quote:
And I was all like 'Oh yeah?' and `Doc was all like:
No, the fact that they changed the standard makes it useless for comparing differences over time. Fifteen years ago, the normal weight range for men my height was 125-175 lbs. Now it's 125-154 lbs. This means that my current weight was considered healthy, but is now considered overweight. While it is likely that the average American weighs more now than he/she did 25 years ago, it cannot be discerned what portion of the statistical change comes from the change in standards as opposed to the change in people.
I hadn't realized that the US had changed it's guidelines to match up with WHO guidelines, actually. Assuming that the data was recalculated poorly, it would explain most of the increase on overweight individuals, but not the massive increase in obese individuals. However, they should still have a database of actual BMI values that they could effectively compare with recent BMI values. The method of calculating BMI has never changed, just the classification of "overweight". I will admit that the studies I've seen didn't note whether the compared groups labelled as "overweight" were compared with the same classification system, but I would highly suspect that they were as the studies have been done by reputable sources (WHO, CDC, etc).
I can't really prove it, but it is statistically unlikely that there has been only a minor increase in overweight people and a massive increase in obese individuals. It's also very unlikely that well-preformed studies would fail to account for the changed classification systems. Inferno-Spirit fucked around with this message on 12-09-2006 at 01:57 PM.
In other words, the margin of error was greater than the statistical findings. In still other words, the study was not statistically meaningful, by their own admission.
Ascherio-Willett apparently has a long standing history of stating conclusions as fact when the stastical findings are anything but conclusive.
So not only is this nanny-state fascism at it's finest, it's also a case of building federal policy around junk science in order to appease various pressure groups. Maradon! fucked around with this message on 12-10-2006 at 12:13 AM.
quote:
Maradon! had this to say about (_|_):
Not that it matters, but it turns out that the ban was based around a study conducted by Ascherio-Willett in which the conclusion they drew (that trans fats were dangerous) was derived from a range of results within the margin of error.In other words, the margin of error was greater than the statistical findings. In still other words, the study was not statistically meaningful, by their own admission.
Ascherio-Willett apparently has a long standing history of stating conclusions as fact when the stastical findings are anything but conclusive.
So not only is this nanny-state fascism at it's finest, it's also a case of building federal policy around junk science in order to appease various pressure groups.
Refering to Stephen Milloy on matters of scientific integrity is like refering to Fred Phelps on matters of religious tolerance. He's a latter-day Trofim Lysenko.
quote:
Bent over the coffee table, Pvednes squealed:
Refering to Stephen Milloy on matters of scientific integrity is like refering to Fred Phelps on matters of religious tolerance. He's a latter-day Trofim Lysenko.
That's an ad hominem argument that does nothing at all to debunk Maradon!'s claim.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage thought about the meaning of life:
That's an ad hominem argument that does nothing at all to debunk Maradon!'s claim.
It was merely an observation.
I actually agree with Maradon, in that banning trans-fats is a ridiculous idea--it's impossible to entirely ban trans-fats in foods without banning all amimal-based foodstuffs and many processed plant-based foodstuffs. It's not even a carcinogen.
It's just very, very difficult to agree with Maradon. He's right, but he got there in entirely the wrong way.
Stephen Milloy and Trofim Lysenko really would have found a great deal in common with eachother. They'd never admit it, though. Pvednes fucked around with this message on 12-10-2006 at 10:06 AM.
quote:
Pvednesing:
Refering to Stephen Milloy on matters of scientific integrity is like refering to Fred Phelps on matters of religious tolerance. He's a latter-day Trofim Lysenko.
Ok then, at the bottom of this table you can see the actual, numerical figures.
Also, I'm curious what confidence interval their results are based on; I couldn't find it on the page you linked. In fact, only two of the studies had 1 in their risk ratio CI, and the interval extended well above 1 in both. The Kromhout study appears to be quite conclusive, with a p<0.001.
At any rate, like I said, it's irrelevant anyway, because here in America we don't point a gun at our neighbor and tell him how to live his life.
Edit: Just to be clear, only 2 of those were inconclusive, with risk ratio CI including 0. The others were statistically significant, not inconclusive. Noxhil2 fucked around with this message on 12-10-2006 at 05:46 PM.
quote:The standard weight limits for obesity were adjusted simultaneously with thsoe for being overweight. Otherwise the weight difference between normal weight and obesity would have been as low as 7%. I don't know what the old limits were for obesity, because I never weighed enough to care.
Inferno-Spirit really knows where their towel is...
I hadn't realized that the US had changed it's guidelines to match up with WHO guidelines, actually. Assuming that the data was recalculated poorly, it would explain most of the increase on overweight individuals, but not the massive increase in obese individuals.
quote:Reputable sources performing the studies may or may not have foreseen the change in standards (and thus the need to retain detailed records to allow for recalculation), and any alarmist could easily reference the statistical change while omitting any mention of the contributing change in standards. I'm not saying the data isn't still out there, but that it may be difficult to find, and is often ignored by those who would not benefit from it.
However, they should still have a database of actual BMI values that they could effectively compare with recent BMI values. The method of calculating BMI has never changed, just the classification of "overweight". I will admit that the studies I've seen didn't note whether the compared groups labelled as "overweight" were compared with the same classification system, but I would highly suspect that they were as the studies have been done by reputable sources (WHO, CDC, etc).
quote:See my comments above. The only way to tell for certain whether the study compensated for the change in standards is to confirm when the standards change occurred, and look for a spike in overweight/obese individuals during that interval.
I can't really prove it, but it is statistically unlikely that there has been only a minor increase in overweight people and a massive increase in obese individuals. It's also very unlikely that well-preformed studies would fail to account for the changed classification systems.
The CDC's statisical data by state from 1985-2004 (PDF)
The second link notes, specifically, that obesity is considered a BMI of over 30 for each year. Inferno-Spirit fucked around with this message on 12-10-2006 at 10:58 PM.
The point is that there is some evidence of a link with heart disease, but to suggest banning it--a component of food, not even an additive--on that basis is just stupid.
nem-x fucked around with this message on 12-11-2006 at 02:14 AM.
