Are these studies for real?
Chat Forum
Apparently eating too much makes you obese...... shocker!
-
Posted 11 months ago #
-
It seems to be quite a reasonable reporting of research that differentiates between several factors involved in overeating.
Your post however is dumbed down and reactionary of the type normally associated with the daily mail.
Posted 11 months ago # -
So, why'd you post this?
EDIT: Oh, it's cos you don't understand scientific research, isn't it?
Posted 11 months ago # -
Mmmmmmmm. Snacking and super sizing. Arrggggggg.
I think most fat people know why they're fat, so stop ramming it down their throats
Posted 11 months ago # -
absolute rubbish
cheese is the food of the gods, good for you in fact
i'll hear nothing said against it
ever
+ shaking fist
Posted 11 months ago # -
Oh, it's cos you don't understand scientific research, isn't it?
Scientific research I understand, stating the bleeding obvious and then palming it off as scientific research however I don't. Neither do I understand the need to fill column inches with minor studies of even less significance knowing full well that it will provoke reactions such as mine.
I'd be much more impressed with a study into the reasons behind excessive eating, especially into the issues of lack of self worth that are self evident in the condition, but then perhaops that might draw the media into having to recognise its role in undermining body image, but hey thats just my opinion and in no way sceintific.
Posted 11 months ago # -
Well, I found it interesting, if a little simplified.
Several factors are involved in energy intake - the number of calories (energy) in a specific amount of food (energy density), portion size and how many meals and snacks a day eaten. The researchers say that while all of these have gone up, increases in the number of eating occasions and portion size seem to account for most of the change.
I've often heard it said that the excessive use of sugar in processed food, and the increased use of processed food, are the major factors in increased obesity.
This study seems to contradict that, so it does raise an important issue.Posted 11 months ago # -
the body stores excess carbohydrate as fat whether it's from too much pasta or from too much sugar.
don't eat too much kids, you'll end up a bit of a tubber.
Kev
Posted 11 months ago # -
the body stores excess carbohydrate as fat
Depending on how much insulin is around
stating the bleeding obvious and then palming it off as scientific research however I don't
If you think that's what they've done then you don't understand it. Firstly you've not read their paper, just the BBC report which isn't necessarily well done. Secondly, if you sit their stating the obvious all day you won't get published or have funding for long.
Posted 11 months ago # -
Well, as someone who's done a fair amount of scientific research, I'm with B_B on this one. This line is particularly excellent for stating the bleeding obvious:
"This study also looked at portion size and studies have shown that having larger portions of food leads to an increased intake."
I wish I could get funding for such easy research!
Posted 11 months ago # -
That's a quote from the BBC website, not the researchers...
Posted 11 months ago # -
don't eat too
muchmany kids, you'll end up a bit of a tubber.Sorry, grammar Nazi at work
Posted 11 months ago # -
Well, I've read and re-read the article, desperately tried understanding the complicated scientific analyis and complex conclusion but to no avail.
So, STW'ers... will eating too much food make me become more biggerer?
Posted 11 months ago # -
That's a quote from the BBC website, not the researchers...
I spend my working life reading crap scientific papers, but for you, I read the real abstract of this one too:
Conclusions
While all three components have contributed to some extent to 30-y changes in TE [total energy], changes in EO [eating occasions] and PS [portion size] have accounted for most of the change.
So, pretty much what the British scientist on the beeb website said. Also pretty bloody obvious, apart from the acronyms, which were first defined in an earlier paragraph of the paper
Posted 11 months ago # -
So why d'you think they spent their time doing it then?
Posted 11 months ago # -
That's a quote from the BBC website, not the researchers...
.....thats what I posted wasn't it??
and thats my point, the stating of the obvious simply undermines the real issues underlying the problem. Frankly other than the BBC report I have no idea what the study says, and that'll be true for the majority of media quoted studies. Picking out the tit-bits that will gain a knee jerk reaction is entirely misleading and ought to be banned.
I don't know if anyone watched it, but a few years back there was a documentary about publishing the Sunday Sport. The underlying theme to which was a front headline of the salacious variety about an MP being gay. All week long they were taking advice from a lawyer about the headline and the story, and at the 11th hour the editor having been convinced by the lawyer that he was walking through a legal minefield simply changed the headline to MP not Gay,under which he published exactly the same story as he was going to print anyway. Bascially nothing printed was untrue per se, but it was VERY deliberately, VERY misleading. Same here.
Posted 11 months ago # -
So why d'you think they spent their time doing it then?
Something to do whilst eating doughnuts?
Posted 11 months ago # -
the bbc article headine tickled me most:
"Snacking clue to obesity epidemic
Posted 11 months ago # -
Picking out the ****-bits that will gain a knee jerk reaction is entirely misleading and ought to be banned
Absolutely.
Snacking clue to obesity epidemic
Well you could be comparing eating large meals and fasting in between to eating smaller meals and snacking inbetween.. That would seem a reasonable question.
In science, it's not sufficient to say 'well everyone knows that' - you have to actually do a study, even if it's 'common knowledge'. In doing that, often you can uncover new things.
Posted 11 months ago # -
Also pretty bloody obvious
Not really. It's perfectly plausible that the changes are due to the changes in types of foods consumed, rather than frequency or quantity.
That's why this kind of research is useful.
Posted 11 months ago # -
In science, it's not sufficient to say 'well everyone knows that' - you have to actually do a study, even if it's 'common knowledge'. In doing that, often you can uncover new things.
This seems to be the basis behind most of the
papersdross I reject from journals on a regular basis. Seeing as the other referees and editor usually agree, I guess I'm not the only one who's a little fed up with 'scientists' stating the obvious and expecting it to be published as novel work. What's worse is when it actually is, then gets some brainless press release over the top of it.Posted 11 months ago # -
I am surprised a population manages to be so fat on what seems a perfectly reasonable intake, roughly what the NHS recvommends. Now consider that 13-year old kids eat double that (I have living proof playing in the garden), active workers need 3000 + and some parts of the US are very cold in winter, I really suspect the figures are an underestimate.
Posted 11 months ago # -
If you actually bother to understand what the paper was about, the conclusion was not at all obvious.
Yes, it's obvious that "super sizing" and "snacking" will make you fat. That's not what this paper was about.
This paper investigated how people were coming to consume more calories than they did 30 years ago. Was it:
a) Eating bigger meals ("super sizing")
b) Eating more meals ("snacking")
c) Eating fattier foodIt's not at all obvious to me which of these factors it was. This paper concludes (a) and (b) have had a much bigger effect than (c).
Posted 11 months ago # -
I am surprised a population manages to be so fat on what seems a perfectly reasonable intake
Well, if the closest you get to exercise is the walk from your house to your car, it's not hard to see how your energy usage could be way less than that required by an active worker.
Posted 11 months ago # -
I am surprised a population manages to be so fat on what seems a perfectly reasonable intake, roughly what the NHS recvommends. Now consider that 13-year old kids eat double that (I have living proof playing in the garden), active workers need 3000 + and some parts of the US are very cold in winter, I really suspect the figures are an underestimate
Yeah, it's got more to do with calories burnt than consumed.My lad had a bf% of <10% (visible abs). He broke his foot playing football (actually while pissed celebrating their cup win). 6 weeks of enforced sofa sitting and he's up to >20% fat. Amusingly the day after the cast came off he raced in Mayhem. He didn't enjoy being a fat unfit git at all....
Anyway being active is far for significant than diet when it comes to being a chubby. IMO
Posted 11 months ago # -
I am surprised a population manages to be so fat on what seems a perfectly reasonable intake
Well the evidence is now clear that the NATURE of the calories consumed has a greater effect than the AMOUNT.
There was a link on here the other day about that.
Anyway being active is far for significant than diet when it comes to being a chubby. IMO
But not, IIRC, in the O of the Harvard scientists who studied this. Let me check...
Posted 11 months ago # -
Of course its bleeding obvious. Go to Ethiopia or Eritra during famine and spot the fat person. Obesity generally is a function of the intake exceeding the output. There may very well be underlying issues with mental health or whatever, but thats it, and I defy anyone to prove otherwise.
Posted 11 months ago # -
But not, IIRC, in the O of the Harvard scientists who studied this. Let me check...
So the Harvard scientists think calories in matters but calories out don't?Posted 11 months ago # -
OH FOR F**KS SAKE!
Calories in
Calories outPlease tell us everything that affects this magic calories out figure?
The scientists (poss not from Harvard I forget) suggested that diet was MORE important than exercise, not unimportant bloody obviously. You said that one was more important than the other, I disagreed, which in no way suggested that the other has zero importance.
Christ alive.
Go to Ethiopia or Eritra during famine and spot the fat person
Posted 11 months ago # -
A bit touchy today molgrips
Posted 11 months ago # -
Ok, I apologise for that.
But really.. sometimes people take the reasonable points you are trying to make and extrapolate them to nonsense, when really a sensible grown up discussion would be far better.
*sigh*
Posted 11 months ago # -
Ok, I apologise for that.
No need. Just didn't want you to have a heart attack
But really.. sometimes people take the reasonable points you are trying to make and extrapolate them to nonsense, when really a sensible grown up discussion would be far better.*sigh*
I don't doubt diet, as opposed to calories is significant too. Just not as significant as activity.I suspect if you look at the calorie intake of fatties and not fatties there won't be a huge difference. But when you look at their calories out there will be huge variations.
Or put it another way... you can eat any old crap if you're very active.
Posted 11 months ago # -
you can eat any old crap if you're very active
I can't. Trust me, I've been there.
The body is a very complicated system, with lots of inputs, outputs and many systems operating all the time, some in conflict, some in co-operation. It works differently in different people, and what's more it changes depending on what you eat. Couple that with psychological factors and you've got mayhem.
If you read the stories of people who've tried to lose weight on here (an active sport forum) you'll see all sorts of results from all sorts of different things. Sometimes people exercise and try to restrict calories and just can't do it; sometimes people just cut out pies and go biking twice a week and the weight goes. Some folk don't even have any excess weight to begin with regardless.
You've only got to look at skinny lazy people (of whom there are many) who fill their faces to see that it is NOT as simple as eat less, do more. High metabolism, you say? Why? What makes their metabolism high? High in what way? Where does the extra energy they eat go?
The most utterly damaging thing is when those who happen to be skinny think they know it all and pour scorn on 'fatties', or come on here and assume that you're filling your face and being a couch potato despite you telling them otherwise - because they think it's simple and you're stupid. We're not all stupid, you're the one being stupid, because it's not simple.
I wish I knew the proper name for this kind of argument. It's like saying that the shootings in LA are caused by all the guns. True, but completely useless because if you took away all the guns they'd find another way to murder each other of course.
*sigh*
Posted 11 months ago # -
Drink a pint of lucosade (~500 calories), now go for a ride for an hour (~500 calories).
Tomorow drink the same calories in olive oil and go ride.
The next day drink the same calories, but diesel, and go ride.
Calories in Vs Caloires out says you'd be the same weight after all 3.
"Fat is bad" would tell you that you'd weigh the most after the olive oil.
Common sense tells you you'd be dead after the diesel.
In reality (well my understanding of it), you'd lose the most weight on the olive oil diet. There's a study quoted in Ferris' book that compared 3 groups of dieters on 1000 calorie/day diets.
90% of calories from carbs put on weight (despite being in a supposed 1500calorie deficit).
90% calories from fat lost the most weight.
90% of calories from protein lost somewhere inbetween.
Posted 11 months ago # -
Quite right, tinas. Although I found out that study was done in 1956 and then was seemingly forgotten. Although I think some people doubted his methods.
Posted 11 months ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
