archenemy Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 No chicken fuckers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 Sounds like you are the one trying to discredit the vast body of research into obesity, which consists of far more than a single paper in a middling journal, because it doesn't conform to your disposition to believe that society is always to blame for the problems of individuals. Â You seem particularly logic-challenged this afternoon. Â First, I have not attempted to discredit any science. I am only countering those who spout off and attempt to discredit a scientific study only because it conflicts with their preconceived notions. Â Second, even if I did believe society is to blame for obesity, how would arguing that a virus is the culprit further that agenda? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted February 1, 2006 Author Share Posted February 1, 2006 Â Not as healthy as he thinks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dechristo Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 Was "Anorexia" the name of the 16yo snowboarder chick? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fear_and_greed Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 I totally agree with JayB, which is a scary thought. If you don't eat, you will lose weight. Ask Gandi. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 He's dead. Â and that's not healthy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 I agree with that statement too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 I really don't have the time to do the point by point thing here, but I'd be glad to bet $100 that in 5 years, the notion that the primary causal factor in increasing obesity is a contagious virus, will have been thoroughly discredited. You send me a signed, undated check for $100, I'll do the same, and the winner can cash it in 5 years or when this claim is refuted - whichever comes first. Â Still didn't hear anything convincing with respect to the curious respect that this virus has for arbitrary geographic borders. Genetically identical populations, equally susceptible to any given virus, yet vastly different rates of obesity. Put the Pima on the Rez south of the border in a situation where they have to work in the field and live off of beans and rice and they'll suddenly kick the virus and become immune to it for as long as they stay in the field. Â With regards to the chicken study, I guarantee you if they put these chickens in calorimeters, and quantify the total calories consumed by each bird, and then account for heat loss, waste excreted in every form - liquid, solid, gas - and then weigh the chickens, they'll find that the law of conservation of energy is still in effect. They clearly didn't do this, so much hunch is that the virus did something to alter the energy expenditure in the infected bird, perhaps it made them more lethargic so they moved less or whatever. I imagine you could do a human trial where you took identical twins and infected one of the two with mono, the one with mono would probably gain more weight even though their diet was identical. Were the laws of physics turned on their head, or did the one with mono expend less energy? Even if you were able to demonstrate a statistically solid link between mono and weight gain, going on to claim that mono is a primary determinant of obesity and explains the hitherto unparalleled climb in rates of obesity would be just a bit much. Â Ignoring changes in diet and activity and claiming a virus is the primary determinant of escalating rates of obesity is about as convincing as arguing that one can explain the dramatic increases in literacy by means of a virus that's endemic to school-houses. Â It's also funny that you are reverting to the "you get all of your knowlegde about science from Rush Limbaugh" business, when I have a BS in Biochem and work in basic research, in virology, and your expertise is in statistics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted February 1, 2006 Author Share Posted February 1, 2006 How come you have a BSc and yet don't understand what metabolic rate is? Â Two chickens - fed same - exercised same - virus one one fatter. Two twins - one with virus fatter. Â Hmmmm? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 Where does one apply for the chicken-weigher job? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted February 1, 2006 Author Share Posted February 1, 2006 In ol' Kentuck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Flash_Amazing Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 In ol' Kentuck. Â Ah, yes, at the esteemed Kentucky Institute of Poultry Science. Check with HR in the Weights and Measures Bureau. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 How come you have a BSc and yet don't understand what metabolic rate is? Â Two chickens - fed same - exercised same - virus one one fatter. Two twins - one with virus fatter. Â Hmmmm? Â So then claim is that the virus permanently lowers the basal metabolic rate of the host? Is this what they measured in the study? BMR? Even if this is true in chickens, you are confident that this explains the variations in obesity throughout the world in genetically identical populations better than variations diet or excercise? Â Maybe the virus is spread through deep fat friers, and this explains the geographic distribution in the United States, which is heavily skewed towards the south. Maybe it also proliferates in the material in pews in Baptist Churches? There is a correlation there. Must be a cause. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Flash_Amazing Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 I really don't have the time to do the point by point thing here, but I'd be glad to bet $100 that in 5 years, the notion that the primary causal factor in increasing obesity is a contagious virus, will have been thoroughly discredited. You send me a signed, undated check for $100, I'll do the same, and the winner can cash it in 5 years or when this claim is refuted - whichever comes first. Â Is it just DFA, or is this the lamest dork-brain idea ever? Like, elementary school, lunchboxes-and-comic books, my-dad-can-beat-up-your-dad lame. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 Seems like an easy $100 to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Flash_Amazing Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 Seems like making 5-year bets over the internet for a hundred dollars is a lame idea. But, suit yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted February 1, 2006 Author Share Posted February 1, 2006 He's banking on the fact that in 5 years $100 in American dollars will be worth about 50 cents Canadian. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 Oh, so you have scientific credentials. Demonstrate your knowledge. Â 1. Explain the difference between these two phrases: Â a) "a causal factor", b) "the primary causal factor". Â 2. Suppose a virus causes a chicken to move about less, which in turn alters the chicken's lipid profile. a) Did the chicken gain weight? b) Does this mean the virus did not affect the chicken's lipid profile? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
underworld Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 arguing about fat chickens... maybe chaps IS on to something here Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 1. Explain the purpose of this discussion: a)purely academic b)pissing contest online  Suppose others found this mildly amusing: a)everyone but me is wrong b)they are all morons Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 I suck  HOLY SHIT!! ROTFL!!! HA HA HA HA!!!   (How's that? more your style?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 Right there with ya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted February 1, 2006 Author Share Posted February 1, 2006 This thread is Chicken Fat Virus For The Soul Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 Oh, so you have scientific credentials. Demonstrate your knowledge. 1. Explain the difference between these two phrases:  a) "a causal factor", b) "the primary causal factor".  2. Suppose a virus causes a chicken to move about less, which in turn alters the chicken's lipid profile. a) Did the chicken gain weight? b) Does this mean the virus did not affect the chicken's lipid profile?  Whether it's a primary causal factor or a causal factor, it's clear that diet an excercise override any effect this particular virus could have. Take the infected twin, then cut one twin's diet in half and put him on a treadmill for an hour a day, and eventually he'll weigh less than his identical twin who's not infected. Take the virus out of this scenario and nothing changes.  Its still a massive leap of faith to posit the virus as a causal factor in the mounting obesity epidemic in humans when the distribution of obesity is clearly much more closely correlated with dietary and lifestyle habits.  I hate to bring up these poor folks again, but Google the Pima indians and check out their genetically identical kinsmen in Mexico, then compare rates of obesity. All things being equal, there should be equal rates of obesity amongst the two populations as they are bound to be equal in their susceptibility to a particular viral infection.  The virus may be correlated with a variety of things in Chickens that result in a lower BMR, but noting that a viral infection alters a chicken's activity level, which results in entirely predictable changes in body composition, is quite a bit less earth-shattering a claim than "Virus Causes Obesity!"  This is all getting a bit tiresome, so I will pull up the original article and see what they actually claim, and what they posit for a mechanism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.