"... Could Be Linked to Obesity..."

crazyjerseygirl

Orphia wrote: »

I'll leave the pirates graph for another poster, and instead post my favourite:

Dat double Y-axis!

snikkins

crazyjerseygirl wrote: »

snikkins wrote: »

crazyjerseygirl wrote: »

senecarr wrote: »

crazyjerseygirl wrote: »

Merkavar wrote: »

RockstarWilson wrote: »

rankinsect wrote: »

segacs wrote: »

Well, the fact that for thousands of years, we were hunter-gatherers and then laboured in the fields and then laboured in the factories might have something to do with it. For most of human history, we were very active, and we didn't have enough food. So we became very efficient at using energy.

Evolution hasn't caught up to the 21st century internet age, where we do everything at the touch of a smartphone and sit on our butts at a desk for 8, 10, 15 hours a day, and where we have access to all the food we could possibly want. Our bodies weren't designed for that.

That's certainly true and doubtlessly plays some part, but there's likely more to it - the baby boomers had sedentary lifestyles and availability of lots of calories yet much lower obesity rates compared to today. Each generation of the past four is significantly more obese than the preceding generation, without that significant of lifestyle changes.

Not that significant of changes? Who told you that?

Baby boomers were engineered for war through the school systems. JFK made PE a priority as a way to make 18 year olds physically ready for military-grade endurance.

They didn't have devices like today. Their entertainment was all outdoors, hardly ever indoors.

Today, PE is put on the backburner because we are too burdened with paying for everyone else's convenience and comfort in society. Fitness and nutrition were always unimportant since the 70s/80s. Now that everyone has diseases (which a good majority are linked to obesity), everyone needs a pill for something, and most jobs are either sedentary, enveloped in highly accessible horribly overpriced food (people dont cook in this century), or both. I speak in generalities, but these are things baby boomers didn't have to deal with.

We are creating diseases that are highly linked to nutrition, and obesity is directly related to nutrition. For most of these people, they are preventable if some doctor doesn't give them a babdaid (a pill) and educates them on nutrition and tells them to move their *kitten*. Problem is...advice isnt profitable, and we live in a society that likes profit too much. Just check out the names of Bowl Games this year. Ridiculous.

If a person eats right for their physical output, he/she will never become overweight/obese, or have most these diseases that are linked to something.

I eat tons of fatty meats, tons of coffee, have had tons of fast food, and I am on the upper end of overweight...I don't have one disease, or take one gosh damn pill. My cholesterol levels are better than 90% of "healthy" people.

The difference is...I move my *kitten*. So long as you move, your body knows what to do. Its Darwinian. Like a person said before me here: our bodies haven't evolved to handle unlimited food source with less energy expenditure.

That's it.

Drugs are profitable while advice isn't. Do these 2 images help?




Isn't everything liked to obesity and cancer nowadays? Always through oddly biased studies. Where they reach so far they could teach yoga classes.

Apples linked to obesity. This study paid for by the citrus fruit coalition.

Well chiro is BS but otherwise spot on.

I enjoy the irony of that part: "Big pharma doesn't create cures, it creates patients. My chiro who I visit every week told me so!"

A chiro tried to tell my dad that he could cure his Chrons with back cracking.

Luckily my dad is a smart guy and found a new one that sticks to making his back feel better.

Yup. My dad went to a chiropractor for back stuff, made him feel better. He did not routinely get "adjusted" for other things though.

I teach political science. Sometimes, I want to scream at textbooks, "CORRELATION DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSATION." This is likely from my psychology background, though.

When I was obese, I drank diet soda. Some people would like me to believe that the diet soda made me obese. Now that I'm no longer obese, I still drink diet soda. So...

What you need is the Pirates vs. Global Temperature graph. No really, it exists.

We need more pirates.

I do love that graph. As well as @Orphia's about organic food and autism. Maybe I should frame them for my office.

Also, that thing about biases. It's all such good stuff.

LastingChanges

Orphia wrote: »

I'll leave the pirates graph for another poster, and instead post my favourite:

Where did this chart come though? Was this a study? What was the study? Were the autism children born to parents that were eating organic food, were the children eating organic food? I see the point you are making but this chart looks like just numbers plotted without a reasoning to why these numbers were plotted for comparison. I think although funny it is different than what was initially being discussed in the post.

senecarr

LastingChanges wrote: »

Orphia wrote: »

I'll leave the pirates graph for another poster, and instead post my favourite:

Where did this chart come though? Was this a study? What was the study? Were the autism children born to parents that were eating organic food, were the children eating organic food? I see the point you are making but this chart looks like just numbers plotted without a reasoning to why these numbers were plotted for comparison. I think although funny it is different than what was initially being discussed in the post.

Yes, it is MEANT to be a graph of just organic food sales versus Autism. It is used to show there is no link to people that often say our food supply or chemicals used these days are the cause in the rise of Autism. The worst case is Stephanie Senef - that graph is basically a direct response to her producing a paper that showed a similar graph for Round Up versus Autism cases. Which is the kind of derision she deserves for being an computer scientist publishing garbage in biology based on using computers to scan biology research papers - she doesn't even understand the biology. She's claimed Round Up has to affect human gut bacteria because it has the same pathway Round Up works on - without even understanding that human gut bacteria don't have a need to use that pathway because human gut bacteria don't need to make their own amino acids, they're sitting in a pile of amino acids.

Orphia

Thanks, @senecarr

The graph is basically to show that Correlation does not equal Causation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation