The stupid explodes: obesity now a disability

[Tatyana]

I'm going to need to exercise specifically to maintain bone mass, ad all I can think of is carrying weights up and down the stairs. Is there anything else you can think of?

Walk home with your groceries in a backpack.

If you are not interested in going to a gym for weight training, then I think exercise is far easier to continue with by incorporating into something that has a purpose and something you need to do fairly frequently.

 

[bignickel]

Yah, no.

The article was by Gary Taubes, who is not an obesity researcher.

Isn't that simply an 'argument from non-authority' fallacy?

"Until you've studied chiropractic enough years, you won't be able to understand it properly..."

Taubes is either on the right track, or he's not; there must be a better argument, though, than 'hes not in the priestly caste'...

 

[Darth Rotor]

I had two friends die of asbestos cancer.

Cancer versus being overweight: the latter is reversible via a behavior and attitude change. I dropped 40 pounds since June. If I had cancer, so simple a change would not have been a useful approach. Please stop with the eggs to wheelchair comparisons. (Yours was not the only bad analogy, I just picked that one to comment on. There is a whole family of them, such as this one.

Where does responsibility come into it? If you fool around drunk with a chain-saw and cut your own leg off, it's your own responsibility, but you are certainly disabled.

When one can regrow a leg, please let us know, and we'll discuss a valid comparison. Until then, not even close.

Fat people, the lepers of the 21st century.

Good. My distress at being overweight got me to make a change. Maybe more people should follow in my footsteps and quite pretending that their are disabled.

Can the dude grow his face back with some excercise and eating less? Stupid analogy

Thanks for your support.

Fat-causing foods are more expensive than healthier foods.

Hmm, yes and no. The missus and I have dropped quite a bit of weight in the past half a year, mostly through controlling intake. No massive exercise regimen. At the store, per calorie, the fresh veg and greens we eat, and the proteins, aren't as cheap as a lot of the junk in bulk. Also, more or less healthy foods like beans and rice are cheap, but were off our diet due to how we were losing weight: ketosis. So in our case, high protein and high fiber, nearly no sugar, and very little fat made our food budget about ... the same, and I save on not buying beer and wine since they were taboo until we get nearer to a lower Body Fat percentage. I got as far as 15 % but am now at about 18%. BMI is IMO useless as a metric.

At McD's down the street, an egg McMuffin is about 2.75. Fatty food. Around the corner is a taco stand, where a breakfast taco with bacon and cheese is 1.29. Similar food value. Both were off the diet, and both had in the past contributed to my slow girthal growth.

So, from 200 and change I was down to 162 and now am about 172, more or less stabilized. And I can have beer now, but not every day, as we are both watching sugars intake very carefully.
It helps that we take dogs for 2 mile walks between 3 and 6 times per week, weather permitting. Good for them, good for us. Our next objective is to stabilize at our new weights for six months. Why?
To ingrain the better habits. That takes repetition.
So, this is a one year program to unscrew our health.
All it takes is effort, and a sound plan.

Ok, can we turn this about a little.
Those who want us meanies to stop saying fat people should lose weight, what do you propose?

People can do what we did.

Fair point. Stigma cancellation due to touchy feely giving treats

It's called in some places special pleading.

 

[Belz...]

IMO there's a strong analogy between those who can't control themselves and overeat and those who can't control themselves and overspend.

I have an urge to over-eat, myself. I think my brain thinks there's no way to know when the next meal will be, as if I'm still living in the wild or something, and would rather eat everything it finds.

 

[Belz...]

It certainly takes more effort to gain weight than lose it. Losing weight requires no effort at all, just a change of mind-set.

Because changing one's mindset takes no effort ?

 

[blutoski]

People don't listen to good advice.

I think there's two factors that contribute to this... firstly: cognitive dissonance. They don't like what they hear.

Secondly - and I'm sorry for repeating myself - laypersons are confused about what, exactly, constitutes 'good advice'. It takes five seconds to find a website that says your GP is completely wrong about everything, and following his advice will kill you. [Dunning Kruger] in action, and Skeptics appear just as vulnerable as anybody else. (the 300lb friend I described in a previous post is a Skeptic who does not believe obesity is a health risk)

There is a trillion dollar "calorie industrial complex" dedicated to confusing the layperson about how to safely lose weight and keep it off.

 

[blutoski]

Cancer versus being overweight: the latter is reversible via a behavior and attitude change.

Cancer is reversible with chemo and radiation. Does that make it no longer a disability?

 

[Belz...]

That's just absurd. For starters, you don't "prove" anything in science, all you can do is gather evidence one way or the other.

That's only true in English. The distinction doesn't exist in French and some other languages. In addition, it's a nonsensical distinction: if mathematical proof and scientific evidence are not the same in any way, shape or form, there's no confusion caused by using the same word for both.

 

[blutoski]

Isn't that simply an 'argument from non-authority' fallacy?

"Until you've studied chiropractic enough years, you won't be able to understand it properly..."

Taubes is either on the right track, or he's not; there must be a better argument, though, than 'hes not in the priestly caste'...

Not really. That's how science works, right?

This is what I was referring to in the Are We Really Skeptics thread: critical thinking does not end at first-level logical fallacies. That's the first couple of weeks of a Critical Thinking course. After that, one learns other tools, such as argument analysis, scientific reasoning, and others.

In the real world of science, some fallacies have inductive reasoning qualifiers that are satisfied enough to be accepted as good reasoning. For example, statistical sampling and controlled trials are not Hasty Generalization even though we're using a small set to predict what would happen in the larger population.

By the same token, Appeal to Authority is good reasoning for evaluating scientific claims if you're not actually an expert in that field (ie: it is a fallacy when 'misused' but acceptable if correctly applied). For us, evaluating a scientific claim involves a procedure as follows:

• is there a field of expertise involved? (sometimes the topic has none)
• is this person regarded as an expert in the field? (often we have 'used to be' situations)
• is there a consensus in the field about this subject? (sometimes there isn't)
• is this person's claim consistent with that consensus?
• does this person have a conflict of interest? (this is hard to prove sometimes)

If I use this process as objectively as possible, it makes me reject Taubes. It had made me reject Wakefield back in the day.

Taubes is a journalist with no science education, wrote a best-selling nonfiction book in what I call the "man bites dog" science genre ("everything the experts say is wrong"), did not care about peer review. Like I said, he's done incalculable damage to experts' attempts to educate the public in the US, Canada, UK about preventing/reducing obesity.

 

[The Atheist]

Well that's your arbitrary judgement. It's unlikely but it's possible that I've done more damage to my body than if I had just sat down and eaten bonbons. At the minimum I suspect that there are more body-kind sporting choices I have made over the years and yet you're willing to give me a free pass because it happens to align with your view that fat = greedy and lazy and not worth accommodating.

Nope, that's pretty well all incorrect.

Sport doesn't get a free pass in any way - and even better, it is recognised as one of the prime forces against obesity.

Note that I'm the furthest thing you ever met from a sport nut. I've played and competed at reaqsonable levels during my life, and yes it is a choice to take that punishment on ourselves, but it's also a multi-billion-dollar business and an integral part of human society.

For my money, you could gladly take the sporting injuries and call them self-inflicted and ignore them, but it you certainly cannot equate sport with eating.

Also: I don't believe I've said anywhere that fat = greedy &/or lazy.

In any case your complaint isn't about weight management or the ease/difficulty of it but rather that if someone is disabled as a result of their weight then you don't feel that their employer ought to accommodate them.

Absolutely correct. See my sig.

 

[Tatyana]

Isn't that simply an 'argument from non-authority' fallacy?

"Until you've studied chiropractic enough years, you won't be able to understand it properly..."

Taubes is either on the right track, or he's not; there must be a better argument, though, than 'hes not in the priestly caste'...

He literature reviews are shabby, cherry picked and at odds with all of the current obesity researchers.

 

[The Atheist]

BMI is IMO useless as a metric.

Glad to hear you've changed your wicked ways, mate!

Fillet steak has few calories.

Yeah, BMI has its faults, but as long as its used generally, I think it has its uses. There aren't any other tools as simple or graphic. Fat % is excellent, but I'm not sure general understanding of how it works would enable it to be widely used.

Because changing one's mindset takes no effort ?

Physically, no.

 

[blutoski]

Yeah, BMI has its faults, but as long as its used generally, I think it has its uses. There aren't any other tools as simple or graphic. Fat % is excellent, but I'm not sure general understanding of how it works would enable it to be widely used.

I think the remaining advantages of BMI these days are that it's 'reliable enough for a first pass' and super cheap to calculate (just need a regular scale and a wall height chart) and secondly, it's possible to get abundant accurate height/weight data going back centuries for any trend analyses. We have much less data for body fat percentages from the 19th century. Basically cadavers, and there were so few healthy young cadavers dissected that it's hard to consider them representative.

Body fat percentage has become much more reliable in the last 30 years, so is really a new concept for many people. I use TANITAs today, but 30 years ago it was a 3 hour process to calculate body fat percentage. As a national level athlete in my teens, I was dragooned into being a body for research at SFU for years. Weekend after weekend spent getting bitten by calipers and holding my breath in a dunk tank. I learned that this data was used to generate the formulas used today in TANITAs today, so my life seems to have come full circle.

 

[bignickel]

Not really. That's how science works, right?

Actually, no. Science works by making an argument, and then backing it up with data, reasoning, etc.

It's not simply saying "well, he doesn't have the credentials" as a way of refuting someone else's argument.

Like I said, he's done incalculable damage to experts' attempts to educate the public in the US, Canada, UK about preventing/reducing obesity.

Really, how so? The 'experts' have been telling the public for years that fat made you fat, eggs were bad because of cholesterol, and 'carbs' were 'healthy', based on such dubious studies as the "7 Countries Study".

As a result, they've chased anything with fat off the grocery shelves, all of it replaced with sugar and corn syrup. Yogurt, healthy? It would be, if not loaded down with various sugars. Fat-free yogurt, egg nog, etc etc etc.

And what has Gary Taubes put on the grocery shelves?.... nada. Doesn't look like's been doing any damage to me, unless you consider making people re-consider the mantra of 'fat, bad, mkay?' to be a bad thing. Which I don't.

 

[blutoski]

Actually, no. Science works by making an argument, and then backing it up with data, reasoning, etc.

Sort of. A scientist does this in his field of expertise. Other scientists may depend on the results, but they don't do any of that. They defer to her expertise using the criteria I outlined.

As time has progressed, scientists are increasingly focused on narrow scopes of expertise, so most of their knowledge is achieved through deference to other specialists' expertise. In other words, a scientist is a layperson in every scientific field but their own. Good scientists respect this; crap scientists ignore this. That's how we got Pauling and his vitamin C obsession.

As non-scientists, we are laypersons in every field.

It's not simply saying "well, he doesn't have the credentials" as a way of refuting someone else's argument.

That wasn't the argument I presented, though. You don't need 'credentials' to be a recognized expert in a field. For example, Joe Nickell is a recognized expert in the field of paranormal investigation, but he doesn't have any credentials to say so. Just the opinion of his peers.

And credentials are insufficient, such as in the Wakefield case. He had the right credentials, but failed the checklist by having contrary opinions in a field where there was consensus, plus a huge conflict of interest.

 

[The Atheist]

Really, how so? The 'experts' have been telling the public for years that fat made you fat, eggs were bad because of cholesterol, and 'carbs' were 'healthy', based on such dubious studies as the "7 Countries Study".

As a result, they've chased anything with fat off the grocery shelves, all of it replaced with sugar and corn syrup. Yogurt, healthy? It would be, if not loaded down with various sugars. Fat-free yogurt, egg nog, etc etc etc.

That is a very good point that I have tried to hammer home to people.

The medical industry must take at least some of the blame in accusing various foods incorrectly of being Satan and eggs are indeed a superb example.

And bloody tasty!

 

[blutoski]

Actually, no. Science works by making an argument, and then backing it up with data, reasoning, etc.

It's not simply saying "well, he doesn't have the credentials" as a way of refuting someone else's argument.

Really, how so? The 'experts' have been telling the public for years that fat made you fat, eggs were bad because of cholesterol, and 'carbs' were 'healthy', based on such dubious studies as the "7 Countries Study".

Well, there's different topics there, I think you're conflating Taubes' critique of obesity management vs his critique of cardiovascular disease risk reduction.

And the experts used to say leeches cured dropsy. Are you arguing that past errors mean Skeptics should treat current scientific consensus as suspect? In what way would that be 'science advocacy'?

As a result, they've chased anything with fat off the grocery shelves, all of it replaced with sugar and corn syrup. Yogurt, healthy? It would be, if not loaded down with various sugars. Fat-free yogurt, egg nog, etc etc etc.

Right, so this is the point. There is more fat on the shelves than ever before. Nobody reduced their fat intake. In fact, Americans eat more fat every year, a trend that has been consistent for three generations. ie: his thesis is based on a false premise. Undaunted, he simply avoided talking about that entirely. Thus the accusation of cherry-picking.

Everything after that is bafflegab that sells well because it's an antiauthoritarian narrative ("the worst words in the world are: we're from the government and we're here to help") that exonerates hundreds of millions of people from guilt ("Aha! It's not my fault I'm obese - it's those incompetent scientists in their ivory towers") on a topic of interest to everybody (literally every body).

And bafflegab that is not much different than the endless parade of polemics against conventional medicine that cites past errors to support rejection of any consensus. It's the Galileo Gambit ("He's vilified by the establishment, and they only do that when they're embarrassed") combined with some cargo cult science ("He has lots of references from scientific journals, so this must be science in action").

And what has Gary Taubes put on the grocery shelves?.... nada. Doesn't look like's been doing any damage to me, unless you consider making people re-consider the mantra of 'fat, bad, mkay?' to be a bad thing. Which I don't.

The biggest impacts to obesity management I can see are:

• presenting the case that the public is actually disserviced by following the advice of experts in nutrition such as USDA or Health Canada
• presenting as a scientific fact that calories don't matter
• presenting as a scientific fact that attention should prioritize reducing carb intake over other strategies to improve health

 

[Tatyana]

Actually, no. Science works by making an argument, and then backing it up with data, reasoning, etc.

It's not simply saying "well, he doesn't have the credentials" as a way of refuting someone else's argument.

Really, how so? The 'experts' have been telling the public for years that fat made you fat, eggs were bad because of cholesterol, and 'carbs' were 'healthy', based on such dubious studies as the "7 Countries Study".

As a result, they've chased anything with fat off the grocery shelves, all of it replaced with sugar and corn syrup. Yogurt, healthy? It would be, if not loaded down with various sugars. Fat-free yogurt, egg nog, etc etc etc.

And what has Gary Taubes put on the grocery shelves?.... nada. Doesn't look like's been doing any damage to me, unless you consider making people re-consider the mantra of 'fat, bad, mkay?' to be a bad thing. Which I don't.

Scientific research has nothing to do with the manufacturing of food products so it is a bit odd that you think any of the experts have anything to do with the products consumers buy.



As well, right now there really isn't enough evidence to completely throw out the link between cholesterol and heart disease, which is one of the things Taubes is promoting.

It looks like it is far more complicated than just cholesterol, or just LDL cholesterol.

This is how science works, it is refined and becomes more complicated.

Taubites also think that as long as you don't eat any carbohydrates, you can eat as much as you like and you won't get fat.

As well, as far as I can tell, the recommendations by the various health departments and authorities never stated that people should avoid all fat and to only eat low fat foods.

Who do you think put sugar into all the low fat foods? The scientists doing the research on cholesterol and heart disease?

No, it was consumer demand and manufacturer's using science to make their products more appealing.

I am certain if you actually go back and read the research papers and discussion in the scientific communities, you will find that it was the odd media misinterpretation of the research that is more at fault.

Think about it, the media gave us Linus Pauling and his vitamin C myths that are still pervasive today, and the disaster of Andrew Wakefield.

 

[blutoski]

That is a very good point that I have tried to hammer home to people.

The medical industry must take at least some of the blame in accusing various foods incorrectly of being Satan and eggs are indeed a superb example.

And bloody tasty!

I think we also have to be cautious about what power medical science has about their message. Oatbran is a good example. One or two studies, all well done, and published in medical journals. The explosion of oat bran products was entirely the product of Marketing Departments across the globe.

 

[blutoski]

Scientific research has nothing to do with the manufacturing of food products so it is a bit odd that you think any of the experts have anything to do with the products consumers buy.

Having said that, IMO, I think bignickel has a valid point that Marketing Departments during Taubes' period of interest followed consumer demand, and medical advice does shape consumer preferences.

The extent to which genuine advice was distorted by media is difficult to evaluate. The amount of time and effort involved, and establishing an objective metric that would withstand peer review... feels like PhD worthy work to me.