View Single Post
Old 12-28-2017, 05:13 AM   #26
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 448
TwoSwords never has a post go unnoticedTwoSwords never has a post go unnoticedTwoSwords never has a post go unnoticedTwoSwords never has a post go unnoticedTwoSwords never has a post go unnoticedTwoSwords never has a post go unnoticedTwoSwords never has a post go unnoticedTwoSwords never has a post go unnoticed

This one is fairly brief, and all of it is basic to what we were discussing before, so here we go...

Originally Posted by HereticFA View Post
If the "natural body shape" (#12) involves someone reaching a BMI of 60 or more, there have already been numerous studies done that shows an improvement in health outcomes following reduction in BMI. But somehow those studies (many of which are available on Medscape) are either invisible to you from your corner of the interwebs or you discount them entirely for your own reasons.
Right. There are good reasons to doubt the validity of many of those studies, and as I said in my last reply, those reasons are as follows.

1. Too many of them merely establish correlations, and expect people to agree with the assumptions that they make, in interpreting what those correlations imply.
2. Too many studies proclaim results relevant to weight loss, without addressing whether said results could be due to other factors, by specifically studying those whose weight loss did not coincide with an increase in other healthy behaviors.
3. Too few of them make allowances for genetic factors in the results, or allow for the possibility that some slight trends in the results may be due to mere coincidence, instead interpreting a 2-point, on-paper "risk" spike in some group of people as a sign that everyone must belong to another group.
4. Too many studies use inadequate, or misleading terms to warp the results of their study, but don't go out of their way to reveal this to the general public.
5. Too many studies are presented to the public only as a final graph or statistic, with the fat-hostile media providing the interpretation.
6. In short, too many studies treat mere statistics as if they were facts, but as Samuel Clemens rightly saw, statistics are just another way to lie and not get caught, unless they're based on something actual. Are they?

In order to understand whether a specific study has something wrong with it, you need to actually read about it; the terms of the experiments, and how the men did their research. What kinds of people did they bring in? What was the question they were trying to answer? Who paid for the study to be done? Of course, all of this information matters to a person who's concerned with learning the truth, but the general public, who mistakenly trust these snake oil salesmen, masquerading as scientists, doesn't get this information from them directly, and for a variety of reasons, can't afford to find it for themselves.

Now, you could, of course, settle the matter by telling me which study shows any of these things, and pointing out that the study was impartial, able to discount other, alternative explanations of its raw data, etc, but you haven't done that, and until you do, no argument is adequate. It does no one any good to tell a person "Just read hundreds of pages of propaganda, and then you'll see!" It is not my job to present the evidence to support the positions of my opponents. That's not how dialogue or debates work. Each person presents evidence to support their own position.

Also, I'm a bit confused by your reaction. You'd think you'd want good reasons to think your feelings are evil; not just a bunch of charts and graphs with no context.

As the premature judgments against the health of salt and saturated fats show, statistics in the 20th and 21st centuries have, at best, a spotty history. I hope you'll come to understand this one day.

Originally Posted by HereticFA View Post
Likewise for number 14. Numerous studies exist to show improvements in income or career positions following weight loss. This is unfortunately due to the formerly fatter person better fitting with the lookism based prejudices of their peers, coworkers or employer.
So at the end of the day, what you're saying is that giving in to peer pressure makes you better off, if you can get some money out of the deal?

Originally Posted by HereticFA View Post
"Prettier" (#13) is an exceptionally subjective assessment. At most all that can be done is to say the majority of people find someone of a more average BMI to be more attractive than someone with a higher BMI.
No. That's not all that can be said. Yes, "pretty" is subjectively-perceptible, but that doesn't mean it isn't real. There's a whole philosophy of aesthetics to address on this point. Yes, it's a complex and interesting topic, but that doesn't make it impossible to learn about, any more than it's impossible to learn that many statisticians are trying to bamboozle you with fake science.

Originally Posted by HereticFA View Post
As for #15, intense dislike of a status quo can be a great motivator to make changes. Most of my friends that had WLS cited their dislike of staying fat as their reason to risk their life on the OR table.
But the question was whether it encouraged them to succeed in losing weight.

Originally Posted by HereticFA View Post
The studies show there are typically two approaches that result in significant maintenance of weight loss for over five years. Unfortunately the leading candidate is bariatric surgery. The other is slow weight loss achieved by significant lifestyle changes in composition and quantity of food intake as well as incorporation of purposeful exercise. The surgery usually adds in new co-morbidities the patient didn't have before surgery. The latter approach doesn't.
You're not answering my question, which, remember, was "What evidence is there that most people who lose weight in these manners manage to keep it off for more than 5 years?"

Yes, there are common methods used by those who belong to that category of people who lose weight and keep it off. My question was to do with how large that category is. How many of these people following commonly-prescribed methods of weight loss succeed, vs how many fail.

Originally Posted by HereticFA View Post
Again, many report increased happiness with weight loss. Not all, but a significant percentage. This again comes from fitting with the societally acceptable "lookism" standards.
Again, where did you get this percentage from? (For that matter, what percentage? 16%? 75%? 90%? Please try to give me something to work with here.)

Originally Posted by HereticFA View Post
Many of our foundation arguments from before 1999 have been either successfully challenged or used against us since the early 2000's. One of the more successful tactics was to transition the discussion away from the social sciences/philosophical tact you appear to be trying to pursue. Feel free to continue on that path since that seems to represent your skillset. But don't be surprised if you find yourself a couple of decades into your approach and only minor wins to claim.
Philosophy is the foundation point of all other knowledge, so steering away from it is a recipe for disaster. People who want to be ignorant of the truth will be ignorant of the truth, whether I like it or not. However, that doesn't mean I'm not right.

P.S.: Lest you claim that this is not the case, take note of how miserably the fat acceptance "movement" has failed, and then try to tell me it hasn't been a total disaster. Clearly, it has, so it seems to me that embracing logically-stronger tactics is something you'd want to do.

Originally Posted by HereticFA View Post
The real battle is based on objective hard data that can be duplicated from a sound Design-Of-Experiment, not subjective feelings. I recommend getting a few hundred (or more) papers and articles under your belt to come up to speed on current medical knowledge in the field of obesity. Medscape is a good place to start if you don't have access to a library with medical periodicals like New England Journal of Medicine or the Lancet.
None of my arguments have been based on how I feel. If you want to challenge anything I've said, by all means, do so, but so far, all I've heard is a lot of punting to vague "studies" and "statistics," and I just sort of have to take your word for it that they exist, are being reported properly, imply what they say they do, and were conducted responsibly. Sorry, but no. If someone wants to convince me, they need to do better than just asking me to take their word for it. They've got to actually present some argument or evidence to support their position. Just something. And so far, I haven't seen anything presented.

P.S.: I can sort of understand being a little uncritical in your approach to a given topic. I get that some people really, really want to trust that "researchers" know what they're talking about, so when the main stream follows a certain point, I can sort of forgive people who also follow that point, even when a careful examination of the evidence shows it to be badly-supported, or even just flat-out wrong.

However, I felt no sympathy at all after you brought up BMI, and I don't understand how you could make this kind of mistake, if you really study the topic as you say you do. Your statements about BMI (along with any other statement claiming that BMI has any value in determining overall health) have been soundly debunked in mainstream publications on science and medicine. These debunkings are truly easy to find (I found no less than five through googling "BMI inadequate" in less than a minute, then following the links to the source material for those articles.) Those who still cite BMI as a reliable way of guaging health are internet fat-hate groups, inexperienced trolls, and other people whose scientific data is severely outdated, because the truth doesn't serve their purposes.

P.P.S.: When I say that none of my arguments are based on how I feel, I don't mean that I don't have any feelings related to these issues. I obviously do. However, my feelings come into play after I learn the truth about something, and are mainly related to the question "How will I deal with these feelings, on the basis of this information?" For me, if any of what you said about fatness were provable, I suppose I'd end up living on a mountain somewhere, as far away from all human contact as possible, but as I said, I don't think you've presented sufficient evidence to justify arriving at that conclusion.
TwoSwords is offline   Reply With Quote