who are these women?
d pantz

Portage, MI

#85 May 3, 2014
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
People are not statistics. One does not succumb to risk factors simply because the statistics say so.
Exactly. Some people eat when stressed. Some people starve themselves. Some people drink.
Also some people are big their whole lives. Others can eat 4000 calories a day and not gain a pound.
I argue the report is incomplete. They should've found a group of women who were told they're ugly or have a big nose and see if that "causes obesity" too.
d pantz

Portage, MI

#86 May 3, 2014
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't believe that the study being referred to drew a conclusion that obesity was "caused" by young girls being told they were fat.
I think the conclusions drawn were that there when other suspected risk factors were identified and controlled for, there was a distinct correlation between later obesity and being told as a teenager they were fat.
So, yeah, its that kind of thing. There's a lot more science behind the math of statistics than you seem to understand.
woof
great! Since you're so sciency , mathy and you don't have any problems opening the file trans linked, why don't you tell us how many of the women who ended up obese that didn't have a weight problem at age ten yet were called "fat"? Next tell us how many of those have no history of weight problems in their family?Finally, oh wise one, how many of the girls who were told they were "fat" at age ten were actually overweight?
Urinal Deuce for Mayor

Portage, MI

#88 May 3, 2014
d pantz wrote:
<quoted text> great! Since you're so sciency , mathy and you don't have any problems opening the file trans linked, why don't you tell us how many of the women who ended up obese that didn't have a weight problem at age ten yet were called "fat"? Next tell us how many of those have no history of weight problems in their family?Finally, oh wise one, how many of the girls who were told they were "fat" at age ten were actually overweight?
No. I'm only good at claiming others don't understand math and science. I don't actually understand it myself, besides I didn't read the report either.
flush (woof)
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#89 May 3, 2014
d pantz wrote:
<quoted text> great! Since you're so sciency , mathy and you don't have any problems opening the file trans linked, why don't you tell us how many of the women who ended up obese that didn't have a weight problem at age ten yet were called "fat"? Next tell us how many of those have no history of weight problems in their family?Finally, oh wise one, how many of the girls who were told they were "fat" at age ten were actually overweight?
Go find the conclusions of that study and read them yourself, you idiot.

And while you're doing that, look up the definition of the term "dataset".

woof
d pantz

United States

#90 May 3, 2014
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
Go find the conclusions of that study and read them yourself, you idiot.
And while you're doing that, look up the definition of the term "dataset".
woof
I tried and all I can access are articles and not the "dataset". My guess is the dataset doesn't support the claim of the report like trans says it does. A better evaluation would probably just conclude that depression causes some people overeat and not others. I totally agree with that and there are many studies that have already been done that show the same thing. But trying to point at those numbers and say calling people "fat" makes them obese is asinine. How would they know the word "fat" triggered it? Maybe someone called them ugly too. How many calories are in the word "ugly" compared to the word "fat"? Is one more likely to make a woman obese than the other? Would calling a girl "stupid" increase their chances of becoming obese? The report makes a direct link to overeating and depression....
d pantz

United States

#91 May 3, 2014
Pope Che Reagan Christ I wrote:
<quoted text>
Knock it off.
no really. My antivirus software on my computer won't let me open the file...
d pantz

United States

#92 May 3, 2014
A similar study was done on alpacas. Everyday they fed 4000 calories to 5000 alpacas all of age of two years yet various heights , weights, and incomes. The animals were also taunted and called fat daily. The published report concluded from the datsets was that calling an alpaca a "fat lard" contributes to its obesity more than the overeating. Don't argue, its science.
d pantz

United States

#93 May 3, 2014
d pantz

United States

#94 May 3, 2014
Typo, that's 40000 calories in the alpaca diet
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#96 May 3, 2014
d pantz wrote:
<quoted text> I tried and all I can access are articles and not the "dataset". My guess is the dataset doesn't support the claim of the report like trans says it does.
Go look up the definition of the term "dataset". Its not surprising at all that you haven't looked at it, and think that it contains conclusions. It does not.
d pantz wrote:
<quoted text>A better evaluation would probably just conclude that depression causes some people overeat and not others. I totally agree with that and there are many studies that have already been done that show the same thing.


The above sentence by itself demonstrates your complete lack of comprehension of how statistical analysis works.
d pantz wrote:
<quoted text>But trying to point at those numbers and say calling people "fat" makes them obese is asinine.
That's not what the study concluded.
d pantz wrote:
<quoted text>How would they know the word "fat" triggered it? Maybe someone called them ugly too. How many calories are in the word "ugly" compared to the word "fat"? Is one more likely to make a woman obese than the other? Would calling a girl "stupid" increase their chances of becoming obese?
All excellent questions. Perhaps you can design the dataset that could be used to expand on the issues and study those questions.

woof
d pantz

United States

#97 May 3, 2014
Douchy, none of the numbers prove that being called "fat" complicates insulin response to carbohydrates, or causes calories to be forced into your body. Yet the study concluded that simply being called 'fat' makes young girls more likely to become obese. The numbers do not prove that. They prove that people get depressed when they are told derogatory things about themselves. I don't need a new dataset to know that, I could use the one they did and draw what I think is a more reasonable conclusion.
d pantz

United States

#98 May 3, 2014
Pope Che Reagan Christ I wrote:
<quoted text>
That's weird considering you are posting over and over about what you claim to have read in the file. I think you have an issue with telling the truth.
notice that when I did, I asked questions and didn't really make statements. I claim to have read huff post and a few articles which don't really delve into the number too much. I wonder why?
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#100 May 3, 2014
Pope Che Reagan Christ I wrote:
<quoted text>
What?
It seems that you are either lying about not being able to open the file or lying about reading it.
ooopsy.

woof

“Meh.”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#101 May 3, 2014
So, I post the raw PDF of the whole of the dataset for the study and collection notes.

You then post:
d pantz wrote:
<quoted text> let's skip that. Now, numbers/statistics I asked for? They're not included in your link,you dummy.
d pantz wrote:
<quoted text> you still draw the wrong conclusions from the data. Great job! Lmao!
d pantz wrote:
<quoted text> you still draw the wrong conclusions from the data. Great job! Lmao!
Even though you never viewed the document!
d pantz wrote:
<quoted text> no really. My antivirus software on my computer won't let me open the file...
Then go on to further detail what the numbers in the dataset do an do not include, though you've never bothered to look at any of the numbers or data
d pantz wrote:
Douchy, none of the numbers prove that being called "fat" complicates insulin response to carbohydrates, or causes calories to be forced into your body. Yet the study concluded that simply being called 'fat' makes young girls more likely to become obese. The numbers do not prove that. They prove that people get depressed when they are told derogatory things about themselves. I don't need a new dataset to know that, I could use the one they did and draw what I think is a more reasonable conclusion.
I'm trying very hard to be openminded and helpful but think that it might be best for someone in your specific situation to go easy on calling people who have accessed and understood portions of the data (I don't think anyone's going to go through the full set of raw data) morons.

“Meh.”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#102 May 3, 2014
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
The data do not say which (or which combination) of many possible factors caused a certain outcome. Statistics are useful for some things. This isn't one of them.
At no point does the study claim causation. If you see a scientific study that has an "a causes b" conclusion, you're not looking at a real scientific study. Hack news write ups of studies will often phrase conclusions in the style, though even the on posed by the OP has failed to do so.

As dpants quoted from the Huffington Post:
d pantz wrote:
" Young girls who grow up being told they're "too fat" have a greater chance of becoming obese. That's according to a new long-term study by psychology researchers at UCLA. Researchers weighed girls at age 10 and again at age 19, and found that the odds of being obese as a young woman increased if someone had labeled the participant "too fat" by the time she was 10. They also found a participant's likelihood of being obese increased as more people told her she was too fat."
Which is quite nice, having the media story state the study's results in language easily read by the public but without simplifying the results to read as a "a causes b" statement which would distort the real results.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#103 May 3, 2014
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't believe that the study being referred to drew a conclusion that obesity was "caused" by young girls being told they were fat.
I think the conclusions drawn were that there when other suspected risk factors were identified and controlled for, there was a distinct correlation between later obesity and being told as a teenager they were fat.
So, yeah, its that kind of thing. There's a lot more science behind the math of statistics than you seem to understand.
woof
If it's not attempting to find a causation, the study is useless. If it attempts but fails to provide a causation, it's just as useless. Slapping the name "study" on it doesn't make it any better than the mere anecdotes you consistently put down.
d pantz

United States

#104 May 3, 2014
Pope Che Reagan Christ I wrote:
<quoted text>
What?
It seems that you are either lying about not being able to open the file or lying about reading it.
nope. I downloaded it but cannot open it. But since you have such easy access just cut and paste the numbers. The numbers I do quote, if any, are from the HUFFINGTON POST. And they got their info (mostly lack of) from the report. All this back and forth about me lying could be easily avoided if you geniuses would just paste the numbers you claim are in the report.
d pantz

United States

#105 May 3, 2014
So che, you seem to not be able to understand that I read a article and can't access the report through either of the links that trans provided.
d pantz

United States

#106 May 3, 2014
tranpsosition wrote:
<quoted text>
At no point does the study claim causation. If you see a scientific study that has an "a causes b" conclusion, you're not looking at a real scientific study. Hack news write ups of studies will often phrase conclusions in the style, though even the on posed by the OP has failed to do so.
As dpants quoted from the Huffington Post:
<quoted text>
Which is quite nice, having the media story state the study's results in language easily read by the public but without simplifying the results to read as a "a causes b" statement which would distort the real results.
which is the wrong conclusion to draw from the given data in the article. It does however reaffirm what previous studies have concluded about depression.
You're lucky I have IBS and have so much toilet time to post today.
d pantz

United States

#107 May 3, 2014
A new study has been done. Girls at age ten of all shapes and sizes from the united states were asked if they have been told their outfit doest match. Later at age 19 they had a physical and mental evaluation and the study concluded that the girls who were told they're outfit didn't match where 5 times more likely to be obese and have mental issues. Don't argue, its science.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Columbus Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Ohio AG Mike DeWine enters 2018 race for govern... 11 min RuffnReddy 33
Bernie Sanders And Wife Under Investigation 15 min Old Vet 11
News How often should we keep reviving overdosed dru... 29 min Old Vet 16
Erase ObamaCare, It Doesn't Work, Its Unaffordable 31 min Repeal ObamaCare Now 10
Health Care/The Wall 36 min Elerby 129
News UberEATS, McDonald's offering delivery in Pitts... 53 min billybee 2
Robert Mueller Investigating Donald Trump 1 hr Batch 37 Pain Is ... 202

Columbus Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Columbus Mortgages