Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Reelya]

The aspirin thing was notable because it wasn't misuse by the patients, it was mass deaths caused by using the drug as doctors and the medical establishment were actively promoting - 1 aspirin a day for seniors at risk of stroke (since it thins the blood). This lead to 30000 people dying per year of internal bleeding (it thins the blood and also damages stomach / intestinal lining).

I'm not saying "misuse" is the wrong term per se, but it carries strong connotations of "not using as directed" thus shifting the blame to the consumer, and away from the person giving you the drug or promoting the "1 aspirin a day" advice.

[Frumple]

Yeah, more institutional misuse than individual misuse -- using a thing to solve one problem (it works!) without awareness or understanding that it was causing another (it works... among other things). That's the basic problem with riding on experimental results without understanding the processes involved. Is why "it works" isn't sufficient justification. It's necessary justification, but not sufficient. The sufficient part includes things like "Isn't going to turn patient's future offspring into goo."

It's all medical (or sociological, or whatever) miracles until you or your partner gives birth to a sentient slime. Then it is also medical miracles, but of a considerably different sort.

[Reelya]

Well, if you don't know why something work, but know from experimental data that it does, why should you be afraid to use it? After all, we only figured out how aspirin work a few years ago.

I'll also note "a few years ago" is also about the time when they told everyone stop taking so much aspirin because it's more likely to kill you than help you. We figured out how it works, and also realized "oops!" about the same time.

[Phmcw]

Hate speech is, I belive, speech that is either  similar to slander agaisnt a group or to calling for a hit against a group, and prosecutable on the same ground.

It's either something like "black peoples are inferiors" which is false and damaging to their reputation, so pretty much slander, or "kill all muslims" which is a call for violence against peoples which is illegal in itself.

Hate speech law are a framework that is usefull to help the prosecution of those acts.

[GrizzlyAdamz]

(huh, TIL aspirin blocks COX-1 & can lead to ulcers.
On that tangent, a health-related anti-establishment documentary: Fathead. The subject is the lipid hypothesis & diet. It's pretty low-budget, and it isn't a flawless presentation by any stretch, but it's got some good info & a certain charm. Check it out if you've got the time.
First half hour is kinda lame & focused on debunking 'Supersize Me'.)

[Phmcw]

Just started it... 2min47 in this seems to be a documentary about how he misunderstood dieteticians. I'll keep watching.

The first thing he missed is that fat is said to be bad for two reasons : the first is that cholesterol plug veins and atreries so it looked like high fat diet is a bad thing (but it seems to be more complicated than that), the second is that it is calory dense, and therefore that it's easy to eat 5000 calories if you eat fatty food. Try eating 5000 calories of lettuce!


It could also be addictive, and it seems it is.

Edit : then he proceed to vicoulsy murder a strawman. But of course, advertizing budget mean nothing, right?


About bmi and obesity, he explain it all by the change of definition of the BMI and ignore all subsectent growth. And of course, american are all buff as hell because they have more than 5 more point on the BMI average than the French for instance.

I quit, he's unable to be even a bit logical.

[GrizzlyAdamz]

Ah well, he actually does a decent review of cholesterol & heart disease.
He also seems to be something of a libertarian- regarding 'it's easy to eat too many calories' I think his opinion would be 'people know it's high-calorie food when they eat it, (he even does street-side interviews about this), and what with their being consenting, informed adults, changing their mind about it is none of our business'. (20 minutes in)
Further, the 5000-calorie thing is Spurlock literally stuffing himself. It's not so easy to hit that, as shown in the first half-hour. (15 minutes in)

'Addiction' was also one of the topics he rails against, to the point I even thought it was annoying. But I agree with him- No, it isn't addictive, that has a definition dude.

Which Strawman? (I'd not be surprised if there are several.)

He's pointing out BMI isn't a good measure, & the 'EPIDEMIC!' craze happened the same time the definition was changed. (44 minutes in)
Also, the documentary puts the cause of any BMI growth on our growing inactivity & what we eat between meals- snacks & high-fructose drinks. (28 minutes in) And also demographic changes. (48 minutes)
-Worth noting, one of my beefs with the documentary is right around that second spot. He claims minorities are genetically predisposed to being overweight. I'd need to cross-check that relationship with income-to-BMI before accepting it.

~50:00 is where it really starts to hit its stride.

[Reelya]

Seeing things in a linear "lose weight / gain weight" dichotomy is a bit narrow too though (whichever video you watch). What type of weight is gained/lost? Muscle or fat?

One of the reasons for yo-yo dieting is that crash diets tend to burn a lot more muscle than they do fat. That's why good diet sites always suggest a gradual, small caloric deficit. The body burns bodyfat if there's not enough carbs/fat in the diet, but if the deficit is too much, it reduces fat burning and switches to protein burning, i.e. burns muscle tissue for energy. Which is BAD, but dieters think "I lost so much weight, SO COOL!", and when they start eating a proper amount of calories again the body is actually in a muscle-poor state and prioritizes rebuilding the stores of lean muscle tissues (a lot of the lost weight is water inside the tissues too), so you get a rapid increased in weight. But it's largely rebuilding important tissues that were withered away during the starvation period, yet people freak out about how they "put the fat back on". Hint: because you didn't excercise or do anything to prevent muscle loss during your diet, you didn't lose that much fat in the first place.

You could lose weight on a fast-food diet like the video says, but you're probably not getting enough protein to prevent muscle breakdown.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The alternative is to just never stop having a severe exercise program, but of course such vigorous activity is bound to build energy-hungry muscle tissue anyway.

[GrizzlyAdamz]

@Reelya
His fast food diet didn't include fries & I think he even skipped out on buns sometimes. Said he kept carb intake to 100g/day.
Which makes me think he'd get plenty of protein.
-Looking at a freeze frame, yeah he got about the same amount of protein, 100g/day. & about 50g of saturated fat.

I'm also pretty sure he lost his weight much more quickly than spurlock who 'followed an ultra-vegan purifying diet'. Came out to..12lbs. According to the pre-diet math it should have been 7.5lbs, which would have been the upper end of the 'optimal' weight loss of 1-2lbs/week.

His cholesterol was still good too. Not as great as before his diet, but it's not like a fast-food diet is the best way to eat.
Last 10 minutes or so if you want to see the result stuff.

[scriver]

I'm not sure what your definition of addictive is that sugar can't apply to. Sugar is fairly addictive and can come in both "bad habitualisation" and "drug-like" kinds.

[GrizzlyAdamz]

I am very skeptical when it comes to throwing that word around in the absence of strong withdrawal effects.
I'd have to see the research notes & particularly their controls.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Heh, but now that I think of it, I think the use of that word has become a pet peeve of mine.
I find it insulting to anyone & everyone that partakes in whatever substance/activity that's being ascribed addictive properties- eating, playing, watching, reading, what have you. It implies both a lack of self-control in the consumers and an adverse property in the subject,  and worse yet its annoying overuse in headlines has inserted it into the popular lexicon.
Nowadays it really irks me when someone exclaims 'I'M ADDICTED TO [BLAH]!' or 'THIS [BLAH] IS ADDICTING!'.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

One guess which one of my behaviors is addiction-scapegoated & always succeeds in rustling my jimmies.

Have any sugar studies on hand?

[Sheb]

Sample size of 1, no blinding? That doesn't sound like a study at all to me.

[Helgoland]

I am very skeptical when it comes to throwing that word around in the absence of strong withdrawal effects.

So cocaine isn't addictive?
There's psychological dependence as well as physical dependence, you know.

[Putnam]

Sample size of 1, no blinding? That doesn't sound like a study at all to me.

Plus, my only experience with that anecdote is my mother... doing that very successfully.