Question for Mu

Discussion in 'Food and nutrition' started by Luna, Dec 11, 2004.

  1. Luna

    Luna Guest

    Ok, Mu. You've told me that the majority of people who lose weight and
    keep it off do it without exercising. I've asked for a cite to back up
    that claim, and you've told me I'm not qualified to understand any studies
    on the subject because I'm not a scientist.

    My profession is child care. I have had quite a bit of training in this
    field, and I work at an after-school program. Parents sign the kids up at
    the beginning of the year, get all their paperwork in, and then pay at the
    end of each month based on how many days the kids actually came to the
    program. Our particular after-school program is being profiled on a
    national basis because we have the highest percentage of enrolled students
    in actual attendance.

    I am qualified to understand the statistics in the above scenario. What do
    I need to know that I don't know already to be able to understand a study
    about how many people exercise to help maintain weightloss? It's the same
    math concept. You look at two numbers and see which is bigger.

    --
    Michelle Levin
    http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick

    I have only 3 flaws. My first flaw is thinking that I only have 3 flaws.
     
    Tags:


  2. revek

    revek Guest

    Luna wrote:

    <snip>

    Any of the above that I do not know, I could look up and
    > learn. I have read from other sources that 95% of dieters regain the
    > weight they lost. I am skeptical of that statistic because I have
    > not read the original survey and I don't know how that number was
    > obtained. I've only seen that stat second-hand, usually as a preamble
    > to popular articles on why dieters fail. I am less skeptical because
    > I have seen that number repeated over and over, and if the
    > methodology used to obtain it were suspect, then a refutation would
    > have been publicized enough that it would be all over the place, on
    > the front page of newspapers, in women's magazines, and on tv news.


    The often quoted 95% statement is attributable to a
    psychiatrist named Albert Stunkard (who confirms the attribution-- and
    is astonished and dismayed by the abuse of his comment)
    and based on a big 100 patients he treated at his obesity clinic, back
    during the Eisenhower administration, not any actual study conducted
    to determine whether this is true or not.

    Read Gary Taube's article "The soft science of dietary fat"
    for a complete run down on the history of this piece of misinformation.

    --
    revek
    Troll motto #27: If you repeat things often enough, they become true. If you
    repeat things often enough, they become true. If you repeat things often
    enough, they become true.
     
  3. Roger Zoul

    Roger Zoul Guest

    ||
    || --
    || revek
    || Troll motto #27: If you repeat things often enough, they become
    || true. If you repeat things often enough, they become true. If you
    || repeat things often enough, they become true.

    That's more like a troll mantra!
     
  4. MU

    MU Guest

    On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 05:15:10 -0600, revek wrote:

    > The often quoted 95% statement is attributable to a
    > psychiatrist named Albert Stunkard...


    Stunkard may have done so but this is not my source.

    Now, get to work on my FAQ, revek.
     
  5. NEW STATISICS:

    According to the NewsGroup , (statistically speaking), most of us think
    your an asshole. And no-one needed a degree in Math to prove it....
    On your way troll...

    <plonk>
     
  6. revek

    revek Guest

    MU wrote:
    > On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 05:15:10 -0600, revek wrote:
    >
    > > The often quoted 95% statement is attributable to a
    > > psychiatrist named Albert Stunkard...

    >
    > Stunkard may have done so but this is not my source.



    1# For the last time, POST YOUR SOURCE or shut up already.

    > Now, get to work on my FAQ, revek.


    2# I don't do your faq, I just link to it.

    --
    revek
    I have a firm grip on reality. Now I can strangle it.
     
  7. MU

    MU Guest

    On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 13:41:30 -0600, revek wrote:

    >> Stunkard may have done so but this is not my source.

    >
    > 1# For the last time, POST YOUR SOURCE or shut up already.


    I don't play the "research" game with ppl that can't tell the difference
    between good and bad research. See Luna on this. Google is your friend.

    >> Now, get to work on my FAQ, revek.

    >
    > 2# I don't do your faq, I just link to it.


    It's dishonest of you to link to an out of date FAQ and you could easily
    add the additional data. But noooooooooooo, you only want to deal in half
    truths and such.

    Now, get to work on my FAQ, revek. Or shut up already.
     
  8. revek

    revek Guest

    MU wrote:
    > On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 13:41:30 -0600, revek wrote:
    >
    > > > Stunkard may have done so but this is not my source.

    > >
    > > 1# For the last time, POST YOUR SOURCE or shut up already.

    >
    > I don't play the "research" game with ppl that can't tell the
    > difference between good and bad research. See Luna on this. Google is
    > your friend.


    I think you spend too much time looking in the mirror and projecting your
    faults onto other people.

    > > > Now, get to work on my FAQ, revek.

    > >
    > > 2# I don't do your faq, I just link to it.

    >
    > It's dishonest of you to link to an out of date FAQ and you could
    > easily add the additional data. But noooooooooooo, you only want to
    > deal in half truths and such.


    Keep your day job, you're not that funny as a comedian.


    > Now, get to work on my FAQ, revek. Or shut up already.


    Bite me.


    --
    revek
    Don't ever think you know what's right for the other guy.
    He might start thinking he knows what's right for you.
     
  9. MU

    MU Guest


    >> It's dishonest of you to link to an out of date FAQ and you could
    >> easily add the additional data. But noooooooooooo, you only want to
    >> deal in half truths and such.


    On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 13:58:40 -0600, revek wrote:

    > Keep your day job, you're not that funny as a comedian.


    I was being truthful not comedic.

    >> Now, get to work on my FAQ, revek. Or shut up already.


    On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 13:58:40 -0600, revek wrote:

    > Bite me.


    Snappy comeback. Don't you have work to do? Data, updates, please.
     
  10. MU

    MU Guest


    >> I don't play the "research" game with ppl that can't tell the
    >> difference between good and bad research. See Luna on this. Google is
    >> your friend.


    On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 13:58:40 -0600, revek wrote:

    > I think you spend too much time looking in the mirror and projecting your
    > faults onto other people.


    I don't think, I know you are clueless,
     
  11. ">> I don't play the "research" game with ppl that can't tell the
    >> difference between good and bad research. See Luna on this. Google is
    >> your friend.


    And what of those, like Andrew, who can tell the difference but is unable
    to bring himself to admit his failure to support his claims on the diet?
     
  12. [email protected] wrote:
    >
    > ">> I don't play the "research" game with ppl that can't tell the
    > >> difference between good and bad research. See Luna on this. Google is
    > >> your friend.

    >
    > And what of those, like Andrew, who can tell the difference but is unable
    > to bring himself to admit his failure to support his claims on the diet?



    It remains my choice to write truthfully.

    Such is the work being done here for Christ's glory
    (http://makeashorterlink.com/?U1E13130A).


    Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

    Andrew

    --
    Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
    Board-Certified Cardiologist
    http://www.heartmdphd.com/

    **
    Who is the humblest person in the universe?
    http://makeashorterlink.com/?L26062048

    What is all this about?
    http://makeashorterlink.com/?K6F72510A

    Is this spam?
    http://makeashorterlink.com/?D13B21FF9
     
  13. "on't play the "research" game with ppl that can't tell the
    erence between good and bad research. See Luna on this. Google is
    friend.

    t of those, like Andrew, who can tell the difference but is unable
    g himself to admit his failure to support his claims on the diet?

    It remains my choice to write truthfully."

    And as we continue our work jointly, you can also say you write so as to
    make the diet valid and complete. Your first intresting observation was
    intresting, and true, but not complete as to best and effective
    application. Let us do pray God that we not fall into the sins of
    ommission in the pursuit of truth.
     
Loading...