The hypochondria and pseudoscience thread - Page 6 - Miata Turbo Forum -Boost cars, acquire cats.

Welcome to Miataturbo.net   Members
 


Insert BS here A place to discuss anything you want

Reply
 
 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 10-13-2013, 09:41 PM   #101
y8s
2 Props,3 Dildos,& 1 Cat
iTrader: (8)
 
y8s's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Fake Virginia
Posts: 18,766
Total Cats: 324
Default

brb going to call the pushers of HFCS
y8s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2013, 09:50 AM   #102
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
 
Joe Perez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 24,662
Total Cats: 1,569
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mgeoffriau View Post
Well, look at that. The federal nutrition research over the last 40 years may be bunk.

40 years of federal nutrition research fatally flawed
To summarize the article:

"When surveyed, a lot of people misreport their caloric intake."


Fortunately, this doesn't render all nutritional research conducted over the past 40 years invalid, only that part of it which was based principally on self-reporting surveys rather than clinical research.

And let's be honest, we all intuitively knew that was the case anyway. When surveyed, people mis-report damned near everything- their discretionary income, the number of past sexual partners they've had, the amount of time they spend watching television, their childrens' class ranking, their influence over purchasing decisions at work, their favorite character in My Little Pony, etc.
Joe Perez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2013, 12:40 PM   #103
Tour de Franzia
iTrader: (6)
 
hustler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Republic of Dallas
Posts: 28,966
Total Cats: 327
Default

I think I ate half a wheel of bri yesterday, lolol.
hustler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2013, 01:15 PM   #104
Crumple Zone Tester
iTrader: (6)
 
mgeoffriau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Jackson, MS
Posts: 7,481
Total Cats: 373
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Perez View Post
And let's be honest, we all intuitively knew that was the case anyway.
Sure, in general...which is why survey data like that shouldn't be used to form nutritional guidelines without some way of correcting or adjusting for self-reporting bias. If you specifically knew that NHANES data was invalid, then you probably should have spoken up.

And this invalid data does affect the national health culture and inform the official nutritional guidelines.

Quote:
Changes in Underreporting and Public Policy Recommendations

In addition to the ubiquity of misreporting, there is strong evidence that the reporting of ‘socially undesirable’ (e.g., high fat and/or high sugar) foods has changed as the prevalence of obesity has increased [12]–[15]. Additionally, research has demonstrated that interventions emphasizing the importance of ‘healthy’ behaviors may lead to increased misreporting as participants alter their reports to reflect the adoption of the ‘healthier’ behaviors independent of actual behavior change [17], [41]. It appears that lifestyle interventions “teach” participants the socially desirable or acceptable responses [17], [42]. As such, the ubiquity of public health messages to ‘eat less and exercise more’ may induce greater levels of misreporting and may explain the recent downward bias in both self-reported EI [20] and body weight [17], [43], especially given that social desirability bias is often expressed in the underreporting of calorically dense foods [44].

Selective misreporting of specific macronutrients has important ramifications for epidemiological research and nutrition surveillance. Heitmann and Lissner (2005) demonstrated that the selective misreporting of dietary fat by groups at an increased risk of chronic non-communicable diseases may result in an overestimated association between fat consumption and disease [45]. If the potentially negative effects of high-fat diets are overestimated due to selective misreporting, current recommendations for fat intake may be overly conservative [45].
mgeoffriau is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2013, 01:36 PM   #105
Crumple Zone Tester
iTrader: (6)
 
mgeoffriau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Jackson, MS
Posts: 7,481
Total Cats: 373
Default

Someone should break the news to Ian Spreadbury that his research isn't science because science has already told us to just eat moderate amounts of everything and everything will be fine.

Comparison with ancestral diets suggests dense acellular carbohydrates promote an inflammatory microbiota, and may be the primary dietary cause of leptin resistance and obesity
mgeoffriau is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2013, 03:14 PM   #106
Elite Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,325
Total Cats: 67
Default

Another link... problems with wheat:
Episode #176 - Full Transcript | Ben Greenfield Fitness
JasonC SBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2013, 07:24 PM   #107
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
 
Joe Perez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 24,662
Total Cats: 1,569
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mgeoffriau View Post
[excerpt from policy report]
What I fail to understand is how faults in the validity of data used to produce statistics affects the underlying validity of recommendations such as (to quote the excerpt): "eat less and exercise more."

Towards the goal of weight loss, improved BMI, etc., that advice remains valid and stands on its own regardless of any offsets or biases in self-reporting data.


Consider the following: Let's say that I survey a thousand people with the questions "Do you smoke, and if so, how much do you smoke per day?"

And let's say that, on average, people under-report their smoking by 50%. So I publish a report saying that "15% of Americans smoke on a daily basis, and on average, consume 10 cigarettes per day." This data turns out to be wrong, because in reality, 30% of Americans smoke on a daily basis, and on average, consume 20 cigarettes per day.

This does not change the validity of my advice that, if you want to decrease your risk of cancer and heart disease, you should stop smoking.
Joe Perez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2013, 08:13 PM   #108
Crumple Zone Tester
iTrader: (6)
 
mgeoffriau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Jackson, MS
Posts: 7,481
Total Cats: 373
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Perez View Post
What I fail to understand is how faults in the validity of data used to produce statistics affects the underlying validity of recommendations such as (to quote the excerpt): "eat less and exercise more."

Towards the goal of weight loss, improved BMI, etc., that advice remains valid and stands on its own regardless of any offsets or biases in self-reporting data.
There's a million ways achieve weight loss, improved BMI, etc.

Use cocaine
Smoke cigarettes
Host a parasite
Throw up after meals
Eat only McDonald's as long as you maintain a caloric deficit


The issue is not that we can't figure out how to lose weight; the issue is that those various methods all fall onto a continuum in terms of health, efficiency, sustainability (speaking in terms of personal goals, not global ecology), and so on.

No one is disputing that maintaining enough of a caloric deficit will lose weight; the question is whether that advice leads to the most successful outcomes in terms of those other goals (health, efficiency, etc.).

When you consider the nutritional paradigm in terms of a fuller set of goals, then it becomes quite important what kind of data you are using to support your theory. And if invalid data is lending greater support to one particular method of weight loss, then the whole paradigm needs to be reexamined in light of valid data.
mgeoffriau is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2013, 08:14 PM   #109
Elite Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,325
Total Cats: 67
Default

"eat less exercise more"

One's appetite (or lack thereof) will prevent over-eating if the bodyfat regulation mechanism is working properly. What breaks it is decades of excessive starch consumption causing repeated blood sugar spikes which causes *insulin resistance*.

Lab mice can be made to starve to death even with a lot of bodyfat. Their bodies preferentially consume lean body mass and leave their bodyfat alone.

Lab mice can also be fed the same # of calories but different food, and have the same toys available, but one group will become sedentary and fat while the other active and lean. Nobody is telling the mice to exercise.

The causality is backwards. It's not that eating less and exercising more makes you thin. It's that the factors that cause obesity, cause you to eat more and exercise less.

Last edited by JasonC SBB; 10-14-2013 at 08:35 PM.
JasonC SBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2013, 08:44 PM   #110
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
 
Joe Perez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 24,662
Total Cats: 1,569
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonC SBB View Post
It's not that eating less and exercising more makes you thin.
So, just to verify that I understand you correctly; You're saying that, all else being equal, if I reduce my caloric intake by eating less, and increase my caloric expenditure by exercising more, and make no other changes to my diet or lifestyle, that I will NOT lose weight. Correct?
Joe Perez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2013, 09:22 PM   #111
Elite Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,325
Total Cats: 67
Default

Not what I'm saying. Being able to easily reduce your caloric intake is a strong function of your bodyfat setpoint. If you starve yourself you will lose weight. But if you have excess fat and you lower your bodyfat setpoint, your appetite will reduce and you will effortlessly lose fat - i.e. you won't be hungry and miserable as you lose weight.
JasonC SBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2013, 08:03 PM   #112
Crumple Zone Tester
iTrader: (6)
 
mgeoffriau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Jackson, MS
Posts: 7,481
Total Cats: 373
Default

The Swedes get it.

Sweden Becomes First Western Nation to Reject Low-fat Diet Dogma in Favor of Low-carb High-fat Nutrition | Health Impact News
mgeoffriau is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2013, 02:05 PM   #113
Elite Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,325
Total Cats: 67
Default

...only took em 40 years...
JasonC SBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2013, 04:19 PM   #114
Supporting Vendor
iTrader: (31)
 
Savington's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Posts: 13,371
Total Cats: 815
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonC SBB View Post
It's not that eating less and exercising more makes you thin.
I lol'd IRL.
Savington is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2013, 06:23 PM   #115
I'm a terrible person
iTrader: (19)
 
FRT_Fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Arizona
Posts: 7,292
Total Cats: 178
Default

I just ate a huge bag of flaming hot cheetos. Am I doing it right?
FRT_Fun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2013, 03:04 PM   #116
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,009
Total Cats: 42
Default

Are you guys Quinoa racists as well?

That's become one our lunch staples:

Quinoa
Grilled chicken
Kalamata olives
cherry tomatoes
parsley
all tossed in lemon/garlic/olive oil
z31maniac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2013, 05:55 PM   #117
Supporting Vendor
iTrader: (31)
 
Savington's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Posts: 13,371
Total Cats: 815
Default

This article basically sums up my opinions and thoughts about content-specific dieting:

Twinkie diet helps nutrition professor lose 27 pounds - CNN.com
Savington is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2013, 07:53 PM   #118
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
 
Joe Perez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 24,662
Total Cats: 1,569
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Savington View Post
This article basically sums up my opinions and thoughts about content-specific dieting:

Twinkie diet helps nutrition professor lose 27 pounds - CNN.com
Wait, you're saying that if you consume fewer calories than you expend, you will lose weight?

Blasphemy.
Joe Perez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2013, 09:24 PM   #119
Crumple Zone Tester
iTrader: (6)
 
mgeoffriau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Jackson, MS
Posts: 7,481
Total Cats: 373
Default



Yay, starving yourself with shitty foods makes you lose weight, and losing weight will improve certain "health" markers because being skinny is generally healthier than being fat.

Who cares?
Attached Thumbnails
The hypochondria and pseudoscience thread-dead-horse.gif  
mgeoffriau is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2013, 12:22 PM   #120
Elite Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,325
Total Cats: 67
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Perez View Post
Wait, you're saying that if you consume fewer calories than you expend, you will lose weight?
In case you missed my explanation. The system of hormones Leptin, Insulin, and Ghrelin *make* you eat less (or more) and make you expend more (or less) calories. Yes you can override it, (e.g. by starving yourself, or by force-feeding yourself), but you will lose lean mass and/or be less healthy.
JasonC SBB is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
OTS Bilstein to motorsports ASN conversion stoves Suspension, Brakes, Drivetrain 5 04-21-2016 04:00 PM
My solution for Oiltemp and Oilpressure input into Megasuirt (MS3) Zaphod MEGAsquirt 41 01-24-2016 01:25 PM
Going back to stock. Need some 1.6 parts. Trent WTB 2 10-01-2015 01:15 PM
Leaky Wilwoods mx592 Suspension, Brakes, Drivetrain 1 10-01-2015 01:45 AM


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:07 AM.