3 ms·

Seems like you have a belief, and this data that challenges that is rife with flaws while the data that supports that belief is good clean science. > The users

Seems like you have a belief, and this data that challenges that is rife with flaws while the data that supports that belief is good clean science. > The users of many of the worst of sorts of drugs, such as heroine and amphetamines, tend to be average to lower weight. They will die disproportionately young, which will drag their weight cohort substantially down. Right so this study was skewed by meth use, something that there’s a good chance they controlled for at least where they could, but other studies couldn’t possibly be skewed by drugs that cause weight gain and shorten lifespan. My takeaway from this and similar studies is that body fat (especially as categorized by BMI) is mostly orthogonal to health. It’s possible to be fat + healthy, fat + unhealthy, slim + healthy, and slim and unhealthy. And if that’s the case, burdening fat people with my own assumptions about their health is misguided, and dumb.

somenameforme 3y ago
They did not control for these or countless other variables that could be confounding. You can read the exact study here [1]. This is just a general weakness in large scale observational studies. The reason the wine comparison is particularly apt is because it fits the exact same scheme. Studies specifically on alcohol demonstrate a million and one negative side effects with little to show for it, yet [shocking discovery] shows that a glass a wine day is actually beneficial for longevity? There needs to be an explanation for why. And most often that answer is eventually found to be that [shocking discovery] was just reporting on a false correlation, driven by a confounding variable. It's the exact same here. There are countless extremely negative factors that being overweight weighs strongly into, yet somehow being overweight is good for life expectancy? There needs to be an explanation for why and, absent some revolutionary new discovery, by far the most likely explanation is a confounding variable. [1] - https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2520627 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2520627
- kennywinker 3y ago
  I see they did not. I also see that in denmark in 2023 (not in the 1970s and early 2000s when the data was gathered) about 1.6% of 16-34yo’s had used meth that year. The prevalence of full blown meth addiction is going to be dramatically lower. 0.5% seems high but let’s go with that - 50 people in this study. Seems a bit of a reach to say that’s what’s skewing the data. But the overarching point is: why is your default that fat is unhealthy and you must have bulletproof data to believe otherwise? My default is i don’t know one way or the other and I think health is probably way more complex than what % body fat you have and I don’t understand why so many people are determined to use it as a proxy for health.

somenameforme 3y ago

They did not control for these or countless other variables that could be confounding. You can read the exact study here [1]. This is just a general weakness in large scale observational studies. The reason the wine comparison is particularly apt is because it fits the exact same scheme. Studies specifically on alcohol demonstrate a million and one negative side effects with little to show for it, yet [shocking discovery] shows that a glass a wine day is actually beneficial for longevity? There needs to be an explanation for why. And most often that answer is eventually found to be that [shocking discovery] was just reporting on a false correlation, driven by a confounding variable. It's the exact same here. There are countless extremely negative factors that being overweight weighs strongly into, yet somehow being overweight is good for life expectancy? There needs to be an explanation for why and, absent some revolutionary new discovery, by far the most likely explanation is a confounding variable. [1] - https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2520627 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2520627

kennywinker 3y ago
I see they did not. I also see that in denmark in 2023 (not in the 1970s and early 2000s when the data was gathered) about 1.6% of 16-34yo’s had used meth that year. The prevalence of full blown meth addiction is going to be dramatically lower. 0.5% seems high but let’s go with that - 50 people in this study. Seems a bit of a reach to say that’s what’s skewing the data. But the overarching point is: why is your default that fat is unhealthy and you must have bulletproof data to believe otherwise? My default is i don’t know one way or the other and I think health is probably way more complex than what % body fat you have and I don’t understand why so many people are determined to use it as a proxy for health.