RatioFitness Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 Quite true. Now, I also have the experience of people before me. Like Poliquin etc. These are people I trust and choose to learn from. I still confirm everything through my own experience but like I said, there's only one important study and that is the one that affects me or the person I'm working with. Or you if you're thinking of your case. So you could basically get fat and see if you are still healthy. Not just about cardiovascular risk, but also other issues that come along with overweight. The best part is you control the experiement and there's no companies paying to alter data. Kind of like those high fructose corn syrup commercials that say hfcs is just as okay as any other type of sugar.Well, Poliquin reads research, and even conducts his own research according to the scientific method. But his own personal experience is just as susceptible to the errors I've already mentioned. You can't just add up the personal experiences of multiple people and get around the problems with experience. Anecdotes don't multiple into data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philip Chubb Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 Personal experience of multiple people equals...a study. Is it perfect? No. But are studies perfect? Also no. The study you posted counted cardio risk. How about diabetes? It isn't fatal right away but it still cost billions of dollars a year. So the study can be a guide but if experience constantly proves otherwise, the study may be the more flawed method. If you want to wait for science to prove things, go ahead, I prefer the direct approach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Roseman Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 This might end sumo wrestling as we know it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RatioFitness Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 Personal experience of multiple people equals...a study.If it's a study, it's not a scientific study. What kind of study is it? Can you point me to any literature explaining its methodology why it's a reliable guide to the truth when it comes to the sorts of topics we are discussing? I want to make it clear that I think we can learn things from personal experience. It sure seems like we do, but some things, like the subject matter of epidemiology, are very complex and it's better to use the methods of science to gain knowledge about them. The study you posted counted cardio risk. How about diabetes? It isn't fatal right away but it still cost billions of dollars a year.What about it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RatioFitness Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 Here's an example of an obese man (BMI=32.3) who has a high degree of fitness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philip Chubb Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 Personal experience of multiple people equals...a study.If it's a study, it's not a scientific study. What kind of study is it? Can you point me to any literature explaining its methodology why it's a reliable guide to the truth when it comes to the sorts of topics we are discussing? I want to make it clear that I think we can learn things from personal experience. It sure seems like we do, but some things, like the subject matter of epidemiology, are very complex and it's better to use the methods of science to gain knowledge about them. The study you posted counted cardio risk. How about diabetes? It isn't fatal right away but it still cost billions of dollars a year.What about it?And I want to make it clear that I never said studies are not useful. I just said you can always find one that cancels out another depending on who pays for it. I'll take my learning from the people I trust and question it when I feel like I need to. Now we are going around in circles. I consider them very secondary. A lot of people will pull out a study first but I don't believe science is the first and best method. I'm saying the study posted is mainly about cardiovascular failure and obesity right? Not about the other issues that come with being obese.I admit Fedor is a great example. But how many obese people are like Fedor. Also, BMI would be a horrible way to measure this. My BMI is "bad" too. It's only really acceptable if you're not muscular or chubby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseff Lea Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 Yeah I should have made this clearer, what I'm saying is: is there a link between having an increased BMI and becoming less fit as you age? i.e is someone who is overweight more likely to become more unfit as they age than someone who is not overweight? And thus suffer from an increased risk of CV diseases? I haven't read any studies which show this association but I suspect that it is true.You can read a study about this... the one I posted.In the study, people who gained weight tended to lose fitness, moreso than people who lost weight or maintained weight.I'm sorry but your study doesn't say that and this was my original point. True there are examples of people in the study who gained weight and became more unfit but that isn't even enough to show an association as you run into trouble with what is called multiple testing (basically if you analyse at data for long enough you can get it to say anything). A study can only comment on the results you set out to test, true it can indicate other areas that might be interesting as has happened here but you can't say anything about those areas until you have conducted another study into them. I'm not having a go at you and this is quite a subtle point to grasp and it took me a few years to get a proper handle on it but it does really annoy me when statistics are abused as people now have so little faith in them.Let me give you an example, a study was conducted into the effects of living near electricity pylons and risks of cancer and what did the study find? That people who lived near the pylons had a higher instance of cancer. The papers then said "Pylons cause cancer" which you might agree with. however what would you say if I said that you also have an increased risk in cancer if you didn't have a dishwasher? I think most of you would say I was talking a load of hogwash, but I'm not. The reason that they both appear to increase rates of cancer is because they (living next to a pylon and not owning a dishwasher) are correlated with poverty which is the real reason for the increased rates of cancer. Sorry about that little tangential rant but it really does irk me. Unfortunately there are always going to be people who are discriminated against in society, sad fact but true, however your weight is something you have control over and can change (in the vast majority of cases with some notable exceptions)...Sure, people are always going to get discriminated against, but that isn't an excuse to institutionalize discrimination. We can't stop citizens from discriminating in their personal lives, but we can stop or prevent the government from doing so.I really can't remember where I was going with this point and you are right we shouldn't legislate discrimination, having thought some more I think mostly carrot rather than stick methods should be used but I think you will agree that it is a problem that needs tackling? What methods would you endorse? I'm pretty sure that eliminating obesity would reduce medical spending by more than .2% but of course I can't be sure of this. What I am sure of though is that reducing obesity now will eliminate the need for massive increases in the future such as buying wider beds, ambulances, operating tables etc. as well as the increased number of operations required to do with conditions linked to obesity, said operations would also be more complex due to the bigger mass of the patient also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Weaver Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 A fat tax would be great for me. I'm a CPA and that just increases job security. Then I could open a gym AND a tax practice in the same building."Get your taxes done while you work out. The longer you work out, the larger your refund!"Talk about a nice niche to specialize in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RatioFitness Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 And I want to make it clear that I never said studies are not useful. I just said you can always find one that cancels out another depending on who pays for it.Well, I think that's a bit of an exaggeration. I'm saying the study posted is mainly about cardiovascular failure and obesity right? Not about the other issues that come with being obese.The study also looked at all-cause mortality, not just cardiovascular. I admit Fedor is a great example. But how many obese people are like Fedor. Also, BMI would be a horrible way to measure this. My BMI is "bad" too. It's only really acceptable if you're not muscular or chubby.Even if you measured waist circumference, Fedor still wouldn't come out that favorable. True, people like this a minority, but they still exist. If you make public policies that punish them that is still unfair discrimination. No different than making policies that punish black people just because black people are more likely to commit crimes (in the U.S.). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RatioFitness Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 I'm sorry but your study doesn't say that and this was my original point.Yes it does. Look at the data presented in the caption of figure 2.True there are examples of people in the study who gained weight and became more unfit but that isn't even enough to show an association as you run into trouble with what is called multiple testing (basically if you analyse at data for long enough you can get it to say anything). A study can only comment on the results you set out to test, true it can indicate other areas that might be interesting as has happened here but you can't say anything about those areas until you have conducted another study into them.Not necessarily, but usually what you've said is correct.At any rate, I'm not sure what difference it makes to the public policy debate. Where are you going with this? Let me give you an example, a study was conducted into the effects of living near electricity pylons and risks of cancer and what did the study find? That people who lived near the pylons had a higher instance of cancer. The papers then said "Pylons cause cancer" which you might agree with. however what would you say if I said that you also have an increased risk in cancer if you didn't have a dishwasher? I think most of you would say I was talking a load of hogwash, but I'm not. The reason that they both appear to increase rates of cancer is because they (living next to a pylon and not owning a dishwasher) are correlated with poverty which is the real reason for the increased rates of cancer. Sorry about that little tangential rant but it really does irk me.That's not an example of the multiple-comparisons problem. That's an example of how a third factor can cause 2 other things. When a correlation is found between A and B, there are four possibilities:(1)A causes B(2) B causes A(3) C causes both A and B(4) It's a coincidenceYou example is an example of (3), whereas the multiple-comparisons problem is an example of (4). I really can't remember where I was going with this point and you are right we shouldn't legislate discrimination, having thought some more I think mostly carrot rather than stick methods should be used but I think you will agree that it is a problem that needs tackling? What methods would you endorse?At the very most, I would recommend taxing "unhealthy" foods, but I'm not ready to actually recommend that. I still think that the cost of overweight/obesity is overblown, and insofar as it does raise costs (which of course does) the obese pay for it mostly through lower wages. Of course, in countries such as your with socialized care, the obese do not pay for the cost of their care, so they are imposing externalities on your population to a much greater degree than they are in the U.S.. I'm pretty sure that eliminating obesity would reduce medical spending by more than .2% but of course I can't be sure of this.I was talking about miscellaneous costs associated with obesity. Eliminating obesity probably would save a few % in costs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philip Chubb Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 And I want to make it clear that I never said studies are not useful. I just said you can always find one that cancels out another depending on who pays for it.Well, I think that's a bit of an exaggeration. I'm saying the study posted is mainly about cardiovascular failure and obesity right? Not about the other issues that come with being obese.The study also looked at all-cause mortality, not just cardiovascular. I admit Fedor is a great example. But how many obese people are like Fedor. Also, BMI would be a horrible way to measure this. My BMI is "bad" too. It's only really acceptable if you're not muscular or chubby.Even if you measured waist circumference, Fedor still wouldn't come out that favorable. True, people like this a minority, but they still exist. If you make public policies that punish them that is still unfair discrimination. No different than making policies that punish black people just because black people are more likely to commit crimes (in the U.S.).Do you honestly know that Fedor is what we would say is fit? Michael Phelps looks fit but we see how he eats. And as I said about the study, there is more to obesity than just death and that is what I am saying we should open our mind to. No law is perfect but it's better than the rising cost. For someone who called me closed minded, you are very grounded in your statement. An idea in general I had, and this is directed toward anyone in particular, is that maybe instead of taxing obese people, we should give breaks to people who take care of themselves! So that gym membership we are paying for? Tax write off. All money spent on good supplementation? Tax write off. And maybe others like a pedo meter to show how far we walked over the course of the week to convince people to take the stairs over the elevator.I am being open to Radio's mindset and I think even though taxing obese people could be good, that one law like this would lead to another that goes too far. (You seem like a terrorist so we are going to impose restrictions on you). With the examples I'm using, people who take care of themselves are given incentives, people who don't, can either continue to pay more or get fit (by a better standard than waist circumfrence) and enjoy the benefits, and no one has to feel discriminated against. Feel free to vote for me in 2012. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RatioFitness Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 Do you honestly know that Fedor is what we would say is fit? Michael Phelps looks fit but we see how he eats. And as I said about the study, there is more to obesity than just death and that is what I am saying we should open our mind to. No law is perfect but it's better than the rising cost. For someone who called me closed minded, you are very grounded in your statement. I never said there were no other problems that are increased by obesity. What I've said is that I don't care because in a country that spends over 2 trillion dollars a year on health care, those cost are nothing. They are completely insignificant. Not only does obesity increase medical spending, it reduces the productivity of the economy. And you say I don't acknowledge all the costs of obesity? :wink: In 2008, this cost was over $150 billion. But so what? That is NOTHING compared to the size the US economy. An idea in general I had, and this is directed toward anyone in particular, is that maybe instead of taxing obese people, we should give breaks to people who take care of themselves! So that gym membership we are paying for? Tax write off. All money spent on good supplementation? Tax write off. And maybe others like a pedo meter to show how far we walked over the course of the week to convince people to take the stairs over the elevator.I am being open to Radio's mindset and I think even though taxing obese people could be good, that one law like this would lead to another that goes too far. (You seem like a terrorist so we are going to impose restrictions on you). With the examples I'm using, people who take care of themselves are given incentives, people who don't, can either continue to pay more or get fit (by a better standard than waist circumfrence) and enjoy the benefits, and no one has to feel discriminated against. Feel free to vote for me in 2012. But is that really fair? Some people are naturally more healthy because of their genes. You are rewarding good genes, that is favoritism. I believe in equality under the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philip Chubb Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 It's like collecting pennies. Every little bit counts.Let me write it again more clearly if I didn't. We are not rewarding being healthy. We are rewarding people who take the time to be more healthy. That is what I am giving examples of. We reward gym memberships. We don't hand out money to the people who just hit a new PR. We give incentives to the people who are coming in and putting in the effort. We make it so that every pound loss (or gained for some people) is a dollar they get to have back. No ones genetics are being rewarded here, just their efforts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now