the reproducibility project simply counted the number of results that were significant, not whether they had similar-sized effects to the originals (which is a more sensible way of testing replicability).
90% of tested hypotheses being false seems low to me. For every fact there are tons of hypotheses.
My man!Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I feel there's a misunderstanding... I'm not doubting your claims, I'm doubting the veracity with which you were asserting them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
What will satisfy me is a conclusive finding and if that's not gonna happen, then I will remain unconvinced.
It may or may not be reasonable, but I believe that healthy skepticism saves lives when it comes to what we put into our bodies.
Healthy skepticism is the backbone or precursor of science, after all.
Seems like an interesting guy. Hard to know how seriously to take him though when his peers seem to think he's a bit of a nutcase.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
That may be, but it takes time and effort to do an experiment. Scientists are intelligent people coming up with the most plausible hypotheses, not just dopes blindly trying out every conceivable hypothesis.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Anyone whose hypotheses turned out to be wrong 90% of the time in their experiments would be a laughing stock imo.
Edit: unless you mean you can test a lot of different hypotheses with the same data point. Not really how things tend to work though. It tends to be pretty binary -either hypothesis A is supported (p < 0.05) or hypothesis A is discounted (p > 0.05).
He has lots of highly credentialed peers who agree with him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
The reason behind the arguments is what compelled me. The assessment of aging he presents makes way more sense to me than the conventional one. In fact, the conventional one makes no sense whatsoever. It seems at best to be just something people believe because even the smartest among us are good at believing nonsense.
Yeppers.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Def. do so.
I just scrolled through his catalog and I can't believe some of those videos are so old. I can directly credit his YouTube channel for 2 of the demonstrations I've added to the curriculum for this coming semester.
You don't hang out with many scientists, do you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
We're like any other group. Some greats, some absolute disasters, and a whole lot in the middle.
Exactly. Fallible people making mistakes and then covering them up... often subconsciously... lest they become ridiculed or worse: lose their funding.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Man, this, if true, shows the sad state of science, similar to what veritasium covered. Science doesn't find out what's true; it finds out what's not true then assume the remaining is true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I'm not saying science is in a sad state. But I do think people could be better.
Nope, I've published 35 papers on neuroscience and psychology while alone in my basement.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Really. Maybe I don't spend enough time with other scientists cause most of the ones I know are very bright.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Are you arguing that 90% of hypotheses being wrong is a plausible scenario? Are you saying the 'typical' scientist is running experiments that are 90% likely to fail a priori?Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Wow isn't 35 papers a fucking lot?
By heuristic, I would think >90% of hypotheses should be wrong. But that's by heuristic.
According to the veritasium presentation, it's not that hard to massage data until it "succeeds." Also softer and biological sciences are probably easier to find success in. Granted this is way out of my statistical depth.
I deserved that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Maybe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I am lucky to work in a world class university, and my colleagues humble me with their intelligence all the time. The students we teach, on the other hand... just a mixed bag.
I didn't have the benefit of getting my education from such a highly accredited institution, though it was a great school. Plenty of my co-students were just disasters who could barely follow instructions, much less perform the kind of innovative thinking required to do quality scientific experimentation.
Absolutely, but we're in really undefined waters. What counts as a hypothesis?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
If I say, "I think I saw a spark," then I check with video and there is no spark, then that's a false hypothesis. It's nothing I'd ever be publishing, because it's easily demonstrated in moments w/o an expensive research project.
If we're counting psychological, economic, sociological, etc. soft sciences, then I find it to be a low estimate. Like you said about nutrition, the field is simply too vast to pin down specific answers (at this state of technology and science), so why would I expect even 1% of hypotheses to produce plausible results?
Nah, 35 papers is respectable, but it's not stupendous. This is after 15 years.
The way experiments are done in my field at least, you typically start with a single hypothesis. Say you believe men are better than women at doing some kind of puzzle. This is based on past research generally, or it can be your intuition or 'common knowledge' that men are better problem solvers than women (ignore whether or not that's true for this example). So you test a group of men and a group of women on a set of puzzles and see if your hypothesis is supported.
Well, there's only three ways that experiment can turn out. Either you're right and men score higher, or you're wrong and females score higher, or you're wrong and there's no difference. But since you're testing a hypothesis you already have reasons to believe to be true in the first place, being wrong 90% of the time would suggest you're kind of a fuck up at picking hypotheses. I mean even if your hypothesis is a random guess you're still only going to be wrong 67% of the time with three possible outcomes.
Take another example: You think treatment X will improve schizophrenia. Same three things can happen, either you're right and it does, or you're wrong and it doesn't or you're wrong and it's actually harmful. Still hard to see how you can be wrong 90% of the time. If anything, you should be closer to being right about two thirds of the time because your hypotheses should be reasonable and not counterfactual or random.
Of course if you're just doing something exploratory where you throw in a bunch of variables and look for correlations, then you could arguably have some vast number of testable hypotheses that can be analyzed statistically. In this case it's conceivable that a high percentage of these hypotheses could be wrong a priori - it depends on how related the variables are. But it's also worth bearing in mind that a high percentage of those 'wrong' hypotheses aren't really being viewed seriously by the researcher and if evidence was found to support them, it would just be dismissed.
An example would be a study examining lifestyle choices and fitness. If someone included smoking cigarettes as one variable and VO2max as another, you could in theory have a hypothesis that smoking improved VO2 max. But everyone knows that's ridiculous and so why include it as a hypothesis in your study? A much more sensible hypothesis would be that smoking decreased VO2max. So this is the one people will test.
In studies of nutrition, exploratory research is the norm because it's generally impractical and/or unethical to do controlled experiments over years and years. But when the same relationships tend to show up consistently across studies then there is reason to believe those relationships are probably true.
When does he say this? I just watched the video and I didn't notice him mention this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
He picks an example to demonstrate numbers that has no real significance except it maybe artificially inflates his point. Ultimately though that's not the point because in reality no matter the % of actually true and false hypothesis the numbers being tested is vastly more.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...phoria-doctors
Fantastically interesting article on what no one wants to talk about - girls that struggle with their sexuality and gender-role so much that they transition to male, only to realize it was a mistake.
I've still yet to have anyone explain to me even on a simple level what it means to be a boy or girl. It strikes me as a ridiculous following of gender stereotypes that have no real reflection of what that person is. I don't get how you can feel like a male or female and what it is about those actions you can't do regardless of your gender. I also don't really see what differences hormone therapy and surgery make in who you are as a person.Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
A Theroux documentary on transgender children just seemed to be parents saying ohh our male child likes wearing dresses and playing with dolls he must be a girl. That's mental.
That all being said I'm all for people doing whatever they want to do with their own bodies. If you make decisions to alter your body in a way that's permanent obviously you should be aware of what happens if you regret it afterwards.
I agree that if you want to transition to the other gender through hormones and surgery, if you're well informed, go for it. It for nothing else than that we'll learn the lesson of what works and what doesn't.
It seems to me that this is the crux of the matter. After spelunking around the de-trans community, it seems like a lot of these people struggle with understanding their internal emotional state - they'll talk about longing to be male and the relief that comes with passing themselves off as one, or they'll talk about misunderstanding their attraction to other girls as meaning they aren't one themselves, or they'll talk about a reluctance to grow up in a world where women age horribly compared to men. It always seems to pivot around some internal friction or emotional churning that they want sorted out. Whereas I never gave a passing thought to my gender and never even worried about the entire paradigm.Quote:
I don't get how you can feel like a male or female and what it is about those actions you can't do regardless of your gender.
You can't really transition from one gender to another, though. You can either face the reality of your situation, or transition into some nebulous third gender to help disguise yourself in front of others.
I wish I was a lesbian. I might have gender reassignment to make it happen.
Im with Savvy.
Have we had the Caster Semenya debate on here yet?
Do you guys know how calories are determined?
It's kinda neat. In chemistry, I got to do it myself. Take a gummy bear, put it in a strong, sealed container, and explode it! Then measure the energy.
The method even has a cool name. Bomb calorimetry.
Right after when he raises the question of how much of the published scientific literature is false, around 2:00.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
The example of 90% has significance for the very reason you mention, because it artificially inflates his point. You could also say 99.9% of hypotheses are false a priori (if you're just picking a number with no real significance), in which case out of 10000 studies, one will have a .80 chance of being a true positive and there'll be on average 450 false positives. Since 450/451 published studies are in error, we might as well go home then.
Let's take a more reasonable but still conservative estimate, such as that we begin our studies with a sensible hypothesis that is right about half the time. Let's also assume people aren't idiots and use a reasonable amount of statistical power in their studies, at least 70% (he makes a point somewhere that power is a lot lower in some field i can't remember but accurate estimates of power are hard to do because true effect size is unknown).
Now for 1000 tested hypotheses, 500 are true and 500 are false. Now you get quite a different distribution of true/false positive/negatives:
350 true positives
150 false negatives
450 true negatives
50 false positives
Negatives tend not be published very often (as he rightly points out), so probably 2/3 of those go in the drawer. That leaves 500 correct results and 100 incorrect ones in the published research. Still needs improvement, but definitely not as bad as he's making it out to be.
This whole issue of reproducibility in science is exaggerated imo, for a number of reasons that I could go into if someone wanted me to, but it would take some time.
Nope. A quick google about it shows me people being butt hurt that someone beat them because they have a genetic advantage.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Bean Counter
I like how GB gets credit for doing so well when we're such a tiny country in comparison to others who compete when what we really do is put a lot of funding into sports and steal the best talent we can from other countries to compete for us.
edit - I actually think the olympics should be split into millions of different sections for each event where each group of athletes has exactly the same everything from genetics, to funding, to training so that the only factor we can use to determine who the best is is I don't know. What does? I shouldn't have to compete against swimmers who have size 20 feet and ridiculous arm spans who have trained for years, why shouldn't I have an equal chance for a gold medal.