The Bogosity Forum

The Show => Future Episodes => Topic started by: Travis Retriever on April 25, 2010, 09:11:36 PM

Title: Fathead
Post by: Travis Retriever on April 25, 2010, 09:11:36 PM

The video also states that after we began farming, we became shorter and fatter.
He also goes into a study he claims is cherry picked.

Personally, the more I see this kind of stuff, the more I want science, ALL of it, to be separated from the state (if the state exists).
There is supposed to be a wall of separation of church and state, I say there should be a wall separating science and state.
Title: Re: Fat doesn't cause Heat Disease?
Post by: MrBogosity on April 25, 2010, 10:26:17 PM
Man, I didn't even get through the first 15 seconds without finding a bunch of things wrong with it...
Title: Re: Fat doesn't cause Heat Disease?
Post by: Travis Retriever on April 26, 2010, 12:53:43 AM
I know, right?

It reminds me of how my Psychology teacher told us that the least reliable "studies" (or whatever word he used) are documentaries.
I'd say he was on the money with that one.
Title: Re: Fat doesn't cause Heat Disease?
Post by: Gumba Masta on April 26, 2010, 08:17:50 AM
Man, I didn't even get through the first 15 seconds without finding a bunch of things wrong with it...
The first of it being the thread title spelled wrong?
Title: Re: Fat doesn't cause Heat Disease?
Post by: Travis Retriever on April 26, 2010, 12:26:02 PM
The first of it being the thread title spelled wrong?
There, I fixed it.
Happy now? :P
Title: Re: Fat doesn't cause Heat Disease?
Post by: Gumba Masta on April 26, 2010, 01:11:09 PM
There, I fixed it.
Happy now? :P
Well, aaaalright, but only because I love you.
Title: Re: Fat doesn't cause Heart Disease?
Post by: Travis Retriever on April 04, 2011, 12:06:55 PM
Even worse, people who I thought were smarter than that, like Dale Everett: http://anarchyinyourhead.com/2011/02/23/vegan-diet-2/
Are actually applauding that bunch of bogosity...
Damn it Dale, I really expected better from you of all people...
As I said in the comments of that comic:
"@reams: I’ve seen about 2 minutes or so of it from YouTube (specifically this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8WA5wcaHp4 ), and I’m not impressed.
It’s packed with lots of anti-scientific nonsense, a serious lack of much needed citation (especially near the beginning) and conspiracy mongering.
We should be critical of government, we shouldn’t make stuff up either."
Title: Re: Fat doesn't cause Heart Disease?
Post by: Travis Retriever on April 04, 2011, 12:08:58 PM
In keeping with the ways of this forum, here's a video against the above: 
In light of Spinney and the above's dichotomy,
As if the ONLY choices or ways to get healthy involve either a vegan diet or a neo-Atkins diet...

I've said it once, and I'll say it again.  Documentaries, because they lack controls (and honesty more often than not), are among the least reliable of forms of research.
Title: Re: Fat doesn't cause Heart Disease?
Post by: Travis Retriever on April 04, 2011, 12:46:46 PM
And I got a rather unexpected reply from Dale to my above posted comment. O.o

"Citations in a movie? That seems awfully awkward to me. It seems like a movie like this should just be to inspire you to learn more and do your own research. Papers and books should have citations. This movie was almost a direct response to Super-size Me. How did you feel about the citations of that movie?"

To which I just responded: "@Dale: Whoa, wasn’t expecting you to respond. :P

You simply put them in the end, if need be along with the credits, simple. They could even be verbal citations, not necessarily text citations within the movie’s body (which I agree would be a tad awkward).
Yeah, I’m aware that it’s a response to Super-Size Me which had it’s own serious problems being a documentary.
I’d have to watch Super-Size Me again as it’s been ages since I’ve seen it, but if memory serves, they were better with spoken citations, though it was still riddled with it’s own problems…(e.g. lack of controls, lack of mention of gov’t influence on obesity)

Though you do make a good point about the inspire you to learn more and do your own research deal.

And I am an anarchist, just for the record."

I do believe I've understated his intelligence once again.  My bad.
Title: Re: Fat doesn't cause Heart Disease?
Post by: Travis Retriever on April 04, 2011, 01:04:37 PM
And his reply:  "Have you checked the actual movie for citations at the end? I haven’t checked myself, but you’re commenting on a 2 and a half minute segment of the movie on YouTube."

Of course, it still wouldn't get around the other rather serious issues in what little of it I've seen.
Title: Re: Fat doesn't cause Heart Disease?
Post by: Travis Retriever on April 04, 2011, 06:06:03 PM
And I got this reply from someone on Dale's comic:
"Surhotchaperchlorome, How can you possibly judge a movie’s scientific credibility from watching 2 1/2 minutes of a 2 hour movie? It boggles my mind! I watched the movie and there is a lot more real science in it than in much of the stuff that passes for nutritional advice out there. And I my degrees are in science, so I know what controls are and that correlation does not equal causation, a point made very clearly in the movie. As to citations, he has plenty–and not just at the end–in the form of interviews, books, etc. Watch the movie, read the books cited, Then you could actually have something to say that might be taken seriously."

1. Appeal to authority
2. Then explain the godawful snippet I posted at the start of this thread.
3. Note how he doesn't actually give any examples.
4. Appeal to ridicule, if not ad hominem outright...
Title: Re: Fat doesn't cause Heart Disease?
Post by: Travis Retriever on April 04, 2011, 11:20:56 PM
OK, I just renamed this topic "Fathead" after the movie.
Title: Re: Fathead
Post by: Travis Retriever on April 07, 2011, 09:46:32 AM
And I got this reply from someone on Dale's comic:
"Surhotchaperchlorome, How can you possibly judge a movie’s scientific credibility from watching 2 1/2 minutes of a 2 hour movie? It boggles my mind! I watched the movie and there is a lot more real science in it than in much of the stuff that passes for nutritional advice out there. And I my degrees are in science, so I know what controls are and that correlation does not equal causation, a point made very clearly in the movie. As to citations, he has plenty–and not just at the end–in the form of interviews, books, etc. Watch the movie, read the books cited, Then you could actually have something to say that might be taken seriously."

1. Appeal to authority
2. Then explain the godawful snippet I posted at the start of this thread.
3. Note how he doesn't actually give any examples.
4. Appeal to ridicule, if not ad hominem outright...
And of course, even assuming she is being honest, there are still the various logical (and economic) issues, Lord T Hawkeye, Shane and Jacob Spinney came up with...
If she has a science degree, she might want to consider changing her field and getting a refund.
I'm just saying...
Title: Re: Fathead
Post by: Virgil0211 on April 07, 2011, 01:48:36 PM
Heh. I'd just been thinking about this topic over the past couple of weeks, heart disease being in my family and all. Interesting coinky-dink. =P

My doctor actually gave me a diet plan that wasn't as strict as Atkins with carbohydrates, but still recommended keeping them below a set limit (no more than 100g per day). It didn't particularly recommend replacing everything with protein, though it did recommend sticking to leaner meats like fish and boneless/skinless chicken. Apparently, avoiding the carbs is more about insulin levels than anything else. I'd have to re-read the papers he gave me.
Title: Re: Fathead
Post by: Travis Retriever on April 07, 2011, 04:56:55 PM
Heh. I'd just been thinking about this topic over the past couple of weeks, heart disease being in my family and all. Interesting coinky-dink. =P

My doctor actually gave me a diet plan that wasn't as strict as Atkins with carbohydrates, but still recommended keeping them below a set limit (no more than 100g per day). It didn't particularly recommend replacing everything with protein, though it did recommend sticking to leaner meats like fish and boneless/skinless chicken. Apparently, avoiding the carbs is more about insulin levels than anything else. I'd have to re-read the papers he gave me.

Really now?  A bit odd since, last I checked, Atkins didn't have any evidence for his diet, but still somewhat fascinating.
Title: Re: Fathead
Post by: Virgil0211 on April 07, 2011, 05:07:38 PM
Really now?  A bit odd since, last I checked, Atkins didn't have any evidence for his diet, but still somewhat fascinating.

Well, it has more to do with insulin resistance and the reaction of the pancreas when it attempts to digest carbohydrates as opposed to proteins. A person with more body fat has a higher level of insulin resistance and thus produces more insulin to digest the same amount of carbohydrates as someone with a lower level of body fat. Since carbohydrates are digested first as opposed to other energy sources (fat, protein, etc), this somehow messes up the body's ability to utilize them. However, the diet plan doesn't recommend eliminating them completely. Just keeping it below 100g (subtracting fiber) and encouraging that you stick to more complex carbohydrate sources when you do eat them. Like I said, I'd have to look up the chart again.

The diet itself has been working out for me pretty well so far, at least when I manage to stick to it. College life makes it hard sometimes. =P
Title: Re: Fathead
Post by: Travis Retriever on April 07, 2011, 05:10:33 PM
College life makes it hard sometimes. =P
True that.
Title: Re: Fathead
Post by: Virgil0211 on April 07, 2011, 05:36:27 PM
True that.

I will, however, take this moment to plug kettlebells. I can exercise in under 20 minutes and still get a good cardio workout out if it. It's one of the few things I've tried where I've directly noticed a significant increase in my endurance. Tradeoff is that it's insanely tough, you need to practice proper form, and it takes alot of willpower to do it in such a way that you'd be done in under 20 min.

It's basically interval training. You do 12 sets of kettlebell swings, 20 repetitions each, with one minute of active rest (shadowboxing, jogging, speed-walking, etc) in between. Once you reach the point where you can do this all the way through without taking any longer rest breaks, you reduce the rest periods by 10 seconds. Keep going until your rest periods are down to 10 seconds. Then you either go up a weight or start working on sets of olympic lifts.

Now I need to go to a Hapkido class. =P

/end off-topic post.
Title: Re: Fathead
Post by: Travis Retriever on April 10, 2014, 01:31:02 PM
*UPDATE*  Okay, so since I've been getting into fitness and nutrition from a skeptical, rational, empirical and Bayesian point of view, I've found out the diet the documentary's OP is advocating.  It's called the "Paleo Diet" for those who might be wondering.

From Alan Aragon (read: a very smart nutritionist):

"The present decade has just begun, and eating clean has taken some interesting directions. One is an appeal to imagination about Paleolithic eating habits, which eliminates the consumption of grains, legumes, dairy, added salt, sugar, alcohol, and even certain vegetables. This definition of clean is perhaps the most logically inconsistent one. It emphasizes a prehistoric model, yet many of its proponents take an array of cutting-edge nutritional supplements, and use satellite technology to navigate their drive to the closest parking spot at the gym. Fruits and vegetables have always been a mainstay of clean eating, but pesticide-free produce is now somehow cleaner, pests and all. Another twist in the carbohydrate saga has snowballed as well. Insulin spikes from high-GI carbs were the bane of the 90’s. But now, fructose, a low-GI carbohydrate with minimal effects on insulin response, is now one of the top public enemies."-- http://www.wannabebig.com/diet-and-nutrition/the-dirt-on-clean-eating/
Incidentally, it turns out that, when controlled for Calories, HFCS is not more fattening than other sugars.  My bad.  Though it can indirectly cause you to eat more sweet/sugary foods as it tends to be in damn near everything courtesy of govco's corn subsidies, and because people just generally crave more of what they normally eat; and since sucrose, and other sugars tend to be very caloric 'empty' calories....there you go.  And due to differences in rodent metabolic processes vs human ones.

http://www.nsca.com/uploadedfiles/nsca/inactive_content/program_books/ptc_2013_program_book/aragon.pdf (It's a powerpoint presentation, so it's a lot shorter than it looks).

I also doubt Tom's implied correlation/causation that it was eating grains/oils that caused people to become shorter and fatter.  I mean, come on! Evidence or GTFO, Tom.