chucK Posted February 1, 2006 Posted February 1, 2006 You guys who are just rejecting this out of hand are funny. Any of you actually read the article or the study? Not much different than the Bushies, really. Think about this next time you rail at Bushco for ignoring scientists about global warming. Quote
DirtyHarry Posted February 1, 2006 Posted February 1, 2006 Well, Chuck, I don't think anyone here has Fortune 500 energy company executives telling them how to think about the fat virus study. Quote
chucK Posted February 1, 2006 Posted February 1, 2006 OK, so maybe Bush has an evil motive for being uninquisitive. What's yours? Quote
DirtyHarry Posted February 1, 2006 Posted February 1, 2006 Probably my general opinion / bias that most fat people are looking for an excuse as to why being fat isn't their fault. Plus such a conclusion seems somewhat contrary to common sense. Quote
chucK Posted February 1, 2006 Posted February 1, 2006 Right! Bias/general opinion versus science. Sounds like "Earth is the center of the universe/solar system". Even if one accepts as fact that "most fat people are looking for an excuse as to why being fat isn't their fault", does that in any way invalidate the theory? All you get with that argument is a completely unsubstantiated smear of the scientists. Again, this is much like the politicians. "I don't like that conclusion, must be some scientist with an agenda." Quote
archenemy Posted February 1, 2006 Posted February 1, 2006 Right! Sounds like "Earth is the center of the universe/solar system". Even if one accepts as fact that "most fat people are looking for an excuse as to why being fat isn't their fault", does that in any way invalidate the theory? Yo mama so fat, she got smaller fat women in orbit around her. Quote
DirtyHarry Posted February 1, 2006 Posted February 1, 2006 so, have YOU read the study of which we speak, Mr. Science? Quote
JayB Posted February 1, 2006 Posted February 1, 2006 You guys who are just rejecting this out of hand are funny. Any of you actually read the article or the study? Not much different than the Bushies, really. Think about this next time you rail at Bushco for ignoring scientists about global warming. I don't know that it's always necessary to immerse oneself in the minutia of a particular claim to doubt it's validity. The first problem with the fat-virus claim lies with thermodynamics. The only way in which it is physically possible to gain weight is to consume more calories than one expends. End of story. The second is that it seems rather unlikely that such a virus would lie dormant for all of recorded history, and suddenly make it's only known appearance amongst populations who have access to a massive food surplus and lead incredibly sedentary lives. One would have to assume that this virus wasn't around when my parents were growing up (just after WWII), when food scarcity simply wasn't a problem. One would also have to explain the peculiar distribution of the virus amongst people who live in the same area, have access to the same food, and have roughly the same genetic heritage. All the normal biological variables are the same, but the fat virus somehow manages to preferentially infect the poor and the sedentary. It must also pay a hitherto unnoticed regard to arbitrary geographic borders, and affect the English and the Germans far more than the French, despite the massive commingling of the populations on a daily basis. The Pima indians on the Rez in Arizona are the most obese people in the world, yet a biologically idenitical population just across the border are rail thin? Virus or diet and lifestyle? Then there's the fact that humans are rather unlike most other animals in that we have the capacity to regulate our behavior. Presumably, if two people are infected by the virus, they are equally likely to overeat. Yet we know that the propensity to overeat is correlated with a host of other factors that have much more to do with character and personality than biology. There's also the matter of people who manage to lose weight and keep it off with diet and excercise. Is this the result of their immune system kicking in and clearing the virus at precisely the moment that they decided to make these changes in their lives? Does stomach stapling also trigger an immune response that gets rid of the virus? Then there's also the possibility that in humans that the virus has the tendency to replicate and localize in adipose tissue, or thrives in people who are borderline diabetic, or who are borderline diabetic and have tons of adipose tissue, etc, etc, etc. This will be conclusively debunked as a causal factor for obesity in five years or less. Quote
Dechristo Posted February 1, 2006 Posted February 1, 2006 Not withstanding dietary habits and the SuperSize culture, you seem to neglect congenital disposition. Some of my recent reading suggests "there are more things in Heaven and Earth than are" imagined in my vain philosophies. like, a venti-WCM-three-pump-no whip constructed from pencil shavings nanotechnologically. Fat virus, pffffft. So basic. Quote
JayB Posted February 1, 2006 Posted February 1, 2006 Right! Bias/general opinion versus science. Sounds like "Earth is the center of the universe/solar system". Even if one accepts as fact that "most fat people are looking for an excuse as to why being fat isn't their fault", does that in any way invalidate the theory? All you get with that argument is a completely unsubstantiated smear of the scientists. Again, this is much like the politicians. "I don't like that conclusion, must be some scientist with an agenda." 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. Quote
archenemy Posted February 1, 2006 Posted February 1, 2006 You mama so fat, she rents out shade in her shadow. Quote
Dechristo Posted February 1, 2006 Posted February 1, 2006 ...it seems rather unlikely that such a virus would lie dormant for all of recorded history, and suddenly make it's only known appearance... HIV? Quote
mattp Posted February 1, 2006 Posted February 1, 2006 Jay, are you saying that society is NOT to blame for the fact that I keep getting fatter and weaker every year? I'd like to than ChucK for calling a spade a spade here. Quote
underworld Posted February 1, 2006 Posted February 1, 2006 yo mama so fat, she jumped in the air and got stuck Quote
Dechristo Posted February 1, 2006 Posted February 1, 2006 Yo mama so fat, dey push her through da Eisenhower Tunnel ta clean it. Quote
Dechristo Posted February 1, 2006 Posted February 1, 2006 I'd like to than ChucK for calling a spade a spade here. hey, Hey, HEY! I prefer the term "shovel". Quote
Dru Posted February 1, 2006 Author Posted February 1, 2006 Any of you actually read the article or the study? I don't know that it's always necessary to immerse oneself in the minutia of a particular claim to doubt it's validity. The first problem with the fat-virus claim lies with thermodynamics. The only way in which it is physically possible to gain weight is to consume more calories than one expends. End of story. Did YOU read the study? Chickens that were given the human virus gained approx. twice as much body fat as chickens that did not get the virus, for identical feeding and exercise regimes. Quote
archenemy Posted February 1, 2006 Posted February 1, 2006 Any of you actually read the article or the study? I don't know that it's always necessary to immerse oneself in the minutia of a particular claim to doubt it's validity. The first problem with the fat-virus claim lies with thermodynamics. The only way in which it is physically possible to gain weight is to consume more calories than one expends. End of story. Did YOU read the study? Chickens that were given the human virus gained approx. twice as much body fat as chickens that did not get the virus, for identical feeding and exercise regimes. Then why is it that when people go on a diet, they eat chicken. And why does everything else always taste just like chicken? And why is it that when you are scared of something, say like--of getting fat, people call you chicken? And why is the term choking the chicken used....oh nevermind. Why did the chicken cross the road? He was caught in the fat folds of yo mama. Quote
Dr_Flash_Amazing Posted February 1, 2006 Posted February 1, 2006 Your momma's so fat, she steps on a dollar and you get four quarters! Oooohhhh!!! Quote
underworld Posted February 1, 2006 Posted February 1, 2006 yo mamma so fat, when she cut herself - gravy came out Quote
DirtyHarry Posted February 1, 2006 Posted February 1, 2006 When your mom sits around the house, she actually sits AROUND the house. Quote
underworld Posted February 1, 2006 Posted February 1, 2006 your mamma so fat, folks jog around her for exercise Quote
Dechristo Posted February 1, 2006 Posted February 1, 2006 "...it's a single-cell chicken protein with all the fat-virus the body needs..." "kinda makes you wonder why so many things taste like..." Quote
chucK Posted February 1, 2006 Posted February 1, 2006 I don't know that it's always necessary to immerse oneself in the minutia of a particular claim to doubt it's validity. So looks like you didn't read the article or paper either, huh? In fact, I'm sure that you haven't read the paper or the article. As if you did you would have found out that the current study was on chickens. I'm sure you would have had a few snide zingers about that. The first problem with the fat-virus claim lies with thermodynamics. The only way in which it is physically possible to gain weight is to consume more calories than one expends. End of story. The study did not demonstrate association with weight change, only total fat, visceral fat, and lipid composition (more cholesterol, less triglycerides). Maybe your "end of story" is a bit premature? The second is that it seems rather unlikely that such a virus would lie dormant for all of recorded history, and suddenly make it's only known appearance amongst populations who have access to a massive food surplus and lead incredibly sedentary lives. Why? We get new viruses every day. Plus, I'll bet you could take any point in human history and say that relative to the previous times there was a lot more food and sedentary living. One would have to assume that this virus wasn't around when my parents were growing up (just after WWII), when food scarcity simply wasn't a problem. One would also have to explain the peculiar distribution of the virus amongst people who live in the same area, have access to the same food, and have roughly the same genetic heritage. All the normal biological variables are the same, but the fat virus somehow manages to preferentially infect the poor and the sedentary. It must also pay a hitherto unnoticed regard to arbitrary geographic borders, and affect the English and the Germans far more than the French, despite the massive commingling of the populations on a daily basis. The Pima indians on the Rez in Arizona are the most obese people in the world, yet a biologically idenitical population just across the border are rail thin? Virus or diet and lifestyle? You seem to be inferring that this study and/or I am blaming all cases of obesity on this virus. Neither I, nor the authors of the paper, am not. Then there's the fact that humans are rather unlike most other animals in that we have the capacity to regulate our behavior. Presumably, if two people are infected by the virus, they are equally likely to overeat. I don't think the paper makes this claim. They actually found little difference in the amount of food consumed. Note this was a randomized, controlled experiment, in chickens, thus they had very good control of diet. Yet we know that the propensity to overeat is correlated with a host of other factors that have much more to do with character and personality than biology. The article did have a reference to a study in monozygotic (human) twins. Among those who were discordant in the Ad-36 virus, those who had it were heavier. There's also the matter of people who manage to lose weight and keep it off with diet and excercise. Is this the result of their immune system kicking in and clearing the virus at precisely the moment that they decided to make these changes in their lives? Does stomach stapling also trigger an immune response that gets rid of the virus? Again, you assume that someone implied all obesity is caused by this virus. You should really read at least some of the current scientific literature on this area. Do you really know anything about stomach stapling other than what you hear on Rush Limbaugh? Then there's also the possibility that in humans that the virus has the tendency to replicate and localize in adipose tissue, or thrives in people who are borderline diabetic, or who are borderline diabetic and have tons of adipose tissue, etc, etc, etc. That could explain the monozygotic twin study, but not the current chicken one. Randomized controlled trial, innoculating with the viruses. This will be conclusively debunked as a causal factor for obesity in five years or less. Could be. But your arguments don't sway me so much that I wouldn't be willing to bet $10 on it. Care to take that wager? Quote
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.