Question for Mu



L

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.
 
R

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.
 
R

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!
 
M

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.
 
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>
 
R

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.
 
M

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.
 
R

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.
 
M

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.
 
M

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,
 
">> 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?
 
D

Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD

Guest
[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
 
"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.