Bringing Science Into Discussions

W8G0
W8G0 Posts: 30 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
Hi All,

It's great that there are a lot of people on this site trying to help each other. However, among these well-intentioned individuals, there are some ideas that keep getting repeated that have either little scientific foundation, or have a body of evidence suggesting that they're incorrect.

For example, three is essentially no evidence to suggest that the ectomorph, endomorph, mesomorph body-type distinctions are meaningful. In lieu of summarizing the data on the topic, here is (an accurate) Wikipedia comment about it:

"[This taxonomy] enjoyed a vogue as the "pop-psych flavor of the month" through the 1950s.[2] Modern scientists, however, generally (with occasional exceptions[3][4]) dismiss his claims as outdated, if not outright quackery.[5]"

If others would like to add to this thread with other evidence-based statements that shine light on frequently used ideas here, feel free.

-K

Replies

  • Ophidion
    Ophidion Posts: 2,065 Member
    The premise of your thread is a good idea but I recommend citing references.

    A copy and paste from Wikipedia with the words here is (an accurate) before it kind of makes a mockery of the title of your thread.

    EVH5rKL.jpg
  • Trechechus
    Trechechus Posts: 2,819 Member
    "Bored, shopping online for deals on some writable media, I edit Wikipedia" -- Weird Al


    400px-WhiteNerdyYOUSUCK.JPG
  • cafeaulait7
    cafeaulait7 Posts: 2,459 Member
    Well, it's a perfect illustration of many of the SCIENCE!!!1111!!!! folks, though.

    OP, I'm not usually that harsh, but folks who come in with 5 posts and try to tell everyone how to do things had better bring it, I think ;)
  • W8G0
    W8G0 Posts: 30 Member
    The premise of your thread is a good idea but I recommend citing references.

    A copy and paste from Wikipedia with the words here is (an accurate) before it kind of makes a mockery of the title of your thread.

    The quote from Wikipedia is one that I (based on a reading of multiple sources and discussions with those in the field) am saying is accurate. Here is another source from the era in which the somatotyping literature was being formed: Hunt, E. E. and Barton, W. H. (1959), The inconstancy of physique in adolescent boys and other limitations of somatotyping. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol., 17: 27–35. doi: 10.1002/ajpa.1330170105
  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 34,416 Member
    Oh. Thank you, OP.

    If it's on the internet, it's true.

    Don't know which is worse, Wiki or MFP experts.
  • W8G0
    W8G0 Posts: 30 Member
    Well, it's a perfect illustration of many of the SCIENCE!!!1111!!!! folks, though.

    OP, I'm not usually that harsh, but folks who come in with 5 posts and try to tell everyone how to do things had better bring it, I think ;)

    http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
  • F00LofaT00K
    F00LofaT00K Posts: 688 Member
    Never in my life have I even heard of ectomorph, endomorph, mesomorph body types.
  • Cortelli
    Cortelli Posts: 1,369 Member
    It's great that there are a lot of people on this site trying to help each other. However, among these well-intentioned individuals, there are some ideas that keep getting repeated that have either little scientific foundation, or have a body of evidence suggesting that they're incorrect.

    Welcome to the internet! Come on in; the water's fine.
  • cafeaulait7
    cafeaulait7 Posts: 2,459 Member
    Well, it's a perfect illustration of many of the SCIENCE!!!1111!!!! folks, though.

    OP, I'm not usually that harsh, but folks who come in with 5 posts and try to tell everyone how to do things had better bring it, I think ;)

    http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

    Oh, and he knows the names of the fallacies! We have a very smart one here, folks. He has taken Internet 201, even.

    I agree about the science. Never said I didn't. My whole point is the ad hominem part :D
  • W8G0
    W8G0 Posts: 30 Member
    Bottom line of the scientific work: If you want to use those existing somatotypes to describe your current physique, that's a very reasonable use. They are certainly descriptive. If you want to use them to predict your ability to put on fat or muscle, or your likelihood of maintaining that body type, you might not want to limit yourself in that way.

    Hunt, E. E. and Barton, W. H. (1959), The inconstancy of physique in adolescent boys and other limitations of somatotyping. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol., 17: 27–35. doi: 10.1002/ajpa.1330170105

    Thanks for the comments, all.
  • wheird
    wheird Posts: 7,963 Member
    Well, it's a perfect illustration of many of the SCIENCE!!!1111!!!! folks, though.

    OP, I'm not usually that harsh, but folks who come in with 5 posts and try to tell everyone how to do things had better bring it, I think ;)

    http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

    Oh, and he knows the names of the fallacies! We have a very smart one here, folks. He has taken Internet 201, even.

    I agree about the science. Never said I didn't. My whole point is the ad hominem part :D

    :laugh:

    OP, no one is trying to attack you. They are just saying that it is ironic to make a plea to bring science into a discussion and then quote Wikipedia as opposed to a legitimate source. That is all.
  • cafeaulait7
    cafeaulait7 Posts: 2,459 Member
    I'm just Fing with you, btw. Welcome! You are new, and I don't mean to be impolite. Well, I did too of course, but you get it I hope ;)
  • BeachIron
    BeachIron Posts: 6,490 Member
    Well, it's a perfect illustration of many of the SCIENCE!!!1111!!!! folks, though.

    OP, I'm not usually that harsh, but folks who come in with 5 posts and try to tell everyone how to do things had better bring it, I think ;)

    http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

    Oh, and he knows the names of the fallacies! We have a very smart one here, folks. He has taken Internet 201, even.

    I agree about the science. Never said I didn't. My whole point is the ad hominem part :D

    :laugh:

    OP, no one is trying to attack you. They are just saying that it is ironic to make a plea to bring science into a discussion and then quote Wikipedia as opposed to a legitimate source. That is all.

    ^ dat up der be da poynt
  • BrainyBurro
    BrainyBurro Posts: 6,129 Member
    everybody knows that on the MFP forums... magic > science

    shia-magic.gif
  • WalkingAlong
    WalkingAlong Posts: 4,926 Member
    Half the myths posted here, it wouldn't even be possible to post an authoritative article that refutes them because they're so ludicrous, the concepts don't even exist outside internet diet forums.
  • pavrg
    pavrg Posts: 277 Member
    Wikipedia is a very accurate secondary source, and there's nothing wrong with using it for basic facts in a conversation. I think a lot of people mistrust it because that's the 'thing' and don't understand how it can be accurate when others can edit articles.

    The key is to make sure that what you're reading has a footnote in the article instead of 'citation needed.' But you don't need to read a journal study for something as simple as whether or not 'ectomorphs' exist; the summary provided wikipedia is fine.

Categories