The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewJames Thompson Archive
Intelligent Health
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

doctor norman rockwell

You may remember my dictum: If you are fatter than you want to be, eat less.

http://www.unz.com/jthompson/diet-is-an-iq-test-part-23

http://www.unz.com/jthompson/eat-less

That post led to an outpouring of deeply lived personal experience, of almost French complexity, extolling the virtues of eating particular food types in particular combinations at particular times, and not paying too much attention to calories. Fine. If you wish to be befuddled, that is your perfect right.

So, with some trepidation, here is a summary of the current state of knowledge regarding intelligence and health. Indeed, it is my summary of a summary paper. A pointless redundancy, you may say, but I know you are busy, and I would not like to interrupt your lunch break.

Intelligent people lead healthier lives, and that is not just because they intelligently make healthy decisions, but also, it would appear, because they are inherently healthier. Spooky.

What genome-wide association studies reveal about the association between intelligence and physical health, illness, and mortality
Ian JDeary 1 Sarah EHarris 12 W DavidHill 1

1 Centre for Cognitive Ageing and Cognitive Epidemiology, Department of Psychology, University of Edinburgh, 7 George Square, Edinburgh EH8 9JZ, United Kingdom
2Medical Genetics Section, Centre for Genomic & Experimental Medicine, MRC Institute of Genetics & Molecular Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh EH4 2XU, United Kingdom

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2018.07.005

https://ac.els-cdn.com/S2352250X18301027/1-s2.0-S2352250X18301027-main.pdf?_tid=e876491c-fa66-40a1-af56-edb83d79b887&acdnat=1534771280_efdf271baba57dca83f42bff5578c041

The associations between higher intelligence test scores from early life and later good health, fewer illnesses, and longer life are recent discoveries. Researchers are mapping the extent of these associations and trying to understanding them. Part of the intelligence-health association has genetic origins. Recent advances in molecular genetic technology and statistical analyses have revealed that: intelligence and many health outcomes are highly polygenic; and that modest but widespread genetic correlations exist between intelligence and health, illness and mortality. Causal accounts of intelligence-health associations are still poorly understood. The contribution of education and socio-economic status — both of which are partly genetic in origin — to the intelligence-health associations are being explored.

Until recently, an article on DNA-variant commonalities between intelligence and health would have been science fiction. Thirty years ago, we did not know that intelligence test scores were a predictor of mortality. Fifteen years ago, there were no genome-wide association studies. It was less than five years ago that the first molecular genetic correlations were performed between intelligence and health outcomes. These former blanks have been filled in; however, the fast progress and accumulation of findings in the field of genetic cognitive epidemiology have raised more questions. Individual differences in intelligence, as tested by psychometric tests, are quite stable from later childhood through adulthood to older age. The diverse cognitive test scores that are used to test mental capabilities form a multi-level hierarchy; about 40% or more of the overall variance is captured by a general cognitive factor with which all tests are correlated, and smaller amounts of variance are found in more specific cognitive domains (reasoning, memory, speed, verbal, and so forth). Twin, family and adoption studies indicated that there was moderate to high heritability of general cognitive ability in adulthood (from about 50–70%), with a lower heritability in childhood[4]. It has long been known that intelligence is a predictor of educational attainments and occupational position and success

In addition to mortality, intelligence test scores are associated with lower risk of many morbidities, such as cardiovascular disease, cerebrovascular disease, hypertension, cancers such as lung cancer, stroke, and many others, as obtained by self-report and objective assessment. Higher intelligence in youth is associated at age 24 with fewer hospital admissions, lower general medical practitioner costs, lower hospital costs, and less use of medical services, and intelligence appeared to account for the associations between education and such health outcomes. Higher intelligence is related to a higher likelihood of engaging in healthier behaviours, such as not smoking, quitting smoking, not binge drinking, having a more normal body mass index and avoiding obesity, taking more exercise, and eating a healthier diet.

All this work launched a new field: cognitive epidemiology. When studying health, factor in intelligence. If you read any research about a health problem, like for example obesity, always ask yourself the question: how much of this problem is associated with intelligence? Do they have early childhood data on ability and health? Without that, there is probable confounding.

The associations which are found between health and intelligence could be due to a direct genetic pathway shared by intelligence and health, and/or by better, more educated and wealthy intelligence choices.

Genome-wide association studies transformed the field. Box 1 summarises all the different statistical methods. This is a very good guide to the field. The main one is GWAS, which finds regions of the genome which are correlated with the trait in question and statistically significant at a P-value of <5 × 10−8 to control for the multiple comparison being made.

Here are all the correlations between the genetic code and health.
Table 1 here

genetic correlations with health

Another part of understanding the genetic contribution to intelligence health correlations concerns other predictors of health inequalities, and intelligence’s correlations with them. Intelligence is related to education and socio-economic status (SES), and those were known to be related to health inequalities before intelligence was known to have health associations. Although education and SES are principally thought of as social-environmental variables, both have been found to be partly heritable, by both twin-based and molecular genetic studies, both have high genetic correlations with intelligence, Mendelian Randomisation results show bidirectional genetic effects between intelligence and education, and both have genetic correlations with health outcomes

What does all this mean? It may mean that the underlying causes of health, happiness, morbidity and mortality are unequally distributed, and favour some people more than others. Evolution does not have to conform to our imaginings or our notions of fairness. If genetics is a significant contributor within a genetic group, it is plausible that it contributes to between group variance. Perhaps the Japanese live longer because they are Japanese. This remains to be proved, but is worth testing. If we ever achieve the noble ambition of creating healthy environments all over the inhabited world we may yet have a residuum of health differences due to purely genetic causes.

Meanwhile, you may be wondering what is the intelligent thing to do about your health. Don’t smoke, don’t get fat, and don’t read too many health warnings.

 
• Category: Science • Tags: Diet, Health 
Hide 248 CommentsLeave a Comment
248 Comments to "Intelligent Health"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. anon[148] • Disclaimer says:

    What a condescending attitude toward the science of the relationship between food, appetite and health – sneering at any criticism of your simplistic view of the subject.

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Thompson
    If you have data showing that calorie reduction is not the main factor in weight loss, then of course that would be relevant.
    , @Anon
    I see the paid trolls are showing up before the election.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Anonymous[259] • Disclaimer says:

    @ comment #1:

    It’s a wonder you didn’t label him racist too.

    United States, Overweight and Obesity:
    • White 64%
    • Hispanic 70%
    • Black 72%

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  3. dearieme says:

    “Don’t smoke”: certainly don’t smoke cigarettes. Whether occasionally puffing contemplatively on a pipe does any measurable harm I don’t know. Just in case it does I gave up decades ago. If it does no harm then those puritanical swine in the medical trades have denied me a good deal of pleasure.

    “Don’t get fat”: but be careful to understand what’s too fat, what too thin. If correlation is worth anything – never certain – then if you want a long life be “overweight”. Don’t, please don’t, flirt with being “underweight”. Some evidence is displayed in fig4:

    http://www.drdavidgrimes.com/2017/08/is-being-overweight-really-killing.html

    That was for a control group. For a bunch of invalids, specifically people who have had a stroke, look at fig 5. As the good Dr Grimes remarks “The death rate at 10 years for normal weight individuals is standardised as 1.0. We see a survival advantage in those with low overweight, high overweight, and low obesity – that is with people with BMI between 25 and 32.5. With “low obesity” there is a death risk reduction of almost 40%.

    Repeat, stroke-people with “low obesity” outlive those who are “normal” by a whopping margin. You might almost think that the sawbones and quacks ought to redefine “normal”, “overweight” and “obese” in light of such figures. Sorry, the surgeons and physicians.

    “and don’t read too many health warnings”: I never disagree with tautologies.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SirWalterRaleigh
    “Don’t smoke”: certainly don’t smoke cigarettes. Whether occasionally puffing contemplatively on a pipe does any measurable harm I don’t know."

    Among the many ironies our government has presented us with over the years is a 300-plus page report known as the US Surgeon General's report on smoking and tobacco use. I discovered, buried deep inside this tedious tome, a tiny section on pipe smoking. After spending some years tracking the heaviest pipe smokers on the planet (up to ten bowls a day!) over a period of years, it was concluded that there was no discernible health difference between pipe smokers and complete non-smokers. Well, except for one small detail--they found that the pipesmokers were living, on average, 4 years longer than complete non-smokers. Scientists say they don't exactly know why this occurs, but their guess (and mine) is that it's because pipesmokers generally do not inhale and because the raison d'être of their hobby is pure relaxation.

    I read an article years ago that some scientists estimated that curing cancer, heart disease and diabetes would, on average, add only 4 years to most people's life expectancy. But if those 4 extra years can be had by pipe smoking, why wait for the unlikely miracle of curing our top diseases? By the government's own measure, we should have established a national program to encourage the hobby of pipesmoking years ago.

    I know two doctors who are avid longterm pipesmokers, one a general practitioner and the other a surgeon. Their take on it, as long you don't inhale, is that it's a relatively harmless hobby.
    , @pyrrhus
    The data seems to indicate that if you don't smoke, aren't a heavy drinker (but 1-2/day is positive), don't take dangerous drugs, aren't seriously obese, and exercise regularly, your life expectancy is around 89, probably more if you are intelligent. If you are slim, but not underweight, even better. It isn't that hard....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. @anon
    What a condescending attitude toward the science of the relationship between food, appetite and health - sneering at any criticism of your simplistic view of the subject.

    If you have data showing that calorie reduction is not the main factor in weight loss, then of course that would be relevant.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    The main factor in weight loss is insulin reduction; CICO is highly flawed and presumes that the human body is a bomb calirometer. This is false. You also have to think of the body weight set point and how metabolism drops while on an extended kcal deficit. This is why the conventional wisdom doesn't work.

    It's clearly wrong and there is no evidence for current dietary recommendations.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. Bruce says:

    I assume increased health is a result of lower mutational load which also correlates with higher IQ.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  6. Your “dictum”, which is also the mainstream dictum, is false:

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/12/30/is-diet-an-iq-test/

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2018/03/18/the-weight-loss-and-thermodynamics-fallacy/

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/08/11/the-calories-incalories-out-myth/

    Associations aren’t causes; if intelligence is taken to be a mental ability then it cannot be reduced to genes or brain structure/states because psychophysical reductionism is false. Numerous a priori arguments establish the claim that the mental is irreducible to the physical. For instance, Ross’ Immaterial Aspects of Thought; Nagle’s arguments in Mind and Cosmos; Davidson’s argument against the existence of psychophysical and psychological laws.

    Thinking is a mental activity which results in a thought. So if thinking is a mental activity which results in a thought, what is a thought? A thought is a mental state of considering a particular idea or answer to a question or committing oneself to an idea or answer.

    These mental states are, or are related to, beliefs. When one considers a particular answer to a question they are paving the way to holding a particular belief; when they commit themselves to an answer they have formulated a new belief.

    Beliefs are propositional attitudes: believing p involves adopting the belief attitude to proposition p. So, cognition is thinking: a mental process that results in the formation of a propositional belief.

    When one acquires a propositional attitude by thinking, a process takes place in stages. Future propositional attitudes are justified on earlier propositional attitudes. Cognition is thinking; thinking is a mental state of considering a particular view (proposition).

    Since thoughts are related to, or are beliefs, and beliefs are irreducible to brain states, then thoughts, too, are irreducible to brain states.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stan d Mute
    So I take it you’re fat?
    , @HobbesianM
    "16. Mind: physicalism 56.5%; non-physicalism 27.1%; other 16.4%."

    Quoted from Bourget & Chalmers, "What do Philosophers Believe", 2013.

    (https://philpapers.org/archive/BOUWDP)

    Since physicalism is the current dominant view in philosophy of mind, your categorical assertion that "psychophysical reductionism is false" needs justification, and a lot of it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. Bruce says:

    Not to start that debate again but my experience agrees with Dr. Thompson wrt calories. Whether my goal is to lose weight or stabilize my weight I can eat a LITTLE BIT more (calorie wise) each day if I eat more protein and less carbs but it really doesn’t make much difference.
    I have meticulously counted my calories while trying various “macros” and it’s basically how many you eat. It may be easier to stay within a particular calorie limit depending on what you I eat but that’s beside the point.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    "It may be easier to stay within a particular calorie limit depending on what you I eat but that’s beside the point."

    Is a calorie a calorie?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. @James Thompson
    If you have data showing that calorie reduction is not the main factor in weight loss, then of course that would be relevant.

    The main factor in weight loss is insulin reduction; CICO is highly flawed and presumes that the human body is a bomb calirometer. This is false. You also have to think of the body weight set point and how metabolism drops while on an extended kcal deficit. This is why the conventional wisdom doesn’t work.

    It’s clearly wrong and there is no evidence for current dietary recommendations.

    Read More
    • Agree: Kratoklastes, Liza
    • Replies: @FKA Max

    You also have to think of the body weight set point and how metabolism drops while on an extended kcal deficit.
     
    That is why intermittent fasting is the way to go:


    Intermittent Fasting May Preserve Muscle Mass That Is Usually Lost When Dieting

    Most weight loss diets cause you to lose fat and muscle, which is a big problem.

    Maintaining muscle is fundamental to ensure your metabolic rate doesn’t drop and just to support a healthy weight loss (5, 6) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20935667/ , https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22327054/ .

    Failing to do so means any fat loss will come back fast, such as what happens with every Biggest Loser contestant.

    According to the authors of the review study mentioned above, fasting may be more useful than regular calorie restriction for many overweight patients because of greater loss of body fat, and better preservation of muscle (4) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27708846 .

    Another study found that 25% of weight lost was muscle mass in normal calorie restriction diets, compared to just 10% lost in intermittent calorie restriction diets (8) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21410865 .
     
    - https://www.dietvsdisease.org/intermittent-fasting-is-powerful-for-weight-loss/
    , @Kratoklastes
    As you point out, we're sneaking up (slowly) on genuine root causes of Western lifestyle disease and 'metabolic' syndrome (better referred to as insulin resistance syndrome) - the root cause seems to be the damage done by rapid intraday insulin cycling, driven by excess consumption of carbohydrate. Give it a generation, and that will be the dominant paradigm.

    There are two big red flags in this piece that make it pretty clear that the pudding is over-egged.

    The first red flag is the implicit acceptance of CICO - which is GIGO on a par with other dead tropes like dietary-cholesterol-causes-serum-cholesterol, dietary-fat-causes-CVD, and 'healthy whole grains'.

    CICO is true (almost) by construction, so long as all excess calories are stored as tissue of the same density, which is a stretch. But the 'CO' side of things is not meaningfully within the scope of things that individuals can control, because most of the 'CO' happens as a result of basal metabolism... and the composition of the 'CI' affects that.

    Why didn't the writer go full-retard, and declare that the key paradigm is WIWO (weight-in/weight-out)? That must be true irrespective of metabolism. (Answer: it would be meaningless, even though it would be more useful than CICO... but WO is also not under anybody's conscious control).

    Besides: body weight is relatively unimportant.

    Body composition is much more important, but it's also not a very good measure of cardiovascular fitness.

    In my 20s I weighed upwards of 250lb, but was lean as a motherfucker (6-pack with vascularity lean). Nowadays I weigh ~225-230 depending on whether I've had a shit, but my abs have a good 2" of fat covering them.

    And yet I'm also objectively fitter: my VO2Max is 15% higher at 54 than it was in my 20s.

    Long story even longer: nutrition, metabolism, body comp and fitness/longevity are thinks that require bespoke attention; measures of general tendency are worse than meaningless, and most 'research' in the field is worse than muscle-mag broscience.

    Anyway... enough about that. Back to red flags.

    The second red flag is that the author presents obviously-poor data-munging as if it's science.

    Take a look at the list of variables for which correlations were obtained: the entire study is one of those lamentable exercises in promotion-disguised-as-research: the reduced-form, grant-seeking paradigm that was eliminated from Economics in the 1970s after the Lucas Critique -


    test everything against everything else, and pick some interesting things that correlate with IQ with our preferred sign, and pretend that we did science
     
    Most of those correlations - even the 'highly significant' ones - are absolutely meaningless when expressed as contributions to variance; they are certainly not of any predictive use (because most people's lives are mostly noise).

    Worse still, correlation coefficients are meaningless if the Gauss-Markov conditions do not hold (because ρ - Pearson's correlation - is explicitly the correlation derived from an OLS estimation; OLS is not efficient or unbiased if the model is not linear).

    What is the basis for assuming that the true relationship between any of those factors and IQ is linear? (Hint: if it's not, the G-M conditions do not hold).

    So, absolutely no surprise that this piece of 'research' was performed in a Department of Psychology - the natural stamping ground of the innumerate charlatan. (It's fun to watch the psycho-charlatans starting to re-brand themselves as 'neuroscientists'... grifters always need to know which way the wind is blowing and reposition themselves to extend the grift).
    .
    .
    It's exceedingly tedious when badly-performed 'research' of this kind gets any publicity: it reflects poorly on the numeracy of those doing the publicising, for a start.

    But it's doubly-tedious when the conclusions are things that I broadly agree with: it tars my anecdotally-supported personal hypotheses when they are associated with the sort of pseudo-scientific bunk that this article presents as 'research'.

    My own view is based on a few hundred anecdotes (smart people I know) contrasted against the sea of Betas-and-below readily observable in any shopping mall.

    Put broadly, it seems that in general, higher intelligence endows the bearer with a greater capacity for introspection, which in turn will help drive a general tendency to moderation. (Oddly, although being objectively the smartest of my social group, I am not introspective in the least - and moderation can go fuck itself).

    Smarter people do tend to be less fat than the Deltas and Epsilons, but that's not saying much. They smoke much less (although that's a recent thing - a behavioural change that started in the mid-80s) - and that single difference is enough to be the driver for almost all non-obesity related health outcomes.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. FKA Max says: • Website
    @RaceRealist88
    The main factor in weight loss is insulin reduction; CICO is highly flawed and presumes that the human body is a bomb calirometer. This is false. You also have to think of the body weight set point and how metabolism drops while on an extended kcal deficit. This is why the conventional wisdom doesn't work.

    It's clearly wrong and there is no evidence for current dietary recommendations.

    You also have to think of the body weight set point and how metabolism drops while on an extended kcal deficit.

    That is why intermittent fasting is the way to go:

    Intermittent Fasting May Preserve Muscle Mass That Is Usually Lost When Dieting

    Most weight loss diets cause you to lose fat and muscle, which is a big problem.

    Maintaining muscle is fundamental to ensure your metabolic rate doesn’t drop and just to support a healthy weight loss (5, 6) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20935667/ , https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22327054/ .

    Failing to do so means any fat loss will come back fast, such as what happens with every Biggest Loser contestant.

    According to the authors of the review study mentioned above, fasting may be more useful than regular calorie restriction for many overweight patients because of greater loss of body fat, and better preservation of muscle (4) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27708846 .

    Another study found that 25% of weight lost was muscle mass in normal calorie restriction diets, compared to just 10% lost in intermittent calorie restriction diets (8) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21410865 .

    https://www.dietvsdisease.org/intermittent-fasting-is-powerful-for-weight-loss/

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    Agreed.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. The basic equations implicit in your assumptions are

    (caloric intake – caloric demand) = caloric excess

    (caloric excess) / (3,500 kcal/lb) = daily gain or loss.

    You fail to consider that the type of food eaten affects caloric demand, both short term (fiber reduces blood sugar) and long term (gut microbes, metabolism).

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    "You fail to consider that the type of food eaten affects caloric demand, both short term (fiber reduces blood sugar) and long term (gut microbes, metabolism)."

    He's under the delusion that a calorie is a calorie. It's clearly false:

    The second law of thermodynamics says that variation of efficiency for different metabolic pathways is to be expected. Thus, ironically the dictum that a "calorie is a calorie" violates the second law of thermodynamics, as a matter of principle.

    https://nutritionj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1475-2891-3-9

    Stating that a "a calorie is a calorie" is fallacious. Humans are not bomb calirometers. A whole slew of variables affects weight gain/loss, reducing it to calories only doesn't make sense.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. @FKA Max

    You also have to think of the body weight set point and how metabolism drops while on an extended kcal deficit.
     
    That is why intermittent fasting is the way to go:


    Intermittent Fasting May Preserve Muscle Mass That Is Usually Lost When Dieting

    Most weight loss diets cause you to lose fat and muscle, which is a big problem.

    Maintaining muscle is fundamental to ensure your metabolic rate doesn’t drop and just to support a healthy weight loss (5, 6) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20935667/ , https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22327054/ .

    Failing to do so means any fat loss will come back fast, such as what happens with every Biggest Loser contestant.

    According to the authors of the review study mentioned above, fasting may be more useful than regular calorie restriction for many overweight patients because of greater loss of body fat, and better preservation of muscle (4) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27708846 .

    Another study found that 25% of weight lost was muscle mass in normal calorie restriction diets, compared to just 10% lost in intermittent calorie restriction diets (8) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21410865 .
     
    - https://www.dietvsdisease.org/intermittent-fasting-is-powerful-for-weight-loss/

    Agreed.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. @Bruce
    Not to start that debate again but my experience agrees with Dr. Thompson wrt calories. Whether my goal is to lose weight or stabilize my weight I can eat a LITTLE BIT more (calorie wise) each day if I eat more protein and less carbs but it really doesn’t make much difference.
    I have meticulously counted my calories while trying various “macros” and it’s basically how many you eat. It may be easier to stay within a particular calorie limit depending on what you I eat but that’s beside the point.

    “It may be easier to stay within a particular calorie limit depending on what you I eat but that’s beside the point.”

    Is a calorie a calorie?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. @James Speaks
    The basic equations implicit in your assumptions are

    (caloric intake - caloric demand) = caloric excess

    (caloric excess) / (3,500 kcal/lb) = daily gain or loss.

    You fail to consider that the type of food eaten affects caloric demand, both short term (fiber reduces blood sugar) and long term (gut microbes, metabolism).

    “You fail to consider that the type of food eaten affects caloric demand, both short term (fiber reduces blood sugar) and long term (gut microbes, metabolism).”

    He’s under the delusion that a calorie is a calorie. It’s clearly false:

    The second law of thermodynamics says that variation of efficiency for different metabolic pathways is to be expected. Thus, ironically the dictum that a “calorie is a calorie” violates the second law of thermodynamics, as a matter of principle.

    https://nutritionj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1475-2891-3-9

    Stating that a “a calorie is a calorie” is fallacious. Humans are not bomb calirometers. A whole slew of variables affects weight gain/loss, reducing it to calories only doesn’t make sense.

    Read More
    • Agree: Liza
    • Replies: @James Speaks

    Stating that a “a calorie is a calorie” is fallacious. Humans are not bomb calorimeters. A whole slew of variables affects weight gain/loss, reducing it to calories only doesn’t make sense.
     
    There is also the factor that the body reacts to stimuli in complex ways. Merely eating less signals times of famine, and ensures a stored fat gain after normal eating resumes. Paradoxically, eating slightly more while exercising (like walking) where the total mass of the body must be carried signals reduction in total mass while maintaining muscle and bone tissue. That adequate food is available (slightly increased caloric intake) enable weight loss.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. Intelligent people lead healthier lives, and that is not just because they intelligently make healthy decisions, but also, it would appear, because they are inherently healthier. Spooky.

    Long-lived sardinians ”have” higher IQ**

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  15. Urban-industrialized-cognitive adaptation, aka, higher IQ, is correlated with mental stability which is correlated with organism stability.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  16. @RaceRealist88
    The main factor in weight loss is insulin reduction; CICO is highly flawed and presumes that the human body is a bomb calirometer. This is false. You also have to think of the body weight set point and how metabolism drops while on an extended kcal deficit. This is why the conventional wisdom doesn't work.

    It's clearly wrong and there is no evidence for current dietary recommendations.

    As you point out, we’re sneaking up (slowly) on genuine root causes of Western lifestyle disease and ‘metabolic’ syndrome (better referred to as insulin resistance syndrome) – the root cause seems to be the damage done by rapid intraday insulin cycling, driven by excess consumption of carbohydrate. Give it a generation, and that will be the dominant paradigm.

    There are two big red flags in this piece that make it pretty clear that the pudding is over-egged.

    The first red flag is the implicit acceptance of CICO – which is GIGO on a par with other dead tropes like dietary-cholesterol-causes-serum-cholesterol, dietary-fat-causes-CVD, and ‘healthy whole grains’.

    CICO is true (almost) by construction, so long as all excess calories are stored as tissue of the same density, which is a stretch. But the ‘CO’ side of things is not meaningfully within the scope of things that individuals can control, because most of the ‘CO’ happens as a result of basal metabolism… and the composition of the ‘CI’ affects that.

    Why didn’t the writer go full-retard, and declare that the key paradigm is WIWO (weight-in/weight-out)? That must be true irrespective of metabolism. (Answer: it would be meaningless, even though it would be more useful than CICO… but WO is also not under anybody’s conscious control).

    Besides: body weight is relatively unimportant.

    Body composition is much more important, but it’s also not a very good measure of cardiovascular fitness.

    In my 20s I weighed upwards of 250lb, but was lean as a motherfucker (6-pack with vascularity lean). Nowadays I weigh ~225-230 depending on whether I’ve had a shit, but my abs have a good 2″ of fat covering them.

    And yet I’m also objectively fitter: my VO2Max is 15% higher at 54 than it was in my 20s.

    Long story even longer: nutrition, metabolism, body comp and fitness/longevity are thinks that require bespoke attention; measures of general tendency are worse than meaningless, and most ‘research’ in the field is worse than muscle-mag broscience.

    Anyway… enough about that. Back to red flags.

    The second red flag is that the author presents obviously-poor data-munging as if it’s science.

    Take a look at the list of variables for which correlations were obtained: the entire study is one of those lamentable exercises in promotion-disguised-as-research: the reduced-form, grant-seeking paradigm that was eliminated from Economics in the 1970s after the Lucas Critique –

    test everything against everything else, and pick some interesting things that correlate with IQ with our preferred sign, and pretend that we did science

    Most of those correlations – even the ‘highly significant’ ones – are absolutely meaningless when expressed as contributions to variance; they are certainly not of any predictive use (because most people’s lives are mostly noise).

    Worse still, correlation coefficients are meaningless if the Gauss-Markov conditions do not hold (because ρ – Pearson’s correlation – is explicitly the correlation derived from an OLS estimation; OLS is not efficient or unbiased if the model is not linear).

    What is the basis for assuming that the true relationship between any of those factors and IQ is linear? (Hint: if it’s not, the G-M conditions do not hold).

    So, absolutely no surprise that this piece of ‘research’ was performed in a Department of Psychology – the natural stamping ground of the innumerate charlatan. (It’s fun to watch the psycho-charlatans starting to re-brand themselves as ‘neuroscientists’… grifters always need to know which way the wind is blowing and reposition themselves to extend the grift).
    .
    .
    It’s exceedingly tedious when badly-performed ‘research’ of this kind gets any publicity: it reflects poorly on the numeracy of those doing the publicising, for a start.

    But it’s doubly-tedious when the conclusions are things that I broadly agree with: it tars my anecdotally-supported personal hypotheses when they are associated with the sort of pseudo-scientific bunk that this article presents as ‘research’.

    My own view is based on a few hundred anecdotes (smart people I know) contrasted against the sea of Betas-and-below readily observable in any shopping mall.

    Put broadly, it seems that in general, higher intelligence endows the bearer with a greater capacity for introspection, which in turn will help drive a general tendency to moderation. (Oddly, although being objectively the smartest of my social group, I am not introspective in the least – and moderation can go fuck itself).

    Smarter people do tend to be less fat than the Deltas and Epsilons, but that’s not saying much. They smoke much less (although that’s a recent thing – a behavioural change that started in the mid-80s) – and that single difference is enough to be the driver for almost all non-obesity related health outcomes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    So you were on the gear. And now you're not.

    The Abs Of Natural Bodybuilders vs. The Abs of Steroid Users
    http://nattyornot.com/the-abs-of-natural-bodybuilders-vs-the-abs-of-steroid-users/

    Eat Clen, Tren Hard!
    , @utu

    Oddly, although being objectively the smartest of my social group, I am not introspective in the least

     

    It shows though not in this statement where you got it right. And not that you are the smartest of the group, though a group where you would be the smartest most likely do exist if we only could establish a metric how to measure the smartness.
    , @jacques sheete

    So, absolutely no surprise that this piece of ‘research’ was performed in a Department of Psychology – the natural stamping ground of the innumerate charlatan. (It’s fun to watch the psycho-charlatans starting to re-brand themselves as ‘neuroscientists’… grifters always need to know which way the wind is blowing and reposition themselves to extend the grift).
     
    You done said it all, right there.

    I'm constantly fascinated that a society built on nearly 100% BS can actually exist, let alone stumble along for so long. We're here for the entertainment of the G-wdz.
    , @Anonymous
    Krato makes me wonder about the relationship of comment length to dozing-off by readers. High, I'll bet.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. @RaceRealist88
    "You fail to consider that the type of food eaten affects caloric demand, both short term (fiber reduces blood sugar) and long term (gut microbes, metabolism)."

    He's under the delusion that a calorie is a calorie. It's clearly false:

    The second law of thermodynamics says that variation of efficiency for different metabolic pathways is to be expected. Thus, ironically the dictum that a "calorie is a calorie" violates the second law of thermodynamics, as a matter of principle.

    https://nutritionj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1475-2891-3-9

    Stating that a "a calorie is a calorie" is fallacious. Humans are not bomb calirometers. A whole slew of variables affects weight gain/loss, reducing it to calories only doesn't make sense.

    Stating that a “a calorie is a calorie” is fallacious. Humans are not bomb calorimeters. A whole slew of variables affects weight gain/loss, reducing it to calories only doesn’t make sense.

    There is also the factor that the body reacts to stimuli in complex ways. Merely eating less signals times of famine, and ensures a stored fat gain after normal eating resumes. Paradoxically, eating slightly more while exercising (like walking) where the total mass of the body must be carried signals reduction in total mass while maintaining muscle and bone tissue. That adequate food is available (slightly increased caloric intake) enable weight loss.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. Bruce says:

    I feel bad for distracting discussion of the article but to respond to RaceRealist88

    I can only go by my experience tracking my weight, approximate body composition and food/macro/calorie intake. If it makes a difference I do some basic weight training (not a 250 lb ripped bodybuilder like 0.1% of the population).

    With high carbs, my weight and body composition stabilize at about 2250 KCAL per day (which is about what the Cunningham formula predicts for my age and LBM). If I eat low carb, it’s a bit higher. Maybe 2400-2500 KCAL per day (it’s hard to track macros and calories with extreme precision). So there’s not a big difference. Is a calorie a calorie? Not exactly but close enough.

    If I had to guess what’s going on, based on what I’ve read a protein calorie counts for 3/gram when your body burns it (not 4/gram like in a lab) and foods with a higher insulin load encourage growth (potentially muscle and fat). Ok, there’s some nuance.
    But fat people eat too much food.

    Read More
    • Agree: Stan d Mute
    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    "But fat people eat too much food."


    They eat too much of the wrong kinds of foods.

    I think the evidence that our sugar intake is just too high and that processed foods have had a long term negative impact on masses of p[people, , not most perhaps not even all, but the case to curb eating sugars/carbs of a certain type in large doses and processed foods is clear, in my view.


    As for intelligence and health, unfortunately our society is so caste laden with upper castes regardless of intelligence having access to better incomes and therefore better care I would be hard pressed to buy that healthy eating is hardwired in people with higher IQ's. Maybe.


    But the analysis here is pretty darn near a circular ring around the rosey. The uncontrolled biases effecting results are pretty open wound.

    What constitutes a healthy body and lifestyle might not reflect what is noted in the BMI, even we could agree on the standard for healthy, fat, skinny etc.

    , @anonymous

    Is a calorie a calorie? Not exactly but close enough.

    If I had to guess what’s going on, based on what I’ve read a protein calorie counts for 3/gram when your body burns it (not 4/gram like in a lab) and foods with a higher insulin load encourage growth (potentially muscle and fat). Ok, there’s some nuance.
    But fat people eat too much food.
     
    Yep, but you aren’t gonna sell any potions, powders, courses, or books with thinking like that.
    , @utu

    With high carbs ---- at about 2250 KCAL
    If I eat low carb ---- 2400-2500 KCAL
     
    Did it occur to you that caloric food content determined by physical burning of various food is not really adequate measure how food is processed by a body. Good start would be to do caloric content of your poop. Which one is more caloric?
    , @notanon

    But fat people eat too much food.
     
    yes - if you eat food which spikes your blood sugar the body does things with some of that glucose other than burning it for fuel - like sending it to the liver to be turned into belly fat - which leads people to eat more than they need - which is why CICO is part of but not the whole story.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. @Bruce
    I feel bad for distracting discussion of the article but to respond to RaceRealist88

    I can only go by my experience tracking my weight, approximate body composition and food/macro/calorie intake. If it makes a difference I do some basic weight training (not a 250 lb ripped bodybuilder like 0.1% of the population).

    With high carbs, my weight and body composition stabilize at about 2250 KCAL per day (which is about what the Cunningham formula predicts for my age and LBM). If I eat low carb, it’s a bit higher. Maybe 2400-2500 KCAL per day (it’s hard to track macros and calories with extreme precision). So there’s not a big difference. Is a calorie a calorie? Not exactly but close enough.

    If I had to guess what’s going on, based on what I’ve read a protein calorie counts for 3/gram when your body burns it (not 4/gram like in a lab) and foods with a higher insulin load encourage growth (potentially muscle and fat). Ok, there’s some nuance.
    But fat people eat too much food.

    “But fat people eat too much food.”

    They eat too much of the wrong kinds of foods.

    I think the evidence that our sugar intake is just too high and that processed foods have had a long term negative impact on masses of p[people, , not most perhaps not even all, but the case to curb eating sugars/carbs of a certain type in large doses and processed foods is clear, in my view.

    As for intelligence and health, unfortunately our society is so caste laden with upper castes regardless of intelligence having access to better incomes and therefore better care I would be hard pressed to buy that healthy eating is hardwired in people with higher IQ’s. Maybe.

    But the analysis here is pretty darn near a circular ring around the rosey. The uncontrolled biases effecting results are pretty open wound.

    What constitutes a healthy body and lifestyle might not reflect what is noted in the BMI, even we could agree on the standard for healthy, fat, skinny etc.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. Anonymous[400] • Disclaimer says:
    @Kratoklastes
    As you point out, we're sneaking up (slowly) on genuine root causes of Western lifestyle disease and 'metabolic' syndrome (better referred to as insulin resistance syndrome) - the root cause seems to be the damage done by rapid intraday insulin cycling, driven by excess consumption of carbohydrate. Give it a generation, and that will be the dominant paradigm.

    There are two big red flags in this piece that make it pretty clear that the pudding is over-egged.

    The first red flag is the implicit acceptance of CICO - which is GIGO on a par with other dead tropes like dietary-cholesterol-causes-serum-cholesterol, dietary-fat-causes-CVD, and 'healthy whole grains'.

    CICO is true (almost) by construction, so long as all excess calories are stored as tissue of the same density, which is a stretch. But the 'CO' side of things is not meaningfully within the scope of things that individuals can control, because most of the 'CO' happens as a result of basal metabolism... and the composition of the 'CI' affects that.

    Why didn't the writer go full-retard, and declare that the key paradigm is WIWO (weight-in/weight-out)? That must be true irrespective of metabolism. (Answer: it would be meaningless, even though it would be more useful than CICO... but WO is also not under anybody's conscious control).

    Besides: body weight is relatively unimportant.

    Body composition is much more important, but it's also not a very good measure of cardiovascular fitness.

    In my 20s I weighed upwards of 250lb, but was lean as a motherfucker (6-pack with vascularity lean). Nowadays I weigh ~225-230 depending on whether I've had a shit, but my abs have a good 2" of fat covering them.

    And yet I'm also objectively fitter: my VO2Max is 15% higher at 54 than it was in my 20s.

    Long story even longer: nutrition, metabolism, body comp and fitness/longevity are thinks that require bespoke attention; measures of general tendency are worse than meaningless, and most 'research' in the field is worse than muscle-mag broscience.

    Anyway... enough about that. Back to red flags.

    The second red flag is that the author presents obviously-poor data-munging as if it's science.

    Take a look at the list of variables for which correlations were obtained: the entire study is one of those lamentable exercises in promotion-disguised-as-research: the reduced-form, grant-seeking paradigm that was eliminated from Economics in the 1970s after the Lucas Critique -


    test everything against everything else, and pick some interesting things that correlate with IQ with our preferred sign, and pretend that we did science
     
    Most of those correlations - even the 'highly significant' ones - are absolutely meaningless when expressed as contributions to variance; they are certainly not of any predictive use (because most people's lives are mostly noise).

    Worse still, correlation coefficients are meaningless if the Gauss-Markov conditions do not hold (because ρ - Pearson's correlation - is explicitly the correlation derived from an OLS estimation; OLS is not efficient or unbiased if the model is not linear).

    What is the basis for assuming that the true relationship between any of those factors and IQ is linear? (Hint: if it's not, the G-M conditions do not hold).

    So, absolutely no surprise that this piece of 'research' was performed in a Department of Psychology - the natural stamping ground of the innumerate charlatan. (It's fun to watch the psycho-charlatans starting to re-brand themselves as 'neuroscientists'... grifters always need to know which way the wind is blowing and reposition themselves to extend the grift).
    .
    .
    It's exceedingly tedious when badly-performed 'research' of this kind gets any publicity: it reflects poorly on the numeracy of those doing the publicising, for a start.

    But it's doubly-tedious when the conclusions are things that I broadly agree with: it tars my anecdotally-supported personal hypotheses when they are associated with the sort of pseudo-scientific bunk that this article presents as 'research'.

    My own view is based on a few hundred anecdotes (smart people I know) contrasted against the sea of Betas-and-below readily observable in any shopping mall.

    Put broadly, it seems that in general, higher intelligence endows the bearer with a greater capacity for introspection, which in turn will help drive a general tendency to moderation. (Oddly, although being objectively the smartest of my social group, I am not introspective in the least - and moderation can go fuck itself).

    Smarter people do tend to be less fat than the Deltas and Epsilons, but that's not saying much. They smoke much less (although that's a recent thing - a behavioural change that started in the mid-80s) - and that single difference is enough to be the driver for almost all non-obesity related health outcomes.

    So you were on the gear. And now you’re not.

    The Abs Of Natural Bodybuilders vs. The Abs of Steroid Users

    http://nattyornot.com/the-abs-of-natural-bodybuilders-vs-the-abs-of-steroid-users/

    Eat Clen, Tren Hard!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. Hogwash. Testosterone and its production by body is the key. Physical activity at young age result in increasing testosterone production through lifetime.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    Do you even lift, brah? LOL

    It takes getting on the gear to look more ripped than the full natty bodybuilders that are photographed in the old days, when photography was a new phenomenon, and artificial hormones had not been developed yet. It's a small window, but very revealing, and nattyornot.com has it documented. And the website nattyornot.com has done a great job in researching and explaining the maximum potential of a natural male body here: http://nattyornot.com/how-big-can-you-get-naturally-without-steroids/

    250 lbs and ripped = on the gear, guaranteed. The maximum an exceptionally genetically well-endowed 6' fellow can weigh naturally and be ripped (low fat enough to show off striated muscle) is about 184 lbs, and for most guys, 20 lbs less than that.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. The associations between higher intelligence test scores from early life and later good health, fewer illnesses, and longer life are recent discoveries.

    While the above statement isn’t wrong, it is misleading and irrelevant. Regardless of intellect, cultural values and norms determine behavior and behavior determines health outcomes and mortality rates.

    I don’t deal with IQ, but instead look at academic performance and income. In the US, Hispanics perform significantly worse than whites and slightly better, but nearly the same as blacks. Throughout the US, Hispanics often live in the same neighborhoods as blacks and attend the same schools. Yet Hispanics do not experience the same health disparities that blacks do. Instead we have the “Hispanic paradox” where Hispanics often have the same or sometimes better health outcomes than whites. When looking at Hispanic subgroups, Puerto Ricans have outcomes significantly worse than whites, although better than blacks.

    Hispanics have a much higher incidence of HIV/AIDS than whites, but if you look at an HIV/AIDS map of the US, you will see that Hispanics in the western half of the US (mostly Mexican-Americans) have the same incidence of the disease as whites. It is only along the East Coast of the US that significant disparities in HIV/AIDS rates are seen between the two ethnic groups. Puerto Ricans and Dominicans tend to live on the East Coast and not only do they have varying degrees of African ancestry but they also behave more like black Americans.

    Diabetes is rampant among Native American Indians in the US, Pacific Islanders on Polynesian islands, and Australian Aborigines. Their ancestors from 150 years ago didn’t have higher IQs, but avoided diabetes by eating differently.

    This remains to be proved, but is worth testing.

    The Research Industrial Complex doesn’t want to prove or cure anything because funding will dry up.

    Read More
    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    easy to explain,

    the native americans have moved from being a people who were active and whose diet was not soley grains -- that all changed after the conquest of the west. The reservation system proved devastating to the populations health.

    that is supposing the assessments you make are accurate
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. anonymous[124] • Disclaimer says:
    @Bruce
    I feel bad for distracting discussion of the article but to respond to RaceRealist88

    I can only go by my experience tracking my weight, approximate body composition and food/macro/calorie intake. If it makes a difference I do some basic weight training (not a 250 lb ripped bodybuilder like 0.1% of the population).

    With high carbs, my weight and body composition stabilize at about 2250 KCAL per day (which is about what the Cunningham formula predicts for my age and LBM). If I eat low carb, it’s a bit higher. Maybe 2400-2500 KCAL per day (it’s hard to track macros and calories with extreme precision). So there’s not a big difference. Is a calorie a calorie? Not exactly but close enough.

    If I had to guess what’s going on, based on what I’ve read a protein calorie counts for 3/gram when your body burns it (not 4/gram like in a lab) and foods with a higher insulin load encourage growth (potentially muscle and fat). Ok, there’s some nuance.
    But fat people eat too much food.

    Is a calorie a calorie? Not exactly but close enough.

    If I had to guess what’s going on, based on what I’ve read a protein calorie counts for 3/gram when your body burns it (not 4/gram like in a lab) and foods with a higher insulin load encourage growth (potentially muscle and fat). Ok, there’s some nuance.
    But fat people eat too much food.

    Yep, but you aren’t gonna sell any potions, powders, courses, or books with thinking like that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. Vojkan says:

    “Higher intelligence [....] lower general medical practitioner costs, lower hospital costs, and less use of medical services”

    Or it might be that intelligent folks don’t go to the doctor for a mere cold. And it might also be that intelligent have healthier eating habits because they can afford to buy healthier food. Calory for calory, some foods happen to be healthier, and also more expensive than others. a calory is just a quantity of energy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Vojkan
    I wanted to rephrase my second sentence but my attention was diverted and my time to correct expired.
    It might be that people who score higher on "intelligence" tests have healthier eating habits because they usually can afford to buy healthier foods. Calory for calory, some foods happen to be healthier, and also more expensive than others. A calory is just a unit of energy.
    , @Respect
    It is well known by clinicians that about 20% of the population do about 80% of the health spending .

    This 20% of the population is composed by old people ( normal ) , people with congenital illnesses , and , yea , idiots that drink too much , use drugs , or go to the doctor for a mere cold or because they feel sad . No matter how much money throw at this 20% of the population the olds end up dying , the people with congenital illnesses do not cure and many die prematurely , and the idiots never learn .
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. Vojkan says:
    @Vojkan
    "Higher intelligence [....] lower general medical practitioner costs, lower hospital costs, and less use of medical services"

    Or it might be that intelligent folks don't go to the doctor for a mere cold. And it might also be that intelligent have healthier eating habits because they can afford to buy healthier food. Calory for calory, some foods happen to be healthier, and also more expensive than others. a calory is just a quantity of energy.

    I wanted to rephrase my second sentence but my attention was diverted and my time to correct expired.
    It might be that people who score higher on “intelligence” tests have healthier eating habits because they usually can afford to buy healthier foods. Calory for calory, some foods happen to be healthier, and also more expensive than others. A calory is just a unit of energy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. Respect says:

    We are not created equal : tall , small , fat , thin , ugly , handsome , clever ,dumb , healthy , ill . white ,black ……

    Maybe God is not a democrat ?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    One sure thing — God doesn't lie and pretend like Nice People.
    , @Santoculto
    Maybe god is Nothing...
    , @Vojkan
    On the contrary, God is a democrat in the truest sense since He tolerates that people be all different and allows them to make their own decisions. Those who want to equalise people and impose their will on them, all in the name of "progress", are the true authoritarians.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. utu says:
    @Bruce
    I feel bad for distracting discussion of the article but to respond to RaceRealist88

    I can only go by my experience tracking my weight, approximate body composition and food/macro/calorie intake. If it makes a difference I do some basic weight training (not a 250 lb ripped bodybuilder like 0.1% of the population).

    With high carbs, my weight and body composition stabilize at about 2250 KCAL per day (which is about what the Cunningham formula predicts for my age and LBM). If I eat low carb, it’s a bit higher. Maybe 2400-2500 KCAL per day (it’s hard to track macros and calories with extreme precision). So there’s not a big difference. Is a calorie a calorie? Not exactly but close enough.

    If I had to guess what’s going on, based on what I’ve read a protein calorie counts for 3/gram when your body burns it (not 4/gram like in a lab) and foods with a higher insulin load encourage growth (potentially muscle and fat). Ok, there’s some nuance.
    But fat people eat too much food.

    With high carbs —- at about 2250 KCAL
    If I eat low carb —- 2400-2500 KCAL

    Did it occur to you that caloric food content determined by physical burning of various food is not really adequate measure how food is processed by a body. Good start would be to do caloric content of your poop. Which one is more caloric?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. @dearieme
    "Don’t smoke": certainly don't smoke cigarettes. Whether occasionally puffing contemplatively on a pipe does any measurable harm I don't know. Just in case it does I gave up decades ago. If it does no harm then those puritanical swine in the medical trades have denied me a good deal of pleasure.

    "Don’t get fat": but be careful to understand what's too fat, what too thin. If correlation is worth anything - never certain - then if you want a long life be "overweight". Don't, please don't, flirt with being "underweight". Some evidence is displayed in fig4:
    http://www.drdavidgrimes.com/2017/08/is-being-overweight-really-killing.html


    That was for a control group. For a bunch of invalids, specifically people who have had a stroke, look at fig 5. As the good Dr Grimes remarks "The death rate at 10 years for normal weight individuals is standardised as 1.0. We see a survival advantage in those with low overweight, high overweight, and low obesity – that is with people with BMI between 25 and 32.5. With “low obesity” there is a death risk reduction of almost 40%.

    Repeat, stroke-people with "low obesity" outlive those who are "normal" by a whopping margin. You might almost think that the sawbones and quacks ought to redefine "normal", "overweight" and "obese" in light of such figures. Sorry, the surgeons and physicians.

    "and don’t read too many health warnings": I never disagree with tautologies.

    “Don’t smoke”: certainly don’t smoke cigarettes. Whether occasionally puffing contemplatively on a pipe does any measurable harm I don’t know.”

    Among the many ironies our government has presented us with over the years is a 300-plus page report known as the US Surgeon General’s report on smoking and tobacco use. I discovered, buried deep inside this tedious tome, a tiny section on pipe smoking. After spending some years tracking the heaviest pipe smokers on the planet (up to ten bowls a day!) over a period of years, it was concluded that there was no discernible health difference between pipe smokers and complete non-smokers. Well, except for one small detail–they found that the pipesmokers were living, on average, 4 years longer than complete non-smokers. Scientists say they don’t exactly know why this occurs, but their guess (and mine) is that it’s because pipesmokers generally do not inhale and because the raison d’être of their hobby is pure relaxation.

    I read an article years ago that some scientists estimated that curing cancer, heart disease and diabetes would, on average, add only 4 years to most people’s life expectancy. But if those 4 extra years can be had by pipe smoking, why wait for the unlikely miracle of curing our top diseases? By the government’s own measure, we should have established a national program to encourage the hobby of pipesmoking years ago.

    I know two doctors who are avid longterm pipesmokers, one a general practitioner and the other a surgeon. Their take on it, as long you don’t inhale, is that it’s a relatively harmless hobby.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dearieme
    Many thanks, Walt. Now my only problem is that the tobacconists all seem to have closed. And, alas, that my beloved might not approve. Perhaps I can show that it would reduce the cost of Life Insurance, or drive up the value of annuities?

    I can't reasonably expect to be able to source the Varsity Mixture of my beginner's days but no doubt I could source Balkan Sobranie somewhere. I still have an ancient half tin. Maybe I can restore it to life with the old slice-of-potato trick.

    I think I can safely say, though, that my days of motorcycling while smoking my pipe will not return.
    , @Anonymous

    I know two doctors who are avid longterm pipesmokers, one a general practitioner and the other a surgeon. Their take on it, as long you don’t inhale, is that it’s a relatively harmless hobby.

     

    Mouth cancer?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. utu says:
    @Kratoklastes
    As you point out, we're sneaking up (slowly) on genuine root causes of Western lifestyle disease and 'metabolic' syndrome (better referred to as insulin resistance syndrome) - the root cause seems to be the damage done by rapid intraday insulin cycling, driven by excess consumption of carbohydrate. Give it a generation, and that will be the dominant paradigm.

    There are two big red flags in this piece that make it pretty clear that the pudding is over-egged.

    The first red flag is the implicit acceptance of CICO - which is GIGO on a par with other dead tropes like dietary-cholesterol-causes-serum-cholesterol, dietary-fat-causes-CVD, and 'healthy whole grains'.

    CICO is true (almost) by construction, so long as all excess calories are stored as tissue of the same density, which is a stretch. But the 'CO' side of things is not meaningfully within the scope of things that individuals can control, because most of the 'CO' happens as a result of basal metabolism... and the composition of the 'CI' affects that.

    Why didn't the writer go full-retard, and declare that the key paradigm is WIWO (weight-in/weight-out)? That must be true irrespective of metabolism. (Answer: it would be meaningless, even though it would be more useful than CICO... but WO is also not under anybody's conscious control).

    Besides: body weight is relatively unimportant.

    Body composition is much more important, but it's also not a very good measure of cardiovascular fitness.

    In my 20s I weighed upwards of 250lb, but was lean as a motherfucker (6-pack with vascularity lean). Nowadays I weigh ~225-230 depending on whether I've had a shit, but my abs have a good 2" of fat covering them.

    And yet I'm also objectively fitter: my VO2Max is 15% higher at 54 than it was in my 20s.

    Long story even longer: nutrition, metabolism, body comp and fitness/longevity are thinks that require bespoke attention; measures of general tendency are worse than meaningless, and most 'research' in the field is worse than muscle-mag broscience.

    Anyway... enough about that. Back to red flags.

    The second red flag is that the author presents obviously-poor data-munging as if it's science.

    Take a look at the list of variables for which correlations were obtained: the entire study is one of those lamentable exercises in promotion-disguised-as-research: the reduced-form, grant-seeking paradigm that was eliminated from Economics in the 1970s after the Lucas Critique -


    test everything against everything else, and pick some interesting things that correlate with IQ with our preferred sign, and pretend that we did science
     
    Most of those correlations - even the 'highly significant' ones - are absolutely meaningless when expressed as contributions to variance; they are certainly not of any predictive use (because most people's lives are mostly noise).

    Worse still, correlation coefficients are meaningless if the Gauss-Markov conditions do not hold (because ρ - Pearson's correlation - is explicitly the correlation derived from an OLS estimation; OLS is not efficient or unbiased if the model is not linear).

    What is the basis for assuming that the true relationship between any of those factors and IQ is linear? (Hint: if it's not, the G-M conditions do not hold).

    So, absolutely no surprise that this piece of 'research' was performed in a Department of Psychology - the natural stamping ground of the innumerate charlatan. (It's fun to watch the psycho-charlatans starting to re-brand themselves as 'neuroscientists'... grifters always need to know which way the wind is blowing and reposition themselves to extend the grift).
    .
    .
    It's exceedingly tedious when badly-performed 'research' of this kind gets any publicity: it reflects poorly on the numeracy of those doing the publicising, for a start.

    But it's doubly-tedious when the conclusions are things that I broadly agree with: it tars my anecdotally-supported personal hypotheses when they are associated with the sort of pseudo-scientific bunk that this article presents as 'research'.

    My own view is based on a few hundred anecdotes (smart people I know) contrasted against the sea of Betas-and-below readily observable in any shopping mall.

    Put broadly, it seems that in general, higher intelligence endows the bearer with a greater capacity for introspection, which in turn will help drive a general tendency to moderation. (Oddly, although being objectively the smartest of my social group, I am not introspective in the least - and moderation can go fuck itself).

    Smarter people do tend to be less fat than the Deltas and Epsilons, but that's not saying much. They smoke much less (although that's a recent thing - a behavioural change that started in the mid-80s) - and that single difference is enough to be the driver for almost all non-obesity related health outcomes.

    Oddly, although being objectively the smartest of my social group, I am not introspective in the least

    It shows though not in this statement where you got it right. And not that you are the smartest of the group, though a group where you would be the smartest most likely do exist if we only could establish a metric how to measure the smartness.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. Respect says:

    american cities , with few exceptions , are made for cars , not for walking . And if you don`t walk your health deteriorates .

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    And, sadly, cars are slower than a brisk walk.

    The model American male devotes more than 1600 hours a year to his car. He sits in it while it goes and while it stands idling. He parks it and searches for it. He earns the money to put down on it and to meet the monthly installments. He works to pay for gasoline, tolls, insurance, taxes, and tickets. He spends four of his sixteen waking hours on the road or gathering his resources for it. And this figure does not take into account the time consumed by other activities dictated by transport: time spent in hospitals, traffic courts, and garages; time spent watching automobile commercials or attending consumer education meetings to improve the quality of the next buy. The model American puts in 1600 hours to get 7500 miles: less than five miles per hour.

    http://ranprieur.com/readings/illichcars.html
     
    That was then. Cars are even slower now. Some researcher in Canada did a study based on Illich's essay, and if I remember correctly, the average speed nowadays of a car over total time invested in it is under 3 mph.

    But, the problem is, you can't walk from your house to the grocery without putting your life in mortal danger of getting killed by road-raging traffic that considers pedestrians low-class target material. So you buy a car. Technology is wonderful how it helps us.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. Anon[141] • Disclaimer says:
    @Respect
    We are not created equal : tall , small , fat , thin , ugly , handsome , clever ,dumb , healthy , ill . white ,black ......

    Maybe God is not a democrat ?

    One sure thing — God doesn’t lie and pretend like Nice People.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. George says:

    Okee Dokee, but if true do high IQ people have an obligation to regulate the environment and food choices to improve the lives of the low IQ people. Or do high IQ have an obligation, in the Randian sense, to pursue their own self interest and profit as much as possible from supplying the low IQ people with as much junk food as possible charging as much as possible for it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    This ''IQ'' differences seems appeared during the transition from agricultural/sedentary populations to urban/ densely populated ones. Those with lower IQ who live in urban areas are maladapted because they are reminiscent of neolitic groups. They weren't replaced because parasitary elites need their workforce to sustain their social pyramids. Someone already analysed the ''IQ'' variation among hunter-gatherers communities* My bet is that there is less IQ variation from the local avg among this groups than among urban/densely populated groups.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. @Respect
    We are not created equal : tall , small , fat , thin , ugly , handsome , clever ,dumb , healthy , ill . white ,black ......

    Maybe God is not a democrat ?

    Maybe god is Nothing…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Respect
    you wrote Nothing with a capital N ...... is it a freudian slip ? and god with g , are you a
    nihilist Santoculto ? is Nothingness your god ? .

    What a nick , Santo Culto , Holy Cult , at least with such a nick you should show some respeto to God , to Dio , God is All . Dio e tutto .
    , @Dieter Kief

    We are not created equal : tall , small , fat , thin , ugly , handsome , clever ,dumb , healthy , ill . white ,black ......

    Maybe God is not a democrat ?

    Maybe god is Nothing…
     
    = That could well be a hint at the roots of Christ's virgin birth: That it was caused by Nothing.
    Go back to medieval theology, and you will find, that I'm right because theHoly Ghost was proven to stem from unsubstantialness = to spring (= to originate) from - - - Nothing.

    (case proved, case closed)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. Don’t smoke, don’t get fat, and don’t read too many health warnings.

    And don’t obsess over any of it; instead, get up off yer ass and do stuff.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  35. anonymous[117] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ilyana_Rozumova
    Hogwash. Testosterone and its production by body is the key. Physical activity at young age result in increasing testosterone production through lifetime.

    Do you even lift, brah? LOL

    It takes getting on the gear to look more ripped than the full natty bodybuilders that are photographed in the old days, when photography was a new phenomenon, and artificial hormones had not been developed yet. It’s a small window, but very revealing, and nattyornot.com has it documented. And the website nattyornot.com has done a great job in researching and explaining the maximum potential of a natural male body here: http://nattyornot.com/how-big-can-you-get-naturally-without-steroids/

    250 lbs and ripped = on the gear, guaranteed. The maximum an exceptionally genetically well-endowed 6′ fellow can weigh naturally and be ripped (low fat enough to show off striated muscle) is about 184 lbs, and for most guys, 20 lbs less than that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @europeasant
    You bring up a good point. Another consideration is bone size, bone thickness. A 5'8" man with thin bone structure might start looking a bit sloppy( fat) at 135 lbs whereas with thick bone structure that man can weigh up to 180 lbs and not look sloppy. Of course it depends on whether that person does weight training.
    At the international weight lifting level most lifter in the 165 lbs category are around 5'6" and those in the 198 lbs category are around 5'8". There are exceptions of course.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. Vojkan says:
    @Respect
    We are not created equal : tall , small , fat , thin , ugly , handsome , clever ,dumb , healthy , ill . white ,black ......

    Maybe God is not a democrat ?

    On the contrary, God is a democrat in the truest sense since He tolerates that people be all different and allows them to make their own decisions. Those who want to equalise people and impose their will on them, all in the name of “progress”, are the true authoritarians.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. Respect says:
    @Santoculto
    Maybe god is Nothing...

    you wrote Nothing with a capital N …… is it a freudian slip ? and god with g , are you a
    nihilist Santoculto ? is Nothingness your god ? .

    What a nick , Santo Culto , Holy Cult , at least with such a nick you should show some respeto to God , to Dio , God is All . Dio e tutto .

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Jesus is inside me!! I respect your schizophrenia and or existential insecurity, amen!!
    , @Anonymous
    Nothingness is everybody's god.

    Word = God. John 1:1

    Abracadabra!

    Gods are nothing more than human belief in the power of word magic.

    Don't blame me, it's in the Bible.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. anonymous[997] • Disclaimer says:
    @Respect
    american cities , with few exceptions , are made for cars , not for walking . And if you don`t walk your health deteriorates .

    And, sadly, cars are slower than a brisk walk.

    The model American male devotes more than 1600 hours a year to his car. He sits in it while it goes and while it stands idling. He parks it and searches for it. He earns the money to put down on it and to meet the monthly installments. He works to pay for gasoline, tolls, insurance, taxes, and tickets. He spends four of his sixteen waking hours on the road or gathering his resources for it. And this figure does not take into account the time consumed by other activities dictated by transport: time spent in hospitals, traffic courts, and garages; time spent watching automobile commercials or attending consumer education meetings to improve the quality of the next buy. The model American puts in 1600 hours to get 7500 miles: less than five miles per hour.

    http://ranprieur.com/readings/illichcars.html

    That was then. Cars are even slower now. Some researcher in Canada did a study based on Illich’s essay, and if I remember correctly, the average speed nowadays of a car over total time invested in it is under 3 mph.

    But, the problem is, you can’t walk from your house to the grocery without putting your life in mortal danger of getting killed by road-raging traffic that considers pedestrians low-class target material. So you buy a car. Technology is wonderful how it helps us.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. @Kratoklastes
    As you point out, we're sneaking up (slowly) on genuine root causes of Western lifestyle disease and 'metabolic' syndrome (better referred to as insulin resistance syndrome) - the root cause seems to be the damage done by rapid intraday insulin cycling, driven by excess consumption of carbohydrate. Give it a generation, and that will be the dominant paradigm.

    There are two big red flags in this piece that make it pretty clear that the pudding is over-egged.

    The first red flag is the implicit acceptance of CICO - which is GIGO on a par with other dead tropes like dietary-cholesterol-causes-serum-cholesterol, dietary-fat-causes-CVD, and 'healthy whole grains'.

    CICO is true (almost) by construction, so long as all excess calories are stored as tissue of the same density, which is a stretch. But the 'CO' side of things is not meaningfully within the scope of things that individuals can control, because most of the 'CO' happens as a result of basal metabolism... and the composition of the 'CI' affects that.

    Why didn't the writer go full-retard, and declare that the key paradigm is WIWO (weight-in/weight-out)? That must be true irrespective of metabolism. (Answer: it would be meaningless, even though it would be more useful than CICO... but WO is also not under anybody's conscious control).

    Besides: body weight is relatively unimportant.

    Body composition is much more important, but it's also not a very good measure of cardiovascular fitness.

    In my 20s I weighed upwards of 250lb, but was lean as a motherfucker (6-pack with vascularity lean). Nowadays I weigh ~225-230 depending on whether I've had a shit, but my abs have a good 2" of fat covering them.

    And yet I'm also objectively fitter: my VO2Max is 15% higher at 54 than it was in my 20s.

    Long story even longer: nutrition, metabolism, body comp and fitness/longevity are thinks that require bespoke attention; measures of general tendency are worse than meaningless, and most 'research' in the field is worse than muscle-mag broscience.

    Anyway... enough about that. Back to red flags.

    The second red flag is that the author presents obviously-poor data-munging as if it's science.

    Take a look at the list of variables for which correlations were obtained: the entire study is one of those lamentable exercises in promotion-disguised-as-research: the reduced-form, grant-seeking paradigm that was eliminated from Economics in the 1970s after the Lucas Critique -


    test everything against everything else, and pick some interesting things that correlate with IQ with our preferred sign, and pretend that we did science
     
    Most of those correlations - even the 'highly significant' ones - are absolutely meaningless when expressed as contributions to variance; they are certainly not of any predictive use (because most people's lives are mostly noise).

    Worse still, correlation coefficients are meaningless if the Gauss-Markov conditions do not hold (because ρ - Pearson's correlation - is explicitly the correlation derived from an OLS estimation; OLS is not efficient or unbiased if the model is not linear).

    What is the basis for assuming that the true relationship between any of those factors and IQ is linear? (Hint: if it's not, the G-M conditions do not hold).

    So, absolutely no surprise that this piece of 'research' was performed in a Department of Psychology - the natural stamping ground of the innumerate charlatan. (It's fun to watch the psycho-charlatans starting to re-brand themselves as 'neuroscientists'... grifters always need to know which way the wind is blowing and reposition themselves to extend the grift).
    .
    .
    It's exceedingly tedious when badly-performed 'research' of this kind gets any publicity: it reflects poorly on the numeracy of those doing the publicising, for a start.

    But it's doubly-tedious when the conclusions are things that I broadly agree with: it tars my anecdotally-supported personal hypotheses when they are associated with the sort of pseudo-scientific bunk that this article presents as 'research'.

    My own view is based on a few hundred anecdotes (smart people I know) contrasted against the sea of Betas-and-below readily observable in any shopping mall.

    Put broadly, it seems that in general, higher intelligence endows the bearer with a greater capacity for introspection, which in turn will help drive a general tendency to moderation. (Oddly, although being objectively the smartest of my social group, I am not introspective in the least - and moderation can go fuck itself).

    Smarter people do tend to be less fat than the Deltas and Epsilons, but that's not saying much. They smoke much less (although that's a recent thing - a behavioural change that started in the mid-80s) - and that single difference is enough to be the driver for almost all non-obesity related health outcomes.

    So, absolutely no surprise that this piece of ‘research’ was performed in a Department of Psychology – the natural stamping ground of the innumerate charlatan. (It’s fun to watch the psycho-charlatans starting to re-brand themselves as ‘neuroscientists’… grifters always need to know which way the wind is blowing and reposition themselves to extend the grift).

    You done said it all, right there.

    I’m constantly fascinated that a society built on nearly 100% BS can actually exist, let alone stumble along for so long. We’re here for the entertainment of the G-wdz.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Vojkan
    I think it still exists due to the sheer force of inertia from the time it was a functional society and before the charlatans imposed their confabulations as the official truth.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. Respect says:
    @Vojkan
    "Higher intelligence [....] lower general medical practitioner costs, lower hospital costs, and less use of medical services"

    Or it might be that intelligent folks don't go to the doctor for a mere cold. And it might also be that intelligent have healthier eating habits because they can afford to buy healthier food. Calory for calory, some foods happen to be healthier, and also more expensive than others. a calory is just a quantity of energy.

    It is well known by clinicians that about 20% of the population do about 80% of the health spending .

    This 20% of the population is composed by old people ( normal ) , people with congenital illnesses , and , yea , idiots that drink too much , use drugs , or go to the doctor for a mere cold or because they feel sad . No matter how much money throw at this 20% of the population the olds end up dying , the people with congenital illnesses do not cure and many die prematurely , and the idiots never learn .

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. @Santoculto
    Maybe god is Nothing...

    We are not created equal : tall , small , fat , thin , ugly , handsome , clever ,dumb , healthy , ill . white ,black ……

    Maybe God is not a democrat ?

    Maybe god is Nothing…

    = That could well be a hint at the roots of Christ’s virgin birth: That it was caused by Nothing.
    Go back to medieval theology, and you will find, that I’m right because theHoly Ghost was proven to stem from unsubstantialness = to spring (= to originate) from – – – Nothing.

    (case proved, case closed)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    My soul is Nothing, the piece of infinity as a wandering empty space of thought and feeling.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. @George
    Okee Dokee, but if true do high IQ people have an obligation to regulate the environment and food choices to improve the lives of the low IQ people. Or do high IQ have an obligation, in the Randian sense, to pursue their own self interest and profit as much as possible from supplying the low IQ people with as much junk food as possible charging as much as possible for it.

    This ”IQ” differences seems appeared during the transition from agricultural/sedentary populations to urban/ densely populated ones. Those with lower IQ who live in urban areas are maladapted because they are reminiscent of neolitic groups. They weren’t replaced because parasitary elites need their workforce to sustain their social pyramids. Someone already analysed the ”IQ” variation among hunter-gatherers communities* My bet is that there is less IQ variation from the local avg among this groups than among urban/densely populated groups.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. @Respect
    you wrote Nothing with a capital N ...... is it a freudian slip ? and god with g , are you a
    nihilist Santoculto ? is Nothingness your god ? .

    What a nick , Santo Culto , Holy Cult , at least with such a nick you should show some respeto to God , to Dio , God is All . Dio e tutto .

    Jesus is inside me!! I respect your schizophrenia and or existential insecurity, amen!!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. @Dieter Kief

    We are not created equal : tall , small , fat , thin , ugly , handsome , clever ,dumb , healthy , ill . white ,black ......

    Maybe God is not a democrat ?

    Maybe god is Nothing…
     
    = That could well be a hint at the roots of Christ's virgin birth: That it was caused by Nothing.
    Go back to medieval theology, and you will find, that I'm right because theHoly Ghost was proven to stem from unsubstantialness = to spring (= to originate) from - - - Nothing.

    (case proved, case closed)

    My soul is Nothing, the piece of infinity as a wandering empty space of thought and feeling.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Respect
    Change you nick to Santoculo
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. dearieme says:
    @SirWalterRaleigh
    “Don’t smoke”: certainly don’t smoke cigarettes. Whether occasionally puffing contemplatively on a pipe does any measurable harm I don’t know."

    Among the many ironies our government has presented us with over the years is a 300-plus page report known as the US Surgeon General's report on smoking and tobacco use. I discovered, buried deep inside this tedious tome, a tiny section on pipe smoking. After spending some years tracking the heaviest pipe smokers on the planet (up to ten bowls a day!) over a period of years, it was concluded that there was no discernible health difference between pipe smokers and complete non-smokers. Well, except for one small detail--they found that the pipesmokers were living, on average, 4 years longer than complete non-smokers. Scientists say they don't exactly know why this occurs, but their guess (and mine) is that it's because pipesmokers generally do not inhale and because the raison d'être of their hobby is pure relaxation.

    I read an article years ago that some scientists estimated that curing cancer, heart disease and diabetes would, on average, add only 4 years to most people's life expectancy. But if those 4 extra years can be had by pipe smoking, why wait for the unlikely miracle of curing our top diseases? By the government's own measure, we should have established a national program to encourage the hobby of pipesmoking years ago.

    I know two doctors who are avid longterm pipesmokers, one a general practitioner and the other a surgeon. Their take on it, as long you don't inhale, is that it's a relatively harmless hobby.

    Many thanks, Walt. Now my only problem is that the tobacconists all seem to have closed. And, alas, that my beloved might not approve. Perhaps I can show that it would reduce the cost of Life Insurance, or drive up the value of annuities?

    I can’t reasonably expect to be able to source the Varsity Mixture of my beginner’s days but no doubt I could source Balkan Sobranie somewhere. I still have an ancient half tin. Maybe I can restore it to life with the old slice-of-potato trick.

    I think I can safely say, though, that my days of motorcycling while smoking my pipe will not return.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sparkon
    https://forgottenhistoryblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/chester2ne9.jpg

    One curious way we humans utilize our intelligence is to rationalize stupid beliefs and counterproductive behaviors. The more foolish the belief, the more eloquent the rationalizations.

    Of course, it always helps to have some celebrity or famous person showing the way. Now you too can fill your mouth and nasal passages with tobacco smoke for years on end, and it will never affect your health.

    Uh huh.


    Results: Current pipe smoking, compared with never use of tobacco, was associated with an increased risk of death from cancers of the lung (relative risk [RR] = 5.00, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 4.16 to 6.01), oropharynx (RR = 3.90, 95% CI = 2.15 to 7.08), esophagus (RR = 2.44, 95% CI = 1.51 to 3.95), colorectum (RR = 1.41, 95% CI = 1.15 to 1.73), pancreas (RR = 1.61, 95% CI = 1.24 to 2.09), and larynx (RR = 13.1, 95% CI = 5.2 to 33.1), and from coronary heart disease (RR = 1.30, 95% CI = 1.18 to 1.43), cerebrovascular disease (RR = 1.27, 95% CI = 1.09 to 1.48), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (RR = 2.98, 95% CI = 2.17 to 4.11). These risks were generally smaller than those associated with cigarette smoking and similar to or larger than those associated with cigar smoking. Relative risks of lung cancer showed statistically significant increases with number of pipes smoked per day, years of smoking, and depth of inhalation and decreases with years since quitting. Conclusion: Results from this large prospective study suggest that pipe smoking confers a risk of tobacco-associated disease similar to cigar smoking.
     
    https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article/96/11/853/2520796

    During my youth, smoking was glamorized. It was commonly shown in movies and on TV -- even Perry Mason lit up -- but especially on the back covers and in full page ads in your favorite magazines, where the likes of Ronald Reagan, Bob Hope, and even Joltin' Joe DiMaggio were shilling for Chesterfield. In NYC's Times Square, a billboard for Camel cigarettes blew giant smoke rings for over 25 years. They were erected in 20 cities, all blowing smoke.

    http://media.theweek.com/img/generic/Cigs_RonaldReagan.jpg

    https://forgottenhistoryblog.com/before-becoming-president-ronald-reagan-was-a-paid-cigarette-model/

    But even Ronald Reagan eventually wised up...at least about smoking.

    https://cdn1.thr.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/landscape_928x523/2013/09/ronald_reagan_bill_clinton_century_city_a_l.jpg


    As the two men posed for the cameras before their private meeting, Mr. Reagan handed his successor a jar of red, white and blue jelly beans, saying his "history with jelly beans" had "prevented me from becoming a cigarette addict."

    -- N.Y. Times
     


    "You can tell a lot about a fella's character by whether he picks out all of one color or just grabs a handful," he said.

    -- L.A. Times
     

    Which penetrating insight about human nature probably explains a lot about how Ronnie became a revered and esteemed Conservative icon.

    Or was it "the other Nancy Davis" whom we should thank for that?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. Anonymous[253] • Disclaimer says:
    @Respect
    you wrote Nothing with a capital N ...... is it a freudian slip ? and god with g , are you a
    nihilist Santoculto ? is Nothingness your god ? .

    What a nick , Santo Culto , Holy Cult , at least with such a nick you should show some respeto to God , to Dio , God is All . Dio e tutto .

    Nothingness is everybody’s god.

    Word = God. John 1:1

    Abracadabra!

    Gods are nothing more than human belief in the power of word magic.

    Don’t blame me, it’s in the Bible.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. Respect says:
    @Santoculto
    My soul is Nothing, the piece of infinity as a wandering empty space of thought and feeling.

    Change you nick to Santoculo

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    God teach us to be good with others specially with those who don't believe on HXM...

    Mercy!!!

    My ass is real
    Bigger than God

    God is a empty word
    Where live our souls
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. Anonymous[321] • Disclaimer says:
    @SirWalterRaleigh
    “Don’t smoke”: certainly don’t smoke cigarettes. Whether occasionally puffing contemplatively on a pipe does any measurable harm I don’t know."

    Among the many ironies our government has presented us with over the years is a 300-plus page report known as the US Surgeon General's report on smoking and tobacco use. I discovered, buried deep inside this tedious tome, a tiny section on pipe smoking. After spending some years tracking the heaviest pipe smokers on the planet (up to ten bowls a day!) over a period of years, it was concluded that there was no discernible health difference between pipe smokers and complete non-smokers. Well, except for one small detail--they found that the pipesmokers were living, on average, 4 years longer than complete non-smokers. Scientists say they don't exactly know why this occurs, but their guess (and mine) is that it's because pipesmokers generally do not inhale and because the raison d'être of their hobby is pure relaxation.

    I read an article years ago that some scientists estimated that curing cancer, heart disease and diabetes would, on average, add only 4 years to most people's life expectancy. But if those 4 extra years can be had by pipe smoking, why wait for the unlikely miracle of curing our top diseases? By the government's own measure, we should have established a national program to encourage the hobby of pipesmoking years ago.

    I know two doctors who are avid longterm pipesmokers, one a general practitioner and the other a surgeon. Their take on it, as long you don't inhale, is that it's a relatively harmless hobby.

    I know two doctors who are avid longterm pipesmokers, one a general practitioner and the other a surgeon. Their take on it, as long you don’t inhale, is that it’s a relatively harmless hobby.

    Mouth cancer?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. Vojkan says:
    @jacques sheete

    So, absolutely no surprise that this piece of ‘research’ was performed in a Department of Psychology – the natural stamping ground of the innumerate charlatan. (It’s fun to watch the psycho-charlatans starting to re-brand themselves as ‘neuroscientists’… grifters always need to know which way the wind is blowing and reposition themselves to extend the grift).
     
    You done said it all, right there.

    I'm constantly fascinated that a society built on nearly 100% BS can actually exist, let alone stumble along for so long. We're here for the entertainment of the G-wdz.

    I think it still exists due to the sheer force of inertia from the time it was a functional society and before the charlatans imposed their confabulations as the official truth.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete
    I agree and the G-wdz are laughing at us because some of us believe the quacks and some think we have some control.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. Sparkon says:
    @dearieme
    Many thanks, Walt. Now my only problem is that the tobacconists all seem to have closed. And, alas, that my beloved might not approve. Perhaps I can show that it would reduce the cost of Life Insurance, or drive up the value of annuities?

    I can't reasonably expect to be able to source the Varsity Mixture of my beginner's days but no doubt I could source Balkan Sobranie somewhere. I still have an ancient half tin. Maybe I can restore it to life with the old slice-of-potato trick.

    I think I can safely say, though, that my days of motorcycling while smoking my pipe will not return.


    One curious way we humans utilize our intelligence is to rationalize stupid beliefs and counterproductive behaviors. The more foolish the belief, the more eloquent the rationalizations.

    Of course, it always helps to have some celebrity or famous person showing the way. Now you too can fill your mouth and nasal passages with tobacco smoke for years on end, and it will never affect your health.

    Uh huh.

    Results: Current pipe smoking, compared with never use of tobacco, was associated with an increased risk of death from cancers of the lung (relative risk [RR] = 5.00, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 4.16 to 6.01), oropharynx (RR = 3.90, 95% CI = 2.15 to 7.08), esophagus (RR = 2.44, 95% CI = 1.51 to 3.95), colorectum (RR = 1.41, 95% CI = 1.15 to 1.73), pancreas (RR = 1.61, 95% CI = 1.24 to 2.09), and larynx (RR = 13.1, 95% CI = 5.2 to 33.1), and from coronary heart disease (RR = 1.30, 95% CI = 1.18 to 1.43), cerebrovascular disease (RR = 1.27, 95% CI = 1.09 to 1.48), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (RR = 2.98, 95% CI = 2.17 to 4.11). These risks were generally smaller than those associated with cigarette smoking and similar to or larger than those associated with cigar smoking. Relative risks of lung cancer showed statistically significant increases with number of pipes smoked per day, years of smoking, and depth of inhalation and decreases with years since quitting. Conclusion: Results from this large prospective study suggest that pipe smoking confers a risk of tobacco-associated disease similar to cigar smoking.

    https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article/96/11/853/2520796

    During my youth, smoking was glamorized. It was commonly shown in movies and on TV — even Perry Mason lit up — but especially on the back covers and in full page ads in your favorite magazines, where the likes of Ronald Reagan, Bob Hope, and even Joltin’ Joe DiMaggio were shilling for Chesterfield. In NYC’s Times Square, a billboard for Camel cigarettes blew giant smoke rings for over 25 years. They were erected in 20 cities, all blowing smoke.

    https://forgottenhistoryblog.com/before-becoming-president-ronald-reagan-was-a-paid-cigarette-model/

    But even Ronald Reagan eventually wised up…at least about smoking.

    As the two men posed for the cameras before their private meeting, Mr. Reagan handed his successor a jar of red, white and blue jelly beans, saying his “history with jelly beans” had “prevented me from becoming a cigarette addict.”

    — N.Y. Times

    “You can tell a lot about a fella’s character by whether he picks out all of one color or just grabs a handful,” he said.

    – L.A. Times

    Which penetrating insight about human nature probably explains a lot about how Ronnie became a revered and esteemed Conservative icon.

    Or was it “the other Nancy Davis” whom we should thank for that?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hu Mi Yu
    I remember Ronald Reagan's Chesterfield ads, but I had no idea who he was at the time. Later he had a show on local Los Angles TV called "Death Valley Days." His sponsor was Boraxo soap, and he was often seen praising its virtues in the ads.

    As he began his political career, the sponsor changed. His program became GE theater. After he was elected governor, someone took a still from one of those early ads with Reagan smiling and holding a can of Boraxo. He made a poster out of it with the caption:
    "Thanks for the votes, suckers." They sued for copyright violation and won. All the remaining posters were destroyed. I wish I had bought one as a souvenir of the 1960s.

    Possibly the earliest example of using copyright law to suppress political dissent.
    , @PasDeMerde
    It looks like the "academic" study cited was observing tobacco smoke-inhaling alcoholics ('depth of inhalation' accompanied by 4-5 drinks--which is medically known as binge drinking) and no doubt these people are inviting some serious health problems. On the other hand, the US Surgeon General's report appears to have been following non-inhaling pipe smokers, so no surprise there in the difference of outcomes. Anyone can demonstrate how dangerous sex really is if they do a study comprised of people who only have unprotected sex with HIV-positive partners.

    At any rate, I wouldn't worry. A cousin who is an internist tells me that the biggest health problem today for people of both sexes (from their late 70s up) is that they are simply living too long. Everyone I know in that age group concurs, and elderly relatives state this all the time. They seem baffled by the relentless drive to keep them alive long after they can have any kind of functional life.

    I think we would all be better off if we just accepted our mortality and stopped obsessing over it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. Gary says:

    Mr. Thompson, you must not fat shame the obese chain-smoking degenerates we see
    around us every day by espousing your simple health philosophy. You are hurting
    feelings of the snowflakes who dominate the attention of mainstream media of
    USS Titanic. On the contrary, according to prevailing Cultural Marxist commie
    propaganda, we must glorify the self-selected morbidly obese (especially females).

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    Ironically, fat shaming makes the problem worse.

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/07/06/science-proves-it-fat-shaming-doesnt-work/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. Polymath says:

    It’s ridiculous to see all the straw men erected here.

    Yes, CICO is at best a very crude first approximation.

    But Thompson’s post didn’t say anything wrong. He said, if you want to lose weight, eat less.

    No one disputes that if you want to gain weight, eat more. Therefore, if you want to lose weight, eat less. The relationship may be complicated or nonlinear, but it is still monotonic. This is a trivial truism which unfortunately people lose sight of with unnecessarily fancy diets. Because of metabolic responses it may be difficult to eat enough less to lose as much weight as is desired, but correlation between food intake and weight is still always going to be positive if the composition of the diet isn’t radically altered. (If you eat less of EVERYTHING you will lose weight; if you eat less of some things but more of other things, you may gain weight despite the possibility of defining a measure by which you are consuming less.)

    And despite the inadequacies of CICO, Thompson’s comment that calorie reduction is the “main factor” in weight loss is still completely correct as a statistical assertion, it’s just not the only factor. For any given patient, if you could somehow obtain the effect of all possible diets on the patient’s weight, and you did a principal components analysis on the data, the primary axis which explained the most of the variation would look very much like “calories”, even if the amount of variation explained by it is far short of 100%.

    Read More
    • Agree: James Thompson, utu
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  53. Agent76 says:

    Aug 21, 2018 Death by vaccinations from the CDC

    How to get the information from the CDC about vaccines and damage done

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  54. Simply astonishing. Who could have ever guessed that “fat and stupid” were related?

    See? This is why we need billions of tax dollars spent on research. It’s imperative that we can prove what our lying eyes have been telling us for thousands of years. Plus, how else will fat and stupid researchers be able to afford more food? It just wouldn’t be humane to deprive academics of their second and third chins..

    As for smoking, some of us are keeping at it for two reasons: first, it pisses off all the right people and, second, we’re too cowardly to go full Sky King and this is the quickest way out of this insane life surrounded by imbeciles. Smoke ‘em if you’ve got ‘em!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    As for smoking, some of us are keeping at it for two reasons: first, it pisses off all the right people and, second, we’re too cowardly to go full Sky King and this is the quickest way out of this insane life surrounded by imbeciles. Smoke ‘em if you’ve got ‘em!
     
    Smokers like to bitch about my incense sticks. Hey, I say, go on to the next rail-car! Second-hand incense smoke never killed anyone! I got my rights, dammit!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. @Respect
    Change you nick to Santoculo

    God teach us to be good with others specially with those who don’t believe on HXM…

    Mercy!!!

    My ass is real
    Bigger than God

    God is a empty word
    Where live our souls

    Read More
    • Replies: @Respect
    Santoculo , you are a poet , keep on writing . Amen .
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. @RaceRealist88
    Your "dictum", which is also the mainstream dictum, is false:

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/12/30/is-diet-an-iq-test/

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2018/03/18/the-weight-loss-and-thermodynamics-fallacy/

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/08/11/the-calories-incalories-out-myth/

    Associations aren't causes; if intelligence is taken to be a mental ability then it cannot be reduced to genes or brain structure/states because psychophysical reductionism is false. Numerous a priori arguments establish the claim that the mental is irreducible to the physical. For instance, Ross' Immaterial Aspects of Thought; Nagle's arguments in Mind and Cosmos; Davidson's argument against the existence of psychophysical and psychological laws.

    Thinking is a mental activity which results in a thought. So if thinking is a mental activity which results in a thought, what is a thought? A thought is a mental state of considering a particular idea or answer to a question or committing oneself to an idea or answer.

    These mental states are, or are related to, beliefs. When one considers a particular answer to a question they are paving the way to holding a particular belief; when they commit themselves to an answer they have formulated a new belief.

    Beliefs are propositional attitudes: believing p involves adopting the belief attitude to proposition p. So, cognition is thinking: a mental process that results in the formation of a propositional belief.

    When one acquires a propositional attitude by thinking, a process takes place in stages. Future propositional attitudes are justified on earlier propositional attitudes. Cognition is thinking; thinking is a mental state of considering a particular view (proposition).

    Since thoughts are related to, or are beliefs, and beliefs are irreducible to brain states, then thoughts, too, are irreducible to brain states.

    So I take it you’re fat?

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    Not at all. I take it you can't respond to what I wrote?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. People too often take the Malcom Gladwell approach to complex problems: come up with a single, simple, sweeping explanation for everything.

    The different factors that have been shown to affect health are not mutually exclusive: intelligence; diet (both what and when we eat); social relationships and emotional/mental health; genetic resistance to certain diseases; various known unknowns and unknown unknowns; etc.

    Two things to note:
    I had a grandmother that smoked everyday from when she was 14 and sailed past 90 being completely independent, mobile and mentally sharp before she died at 93 when her appendix burst. Everything is a genotype-by-environment interaction. Yes, sugar is generally bad for humans, but some humans are impervious to insulin resistance. There are also obvious group differences (see how groups without a history of agriculture respond to the Western Diet, particularly sugar and alcohol). Same with smoking. It will kill some people, but others like my grandmother are impervious to it (maybe she would have sailed past 100 if not for the cigarettes – I’ll never know).

    Intermittent fasting isn’t a magic bullet, but it’s the closest thing I’ve found. Do some research and try it out if, like me, you’re finding it harder to keep off the pounds in middle age. (I’m currently doing a 7-hour daily eating window).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    Intermittent fasting isn’t a magic bullet, but it’s the closest thing I’ve found. Do some research and try it out if, like me, you’re finding it harder to keep off the pounds in middle age. (I’m currently doing a 7-hour daily eating window).
     
    Is fasting all day, for one day, "intermittent"? How about fasting for three following days after every tenth day? Intermittent? How about not eating anything during Ramadan, followed by 30 days of eating Israeli infants? Intermittent?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. @Stan d Mute
    So I take it you’re fat?

    Not at all. I take it you can’t respond to what I wrote?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stan d Mute
    I don’t write apologetics to fat asses. Nor do I see any point in explicating common sense.

    And I utterly fail to understand why you, if not a fat ass, should bother with it either. But you go on and be you, I’ll continue to be me.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. @RaceRealist88
    Not at all. I take it you can't respond to what I wrote?

    I don’t write apologetics to fat asses. Nor do I see any point in explicating common sense.

    And I utterly fail to understand why you, if not a fat ass, should bother with it either. But you go on and be you, I’ll continue to be me.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    "I don’t write apologetics to fat asses."

    I'm not fat.

    "And I utterly fail to understand why you, if not a fat ass, should bother with it either."

    It's part of my career to worry about these things.

    I guess you can't respond to anything I've written.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. eah says:

    Rogue Health and Fitness

    Dennis Mangan on Twitter — here.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  61. ” Intelligence is related to education and socio-economic status (SES), and those were known to be related to health inequalities before intelligence was known to have health associations. Although education and SES are principally thought of as social-environmental variables, both have been found to be partly heritable, by both twin-based and molecular genetic studies, both have high genetic correlations with intelligence ”

    Any fool can see that most of the time intelligent parents get intelligent children, any fool understands that intelligent people are able to direct their lives better.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  62. Anonymous[130] • Disclaimer says:
    @Kratoklastes
    As you point out, we're sneaking up (slowly) on genuine root causes of Western lifestyle disease and 'metabolic' syndrome (better referred to as insulin resistance syndrome) - the root cause seems to be the damage done by rapid intraday insulin cycling, driven by excess consumption of carbohydrate. Give it a generation, and that will be the dominant paradigm.

    There are two big red flags in this piece that make it pretty clear that the pudding is over-egged.

    The first red flag is the implicit acceptance of CICO - which is GIGO on a par with other dead tropes like dietary-cholesterol-causes-serum-cholesterol, dietary-fat-causes-CVD, and 'healthy whole grains'.

    CICO is true (almost) by construction, so long as all excess calories are stored as tissue of the same density, which is a stretch. But the 'CO' side of things is not meaningfully within the scope of things that individuals can control, because most of the 'CO' happens as a result of basal metabolism... and the composition of the 'CI' affects that.

    Why didn't the writer go full-retard, and declare that the key paradigm is WIWO (weight-in/weight-out)? That must be true irrespective of metabolism. (Answer: it would be meaningless, even though it would be more useful than CICO... but WO is also not under anybody's conscious control).

    Besides: body weight is relatively unimportant.

    Body composition is much more important, but it's also not a very good measure of cardiovascular fitness.

    In my 20s I weighed upwards of 250lb, but was lean as a motherfucker (6-pack with vascularity lean). Nowadays I weigh ~225-230 depending on whether I've had a shit, but my abs have a good 2" of fat covering them.

    And yet I'm also objectively fitter: my VO2Max is 15% higher at 54 than it was in my 20s.

    Long story even longer: nutrition, metabolism, body comp and fitness/longevity are thinks that require bespoke attention; measures of general tendency are worse than meaningless, and most 'research' in the field is worse than muscle-mag broscience.

    Anyway... enough about that. Back to red flags.

    The second red flag is that the author presents obviously-poor data-munging as if it's science.

    Take a look at the list of variables for which correlations were obtained: the entire study is one of those lamentable exercises in promotion-disguised-as-research: the reduced-form, grant-seeking paradigm that was eliminated from Economics in the 1970s after the Lucas Critique -


    test everything against everything else, and pick some interesting things that correlate with IQ with our preferred sign, and pretend that we did science
     
    Most of those correlations - even the 'highly significant' ones - are absolutely meaningless when expressed as contributions to variance; they are certainly not of any predictive use (because most people's lives are mostly noise).

    Worse still, correlation coefficients are meaningless if the Gauss-Markov conditions do not hold (because ρ - Pearson's correlation - is explicitly the correlation derived from an OLS estimation; OLS is not efficient or unbiased if the model is not linear).

    What is the basis for assuming that the true relationship between any of those factors and IQ is linear? (Hint: if it's not, the G-M conditions do not hold).

    So, absolutely no surprise that this piece of 'research' was performed in a Department of Psychology - the natural stamping ground of the innumerate charlatan. (It's fun to watch the psycho-charlatans starting to re-brand themselves as 'neuroscientists'... grifters always need to know which way the wind is blowing and reposition themselves to extend the grift).
    .
    .
    It's exceedingly tedious when badly-performed 'research' of this kind gets any publicity: it reflects poorly on the numeracy of those doing the publicising, for a start.

    But it's doubly-tedious when the conclusions are things that I broadly agree with: it tars my anecdotally-supported personal hypotheses when they are associated with the sort of pseudo-scientific bunk that this article presents as 'research'.

    My own view is based on a few hundred anecdotes (smart people I know) contrasted against the sea of Betas-and-below readily observable in any shopping mall.

    Put broadly, it seems that in general, higher intelligence endows the bearer with a greater capacity for introspection, which in turn will help drive a general tendency to moderation. (Oddly, although being objectively the smartest of my social group, I am not introspective in the least - and moderation can go fuck itself).

    Smarter people do tend to be less fat than the Deltas and Epsilons, but that's not saying much. They smoke much less (although that's a recent thing - a behavioural change that started in the mid-80s) - and that single difference is enough to be the driver for almost all non-obesity related health outcomes.

    Krato makes me wonder about the relationship of comment length to dozing-off by readers. High, I’ll bet.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. Anonymous[130] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous Jew
    People too often take the Malcom Gladwell approach to complex problems: come up with a single, simple, sweeping explanation for everything.

    The different factors that have been shown to affect health are not mutually exclusive: intelligence; diet (both what and when we eat); social relationships and emotional/mental health; genetic resistance to certain diseases; various known unknowns and unknown unknowns; etc.

    Two things to note:
    I had a grandmother that smoked everyday from when she was 14 and sailed past 90 being completely independent, mobile and mentally sharp before she died at 93 when her appendix burst. Everything is a genotype-by-environment interaction. Yes, sugar is generally bad for humans, but some humans are impervious to insulin resistance. There are also obvious group differences (see how groups without a history of agriculture respond to the Western Diet, particularly sugar and alcohol). Same with smoking. It will kill some people, but others like my grandmother are impervious to it (maybe she would have sailed past 100 if not for the cigarettes - I'll never know).

    Intermittent fasting isn't a magic bullet, but it's the closest thing I've found. Do some research and try it out if, like me, you're finding it harder to keep off the pounds in middle age. (I'm currently doing a 7-hour daily eating window).

    Intermittent fasting isn’t a magic bullet, but it’s the closest thing I’ve found. Do some research and try it out if, like me, you’re finding it harder to keep off the pounds in middle age. (I’m currently doing a 7-hour daily eating window).

    Is fasting all day, for one day, “intermittent”? How about fasting for three following days after every tenth day? Intermittent? How about not eating anything during Ramadan, followed by 30 days of eating Israeli infants? Intermittent?

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    "Is fasting all day, for one day, “intermittent”?

    One day per week is Eat, Stop, Eat style IF.

    "How about fasting for three following days after every tenth day? Intermittent?"

    Yes.

    "How about not eating anything during Ramadan, followed by 30 days of eating Israeli infants? Intermittent?"

    That's just "fasting."

    I personally fast for 16-20 hours per day and eat in a four hour window and I do one 24 hour fast per week. (See the Leangains program by Martin Berkhan and Eat, Stop, Eat by Brad Pilon.)

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. Anonymous[130] • Disclaimer says:
    @Stan d Mute
    Simply astonishing. Who could have ever guessed that “fat and stupid” were related?

    See? This is why we need billions of tax dollars spent on research. It’s imperative that we can prove what our lying eyes have been telling us for thousands of years. Plus, how else will fat and stupid researchers be able to afford more food? It just wouldn’t be humane to deprive academics of their second and third chins..

    As for smoking, some of us are keeping at it for two reasons: first, it pisses off all the right people and, second, we’re too cowardly to go full Sky King and this is the quickest way out of this insane life surrounded by imbeciles. Smoke ‘em if you’ve got ‘em!

    As for smoking, some of us are keeping at it for two reasons: first, it pisses off all the right people and, second, we’re too cowardly to go full Sky King and this is the quickest way out of this insane life surrounded by imbeciles. Smoke ‘em if you’ve got ‘em!

    Smokers like to bitch about my incense sticks. Hey, I say, go on to the next rail-car! Second-hand incense smoke never killed anyone! I got my rights, dammit!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stan d Mute

    Second-hand incense smoke never killed anyone!
     
    Kinda like when I spray Liquid Ass in an elevator!

    https://liquidass.com

    https://youtu.be/NqUUHcr6ZVo
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. @anonymous
    Do you even lift, brah? LOL

    It takes getting on the gear to look more ripped than the full natty bodybuilders that are photographed in the old days, when photography was a new phenomenon, and artificial hormones had not been developed yet. It's a small window, but very revealing, and nattyornot.com has it documented. And the website nattyornot.com has done a great job in researching and explaining the maximum potential of a natural male body here: http://nattyornot.com/how-big-can-you-get-naturally-without-steroids/

    250 lbs and ripped = on the gear, guaranteed. The maximum an exceptionally genetically well-endowed 6' fellow can weigh naturally and be ripped (low fat enough to show off striated muscle) is about 184 lbs, and for most guys, 20 lbs less than that.

    You bring up a good point. Another consideration is bone size, bone thickness. A 5’8″ man with thin bone structure might start looking a bit sloppy( fat) at 135 lbs whereas with thick bone structure that man can weigh up to 180 lbs and not look sloppy. Of course it depends on whether that person does weight training.
    At the international weight lifting level most lifter in the 165 lbs category are around 5’6″ and those in the 198 lbs category are around 5’8″. There are exceptions of course.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Weight lifters are all on PEDs, just like all professional sports figures that require muscular strength and/or aerobic stamina. They simply cannot be competitive without being on the gear. The unforgivable sin is to talk honestly about it, like Lance Armstrong.

    Steroids are used as a way to control the pawns in the desired direction. If you don’t play by the rules, the elite will push the button. Every athlete is a potential PED abuser who can get burned.

    The Real Reason Why Steroids Are Banned From Sports
    http://nattyornot.com/the-real-reason-why-steroids-are-banned-from-sports/
     
    , @Anon
    5’8 135 pound man is about 20 pounds below normal slim and incredibly scrawny. He might be soft, but his stomach would be caved in and there wouldn’t be a bit of extra fat on him.

    Normal skin weight for a 5’8 man is about 155; 10 pounds up or down
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. @Anonymous

    As for smoking, some of us are keeping at it for two reasons: first, it pisses off all the right people and, second, we’re too cowardly to go full Sky King and this is the quickest way out of this insane life surrounded by imbeciles. Smoke ‘em if you’ve got ‘em!
     
    Smokers like to bitch about my incense sticks. Hey, I say, go on to the next rail-car! Second-hand incense smoke never killed anyone! I got my rights, dammit!

    Second-hand incense smoke never killed anyone!

    Kinda like when I spray Liquid Ass in an elevator!

    https://liquidass.com

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. That’s odd, every single advanced school class or intellectual organization I’ve ever seen had more than it’s share of fat kids. And the hard sciences don’t exactly seem to be packed with people who had the option to become professional athletes instead.

    But undoubtedly I’m not working with enough data.

    Read More
    • Agree: Philip Owen
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  68. Anonymous[123] • Disclaimer says:
    @europeasant
    You bring up a good point. Another consideration is bone size, bone thickness. A 5'8" man with thin bone structure might start looking a bit sloppy( fat) at 135 lbs whereas with thick bone structure that man can weigh up to 180 lbs and not look sloppy. Of course it depends on whether that person does weight training.
    At the international weight lifting level most lifter in the 165 lbs category are around 5'6" and those in the 198 lbs category are around 5'8". There are exceptions of course.

    Weight lifters are all on PEDs, just like all professional sports figures that require muscular strength and/or aerobic stamina. They simply cannot be competitive without being on the gear. The unforgivable sin is to talk honestly about it, like Lance Armstrong.

    Steroids are used as a way to control the pawns in the desired direction. If you don’t play by the rules, the elite will push the button. Every athlete is a potential PED abuser who can get burned.

    The Real Reason Why Steroids Are Banned From Sports

    http://nattyornot.com/the-real-reason-why-steroids-are-banned-from-sports/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. @Vojkan
    I think it still exists due to the sheer force of inertia from the time it was a functional society and before the charlatans imposed their confabulations as the official truth.

    I agree and the G-wdz are laughing at us because some of us believe the quacks and some think we have some control.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. Hu Mi Yu says:
    @Sparkon
    https://forgottenhistoryblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/chester2ne9.jpg

    One curious way we humans utilize our intelligence is to rationalize stupid beliefs and counterproductive behaviors. The more foolish the belief, the more eloquent the rationalizations.

    Of course, it always helps to have some celebrity or famous person showing the way. Now you too can fill your mouth and nasal passages with tobacco smoke for years on end, and it will never affect your health.

    Uh huh.


    Results: Current pipe smoking, compared with never use of tobacco, was associated with an increased risk of death from cancers of the lung (relative risk [RR] = 5.00, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 4.16 to 6.01), oropharynx (RR = 3.90, 95% CI = 2.15 to 7.08), esophagus (RR = 2.44, 95% CI = 1.51 to 3.95), colorectum (RR = 1.41, 95% CI = 1.15 to 1.73), pancreas (RR = 1.61, 95% CI = 1.24 to 2.09), and larynx (RR = 13.1, 95% CI = 5.2 to 33.1), and from coronary heart disease (RR = 1.30, 95% CI = 1.18 to 1.43), cerebrovascular disease (RR = 1.27, 95% CI = 1.09 to 1.48), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (RR = 2.98, 95% CI = 2.17 to 4.11). These risks were generally smaller than those associated with cigarette smoking and similar to or larger than those associated with cigar smoking. Relative risks of lung cancer showed statistically significant increases with number of pipes smoked per day, years of smoking, and depth of inhalation and decreases with years since quitting. Conclusion: Results from this large prospective study suggest that pipe smoking confers a risk of tobacco-associated disease similar to cigar smoking.
     
    https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article/96/11/853/2520796

    During my youth, smoking was glamorized. It was commonly shown in movies and on TV -- even Perry Mason lit up -- but especially on the back covers and in full page ads in your favorite magazines, where the likes of Ronald Reagan, Bob Hope, and even Joltin' Joe DiMaggio were shilling for Chesterfield. In NYC's Times Square, a billboard for Camel cigarettes blew giant smoke rings for over 25 years. They were erected in 20 cities, all blowing smoke.

    http://media.theweek.com/img/generic/Cigs_RonaldReagan.jpg

    https://forgottenhistoryblog.com/before-becoming-president-ronald-reagan-was-a-paid-cigarette-model/

    But even Ronald Reagan eventually wised up...at least about smoking.

    https://cdn1.thr.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/landscape_928x523/2013/09/ronald_reagan_bill_clinton_century_city_a_l.jpg


    As the two men posed for the cameras before their private meeting, Mr. Reagan handed his successor a jar of red, white and blue jelly beans, saying his "history with jelly beans" had "prevented me from becoming a cigarette addict."

    -- N.Y. Times
     


    "You can tell a lot about a fella's character by whether he picks out all of one color or just grabs a handful," he said.

    -- L.A. Times
     

    Which penetrating insight about human nature probably explains a lot about how Ronnie became a revered and esteemed Conservative icon.

    Or was it "the other Nancy Davis" whom we should thank for that?

    I remember Ronald Reagan’s Chesterfield ads, but I had no idea who he was at the time. Later he had a show on local Los Angles TV called “Death Valley Days.” His sponsor was Boraxo soap, and he was often seen praising its virtues in the ads.

    As he began his political career, the sponsor changed. His program became GE theater. After he was elected governor, someone took a still from one of those early ads with Reagan smiling and holding a can of Boraxo. He made a poster out of it with the caption:
    “Thanks for the votes, suckers.” They sued for copyright violation and won. All the remaining posters were destroyed. I wish I had bought one as a souvenir of the 1960s.

    Possibly the earliest example of using copyright law to suppress political dissent.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. Respect says:
    @Santoculto
    God teach us to be good with others specially with those who don't believe on HXM...

    Mercy!!!

    My ass is real
    Bigger than God

    God is a empty word
    Where live our souls

    Santoculo , you are a poet , keep on writing . Amen .

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Write is not just to write, less for metaphysical lunatics...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. @Stan d Mute
    I don’t write apologetics to fat asses. Nor do I see any point in explicating common sense.

    And I utterly fail to understand why you, if not a fat ass, should bother with it either. But you go on and be you, I’ll continue to be me.

    “I don’t write apologetics to fat asses.”

    I’m not fat.

    “And I utterly fail to understand why you, if not a fat ass, should bother with it either.”

    It’s part of my career to worry about these things.

    I guess you can’t respond to anything I’ve written.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stan d Mute

    I’m not fat.
     
    I took you at your word the first time you said that.

    Now I’m wondering if thou doth protest too much.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. @Anonymous

    Intermittent fasting isn’t a magic bullet, but it’s the closest thing I’ve found. Do some research and try it out if, like me, you’re finding it harder to keep off the pounds in middle age. (I’m currently doing a 7-hour daily eating window).
     
    Is fasting all day, for one day, "intermittent"? How about fasting for three following days after every tenth day? Intermittent? How about not eating anything during Ramadan, followed by 30 days of eating Israeli infants? Intermittent?

    “Is fasting all day, for one day, “intermittent”?

    One day per week is Eat, Stop, Eat style IF.

    “How about fasting for three following days after every tenth day? Intermittent?”

    Yes.

    “How about not eating anything during Ramadan, followed by 30 days of eating Israeli infants? Intermittent?”

    That’s just “fasting.”

    I personally fast for 16-20 hours per day and eat in a four hour window and I do one 24 hour fast per week. (See the Leangains program by Martin Berkhan and Eat, Stop, Eat by Brad Pilon.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    I personally fast for 16-20 hours per day and eat in a four hour window and I do one 24 hour fast per week. (See the Leangains program by Martin Berkhan and Eat, Stop, Eat by Brad Pilon.)
     
    That would be contra-indicative for at least one "fasting" theory -- (that an extended (36 - 48 hours) fasting period is best for reducing reflex hunger.) I don't like that 4-hour window idea ... too inviting of bingy bounce.
    , @res
    Thanks for the recommendations. This looks like a good overview from Berkhan: https://leangains.com/the-leangains-guide/

    One thing that caught my attention was his recommendations for training fasted except for 10g of BCAA pre-workout. Any thoughts on whether or not whey protein is good enough (he talks about that some, about a fifth the cost is a big difference though the amino profile is such that you have to consume about 5x for the same BCAA content), and if so, what quantity?

    I assume this approach is more for anaerobic training. Any thoughts on where to schedule aerobic training (especially multi-hour sessions) within a fasting protocol?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. @Triumph104

    The associations between higher intelligence test scores from early life and later good health, fewer illnesses, and longer life are recent discoveries.
     
    While the above statement isn't wrong, it is misleading and irrelevant. Regardless of intellect, cultural values and norms determine behavior and behavior determines health outcomes and mortality rates.

    I don't deal with IQ, but instead look at academic performance and income. In the US, Hispanics perform significantly worse than whites and slightly better, but nearly the same as blacks. Throughout the US, Hispanics often live in the same neighborhoods as blacks and attend the same schools. Yet Hispanics do not experience the same health disparities that blacks do. Instead we have the "Hispanic paradox" where Hispanics often have the same or sometimes better health outcomes than whites. When looking at Hispanic subgroups, Puerto Ricans have outcomes significantly worse than whites, although better than blacks.

    Hispanics have a much higher incidence of HIV/AIDS than whites, but if you look at an HIV/AIDS map of the US, you will see that Hispanics in the western half of the US (mostly Mexican-Americans) have the same incidence of the disease as whites. It is only along the East Coast of the US that significant disparities in HIV/AIDS rates are seen between the two ethnic groups. Puerto Ricans and Dominicans tend to live on the East Coast and not only do they have varying degrees of African ancestry but they also behave more like black Americans.

    Diabetes is rampant among Native American Indians in the US, Pacific Islanders on Polynesian islands, and Australian Aborigines. Their ancestors from 150 years ago didn't have higher IQs, but avoided diabetes by eating differently.

    This remains to be proved, but is worth testing.
     
    The Research Industrial Complex doesn't want to prove or cure anything because funding will dry up.

    easy to explain,

    the native americans have moved from being a people who were active and whose diet was not soley grains — that all changed after the conquest of the west. The reservation system proved devastating to the populations health.

    that is supposing the assessments you make are accurate

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. The studies you’re basing this IQ-longevity theory on are definitely poor and you ignore the overall lifespan averages of racial groups in the US.

    Look up the HISPANIC/Latino PARADOX, which is simply the epidemiological finding that although Hispanic Americans are poorer and less educated (and less intelligent too, although that is never mentioned explicitly) than White Americans they paradoxically live longer than Whites.

    You are, however, absolutely right in claiming that eating fewer calories leads to a longer life, but to then claim that it is of some evolutionary advantage is questionable

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    you ignore the overall lifespan averages of racial groups in the US.
     
    I think it is fair to say there are significant cultural differences that matter for overall lifespan. I also think it fair to say that within cultures genetic differences matter as well.

    Some questions I find interesting:
    - What are the relative magnitudes of typical cultural and genetic differences and their influence on lifespan?
    - How much of this variation is a simple good/bad spectrum for each area and how much is interrelated? Put another way, how much does G x E matter compared to the individual genetic and environmental effects?
    - How much of the intelligence / lifespan relationship is purely genetic (e.g. system integrity theory) and how much is intelligence influencing self-selected environment?

    One interesting aspect of the Hispanic/Latino lifespan paradox is that it is in the opposite direction of the usual tendency for subgroups of Americans to do better by various metrics (e.g. intelligence, income, height, criminality) in the US than the corresponding ancestral country groups. (BTW, I am curious how true that last statement is and how much a result of propaganda and my personal bias, probably more true historically than now) Obesity in general is another good counterexample these days.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. Edward says:

    “Calories In, Calories Out” lies at the heart of any plausible hypothesis of why obesity occurs, and numerous randomized control trials have found that many diets – from low-fat to low-carb to vegan to Mediterranean – are able to induce short-term weight loss (most people fail in the long-term). Having said that, our eating habits are also regulated by hormones and other feedback mechanisms, as the obesity researcher Dr. Stephan Guyenet explains in The Hungry Brain, so CICO isn’t all of the story.

    The subtitle of his book is – perhaps unintentionally – rather prescient: Outsmarting the Instincts That Make Us Overeat. I suspect that higher g will contribute to a greater ability to lose weight: as Linda Gottfredson likes to say, those with higher g tend to have a better mind’s eye view of the situation they are in, and will likely recognise the importance of losing weight for the health of their future selves.

    If those with high IQs are on average healthier in part due to genetics, which Deary proposes in his “system integrity” model, and which Miller, Gottfredson and Arden proposed in their “genetic fitness factor” model, then nature is even crueller than we might have thought. Not only do people differ in IQ due to genetic differences, but the same people who have high IQs will on average be happier and healthier.

    Some would say that they have “better genes”, full stop. Which brings to mind the ugly notion of “genetic superiority”. Of course, more intelligent people are only on average healthier, so there is no high IQ supergroup. Even so, I’m surprised that researchers such as Deary are even allowed to talk about this stuff! For example, the following article in the Financial Times states that high IQ individuals might be “genetically blessed with an exceptional physiology”.

    https://www.ft.com/content/2f60e7ae-6158-11e7-8814-0ac7eb84e5f1

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    It's not logically possible for genes to cause psychological traits. Psychophysical reductionism is false.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. @Respect
    Santoculo , you are a poet , keep on writing . Amen .

    Write is not just to write, less for metaphysical lunatics…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. @RaceRealist88
    "I don’t write apologetics to fat asses."

    I'm not fat.

    "And I utterly fail to understand why you, if not a fat ass, should bother with it either."

    It's part of my career to worry about these things.

    I guess you can't respond to anything I've written.

    I’m not fat.

    I took you at your word the first time you said that.

    Now I’m wondering if thou doth protest too much.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. Anonymous[823] • Disclaimer says:
    @RaceRealist88
    "Is fasting all day, for one day, “intermittent”?

    One day per week is Eat, Stop, Eat style IF.

    "How about fasting for three following days after every tenth day? Intermittent?"

    Yes.

    "How about not eating anything during Ramadan, followed by 30 days of eating Israeli infants? Intermittent?"

    That's just "fasting."

    I personally fast for 16-20 hours per day and eat in a four hour window and I do one 24 hour fast per week. (See the Leangains program by Martin Berkhan and Eat, Stop, Eat by Brad Pilon.)

    I personally fast for 16-20 hours per day and eat in a four hour window and I do one 24 hour fast per week. (See the Leangains program by Martin Berkhan and Eat, Stop, Eat by Brad Pilon.)

    That would be contra-indicative for at least one “fasting” theory — (that an extended (36 – 48 hours) fasting period is best for reducing reflex hunger.) I don’t like that 4-hour window idea … too inviting of bingy bounce.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. @Sparkon
    https://forgottenhistoryblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/chester2ne9.jpg

    One curious way we humans utilize our intelligence is to rationalize stupid beliefs and counterproductive behaviors. The more foolish the belief, the more eloquent the rationalizations.

    Of course, it always helps to have some celebrity or famous person showing the way. Now you too can fill your mouth and nasal passages with tobacco smoke for years on end, and it will never affect your health.

    Uh huh.


    Results: Current pipe smoking, compared with never use of tobacco, was associated with an increased risk of death from cancers of the lung (relative risk [RR] = 5.00, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 4.16 to 6.01), oropharynx (RR = 3.90, 95% CI = 2.15 to 7.08), esophagus (RR = 2.44, 95% CI = 1.51 to 3.95), colorectum (RR = 1.41, 95% CI = 1.15 to 1.73), pancreas (RR = 1.61, 95% CI = 1.24 to 2.09), and larynx (RR = 13.1, 95% CI = 5.2 to 33.1), and from coronary heart disease (RR = 1.30, 95% CI = 1.18 to 1.43), cerebrovascular disease (RR = 1.27, 95% CI = 1.09 to 1.48), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (RR = 2.98, 95% CI = 2.17 to 4.11). These risks were generally smaller than those associated with cigarette smoking and similar to or larger than those associated with cigar smoking. Relative risks of lung cancer showed statistically significant increases with number of pipes smoked per day, years of smoking, and depth of inhalation and decreases with years since quitting. Conclusion: Results from this large prospective study suggest that pipe smoking confers a risk of tobacco-associated disease similar to cigar smoking.
     
    https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article/96/11/853/2520796

    During my youth, smoking was glamorized. It was commonly shown in movies and on TV -- even Perry Mason lit up -- but especially on the back covers and in full page ads in your favorite magazines, where the likes of Ronald Reagan, Bob Hope, and even Joltin' Joe DiMaggio were shilling for Chesterfield. In NYC's Times Square, a billboard for Camel cigarettes blew giant smoke rings for over 25 years. They were erected in 20 cities, all blowing smoke.

    http://media.theweek.com/img/generic/Cigs_RonaldReagan.jpg

    https://forgottenhistoryblog.com/before-becoming-president-ronald-reagan-was-a-paid-cigarette-model/

    But even Ronald Reagan eventually wised up...at least about smoking.

    https://cdn1.thr.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/landscape_928x523/2013/09/ronald_reagan_bill_clinton_century_city_a_l.jpg


    As the two men posed for the cameras before their private meeting, Mr. Reagan handed his successor a jar of red, white and blue jelly beans, saying his "history with jelly beans" had "prevented me from becoming a cigarette addict."

    -- N.Y. Times
     


    "You can tell a lot about a fella's character by whether he picks out all of one color or just grabs a handful," he said.

    -- L.A. Times
     

    Which penetrating insight about human nature probably explains a lot about how Ronnie became a revered and esteemed Conservative icon.

    Or was it "the other Nancy Davis" whom we should thank for that?

    It looks like the “academic” study cited was observing tobacco smoke-inhaling alcoholics (‘depth of inhalation’ accompanied by 4-5 drinks–which is medically known as binge drinking) and no doubt these people are inviting some serious health problems. On the other hand, the US Surgeon General’s report appears to have been following non-inhaling pipe smokers, so no surprise there in the difference of outcomes. Anyone can demonstrate how dangerous sex really is if they do a study comprised of people who only have unprotected sex with HIV-positive partners.

    At any rate, I wouldn’t worry. A cousin who is an internist tells me that the biggest health problem today for people of both sexes (from their late 70s up) is that they are simply living too long. Everyone I know in that age group concurs, and elderly relatives state this all the time. They seem baffled by the relentless drive to keep them alive long after they can have any kind of functional life.

    I think we would all be better off if we just accepted our mortality and stopped obsessing over it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Liza

    Everyone I know in that age group concurs, and elderly relatives state this all the time.
     
    Doctors are knocking themselves out trying to keep old people alive because, in not a few cases, the old people are scared to die and want all efforts made to give them a bit more time. I have seen this so much. I guess this attitude comes from an unfulfilled, unsatisfying life. Please, doc, I need another chance...

    Also, today, doctors in training need to practice and experiment on someone, so why not use old people that way. I knew a 93-year old woman with cancer who had her breast removed, for God's sake. She died not too long after, probably from the stress of the operation.

    The olden days of no high tech, life-prolonging medicine were better in some respects. There was more acceptance of death, possibly because just about everyone was religious to some degree and had a better understanding of the natural order of things than we do today.


    It is a fallen world.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @europeasant
    You bring up a good point. Another consideration is bone size, bone thickness. A 5'8" man with thin bone structure might start looking a bit sloppy( fat) at 135 lbs whereas with thick bone structure that man can weigh up to 180 lbs and not look sloppy. Of course it depends on whether that person does weight training.
    At the international weight lifting level most lifter in the 165 lbs category are around 5'6" and those in the 198 lbs category are around 5'8". There are exceptions of course.

    5’8 135 pound man is about 20 pounds below normal slim and incredibly scrawny. He might be soft, but his stomach would be caved in and there wouldn’t be a bit of extra fat on him.

    Normal skin weight for a 5’8 man is about 155; 10 pounds up or down

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. @Edward
    "Calories In, Calories Out" lies at the heart of any plausible hypothesis of why obesity occurs, and numerous randomized control trials have found that many diets - from low-fat to low-carb to vegan to Mediterranean - are able to induce short-term weight loss (most people fail in the long-term). Having said that, our eating habits are also regulated by hormones and other feedback mechanisms, as the obesity researcher Dr. Stephan Guyenet explains in The Hungry Brain, so CICO isn't all of the story.

    The subtitle of his book is - perhaps unintentionally - rather prescient: Outsmarting the Instincts That Make Us Overeat. I suspect that higher g will contribute to a greater ability to lose weight: as Linda Gottfredson likes to say, those with higher g tend to have a better mind's eye view of the situation they are in, and will likely recognise the importance of losing weight for the health of their future selves.

    If those with high IQs are on average healthier in part due to genetics, which Deary proposes in his "system integrity" model, and which Miller, Gottfredson and Arden proposed in their "genetic fitness factor" model, then nature is even crueller than we might have thought. Not only do people differ in IQ due to genetic differences, but the same people who have high IQs will on average be happier and healthier.

    Some would say that they have "better genes", full stop. Which brings to mind the ugly notion of "genetic superiority". Of course, more intelligent people are only on average healthier, so there is no high IQ supergroup. Even so, I'm surprised that researchers such as Deary are even allowed to talk about this stuff! For example, the following article in the Financial Times states that high IQ individuals might be "genetically blessed with an exceptional physiology".

    https://www.ft.com/content/2f60e7ae-6158-11e7-8814-0ac7eb84e5f1

    It’s not logically possible for genes to cause psychological traits. Psychophysical reductionism is false.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    As genes cause many features of individual psychology in the same way that they "cause" people to be tall or short or able to sing in tune without training (actually a psychological trait in most people's language) how can "logic" make it impossible? Have you some very special meaning of "cause" up your sleeve, or maybe of "logically"?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. Liza says:
    @PasDeMerde
    It looks like the "academic" study cited was observing tobacco smoke-inhaling alcoholics ('depth of inhalation' accompanied by 4-5 drinks--which is medically known as binge drinking) and no doubt these people are inviting some serious health problems. On the other hand, the US Surgeon General's report appears to have been following non-inhaling pipe smokers, so no surprise there in the difference of outcomes. Anyone can demonstrate how dangerous sex really is if they do a study comprised of people who only have unprotected sex with HIV-positive partners.

    At any rate, I wouldn't worry. A cousin who is an internist tells me that the biggest health problem today for people of both sexes (from their late 70s up) is that they are simply living too long. Everyone I know in that age group concurs, and elderly relatives state this all the time. They seem baffled by the relentless drive to keep them alive long after they can have any kind of functional life.

    I think we would all be better off if we just accepted our mortality and stopped obsessing over it.

    Everyone I know in that age group concurs, and elderly relatives state this all the time.

    Doctors are knocking themselves out trying to keep old people alive because, in not a few cases, the old people are scared to die and want all efforts made to give them a bit more time. I have seen this so much. I guess this attitude comes from an unfulfilled, unsatisfying life. Please, doc, I need another chance…

    Also, today, doctors in training need to practice and experiment on someone, so why not use old people that way. I knew a 93-year old woman with cancer who had her breast removed, for God’s sake. She died not too long after, probably from the stress of the operation.

    The olden days of no high tech, life-prolonging medicine were better in some respects. There was more acceptance of death, possibly because just about everyone was religious to some degree and had a better understanding of the natural order of things than we do today.

    It is a fallen world.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    It is a fallen world.
     
    LOL. Always has been. Nothing's changed. Now, attitudes CAN change. Understanding CAN be achieved. Humanity CAN rise above.

    But, don't you trouble yore leetle head 'bout dat, sugah.
    , @Mark G.
    There are still plenty of countries in the world lacking in high tech life-prolonging medicine. You don't see many people moving to them, though, including the people who say the olden days without it was better.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. Liza says:

    If you are fatter than you want to be, eat less.

    It ain’t that simple, sir. Some people either eat less and lose no weight; OR they have cravings they will kill for stemming from endocrine problems. OR they go on a diet, lose a lot of weight and then it rolls back on.

    Time for a little more sympathy, maybe.

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Thompson
    My sympathy to those who truly don't understand that eating too much makes them fat. Less sympathy for those who claim "Some people either eat less and lose no weight". If you have evidence that people really don't lose weight when they eat less, publish it, and I will post about your work on my blog.
    , @res

    Time for a little more sympathy, maybe.
     
    Perhaps time for a little more discussion of how to successfully lose weight (for those who want to)? Dr. Thompson's statement is quite direct (making it sound harsh and unsympathetic) and a bit simplistic, but is much more true than false IMHO. I argue with RR88 a fair bit about just how true CICO is (not to mention things like "Psychophysical reductionism" ; ), but at the end of the day what matters is how people best achieve their goals. And for that (with respect to weight loss) I think he gives some good advice regarding controlling the insulin response (e.g. preventing spike/crash) and intermittent fasting. Telling people to eat less is not terribly helpful by itself.

    FWIW I have never had problems with excess weight, but know more than I would like about food cravings. IMHO many of the people who talk about eating less and not losing weight conveniently forget the times they experience cravings and down a bag of potato chips or the equivalent in ice cream, pastries, sugary drinks, etc.

    As for sympathy, the body tends to gravitate towards setpoints. Changing those is hard. People who are naturally thin (and have never tried to bulk up) often fail to understand that.

    P.S. I think for most people weight matters less than health and energy levels, but weight often serves as a good proxy for addressing those. Important to remember that body composition matters as well.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. @RaceRealist88
    It's not logically possible for genes to cause psychological traits. Psychophysical reductionism is false.

    As genes cause many features of individual psychology in the same way that they “cause” people to be tall or short or able to sing in tune without training (actually a psychological trait in most people’s language) how can “logic” make it impossible? Have you some very special meaning of “cause” up your sleeve, or maybe of “logically”?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    As genes cause many features of individual psychology
     
    No, genes don't cause psychology. By definition, and by good sense. Certainly, there are organic brain conditions that cause mental failures. Psychological formation, however, ALWAYS has external cause.

    Think about it, if that will help. Or don't.
    , @RaceRealist88
    "It’s not logically possible for genes to cause psychological traits. Psychophysical reductionism is false."
    , @RaceRealist88
    For genes to cause psychological traits (ie intelligence), psychophysical laws have to exist (laws linking mental events under their mental descriptions and physical events under their physical descriptions; laws connecting psychological or mental states with physical states). Psychophysical laws do not exist; psychophysical reductionism is false (see Davidson's anomalous monism, Ross' Immaterial Aspects of Thought, Nagel's Mind and Cosmos, etc). Therefore the genetic transmission of psychological traits is logically impossible.

    It's a conceptual, not empirical matter, so evidence is irrelevant.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. …..

    What is personality??

    Where personality starts??

    Personality is how organism react to the environmental interactions and with itself. It’s how organism evaluate its own functioning and quality of its interactions with another elements of give reality. Personality starts with sentience. (given*).

    Psychological is strongly associated with sense. A nervous system is a psychological system and this is widespread by the body, for sure. (senses) and connected with all systems included the skeleto-muscular. How something so basic/fundamental cannot be genetic???

    Because none born zero-km, if we always are heirs, our personalities already expressed pre-determined configurations.

    When we are talking about psychological we are talking about a lot of stuff of our bodies: nervous system, hormonal system, immune system… How this cannot be genetic??

    Without nervous system (central and peripheral) muscles can’t be moved.. It’s not the “physical” that is superior to psychological, if this debate is for real, but the otherwise. Without psychological factors (nervous, hormonal…) you’re a inanimate organic junk.

    It genes determine how organism will operate included micro-organic interactions inside the body why think nervous system is not genetically determined?? (stupid questions but whatelvis).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  87. Anonymous[363] • Disclaimer says:
    @Liza

    Everyone I know in that age group concurs, and elderly relatives state this all the time.
     
    Doctors are knocking themselves out trying to keep old people alive because, in not a few cases, the old people are scared to die and want all efforts made to give them a bit more time. I have seen this so much. I guess this attitude comes from an unfulfilled, unsatisfying life. Please, doc, I need another chance...

    Also, today, doctors in training need to practice and experiment on someone, so why not use old people that way. I knew a 93-year old woman with cancer who had her breast removed, for God's sake. She died not too long after, probably from the stress of the operation.

    The olden days of no high tech, life-prolonging medicine were better in some respects. There was more acceptance of death, possibly because just about everyone was religious to some degree and had a better understanding of the natural order of things than we do today.


    It is a fallen world.

    It is a fallen world.

    LOL. Always has been. Nothing’s changed. Now, attitudes CAN change. Understanding CAN be achieved. Humanity CAN rise above.

    But, don’t you trouble yore leetle head ’bout dat, sugah.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. Anonymous[363] • Disclaimer says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    As genes cause many features of individual psychology in the same way that they "cause" people to be tall or short or able to sing in tune without training (actually a psychological trait in most people's language) how can "logic" make it impossible? Have you some very special meaning of "cause" up your sleeve, or maybe of "logically"?

    As genes cause many features of individual psychology

    No, genes don’t cause psychology. By definition, and by good sense. Certainly, there are organic brain conditions that cause mental failures. Psychological formation, however, ALWAYS has external cause.

    Think about it, if that will help. Or don’t.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    You are either ignorant of the genetic contribution to the causation of e.g. poor memory, optimistic personality or schizophrenia (no different in concept from the causation of a person's height being six feet since external causes, like nutrition or infection also contribute in that case), or you are a tabula rasa fundamentalist, or you are simply using language in an idiosyncratic way. As a matter of the logic of our language why should only external, environmental or nurturing factors be regarded as part of the causal chain leading to the outcome which would not have occurred but for the springing into action, by epigenetic, chance or whatever of particular alleles?
    , @Santoculto

    Psychological formation, however, ALWAYS has external cause.
     
    People are rocks..
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. @Liza

    If you are fatter than you want to be, eat less.
     
    It ain't that simple, sir. Some people either eat less and lose no weight; OR they have cravings they will kill for stemming from endocrine problems. OR they go on a diet, lose a lot of weight and then it rolls back on.

    Time for a little more sympathy, maybe.

    My sympathy to those who truly don’t understand that eating too much makes them fat. Less sympathy for those who claim “Some people either eat less and lose no weight”. If you have evidence that people really don’t lose weight when they eat less, publish it, and I will post about your work on my blog.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    If you have evidence that people really don’t lose weight when they eat less, publish it, and I will post about your work on my blog.
     
    Mebbe it's the water, or the plastic in the water? They eat less, but they drink water a lot. Water is heavy, so they get fatter.

    That must be what it is. CICO is just too damn insane. If God didn't want us to eat more than we can use, why did He make chocolate German Chocolate Cake and ice-cream?
    , @RaceRealist88
    You should blog and Feinman and Fine 2004.

    https://nutritionj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1475-2891-3-9

    You assume that all calories are equal upon ingestion. Feinman and Fine show that this assumption is false.

    , @Liza
    If eating too much makes you fat, why do we all see countless folks who sit around doing no physical labor, eat like pigs - and still stay skinny, virtually all their lives? There are a few in my family like that. So, tell me why your theory of overeating = fat doesn't always work?
    , @Hu Mi Yu

    Less sympathy for those who claim “Some people either eat less and lose no weight”. If you have evidence that people really don’t lose weight when they eat less, publish it, and I will post about your work on my blog.
     
    Some people have a hibernation gene. When they fast, their metabolism slows down. They go to sleep for days at a time. I am one of them. I had some papers on this a few years ago.

    Another problem is that some of us lose muscle instead of fat. This problem gets worse as we age. It is scary to finally meet weight goals after hibernating for a year and be unable to do a single push up.

    I am sure there are many other genetic factors that you discount due to your personal bias. It is amusing to read that you think intelligence is dominated by genetic factors but metabolism is not. Either you believe in evolution and genetic variation or you don't. If intelligence is affected by genetics, then so is metabolism.

    In my experience high IQ types are generally overweight but not obese. They have a higher than average incidence of minor health problems such as allergies that require intelligence to survive. The thin ones are more photogenic and social. They receive disproportionately more publicity and credit.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. Anonymous[363] • Disclaimer says:
    @James Thompson
    My sympathy to those who truly don't understand that eating too much makes them fat. Less sympathy for those who claim "Some people either eat less and lose no weight". If you have evidence that people really don't lose weight when they eat less, publish it, and I will post about your work on my blog.

    If you have evidence that people really don’t lose weight when they eat less, publish it, and I will post about your work on my blog.

    Mebbe it’s the water, or the plastic in the water? They eat less, but they drink water a lot. Water is heavy, so they get fatter.

    That must be what it is. CICO is just too damn insane. If God didn’t want us to eat more than we can use, why did He make chocolate German Chocolate Cake and ice-cream?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. Anonymous[436] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    As genes cause many features of individual psychology
     
    No, genes don't cause psychology. By definition, and by good sense. Certainly, there are organic brain conditions that cause mental failures. Psychological formation, however, ALWAYS has external cause.

    Think about it, if that will help. Or don't.

    You are either ignorant of the genetic contribution to the causation of e.g. poor memory, optimistic personality or schizophrenia (no different in concept from the causation of a person’s height being six feet since external causes, like nutrition or infection also contribute in that case), or you are a tabula rasa fundamentalist, or you are simply using language in an idiosyncratic way. As a matter of the logic of our language why should only external, environmental or nurturing factors be regarded as part of the causal chain leading to the outcome which would not have occurred but for the springing into action, by epigenetic, chance or whatever of particular alleles?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    You are either ignorant of the genetic contribution to the causation of e.g. poor memory, optimistic personality or schizophrenia (no different in concept from the causation of a person’s h
     
    Yadda, yadda, yadda.

    No. Psychological disorders, if not a direct effect of organic brain dysfunction, are not CAUSED by genes. There may be a contributing effect, a "worsening" effect perhaps, but not a CAUSAL effect.

    Words have meanings. If you wish to blur and/or re-associate meaning with items that are not directly related (or, for instance, causal), that is your option. If you choose to say that "pink" is rilly, rilly, rilly, oh yes it is, "red", that is your option.

    Doing so, however, is an indicator of a lack of intellectual rigor.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. @Wizard of Oz
    As genes cause many features of individual psychology in the same way that they "cause" people to be tall or short or able to sing in tune without training (actually a psychological trait in most people's language) how can "logic" make it impossible? Have you some very special meaning of "cause" up your sleeve, or maybe of "logically"?

    “It’s not logically possible for genes to cause psychological traits. Psychophysical reductionism is false.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. @James Thompson
    My sympathy to those who truly don't understand that eating too much makes them fat. Less sympathy for those who claim "Some people either eat less and lose no weight". If you have evidence that people really don't lose weight when they eat less, publish it, and I will post about your work on my blog.

    You should blog and Feinman and Fine 2004.

    https://nutritionj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1475-2891-3-9

    You assume that all calories are equal upon ingestion. Feinman and Fine show that this assumption is false.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    You assume that all calories are equal upon ingestion. Feinman and Fine show that this assumption is false.
     
    I disagree with Thompson on more than one topic, but he didn't say that all calories are metabolized the same. He said weight loss is a direct function of reduction of caloric intake.

    Which it is.
    , @James Thompson
    The paper is about metabolic advantage, that is, whether a particular diet is more effective than another, and also whether, in that particular debate, whether it is appropriate to invoke thermodynamics.

    My claim is not about different diets. It is merely that ingesting fewer calories is the main factor in weight loss. If, under controlled conditions, it could be shown that calories were not the main factor, that would be interesting.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. @Anonymous

    As genes cause many features of individual psychology
     
    No, genes don't cause psychology. By definition, and by good sense. Certainly, there are organic brain conditions that cause mental failures. Psychological formation, however, ALWAYS has external cause.

    Think about it, if that will help. Or don't.

    Psychological formation, however, ALWAYS has external cause.

    People are rocks..

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    You don't know what you're talking about.
    , @Santoculto
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PO1k5b8RAU4&t=113s
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. Liza says:
    @James Thompson
    My sympathy to those who truly don't understand that eating too much makes them fat. Less sympathy for those who claim "Some people either eat less and lose no weight". If you have evidence that people really don't lose weight when they eat less, publish it, and I will post about your work on my blog.

    If eating too much makes you fat, why do we all see countless folks who sit around doing no physical labor, eat like pigs – and still stay skinny, virtually all their lives? There are a few in my family like that. So, tell me why your theory of overeating = fat doesn’t always work?

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    Because it's wrong and he doesn't understand human physiology.
    , @res

    So, tell me why your theory of overeating = fat doesn’t always work?
     
    Here you are the one oversimplifying what he is saying. The point is that if you want to gain weight, eat more. To lose weight, eat less. Both of these are true to the first order which I believe is what Dr. Thompson is saying.

    People differ in their responses to equivalent food. Even the same person can differ in responses to equivalent food depending on their current condition (e.g. weight, thyroid condition, digestive functionality, overall metabolic efficiency).

    It is much more constructive to focus on what you can do to change the things which are important to you than it is to complain about how much easier some things are for certain people (as true and as "unjust" as that might be). If only I were better at this myself... ; )
    , @James Thompson
    A proper study, under controlled conditions is what we require, not anecdotes.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. notanon says:
    @Bruce
    I feel bad for distracting discussion of the article but to respond to RaceRealist88

    I can only go by my experience tracking my weight, approximate body composition and food/macro/calorie intake. If it makes a difference I do some basic weight training (not a 250 lb ripped bodybuilder like 0.1% of the population).

    With high carbs, my weight and body composition stabilize at about 2250 KCAL per day (which is about what the Cunningham formula predicts for my age and LBM). If I eat low carb, it’s a bit higher. Maybe 2400-2500 KCAL per day (it’s hard to track macros and calories with extreme precision). So there’s not a big difference. Is a calorie a calorie? Not exactly but close enough.

    If I had to guess what’s going on, based on what I’ve read a protein calorie counts for 3/gram when your body burns it (not 4/gram like in a lab) and foods with a higher insulin load encourage growth (potentially muscle and fat). Ok, there’s some nuance.
    But fat people eat too much food.

    But fat people eat too much food.

    yes – if you eat food which spikes your blood sugar the body does things with some of that glucose other than burning it for fuel – like sending it to the liver to be turned into belly fat – which leads people to eat more than they need – which is why CICO is part of but not the whole story.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    The body burns the ingested carbs for energy and not body fat stores which is why it's not a good thing to constantly spike your insulin. People talk about what and how to eat, but never talk about when to eat, which is one of the biggest factors in regard to weight loss.

    CICO is false, the eat less/move more paradigm is false. They both assume that all calories are "equal upon ingestion" but the citation I've provided Dr Feinman and Fine 2004 refutes the assumption.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. Mark G. says:
    @Liza

    Everyone I know in that age group concurs, and elderly relatives state this all the time.
     
    Doctors are knocking themselves out trying to keep old people alive because, in not a few cases, the old people are scared to die and want all efforts made to give them a bit more time. I have seen this so much. I guess this attitude comes from an unfulfilled, unsatisfying life. Please, doc, I need another chance...

    Also, today, doctors in training need to practice and experiment on someone, so why not use old people that way. I knew a 93-year old woman with cancer who had her breast removed, for God's sake. She died not too long after, probably from the stress of the operation.

    The olden days of no high tech, life-prolonging medicine were better in some respects. There was more acceptance of death, possibly because just about everyone was religious to some degree and had a better understanding of the natural order of things than we do today.


    It is a fallen world.

    There are still plenty of countries in the world lacking in high tech life-prolonging medicine. You don’t see many people moving to them, though, including the people who say the olden days without it was better.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. @Santoculto

    Psychological formation, however, ALWAYS has external cause.
     
    People are rocks..

    You don’t know what you’re talking about.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. @Liza
    If eating too much makes you fat, why do we all see countless folks who sit around doing no physical labor, eat like pigs - and still stay skinny, virtually all their lives? There are a few in my family like that. So, tell me why your theory of overeating = fat doesn't always work?

    Because it’s wrong and he doesn’t understand human physiology.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. @Wizard of Oz
    As genes cause many features of individual psychology in the same way that they "cause" people to be tall or short or able to sing in tune without training (actually a psychological trait in most people's language) how can "logic" make it impossible? Have you some very special meaning of "cause" up your sleeve, or maybe of "logically"?

    For genes to cause psychological traits (ie intelligence), psychophysical laws have to exist (laws linking mental events under their mental descriptions and physical events under their physical descriptions; laws connecting psychological or mental states with physical states). Psychophysical laws do not exist; psychophysical reductionism is false (see Davidson’s anomalous monism, Ross’ Immaterial Aspects of Thought, Nagel’s Mind and Cosmos, etc). Therefore the genetic transmission of psychological traits is logically impossible.

    It’s a conceptual, not empirical matter, so evidence is irrelevant.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Psycho-physical relationships do exist. Environmental stimuli (external) are transduced to physical, physiological and psychological effects. There are well established relations between stress for example (environmental, external) and hormonal and neurologic effects. And the other way round as well. Psychological events transduce to physiological, hormonal and neurologic events.

    Words can kill or make one live. "Suggestive Therapeutics" by Henry Munro, MD. That was a century ago. Since then many books have been written by MDs and others in the field, showing the direct relation of suggestion (and other non-physical stimuli) and physiology/biologic action.

    This is a response to the phrase "laws linking mental events under their mental descriptions and physical events under their physical descriptions" - it is not genes alone that have reductionist results.

    The problem is that relations exist, that are reductionist, that are not genetic: reductionism is not genetic alone.

    Genetic psychophysical reductionism may or may not be false, (not proven), but other kinds of psychophysical reductionism have been proven to exist.

    And diet also has a reductionist influence on intelligence.

    There is another issue as well here, that of the developmental program in genetics, that has long lasting effects, beyond the time of the development initiated.

    , @res

    It’s a conceptual, not empirical matter, so evidence is irrelevant.
     
    That is a fascinating assertion. Can you tell me how it differs from religious belief?
    , @Anonymous

    It’s a conceptual, not empirical matter, so evidence is irrelevant.

     

    True, but all valid, repeatable, verifiable evidence supports that genetic transmission of psychological traits does not happen. Predisposition to the acquisition of a particular behavior is not cause. Yepper, it sure does look like cause to the non-scientist, but that don't make it so.
    , @Anonymous
    Thomas Nagel, philosopher, i.e., lover of sophistry.

    It's conceptual, not evidence based, not material? That's merely a tautology for conceptualism.

    Conceptualism is art in which the concept(s) or idea(s) involved in the work take precedence over traditional aesthetic, technical, and material concerns. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceptual_art
     
    Much edgy. Very progress.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. res says:
    @RaceRealist88
    "Is fasting all day, for one day, “intermittent”?

    One day per week is Eat, Stop, Eat style IF.

    "How about fasting for three following days after every tenth day? Intermittent?"

    Yes.

    "How about not eating anything during Ramadan, followed by 30 days of eating Israeli infants? Intermittent?"

    That's just "fasting."

    I personally fast for 16-20 hours per day and eat in a four hour window and I do one 24 hour fast per week. (See the Leangains program by Martin Berkhan and Eat, Stop, Eat by Brad Pilon.)

    Thanks for the recommendations. This looks like a good overview from Berkhan: https://leangains.com/the-leangains-guide/

    One thing that caught my attention was his recommendations for training fasted except for 10g of BCAA pre-workout. Any thoughts on whether or not whey protein is good enough (he talks about that some, about a fifth the cost is a big difference though the amino profile is such that you have to consume about 5x for the same BCAA content), and if so, what quantity?

    I assume this approach is more for anaerobic training. Any thoughts on where to schedule aerobic training (especially multi-hour sessions) within a fasting protocol?

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    Whey protein would take you out of the fasted state (the rule of thumb is ~50 kcal to stay in fasted state). BCAA kinda tastes like chalk but you get used to it. Whey protein does have similar amino profiles compared to BCAA but you need to drink a lot more of it and if you do then you'd be thrown out of the fasted state which is why BCAA are recommended (I personally use Bodytech BCAA; for whey protein I drink vanilla Optimum Nutrition).

    Berkhan's program is a strength program. One can do, say, HIIT in the fasted state. More fat will be burned and, since you're fasted, glucose won't be used for energy and only body fat stores will. The best part about HIIT is that your metabolism stays revved up for a few hours after and you burn more kcal still. But, and I tell this to everyone, that doesn't mean that exercise causes weight loss. Exercise is needed for good body composition while one diets, sure. Exercise is amazing. Exercise is needed. But one should never exercise with the assumption that exercising causes weight loss because it does not.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. @notanon

    But fat people eat too much food.
     
    yes - if you eat food which spikes your blood sugar the body does things with some of that glucose other than burning it for fuel - like sending it to the liver to be turned into belly fat - which leads people to eat more than they need - which is why CICO is part of but not the whole story.

    The body burns the ingested carbs for energy and not body fat stores which is why it’s not a good thing to constantly spike your insulin. People talk about what and how to eat, but never talk about when to eat, which is one of the biggest factors in regard to weight loss.

    CICO is false, the eat less/move more paradigm is false. They both assume that all calories are “equal upon ingestion” but the citation I’ve provided Dr Feinman and Fine 2004 refutes the assumption.

    Read More
    • Replies: @notanon

    CICO is false, the eat less/move more paradigm is false.
     
    if you get the "when to eat" and the "what to eat" right is CICO false in that context?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. notanon says:

    If you have evidence that people really don’t lose weight when they eat less, publish it, and I will post about your work on my blog

    That’s (mostly) not what the argument is about – there’s been hundreds of diet programs which clearly prove that yes if you eat less calories than maintenance then you’ll lose weight.

    The issues are one) people put it all back on again afterwards due to hunger so is there a better way of dieting where people don’t feel hungry all the time and hence don’t fall off the wagon? and two) is there more to the massive increase in diabesity than CICO on its own?

    (yes to both)

    the argument is that with keto/IF people can eat below maintenance without feeling hungry (cos they’re eating their own body fat) and 2) a high carb diet (currently officially recommended after some dodgy research in the late 1960s) leads to high blood sugar which leads to the body doing other things with some of the calories one ingests so people eat more than they would otherwise need (which keto/if also fixes).

    explained here

    Read More
    • Agree: RaceRealist88
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  104. res says:
    @ursington XVII
    The studies you're basing this IQ-longevity theory on are definitely poor and you ignore the overall lifespan averages of racial groups in the US.


    Look up the HISPANIC/Latino PARADOX, which is simply the epidemiological finding that although Hispanic Americans are poorer and less educated (and less intelligent too, although that is never mentioned explicitly) than White Americans they paradoxically live longer than Whites.

    You are, however, absolutely right in claiming that eating fewer calories leads to a longer life, but to then claim that it is of some evolutionary advantage is questionable

    you ignore the overall lifespan averages of racial groups in the US.

    I think it is fair to say there are significant cultural differences that matter for overall lifespan. I also think it fair to say that within cultures genetic differences matter as well.

    Some questions I find interesting:
    - What are the relative magnitudes of typical cultural and genetic differences and their influence on lifespan?
    - How much of this variation is a simple good/bad spectrum for each area and how much is interrelated? Put another way, how much does G x E matter compared to the individual genetic and environmental effects?
    - How much of the intelligence / lifespan relationship is purely genetic (e.g. system integrity theory) and how much is intelligence influencing self-selected environment?

    One interesting aspect of the Hispanic/Latino lifespan paradox is that it is in the opposite direction of the usual tendency for subgroups of Americans to do better by various metrics (e.g. intelligence, income, height, criminality) in the US than the corresponding ancestral country groups. (BTW, I am curious how true that last statement is and how much a result of propaganda and my personal bias, probably more true historically than now) Obesity in general is another good counterexample these days.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    The "Hispanic paradox" doesn't exist:

    There is no Hispanic paradox in biological risk profiles. However, our finding that foreign-born Hispanics and Whites had similar biological risk profiles, but US-born Mexican Americans had higher risk, was consistent with hypothesized effects of migrant health selectivity (healthy people in-migrating and unhealthy people out-migrating) as well as some differences in health behaviors between US-born and foreign-born Hispanics.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1913070/

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/12/17/stress-and-race-redux-a-hispanic-paradox/

    This "paradox" exists due to methodological problems and migrant selectivity.

    (By the way, what's a "Hispanic"? They're not a race, so talking about them like they are is useless. https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2018/04/22/latinos-brazilians-mixed-race-individuals-and-race-concepts/)

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. @res
    Thanks for the recommendations. This looks like a good overview from Berkhan: https://leangains.com/the-leangains-guide/

    One thing that caught my attention was his recommendations for training fasted except for 10g of BCAA pre-workout. Any thoughts on whether or not whey protein is good enough (he talks about that some, about a fifth the cost is a big difference though the amino profile is such that you have to consume about 5x for the same BCAA content), and if so, what quantity?

    I assume this approach is more for anaerobic training. Any thoughts on where to schedule aerobic training (especially multi-hour sessions) within a fasting protocol?

    Whey protein would take you out of the fasted state (the rule of thumb is ~50 kcal to stay in fasted state). BCAA kinda tastes like chalk but you get used to it. Whey protein does have similar amino profiles compared to BCAA but you need to drink a lot more of it and if you do then you’d be thrown out of the fasted state which is why BCAA are recommended (I personally use Bodytech BCAA; for whey protein I drink vanilla Optimum Nutrition).

    Berkhan’s program is a strength program. One can do, say, HIIT in the fasted state. More fat will be burned and, since you’re fasted, glucose won’t be used for energy and only body fat stores will. The best part about HIIT is that your metabolism stays revved up for a few hours after and you burn more kcal still. But, and I tell this to everyone, that doesn’t mean that exercise causes weight loss. Exercise is needed for good body composition while one diets, sure. Exercise is amazing. Exercise is needed. But one should never exercise with the assumption that exercising causes weight loss because it does not.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. @res

    you ignore the overall lifespan averages of racial groups in the US.
     
    I think it is fair to say there are significant cultural differences that matter for overall lifespan. I also think it fair to say that within cultures genetic differences matter as well.

    Some questions I find interesting:
    - What are the relative magnitudes of typical cultural and genetic differences and their influence on lifespan?
    - How much of this variation is a simple good/bad spectrum for each area and how much is interrelated? Put another way, how much does G x E matter compared to the individual genetic and environmental effects?
    - How much of the intelligence / lifespan relationship is purely genetic (e.g. system integrity theory) and how much is intelligence influencing self-selected environment?

    One interesting aspect of the Hispanic/Latino lifespan paradox is that it is in the opposite direction of the usual tendency for subgroups of Americans to do better by various metrics (e.g. intelligence, income, height, criminality) in the US than the corresponding ancestral country groups. (BTW, I am curious how true that last statement is and how much a result of propaganda and my personal bias, probably more true historically than now) Obesity in general is another good counterexample these days.

    The “Hispanic paradox” doesn’t exist:

    There is no Hispanic paradox in biological risk profiles. However, our finding that foreign-born Hispanics and Whites had similar biological risk profiles, but US-born Mexican Americans had higher risk, was consistent with hypothesized effects of migrant health selectivity (healthy people in-migrating and unhealthy people out-migrating) as well as some differences in health behaviors between US-born and foreign-born Hispanics.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1913070/

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/12/17/stress-and-race-redux-a-hispanic-paradox/

    This “paradox” exists due to methodological problems and migrant selectivity.

    (By the way, what’s a “Hispanic”? They’re not a race, so talking about them like they are is useless. https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2018/04/22/latinos-brazilians-mixed-race-individuals-and-race-concepts/)

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    My sense is the last sentence of your quote is more important than you are giving it credit for: "as well as some differences in health behaviors between US-born and foreign-born Hispanics."

    what’s a “Hispanic”?
     
    The best approximation we have for capturing this particular group difference. Please don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. This is the same disconnect we have with the CICO discussion. You are much more of an absolutist (e.g. "CICO is false") while I am more inclined to consider multifactorial explanations (e.g. notanon's "is there more to the massive increase in diabesity than CICO on its own?" formulation above, which you agreed with).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. pyrrhus says:
    @dearieme
    "Don’t smoke": certainly don't smoke cigarettes. Whether occasionally puffing contemplatively on a pipe does any measurable harm I don't know. Just in case it does I gave up decades ago. If it does no harm then those puritanical swine in the medical trades have denied me a good deal of pleasure.

    "Don’t get fat": but be careful to understand what's too fat, what too thin. If correlation is worth anything - never certain - then if you want a long life be "overweight". Don't, please don't, flirt with being "underweight". Some evidence is displayed in fig4:
    http://www.drdavidgrimes.com/2017/08/is-being-overweight-really-killing.html


    That was for a control group. For a bunch of invalids, specifically people who have had a stroke, look at fig 5. As the good Dr Grimes remarks "The death rate at 10 years for normal weight individuals is standardised as 1.0. We see a survival advantage in those with low overweight, high overweight, and low obesity – that is with people with BMI between 25 and 32.5. With “low obesity” there is a death risk reduction of almost 40%.

    Repeat, stroke-people with "low obesity" outlive those who are "normal" by a whopping margin. You might almost think that the sawbones and quacks ought to redefine "normal", "overweight" and "obese" in light of such figures. Sorry, the surgeons and physicians.

    "and don’t read too many health warnings": I never disagree with tautologies.

    The data seems to indicate that if you don’t smoke, aren’t a heavy drinker (but 1-2/day is positive), don’t take dangerous drugs, aren’t seriously obese, and exercise regularly, your life expectancy is around 89, probably more if you are intelligent. If you are slim, but not underweight, even better. It isn’t that hard….

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    If you are slim, but not underweight, even better. It isn’t that hard….
     
    That last one is harder than it might seem and is the subject of some controversy at the moment. Epidemiological data seems to indicate that the healthiest (lowest mortality) BMI for men is something like 22-30, where "normal" is typically considered to be 18.5-24.9 and "overweight" is 25-29.9
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. Anon[381] • Disclaimer says:
    @RaceRealist88
    For genes to cause psychological traits (ie intelligence), psychophysical laws have to exist (laws linking mental events under their mental descriptions and physical events under their physical descriptions; laws connecting psychological or mental states with physical states). Psychophysical laws do not exist; psychophysical reductionism is false (see Davidson's anomalous monism, Ross' Immaterial Aspects of Thought, Nagel's Mind and Cosmos, etc). Therefore the genetic transmission of psychological traits is logically impossible.

    It's a conceptual, not empirical matter, so evidence is irrelevant.

    Psycho-physical relationships do exist. Environmental stimuli (external) are transduced to physical, physiological and psychological effects. There are well established relations between stress for example (environmental, external) and hormonal and neurologic effects. And the other way round as well. Psychological events transduce to physiological, hormonal and neurologic events.

    Words can kill or make one live. “Suggestive Therapeutics” by Henry Munro, MD. That was a century ago. Since then many books have been written by MDs and others in the field, showing the direct relation of suggestion (and other non-physical stimuli) and physiology/biologic action.

    This is a response to the phrase “laws linking mental events under their mental descriptions and physical events under their physical descriptions” – it is not genes alone that have reductionist results.

    The problem is that relations exist, that are reductionist, that are not genetic: reductionism is not genetic alone.

    Genetic psychophysical reductionism may or may not be false, (not proven), but other kinds of psychophysical reductionism have been proven to exist.

    And diet also has a reductionist influence on intelligence.

    There is another issue as well here, that of the developmental program in genetics, that has long lasting effects, beyond the time of the development initiated.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    "Genetic psychophysical reductionism may or may not be false, (not proven), but other kinds of psychophysical reductionism have been proven to exist."

    Either reductionism is true or it isn't. Numerous conceptual arguments exist that refute the claim that psychophysical reductionism is true. If reductionism is false, by proxy, genetic reductionism is false. The arguments refute gene/brain reduction.

    It's not an empirical matter. It's conceptual. Evidence is irrelevant.

    So what's the argument that psychophysical reductionism is true?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. res says:
    @Liza

    If you are fatter than you want to be, eat less.
     
    It ain't that simple, sir. Some people either eat less and lose no weight; OR they have cravings they will kill for stemming from endocrine problems. OR they go on a diet, lose a lot of weight and then it rolls back on.

    Time for a little more sympathy, maybe.

    Time for a little more sympathy, maybe.

    Perhaps time for a little more discussion of how to successfully lose weight (for those who want to)? Dr. Thompson’s statement is quite direct (making it sound harsh and unsympathetic) and a bit simplistic, but is much more true than false IMHO. I argue with RR88 a fair bit about just how true CICO is (not to mention things like “Psychophysical reductionism” ; ), but at the end of the day what matters is how people best achieve their goals. And for that (with respect to weight loss) I think he gives some good advice regarding controlling the insulin response (e.g. preventing spike/crash) and intermittent fasting. Telling people to eat less is not terribly helpful by itself.

    FWIW I have never had problems with excess weight, but know more than I would like about food cravings. IMHO many of the people who talk about eating less and not losing weight conveniently forget the times they experience cravings and down a bag of potato chips or the equivalent in ice cream, pastries, sugary drinks, etc.

    As for sympathy, the body tends to gravitate towards setpoints. Changing those is hard. People who are naturally thin (and have never tried to bulk up) often fail to understand that.

    P.S. I think for most people weight matters less than health and energy levels, but weight often serves as a good proxy for addressing those. Important to remember that body composition matters as well.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Liza
    With any serious or chronic (such as over-fat) problem, the only thing that is useful is to promote overall health. Forcing an unwanted diet onto yourself always backfires because it does not deal with underlying metabolic problems. Or sometimes, psychological issues.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. Sparkon says:

    You are what you eat.

    Over 2500 years ago, Hippocrates declared, “All diseases begin in the gut.” All? Doubtful. Some? For sure. Mental illness? Maybe.
    Modern science suggests that the gut and the brain are more intimately connected than we ever imagined. And rapidly advancing research on the gut microbiome suggests that the little creatures in our intestines may directly affect our mental health.

    https://www.cugmhp.org/2018/01/12/gut-feelings/

    Again, I strongly recommend discontinuing use and consumption of all foods in your diet that contain chemical additives, including most significantly artificial sweeteners like Aspartame and Splenda.

    The long and short of it is that these chemicals in the gut disrupt its normal processes. Among the many ill-effects chemicals have on our microbiome is suppression of the fullness or satiation signal, which is the reason many obese people just can’t eating because they never “feel full.”

    Tame Thy Sweet Tooth.

    Don’t be a candy ass or sucker for sody pop. Abstain from all Pogey Bait. The less sweets you eat, the more your previously raging sweet tooth will fall silent. Leave the sweet treats in the grocery store, and bring home instead natural, unprocessed foods.

    After discontinuing counterproductive diet soda, restore healthy microbiome populations in your gut with some probiotics like yogurt or sauerkraut.

    Stop consuming sugar and artificial sweeteners. Stop drinking booze and using tobacco. Eat a moderate portion of natural foods. Get some exercise and regular 8 hours of sleep.

    Your health will improve, and you will begin to shed those unwanted pounds.

    Just watch out for the gut bombs.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  111. res says:
    @Liza
    If eating too much makes you fat, why do we all see countless folks who sit around doing no physical labor, eat like pigs - and still stay skinny, virtually all their lives? There are a few in my family like that. So, tell me why your theory of overeating = fat doesn't always work?

    So, tell me why your theory of overeating = fat doesn’t always work?

    Here you are the one oversimplifying what he is saying. The point is that if you want to gain weight, eat more. To lose weight, eat less. Both of these are true to the first order which I believe is what Dr. Thompson is saying.

    People differ in their responses to equivalent food. Even the same person can differ in responses to equivalent food depending on their current condition (e.g. weight, thyroid condition, digestive functionality, overall metabolic efficiency).

    It is much more constructive to focus on what you can do to change the things which are important to you than it is to complain about how much easier some things are for certain people (as true and as “unjust” as that might be). If only I were better at this myself… ; )

    Read More
    • Replies: @Liza
    . See, you are already placing conditions on the idea that calories (ie, quantity) is the only factor, which is what the article was saying. You yourself are admitting that people differ in their responses to equivalent food because of endocrine challenges, digestive health and overall metabolic efficiency.

    But people with endocrine/metabolic problems would have to reduce their intake of food/calories to the point that they don't get enough nutrients to maintain a decent level of health irrespective of fatness of their body. That's no way to live, you'll get sicker than just being fat. They need to have their deeper problems dealt with.

    I know a woman who was about 350 lb. all her adult life. Well, guess what - when she was about 75 years of age, they found out she had severe thyroid problems. And you can't imagine how damn many times doctors told her to "just go on a diet". I would like to tie all those basterds to a pole, give them a last cigarette, and proceed.

    But in any case, I thank you for your polite reply. They tend to be sometimes hard to find around here at unz.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. res says:
    @RaceRealist88
    For genes to cause psychological traits (ie intelligence), psychophysical laws have to exist (laws linking mental events under their mental descriptions and physical events under their physical descriptions; laws connecting psychological or mental states with physical states). Psychophysical laws do not exist; psychophysical reductionism is false (see Davidson's anomalous monism, Ross' Immaterial Aspects of Thought, Nagel's Mind and Cosmos, etc). Therefore the genetic transmission of psychological traits is logically impossible.

    It's a conceptual, not empirical matter, so evidence is irrelevant.

    It’s a conceptual, not empirical matter, so evidence is irrelevant.

    That is a fascinating assertion. Can you tell me how it differs from religious belief?

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    Because it's a conceptual argument. To establish the claim that psychophysical reductionism is true, one needs to provide a priori arguments for the claim "psychophysical reductionism is true."

    For instance, take Jerry Fodor's argument against natural selection:


    1. Selection-for is a causal process.
    2. Actual causal relations aren’t sensitive to counterfactual states of affairs: if it wasn’t the case that A, then the fact that it’s being A would have caused its being B doesn’t explain its being the case that B.
    3. But the distinction between traits that are selected-for and their free-riders turns on the truth (or falsity) of relevant counterfactuals.
    4. So if T and T’ are coextensive, selection cannot distinguish the case in which T free-rides on T’ from the case that T’ free-rides on T.
    5. So the claim that selection is the mechanism of evolution cannot be true.
     
    Empirical evidence is irrelevant to Fodor's objection about NS.

    Therefore, empirical evidence is irrelevant to the claim that psychophysical reductionism is true and that genes are difference-makers in regard to behavior/psychological/mental states.

    Nevermind the ultimate conclusion of the falsity of psychophysical reductionism: since the mind is not the brain and does not reduce to genes or brain states then the mind could not have possibly been naturally selected.


    "If evolutionary biology is a physical theory—as it is generally taken to be—then it cannot account for the appearance of consciousness and of other phenomena that are not physically reducible. So if mind is a product of biological evolution—if organisms with mental life are not miraculous anomalies but an integral part of nature—then biology cannot be a purely physical science." (Nagel, 2012: Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False)
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. @Anon
    Psycho-physical relationships do exist. Environmental stimuli (external) are transduced to physical, physiological and psychological effects. There are well established relations between stress for example (environmental, external) and hormonal and neurologic effects. And the other way round as well. Psychological events transduce to physiological, hormonal and neurologic events.

    Words can kill or make one live. "Suggestive Therapeutics" by Henry Munro, MD. That was a century ago. Since then many books have been written by MDs and others in the field, showing the direct relation of suggestion (and other non-physical stimuli) and physiology/biologic action.

    This is a response to the phrase "laws linking mental events under their mental descriptions and physical events under their physical descriptions" - it is not genes alone that have reductionist results.

    The problem is that relations exist, that are reductionist, that are not genetic: reductionism is not genetic alone.

    Genetic psychophysical reductionism may or may not be false, (not proven), but other kinds of psychophysical reductionism have been proven to exist.

    And diet also has a reductionist influence on intelligence.

    There is another issue as well here, that of the developmental program in genetics, that has long lasting effects, beyond the time of the development initiated.

    “Genetic psychophysical reductionism may or may not be false, (not proven), but other kinds of psychophysical reductionism have been proven to exist.”

    Either reductionism is true or it isn’t. Numerous conceptual arguments exist that refute the claim that psychophysical reductionism is true. If reductionism is false, by proxy, genetic reductionism is false. The arguments refute gene/brain reduction.

    It’s not an empirical matter. It’s conceptual. Evidence is irrelevant.

    So what’s the argument that psychophysical reductionism is true?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    You have slipped the point again: reductionism is not simply genetic. The point I was making was that independent of genetic reductionism, there is psychophysical reductionism. As the stress - physiology linkage clearly shows. Attempting to confuse cases in logic won't help your case.

    And as far as additional psychophysical reductionism, you have to read something, like the reference given, from Henry Munro, and other similar books from MDs and other workers/researchers in the field. If you can't tell that stress has a transduction to physiological effects then perhaps you would deny the other proofs too, since you have ignored that aspect that was written.

    And then there is the obvious reductionist point that there is no brain and no physiology without the genes. Genes => brain & physiology => causal relations to both psychology and physiology. There is more but you won't read Munro nor the others, so why bother.

    And another thing for you: "confirmation bias". And you'll ignore that as well.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. res says:
    @RaceRealist88
    The "Hispanic paradox" doesn't exist:

    There is no Hispanic paradox in biological risk profiles. However, our finding that foreign-born Hispanics and Whites had similar biological risk profiles, but US-born Mexican Americans had higher risk, was consistent with hypothesized effects of migrant health selectivity (healthy people in-migrating and unhealthy people out-migrating) as well as some differences in health behaviors between US-born and foreign-born Hispanics.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1913070/

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/12/17/stress-and-race-redux-a-hispanic-paradox/

    This "paradox" exists due to methodological problems and migrant selectivity.

    (By the way, what's a "Hispanic"? They're not a race, so talking about them like they are is useless. https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2018/04/22/latinos-brazilians-mixed-race-individuals-and-race-concepts/)

    My sense is the last sentence of your quote is more important than you are giving it credit for: “as well as some differences in health behaviors between US-born and foreign-born Hispanics.”

    what’s a “Hispanic”?

    The best approximation we have for capturing this particular group difference. Please don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. This is the same disconnect we have with the CICO discussion. You are much more of an absolutist (e.g. “CICO is false”) while I am more inclined to consider multifactorial explanations (e.g. notanon’s “is there more to the massive increase in diabesity than CICO on its own?” formulation above, which you agreed with).

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    "The best approximation we have for capturing this particular group difference"

    Dominicans are similar to Mexicans? Mexicans are similar to Brazilians? Uruguayans?

    Of course there is more to weight gain/loss than CICO. Diabesity is a very complex, multifaceted disease---I agree. What I don't agree with is that CICO is is the be-all-end-all to weight loss.

    Clearly, conventional "wisdom" (eat less/love more---what CICO truly is) does not work. Dieting makes the problem worse.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. notanon says:
    @RaceRealist88
    The body burns the ingested carbs for energy and not body fat stores which is why it's not a good thing to constantly spike your insulin. People talk about what and how to eat, but never talk about when to eat, which is one of the biggest factors in regard to weight loss.

    CICO is false, the eat less/move more paradigm is false. They both assume that all calories are "equal upon ingestion" but the citation I've provided Dr Feinman and Fine 2004 refutes the assumption.

    CICO is false, the eat less/move more paradigm is false.

    if you get the “when to eat” and the “what to eat” right is CICO false in that context?

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    In my view, CICO is false because it is assumed that all kcal are created equal upon ingestion, like we're bomb calirometers or something. If you get the "when to eat" and "what to eat" down, Yea "CICO" is "true" (though not in the way that those who regurgitate that mantra want it to be; because when and what to eat take into account the human body's physiology; CICO does not).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. res says:
    @pyrrhus
    The data seems to indicate that if you don't smoke, aren't a heavy drinker (but 1-2/day is positive), don't take dangerous drugs, aren't seriously obese, and exercise regularly, your life expectancy is around 89, probably more if you are intelligent. If you are slim, but not underweight, even better. It isn't that hard....

    If you are slim, but not underweight, even better. It isn’t that hard….

    That last one is harder than it might seem and is the subject of some controversy at the moment. Epidemiological data seems to indicate that the healthiest (lowest mortality) BMI for men is something like 22-30, where “normal” is typically considered to be 18.5-24.9 and “overweight” is 25-29.9

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    Nutritional epidemiology is garbage.
    , @James Thompson
    Personal discussions with some people working in the field revealed that they originally wished health guidelines to be that BMI should not go above 22, but they were told that whatever the evidence in its favour, it would be very hard to sell. So, they settled for BMI 25. Like alcohol guidelines, these are indicative only.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. @res

    It’s a conceptual, not empirical matter, so evidence is irrelevant.
     
    That is a fascinating assertion. Can you tell me how it differs from religious belief?

    Because it’s a conceptual argument. To establish the claim that psychophysical reductionism is true, one needs to provide a priori arguments for the claim “psychophysical reductionism is true.”

    For instance, take Jerry Fodor’s argument against natural selection:

    1. Selection-for is a causal process.
    2. Actual causal relations aren’t sensitive to counterfactual states of affairs: if it wasn’t the case that A, then the fact that it’s being A would have caused its being B doesn’t explain its being the case that B.
    3. But the distinction between traits that are selected-for and their free-riders turns on the truth (or falsity) of relevant counterfactuals.
    4. So if T and T’ are coextensive, selection cannot distinguish the case in which T free-rides on T’ from the case that T’ free-rides on T.
    5. So the claim that selection is the mechanism of evolution cannot be true.

    Empirical evidence is irrelevant to Fodor’s objection about NS.

    Therefore, empirical evidence is irrelevant to the claim that psychophysical reductionism is true and that genes are difference-makers in regard to behavior/psychological/mental states.

    Nevermind the ultimate conclusion of the falsity of psychophysical reductionism: since the mind is not the brain and does not reduce to genes or brain states then the mind could not have possibly been naturally selected.

    “If evolutionary biology is a physical theory—as it is generally taken to be—then it cannot account for the appearance of consciousness and of other phenomena that are not physically reducible. So if mind is a product of biological evolution—if organisms with mental life are not miraculous anomalies but an integral part of nature—then biology cannot be a purely physical science.” (Nagel, 2012: Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Fodor wrote the book -- What Darwin Got Wrong. Jerry Coyne, prominent and eminently-qualified evolutionary biologist, describes the book as "a profoundly misguided critique of natural selection" and "as biologically uninformed as it is strident".

    Coyne was being too kind.
    , @utu
    Jerry Fodor makes some good points but he can't prove his big point or his big point is really irrelevant. I did like his criticism of practice of telling the "just-so stories" within different branches of ToE and its applications. Most of those just-so stories are just just-so stories. Nevertheless they capture our imagination as stories usually do but then they are taken as having explanatory value which they do not have. People think they are true because they must be true. The ToE does not leave one with other possibilities.

    https://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n20/jerry-fodor/why-pigs-dont-have-wings
    The years after Darwin witnessed a remarkable proliferation of other theories, each seeking to co-opt natural selection for purposes of its own. Evolutionary psychology is currently the salient instance, but examples have been legion. They’re to be found in more or less all of the behavioural sciences, to say nothing of epistemology, semantics, theology, the philosophy of history, ethics, sociology, political theory, eugenics and even aesthetics. What they have in common is that they attempt to explain why we are so-and-so by reference to what being so-and-so buys for us, or what it would have bought for our ancestors. ‘We like telling stories because telling stories exercises the imagination and an imagination would have been a good thing for a hunter-gatherer to have.’ ‘We don’t approve of eating grandmother because having her around to baby-sit was useful in the hunter-gatherer ecology.’ ‘We like music because singing together strengthened the bond between the hunters and the gatherers (and/or between the hunter-gatherer grownups and their hunter-gatherer offspring)’. ‘We talk by making noises and not by waving our hands; that’s because hunter-gatherers lived in the savannah and would have had trouble seeing one another in the tall grass.’ ‘We like to gossip because knowing who has been up to what is important when fitness depends on co-operation in small communities.’ ‘We don’t all talk the same language because that would make us more likely to interbreed with foreigners (which would be bad because it would weaken the ties of hunter-gatherer communities).’ ‘We don’t copulate with our siblings because that would decrease the likelihood of interbreeding with foreigners (which would be bad because, all else being equal, heterogeneity is good for the gene pool).’ I’m not making this up, by the way. Versions of each of these theories can actually be found in the adaptationist literature. But, in point of logic, this sort of explanation has to stop somewhere. Not all of our traits can be explained instrumentally; there must be some that we have simply because that’s the sort of creature we are. And perhaps it’s unnecessary to remark that such explanations are inherently post hoc (Gould called them ‘just so stories’); or that, except for the prestige they borrow from the theory of natural selection, there isn’t much reason to believe that any of them is true.

     


    Anyhow, for what it’s worth, I really would be surprised to find out that I was meant to be a hunter-gatherer since I don’t feel the slightest nostalgia for that sort of life. I loathe the very idea of hunting, and I’m not all that keen on gathering either. Nor can I believe that living like a hunter-gatherer would make me happier or better. In fact, it sounds to me like absolute hell. No opera. And no plumbing.
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. @notanon

    CICO is false, the eat less/move more paradigm is false.
     
    if you get the "when to eat" and the "what to eat" right is CICO false in that context?

    In my view, CICO is false because it is assumed that all kcal are created equal upon ingestion, like we’re bomb calirometers or something. If you get the “when to eat” and “what to eat” down, Yea “CICO” is “true” (though not in the way that those who regurgitate that mantra want it to be; because when and what to eat take into account the human body’s physiology; CICO does not).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    bomb calirometers
     
    For the love of any almighty God you can imagine, PLEASE spell that correctly. I can take no more.

    Bomb calorimeter. From "calorie", jesus h christ what's hard to remember about that?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. @res

    If you are slim, but not underweight, even better. It isn’t that hard….
     
    That last one is harder than it might seem and is the subject of some controversy at the moment. Epidemiological data seems to indicate that the healthiest (lowest mortality) BMI for men is something like 22-30, where "normal" is typically considered to be 18.5-24.9 and "overweight" is 25-29.9

    Nutritional epidemiology is garbage.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. Anonymous[413] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous
    You are either ignorant of the genetic contribution to the causation of e.g. poor memory, optimistic personality or schizophrenia (no different in concept from the causation of a person's height being six feet since external causes, like nutrition or infection also contribute in that case), or you are a tabula rasa fundamentalist, or you are simply using language in an idiosyncratic way. As a matter of the logic of our language why should only external, environmental or nurturing factors be regarded as part of the causal chain leading to the outcome which would not have occurred but for the springing into action, by epigenetic, chance or whatever of particular alleles?

    You are either ignorant of the genetic contribution to the causation of e.g. poor memory, optimistic personality or schizophrenia (no different in concept from the causation of a person’s h

    Yadda, yadda, yadda.

    No. Psychological disorders, if not a direct effect of organic brain dysfunction, are not CAUSED by genes. There may be a contributing effect, a “worsening” effect perhaps, but not a CAUSAL effect.

    Words have meanings. If you wish to blur and/or re-associate meaning with items that are not directly related (or, for instance, causal), that is your option. If you choose to say that “pink” is rilly, rilly, rilly, oh yes it is, “red”, that is your option.

    Doing so, however, is an indicator of a lack of intellectual rigor.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    It is just possible that you are attempting to follow a newer fashion in a respectable philosophy department than anything current when I formally studied philosophy but I suspect - partly from your "words have meanings" that you are a primitive dogmatic amateur. As you claim the high ground on "intellectual rigor" I invite you to contest the positions taken in

    https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/common-genetic-factors-found-5-mental-disorders

    and perhaps explain why it is not dealing with causation. Perhaps because, in a post-modern age, the bullies who may have you in their thrall have appropriated the word and made it unfashionable? Or can you give a substantial answer?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. Anonymous[413] • Disclaimer says:
    @RaceRealist88
    You should blog and Feinman and Fine 2004.

    https://nutritionj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1475-2891-3-9

    You assume that all calories are equal upon ingestion. Feinman and Fine show that this assumption is false.

    You assume that all calories are equal upon ingestion. Feinman and Fine show that this assumption is false.

    I disagree with Thompson on more than one topic, but he didn’t say that all calories are metabolized the same. He said weight loss is a direct function of reduction of caloric intake.

    Which it is.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    "but he didn’t say that all calories are metabolized the same"

    That's the implicit assumption of CICO/eat less-move more.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. Anonymous[413] • Disclaimer says:
    @RaceRealist88
    For genes to cause psychological traits (ie intelligence), psychophysical laws have to exist (laws linking mental events under their mental descriptions and physical events under their physical descriptions; laws connecting psychological or mental states with physical states). Psychophysical laws do not exist; psychophysical reductionism is false (see Davidson's anomalous monism, Ross' Immaterial Aspects of Thought, Nagel's Mind and Cosmos, etc). Therefore the genetic transmission of psychological traits is logically impossible.

    It's a conceptual, not empirical matter, so evidence is irrelevant.

    It’s a conceptual, not empirical matter, so evidence is irrelevant.

    True, but all valid, repeatable, verifiable evidence supports that genetic transmission of psychological traits does not happen. Predisposition to the acquisition of a particular behavior is not cause. Yepper, it sure does look like cause to the non-scientist, but that don’t make it so.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    How can genetic reductionism be proven? How can it be shown that genes are difference-makers to psychology/behavior? You can't prove it empirically. Check out this arguments from Davidson and Ross and get back to me.
    , @Anonymous
    Name the psychological traits. How do they arise? You will find that without the genes, there will be no such traits. For the traits to exist, the genes have to have been and have to continue to be operating. The genes are underpinning the traits in a reductionist manner, along with other inputs, current and past. The traits do in fact depend on genes, in a causal manner. And other things. The reductionism is polyfunctional. Multiple inputs, including genes. No genes, no traits.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. @res
    My sense is the last sentence of your quote is more important than you are giving it credit for: "as well as some differences in health behaviors between US-born and foreign-born Hispanics."

    what’s a “Hispanic”?
     
    The best approximation we have for capturing this particular group difference. Please don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. This is the same disconnect we have with the CICO discussion. You are much more of an absolutist (e.g. "CICO is false") while I am more inclined to consider multifactorial explanations (e.g. notanon's "is there more to the massive increase in diabesity than CICO on its own?" formulation above, which you agreed with).

    “The best approximation we have for capturing this particular group difference”

    Dominicans are similar to Mexicans? Mexicans are similar to Brazilians? Uruguayans?

    Of course there is more to weight gain/loss than CICO. Diabesity is a very complex, multifaceted disease—I agree. What I don’t agree with is that CICO is is the be-all-end-all to weight loss.

    Clearly, conventional “wisdom” (eat less/love more—what CICO truly is) does not work. Dieting makes the problem worse.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. @Anonymous

    You assume that all calories are equal upon ingestion. Feinman and Fine show that this assumption is false.
     
    I disagree with Thompson on more than one topic, but he didn't say that all calories are metabolized the same. He said weight loss is a direct function of reduction of caloric intake.

    Which it is.

    “but he didn’t say that all calories are metabolized the same”

    That’s the implicit assumption of CICO/eat less-move more.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    That’s the implicit assumption of CICO/eat less-move more.
     
    No, it is not.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. @Anonymous

    It’s a conceptual, not empirical matter, so evidence is irrelevant.

     

    True, but all valid, repeatable, verifiable evidence supports that genetic transmission of psychological traits does not happen. Predisposition to the acquisition of a particular behavior is not cause. Yepper, it sure does look like cause to the non-scientist, but that don't make it so.

    How can genetic reductionism be proven? How can it be shown that genes are difference-makers to psychology/behavior? You can’t prove it empirically. Check out this arguments from Davidson and Ross and get back to me.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    How can genetic reductionism be proven? How can it be shown that genes are difference-makers to psychology/behavior? You can’t prove it empirically.
     
    Yeah, that's what I said. Word-recognition reader, are you?
    , @Anonymous
    If there are no genes there is no brains, no psychology and no physiology. The reductionism is permissive, not singular. What difference does it make? Obviously, the difference between existence and non-existence.
    , @utu

    How can it be shown that genes are difference-makers to psychology/behavior?

     

    Are you saying that difference in level of aggressiveness can't be shown to be genetically linked? Look at dogs or Soviet fox breeding experiment.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. Anonymous[413] • Disclaimer says:
    @RaceRealist88
    Because it's a conceptual argument. To establish the claim that psychophysical reductionism is true, one needs to provide a priori arguments for the claim "psychophysical reductionism is true."

    For instance, take Jerry Fodor's argument against natural selection:


    1. Selection-for is a causal process.
    2. Actual causal relations aren’t sensitive to counterfactual states of affairs: if it wasn’t the case that A, then the fact that it’s being A would have caused its being B doesn’t explain its being the case that B.
    3. But the distinction between traits that are selected-for and their free-riders turns on the truth (or falsity) of relevant counterfactuals.
    4. So if T and T’ are coextensive, selection cannot distinguish the case in which T free-rides on T’ from the case that T’ free-rides on T.
    5. So the claim that selection is the mechanism of evolution cannot be true.
     
    Empirical evidence is irrelevant to Fodor's objection about NS.

    Therefore, empirical evidence is irrelevant to the claim that psychophysical reductionism is true and that genes are difference-makers in regard to behavior/psychological/mental states.

    Nevermind the ultimate conclusion of the falsity of psychophysical reductionism: since the mind is not the brain and does not reduce to genes or brain states then the mind could not have possibly been naturally selected.


    "If evolutionary biology is a physical theory—as it is generally taken to be—then it cannot account for the appearance of consciousness and of other phenomena that are not physically reducible. So if mind is a product of biological evolution—if organisms with mental life are not miraculous anomalies but an integral part of nature—then biology cannot be a purely physical science." (Nagel, 2012: Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False)
     

    Fodor wrote the book — What Darwin Got Wrong. Jerry Coyne, prominent and eminently-qualified evolutionary biologist, describes the book as “a profoundly misguided critique of natural selection” and “as biologically uninformed as it is strident”.

    Coyne was being too kind.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    "Fodor wrote the book --- What Darwin Got Wrong

    It's a great book. Have you read it?

    "Jerry Coyne, prominent and eminently-qualified evolutionary biologist, describes the book as “a profoundly misguided critique of natural selection” and “as biologically uninformed as it is strident”."

    Coyne gets nonsensical when people attack Neo-Darwinism. Neo-Darwinism is clearly false (see Denis Noble, Jerry Fodor, Thomas Nagel, Jablonka and Lamb). Fodor's argument is sound. NS, as it is currently formulated, cannot possibly be true.

    When two traits are coextensive, how does NS distinguish the one that causes fitness from the trait that doesn’t (its linked free-rider)? It can’t because selection-for is an intensional notion.

    The theory of natural selection states that organisms are selected for the relative fitness of their phenotypes in relation to their ecologies. Phenotypic traits are selected for their role in causing increases in fitness corresponding with the following principle:

    If in a given ecology, organisms with T1 are more fit than organisms with T2, then, all else being equal, creatures with T1 will be selected and not creatures with T2. If both of these organisms are equally fit, then neither type of organism will be selected in preference to the other organism. But what if T1 and T2 are linked? Now suppose that T1 causes increased fitness and T2 does not. The traits are linked, so the correlation of T2 and fitness is the same as the correlation of T1 with fitness. Thus, all else being equal, if T1 is selected then so is T2. If T2 is selected then so is T1.

    Darwin should have said that traits are selected which cause alterations in fitness in a given ecology, not that they’re correlated with alterations in fitness. But then Darwin would have needed to identify a mechanism that in a given ecology responds differently to phenotypic traits depending on whether or not they are causes of alterations of fitness of merely correlated with the causes of the alterations of fitness. In lieu of a mechanism, there is no theory of natural selection.

    The theory of NS presumes a distinction between “selects” and “selects-for”, so for the theory to explain the distribution of phenotypic traits it must satisfy (1) or (2): (1) that NS has a mind/mental powers since intensionality is intentional, then intentional states have the ability to distinguish between coextensive traits; and (2) counter-factual supporting laws that phylogenetically link certain phylogenetic traits across different ecologies so that if you have one, you have the other. There is no agent of selection, (1) is discarded and there are no laws of selection, (2) is discarded so:

    P1) For NS to explain trait fixation, it must satisfy (1) or (2).
    P2) NS does not satisfy (1) or (2).
    C) Therefore, NS does not explain trait fixation.

    Darwin did, indeed, speak of NS as agentlike. There is not rhyme or reason to assume that NS is an agent, NS is mindless. Darwin was also wrong to compare natural selection with animal breeding. This is because animal breeders are humans and humans have minds. Therefore, humans can select-for and against traits they don't want. This is not the case for natural selection. Explanations that invoke NS as causes of trait fixation/speciation make no sense because NS cannot choose between coextensive traits because it doesn't doesn't have a mind (so it can't choose between counterfactuals) and there are no laws of selection (to explain trait fixation).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. Anonymous[413] • Disclaimer says:
    @RaceRealist88
    In my view, CICO is false because it is assumed that all kcal are created equal upon ingestion, like we're bomb calirometers or something. If you get the "when to eat" and "what to eat" down, Yea "CICO" is "true" (though not in the way that those who regurgitate that mantra want it to be; because when and what to eat take into account the human body's physiology; CICO does not).

    bomb calirometers

    For the love of any almighty God you can imagine, PLEASE spell that correctly. I can take no more.

    Bomb calorimeter. From “calorie”, jesus h christ what’s hard to remember about that?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. Anonymous[373] • Disclaimer says:
    @RaceRealist88
    For genes to cause psychological traits (ie intelligence), psychophysical laws have to exist (laws linking mental events under their mental descriptions and physical events under their physical descriptions; laws connecting psychological or mental states with physical states). Psychophysical laws do not exist; psychophysical reductionism is false (see Davidson's anomalous monism, Ross' Immaterial Aspects of Thought, Nagel's Mind and Cosmos, etc). Therefore the genetic transmission of psychological traits is logically impossible.

    It's a conceptual, not empirical matter, so evidence is irrelevant.

    Thomas Nagel, philosopher, i.e., lover of sophistry.

    It’s conceptual, not evidence based, not material? That’s merely a tautology for conceptualism.

    Conceptualism is art in which the concept(s) or idea(s) involved in the work take precedence over traditional aesthetic, technical, and material concerns. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceptual_art

    Much edgy. Very progress.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    Either you can address the argument or you can't.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. Hu Mi Yu says:
    @James Thompson
    My sympathy to those who truly don't understand that eating too much makes them fat. Less sympathy for those who claim "Some people either eat less and lose no weight". If you have evidence that people really don't lose weight when they eat less, publish it, and I will post about your work on my blog.

    Less sympathy for those who claim “Some people either eat less and lose no weight”. If you have evidence that people really don’t lose weight when they eat less, publish it, and I will post about your work on my blog.

    Some people have a hibernation gene. When they fast, their metabolism slows down. They go to sleep for days at a time. I am one of them. I had some papers on this a few years ago.

    Another problem is that some of us lose muscle instead of fat. This problem gets worse as we age. It is scary to finally meet weight goals after hibernating for a year and be unable to do a single push up.

    I am sure there are many other genetic factors that you discount due to your personal bias. It is amusing to read that you think intelligence is dominated by genetic factors but metabolism is not. Either you believe in evolution and genetic variation or you don’t. If intelligence is affected by genetics, then so is metabolism.

    In my experience high IQ types are generally overweight but not obese. They have a higher than average incidence of minor health problems such as allergies that require intelligence to survive. The thin ones are more photogenic and social. They receive disproportionately more publicity and credit.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    Fast or slow metabolism or hibernation or whatever does not violate the law of conservation of energy which what CICO is. Measure energy intake and energy spent and the equation will always balance. And od not forget to include the energy content of your poop whether you are hibernating or not.
    , @James Thompson
    I think you have made assumptions which were no part of my argument, and are peripheral to it. Metabolism like anything else can show individual variation, and will be influenced by genetic factors. Variations in exercise, sleep patterns, type of work, types of food and so on will all have an influence. So will going on holiday.

    However, the basic principle remains, which is that a person who is fatter than they want to be has to find a way to eat less. I have not specified how to do so, only said that that is what they need to do.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. Anonymous[413] • Disclaimer says:
    @RaceRealist88
    "but he didn’t say that all calories are metabolized the same"

    That's the implicit assumption of CICO/eat less-move more.

    That’s the implicit assumption of CICO/eat less-move more.

    No, it is not.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    Please explain.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. Anonymous[413] • Disclaimer says:
    @RaceRealist88
    How can genetic reductionism be proven? How can it be shown that genes are difference-makers to psychology/behavior? You can't prove it empirically. Check out this arguments from Davidson and Ross and get back to me.

    How can genetic reductionism be proven? How can it be shown that genes are difference-makers to psychology/behavior? You can’t prove it empirically.

    Yeah, that’s what I said. Word-recognition reader, are you?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. utu says:
    @RaceRealist88
    Because it's a conceptual argument. To establish the claim that psychophysical reductionism is true, one needs to provide a priori arguments for the claim "psychophysical reductionism is true."

    For instance, take Jerry Fodor's argument against natural selection:


    1. Selection-for is a causal process.
    2. Actual causal relations aren’t sensitive to counterfactual states of affairs: if it wasn’t the case that A, then the fact that it’s being A would have caused its being B doesn’t explain its being the case that B.
    3. But the distinction between traits that are selected-for and their free-riders turns on the truth (or falsity) of relevant counterfactuals.
    4. So if T and T’ are coextensive, selection cannot distinguish the case in which T free-rides on T’ from the case that T’ free-rides on T.
    5. So the claim that selection is the mechanism of evolution cannot be true.
     
    Empirical evidence is irrelevant to Fodor's objection about NS.

    Therefore, empirical evidence is irrelevant to the claim that psychophysical reductionism is true and that genes are difference-makers in regard to behavior/psychological/mental states.

    Nevermind the ultimate conclusion of the falsity of psychophysical reductionism: since the mind is not the brain and does not reduce to genes or brain states then the mind could not have possibly been naturally selected.


    "If evolutionary biology is a physical theory—as it is generally taken to be—then it cannot account for the appearance of consciousness and of other phenomena that are not physically reducible. So if mind is a product of biological evolution—if organisms with mental life are not miraculous anomalies but an integral part of nature—then biology cannot be a purely physical science." (Nagel, 2012: Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False)
     

    Jerry Fodor makes some good points but he can’t prove his big point or his big point is really irrelevant. I did like his criticism of practice of telling the “just-so stories” within different branches of ToE and its applications. Most of those just-so stories are just just-so stories. Nevertheless they capture our imagination as stories usually do but then they are taken as having explanatory value which they do not have. People think they are true because they must be true. The ToE does not leave one with other possibilities.

    https://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n20/jerry-fodor/why-pigs-dont-have-wings
    The years after Darwin witnessed a remarkable proliferation of other theories, each seeking to co-opt natural selection for purposes of its own. Evolutionary psychology is currently the salient instance, but examples have been legion. They’re to be found in more or less all of the behavioural sciences, to say nothing of epistemology, semantics, theology, the philosophy of history, ethics, sociology, political theory, eugenics and even aesthetics. What they have in common is that they attempt to explain why we are so-and-so by reference to what being so-and-so buys for us, or what it would have bought for our ancestors. ‘We like telling stories because telling stories exercises the imagination and an imagination would have been a good thing for a hunter-gatherer to have.’ ‘We don’t approve of eating grandmother because having her around to baby-sit was useful in the hunter-gatherer ecology.’ ‘We like music because singing together strengthened the bond between the hunters and the gatherers (and/or between the hunter-gatherer grownups and their hunter-gatherer offspring)’. ‘We talk by making noises and not by waving our hands; that’s because hunter-gatherers lived in the savannah and would have had trouble seeing one another in the tall grass.’ ‘We like to gossip because knowing who has been up to what is important when fitness depends on co-operation in small communities.’ ‘We don’t all talk the same language because that would make us more likely to interbreed with foreigners (which would be bad because it would weaken the ties of hunter-gatherer communities).’ ‘We don’t copulate with our siblings because that would decrease the likelihood of interbreeding with foreigners (which would be bad because, all else being equal, heterogeneity is good for the gene pool).’ I’m not making this up, by the way. Versions of each of these theories can actually be found in the adaptationist literature. But, in point of logic, this sort of explanation has to stop somewhere. Not all of our traits can be explained instrumentally; there must be some that we have simply because that’s the sort of creature we are. And perhaps it’s unnecessary to remark that such explanations are inherently post hoc (Gould called them ‘just so stories’); or that, except for the prestige they borrow from the theory of natural selection, there isn’t much reason to believe that any of them is true.

    Anyhow, for what it’s worth, I really would be surprised to find out that I was meant to be a hunter-gatherer since I don’t feel the slightest nostalgia for that sort of life. I loathe the very idea of hunting, and I’m not all that keen on gathering either. Nor can I believe that living like a hunter-gatherer would make me happier or better. In fact, it sounds to me like absolute hell. No opera. And no plumbing.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. @Anonymous
    Fodor wrote the book -- What Darwin Got Wrong. Jerry Coyne, prominent and eminently-qualified evolutionary biologist, describes the book as "a profoundly misguided critique of natural selection" and "as biologically uninformed as it is strident".

    Coyne was being too kind.

    “Fodor wrote the book — What Darwin Got Wrong

    It’s a great book. Have you read it?

    “Jerry Coyne, prominent and eminently-qualified evolutionary biologist, describes the book as “a profoundly misguided critique of natural selection” and “as biologically uninformed as it is strident”.”

    Coyne gets nonsensical when people attack Neo-Darwinism. Neo-Darwinism is clearly false (see Denis Noble, Jerry Fodor, Thomas Nagel, Jablonka and Lamb). Fodor’s argument is sound. NS, as it is currently formulated, cannot possibly be true.

    When two traits are coextensive, how does NS distinguish the one that causes fitness from the trait that doesn’t (its linked free-rider)? It can’t because selection-for is an intensional notion.

    The theory of natural selection states that organisms are selected for the relative fitness of their phenotypes in relation to their ecologies. Phenotypic traits are selected for their role in causing increases in fitness corresponding with the following principle:

    If in a given ecology, organisms with T1 are more fit than organisms with T2, then, all else being equal, creatures with T1 will be selected and not creatures with T2. If both of these organisms are equally fit, then neither type of organism will be selected in preference to the other organism. But what if T1 and T2 are linked? Now suppose that T1 causes increased fitness and T2 does not. The traits are linked, so the correlation of T2 and fitness is the same as the correlation of T1 with fitness. Thus, all else being equal, if T1 is selected then so is T2. If T2 is selected then so is T1.

    Darwin should have said that traits are selected which cause alterations in fitness in a given ecology, not that they’re correlated with alterations in fitness. But then Darwin would have needed to identify a mechanism that in a given ecology responds differently to phenotypic traits depending on whether or not they are causes of alterations of fitness of merely correlated with the causes of the alterations of fitness. In lieu of a mechanism, there is no theory of natural selection.

    The theory of NS presumes a distinction between “selects” and “selects-for”, so for the theory to explain the distribution of phenotypic traits it must satisfy (1) or (2): (1) that NS has a mind/mental powers since intensionality is intentional, then intentional states have the ability to distinguish between coextensive traits; and (2) counter-factual supporting laws that phylogenetically link certain phylogenetic traits across different ecologies so that if you have one, you have the other. There is no agent of selection, (1) is discarded and there are no laws of selection, (2) is discarded so:

    P1) For NS to explain trait fixation, it must satisfy (1) or (2).
    P2) NS does not satisfy (1) or (2).
    C) Therefore, NS does not explain trait fixation.

    Darwin did, indeed, speak of NS as agentlike. There is not rhyme or reason to assume that NS is an agent, NS is mindless. Darwin was also wrong to compare natural selection with animal breeding. This is because animal breeders are humans and humans have minds. Therefore, humans can select-for and against traits they don’t want. This is not the case for natural selection. Explanations that invoke NS as causes of trait fixation/speciation make no sense because NS cannot choose between coextensive traits because it doesn’t doesn’t have a mind (so it can’t choose between counterfactuals) and there are no laws of selection (to explain trait fixation).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    You attempt to force a very simple concept -- natural selection -- into a conceptual modality that YOU define. What you are doing is intellectually dishonest, and a very perceptible flag (from my personal point of view, of course), that discussion is futile.

    I'm old, and I just don't bother anymore with Those Who Brook No Interpretation But Their Own.

    Be well.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. @Anonymous
    Thomas Nagel, philosopher, i.e., lover of sophistry.

    It's conceptual, not evidence based, not material? That's merely a tautology for conceptualism.

    Conceptualism is art in which the concept(s) or idea(s) involved in the work take precedence over traditional aesthetic, technical, and material concerns. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceptual_art
     
    Much edgy. Very progress.

    Either you can address the argument or you can’t.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    Either you can address the argument or you can’t.
     
    LOL. He can either sling bullshit on your terms, goddammit, or he can shut the hell up 'cause he's wrong.

    Got it. Duly noted. Never seen that one before. Straight outa Compton, izzit?
    , @Anonymous
    Either you understand conceptually or you can't. The fully conceptual rises above the need for argumentation altogether. If you're proffering arguments, you do not yet grasp the concept of the conceptual. Argumentation leads to a conniptual state.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. Liza says:
    @res

    So, tell me why your theory of overeating = fat doesn’t always work?
     
    Here you are the one oversimplifying what he is saying. The point is that if you want to gain weight, eat more. To lose weight, eat less. Both of these are true to the first order which I believe is what Dr. Thompson is saying.

    People differ in their responses to equivalent food. Even the same person can differ in responses to equivalent food depending on their current condition (e.g. weight, thyroid condition, digestive functionality, overall metabolic efficiency).

    It is much more constructive to focus on what you can do to change the things which are important to you than it is to complain about how much easier some things are for certain people (as true and as "unjust" as that might be). If only I were better at this myself... ; )

    . See, you are already placing conditions on the idea that calories (ie, quantity) is the only factor, which is what the article was saying. You yourself are admitting that people differ in their responses to equivalent food because of endocrine challenges, digestive health and overall metabolic efficiency.

    But people with endocrine/metabolic problems would have to reduce their intake of food/calories to the point that they don’t get enough nutrients to maintain a decent level of health irrespective of fatness of their body. That’s no way to live, you’ll get sicker than just being fat. They need to have their deeper problems dealt with.

    I know a woman who was about 350 lb. all her adult life. Well, guess what – when she was about 75 years of age, they found out she had severe thyroid problems. And you can’t imagine how damn many times doctors told her to “just go on a diet”. I would like to tie all those basterds to a pole, give them a last cigarette, and proceed.

    But in any case, I thank you for your polite reply. They tend to be sometimes hard to find around here at unz.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    See, you are already placing conditions on the idea that calories (ie, quantity) is the only factor, which is what the article was saying.
     
    Could you point me to what makes you say that? I think you are reading more into the article than is there. Perhaps a result of so many comments which strawman it?

    You yourself are admitting
     
    More like vigorously asserting ; )

    But people with endocrine/metabolic problems would have to reduce their intake of food/calories to the point that they don’t get enough nutrients to maintain a decent level of health irrespective of fatness of their body. That’s no way to live, you’ll get sicker than just being fat. They need to have their deeper problems dealt with.
     
    This is one challenge. Figuring out which problem(s) are both important and solvable. Maintaining nutrient status with decreasing calories should be fairly straightforward with multivitamins and perhaps some additional targeted supplements (e.g. Omega 3 fatty acids). Hypothyroid is an important special case--if you look around you can find doctors who are good about this. As I see it, the steps to debugging a severe food problem (not just overweight, but also things like Crohn's disease) are something like:
    - Check thyroid status.
    - Sort out digestion and absorption. This may involve things like food allergies, hydrochloric acid/digestive enzyme/probiotic supplements, more/different fiber, etc.
    - Sort out glucose issues. For example, try to normalize to three satiating meals per day (intermittent fasting is probably even better, but harder for most at first). Fat and protein tend to have a more moderate glycemic response. The conventional recommendation of responding to low blood sugar by drinking juices is insane IMO.
    - Shore up nutrient status. As mentioned above, a good multivitamin and selective other supplements on a more individual basis. This will work best after the other steps, but probably best to start first since it is easy and should help at least a little.
    - Once those are under control think more about which specific foods and portion sizes are appropriate.
    - At least minimal exercise. This is as much about ensuring a well functioning body as it is about weight. A good baseline might be walking as tolerated along with at least basic strength (e.g. pushups or analogs) and flexibility (e.g. yoga or "stretching") work.

    I know a woman who was about 350 lb. all her adult life. Well, guess what – when she was about 75 years of age, they found out she had severe thyroid problems. And you can’t imagine how damn many times doctors told her to “just go on a diet”. I would like to tie all those basterds to a pole, give them a last cigarette, and proceed.
     
    You are preaching to the choir here ; ). Doctors who
    1. Miss something important.
    2. Are supremely confident in their conclusions nonetheless.
    Are all too prevalent and both harmful and infuriating.

    But in any case, I thank you for your polite reply. They tend to be sometimes hard to find around here at unz.
     
    Thanks, I try, even if I don't always succeed. I think it is the only way to have a useful conversation about topics of disagreement. Thank you for engaging in a similar fashion.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. @Anonymous

    That’s the implicit assumption of CICO/eat less-move more.
     
    No, it is not.

    Please explain.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. @Santoculto

    Psychological formation, however, ALWAYS has external cause.
     
    People are rocks..

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. Anon[381] • Disclaimer says:
    @RaceRealist88
    "Genetic psychophysical reductionism may or may not be false, (not proven), but other kinds of psychophysical reductionism have been proven to exist."

    Either reductionism is true or it isn't. Numerous conceptual arguments exist that refute the claim that psychophysical reductionism is true. If reductionism is false, by proxy, genetic reductionism is false. The arguments refute gene/brain reduction.

    It's not an empirical matter. It's conceptual. Evidence is irrelevant.

    So what's the argument that psychophysical reductionism is true?

    You have slipped the point again: reductionism is not simply genetic. The point I was making was that independent of genetic reductionism, there is psychophysical reductionism. As the stress – physiology linkage clearly shows. Attempting to confuse cases in logic won’t help your case.

    And as far as additional psychophysical reductionism, you have to read something, like the reference given, from Henry Munro, and other similar books from MDs and other workers/researchers in the field. If you can’t tell that stress has a transduction to physiological effects then perhaps you would deny the other proofs too, since you have ignored that aspect that was written.

    And then there is the obvious reductionist point that there is no brain and no physiology without the genes. Genes => brain & physiology => causal relations to both psychology and physiology. There is more but you won’t read Munro nor the others, so why bother.

    And another thing for you: “confirmation bias”. And you’ll ignore that as well.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    "independent of genetic reductionism, there is psychophysical reductionism"

    Right. Genetic reductionism and psychophysical reductionism are both false.

    Ill ask again: what's the argument that psychophysical reductionism is true?

    1) All formal thinking is incompossibly determinate
    2) No physical process or functions of physical processes are incompossibly determinate
    3) No physical or functional process is formal thinking
    3) Machines are purely physical
    4) Machines don't engage in formal thinking
    5) We engage in formal thinking
    ∴ We are not purely physical

    (Ross's Immaterial Aspects of Thought)

    P1) To explain psychological events, we need to rely on terms like “desire”, “rationality”, “consistency”, and “coherence”
    P2) If there were a lawlike account of psychological events, we would need to dispense with such concepts since they are external impositions on the events.
    P3) We can’t dispense with such concepts when discussing psychological events.
    C) Therefore psychophysical laws don’t exist

    P1) For psychological events to be reduced to physical descriptions, there ... would have to be physical equivalents to terms like “rationality”, “consistency”, “desire”
    P2) No such physical equivalents of these terms (and other psychological terms) exist
    C) Thus psychological terms described as physical events cannot be reduced to physical explanations

    For the claim "genes cause psychological traits (ie intelligence)" to be true, psychophysical reductionism must also be true. Psychophysical reductionism is false. Therefore the claim "genes cause psychological traits (ie intelligence) cannot be true.

    Just present Munro's argument that psychophysical reductionism is true.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. Anonymous[381] • Disclaimer says:
    @RaceRealist88
    How can genetic reductionism be proven? How can it be shown that genes are difference-makers to psychology/behavior? You can't prove it empirically. Check out this arguments from Davidson and Ross and get back to me.

    If there are no genes there is no brains, no psychology and no physiology. The reductionism is permissive, not singular. What difference does it make? Obviously, the difference between existence and non-existence.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    The brain is a necessary pre-condition for human mindedness but not a sufficient condition. You can't just appeal to genes saying 'genes build brains' and think that's sufficient to establish the claim that 'genes cause psychological/mental traits.'
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. Anonymous[159] • Disclaimer says:
    @RaceRealist88
    "Fodor wrote the book --- What Darwin Got Wrong

    It's a great book. Have you read it?

    "Jerry Coyne, prominent and eminently-qualified evolutionary biologist, describes the book as “a profoundly misguided critique of natural selection” and “as biologically uninformed as it is strident”."

    Coyne gets nonsensical when people attack Neo-Darwinism. Neo-Darwinism is clearly false (see Denis Noble, Jerry Fodor, Thomas Nagel, Jablonka and Lamb). Fodor's argument is sound. NS, as it is currently formulated, cannot possibly be true.

    When two traits are coextensive, how does NS distinguish the one that causes fitness from the trait that doesn’t (its linked free-rider)? It can’t because selection-for is an intensional notion.

    The theory of natural selection states that organisms are selected for the relative fitness of their phenotypes in relation to their ecologies. Phenotypic traits are selected for their role in causing increases in fitness corresponding with the following principle:

    If in a given ecology, organisms with T1 are more fit than organisms with T2, then, all else being equal, creatures with T1 will be selected and not creatures with T2. If both of these organisms are equally fit, then neither type of organism will be selected in preference to the other organism. But what if T1 and T2 are linked? Now suppose that T1 causes increased fitness and T2 does not. The traits are linked, so the correlation of T2 and fitness is the same as the correlation of T1 with fitness. Thus, all else being equal, if T1 is selected then so is T2. If T2 is selected then so is T1.

    Darwin should have said that traits are selected which cause alterations in fitness in a given ecology, not that they’re correlated with alterations in fitness. But then Darwin would have needed to identify a mechanism that in a given ecology responds differently to phenotypic traits depending on whether or not they are causes of alterations of fitness of merely correlated with the causes of the alterations of fitness. In lieu of a mechanism, there is no theory of natural selection.

    The theory of NS presumes a distinction between “selects” and “selects-for”, so for the theory to explain the distribution of phenotypic traits it must satisfy (1) or (2): (1) that NS has a mind/mental powers since intensionality is intentional, then intentional states have the ability to distinguish between coextensive traits; and (2) counter-factual supporting laws that phylogenetically link certain phylogenetic traits across different ecologies so that if you have one, you have the other. There is no agent of selection, (1) is discarded and there are no laws of selection, (2) is discarded so:

    P1) For NS to explain trait fixation, it must satisfy (1) or (2).
    P2) NS does not satisfy (1) or (2).
    C) Therefore, NS does not explain trait fixation.

    Darwin did, indeed, speak of NS as agentlike. There is not rhyme or reason to assume that NS is an agent, NS is mindless. Darwin was also wrong to compare natural selection with animal breeding. This is because animal breeders are humans and humans have minds. Therefore, humans can select-for and against traits they don't want. This is not the case for natural selection. Explanations that invoke NS as causes of trait fixation/speciation make no sense because NS cannot choose between coextensive traits because it doesn't doesn't have a mind (so it can't choose between counterfactuals) and there are no laws of selection (to explain trait fixation).

    You attempt to force a very simple concept — natural selection — into a conceptual modality that YOU define. What you are doing is intellectually dishonest, and a very perceptible flag (from my personal point of view, of course), that discussion is futile.

    I’m old, and I just don’t bother anymore with Those Who Brook No Interpretation But Their Own.

    Be well.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    Well said.
    , @RaceRealist88
    Where is the error in my reasoning? Is (1) true? Is (2) true?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. @Anon
    You have slipped the point again: reductionism is not simply genetic. The point I was making was that independent of genetic reductionism, there is psychophysical reductionism. As the stress - physiology linkage clearly shows. Attempting to confuse cases in logic won't help your case.

    And as far as additional psychophysical reductionism, you have to read something, like the reference given, from Henry Munro, and other similar books from MDs and other workers/researchers in the field. If you can't tell that stress has a transduction to physiological effects then perhaps you would deny the other proofs too, since you have ignored that aspect that was written.

    And then there is the obvious reductionist point that there is no brain and no physiology without the genes. Genes => brain & physiology => causal relations to both psychology and physiology. There is more but you won't read Munro nor the others, so why bother.

    And another thing for you: "confirmation bias". And you'll ignore that as well.

    “independent of genetic reductionism, there is psychophysical reductionism”

    Right. Genetic reductionism and psychophysical reductionism are both false.

    Ill ask again: what’s the argument that psychophysical reductionism is true?

    1) All formal thinking is incompossibly determinate
    2) No physical process or functions of physical processes are incompossibly determinate
    3) No physical or functional process is formal thinking
    3) Machines are purely physical
    4) Machines don’t engage in formal thinking
    5) We engage in formal thinking
    ∴ We are not purely physical

    (Ross’s Immaterial Aspects of Thought)

    P1) To explain psychological events, we need to rely on terms like “desire”, “rationality”, “consistency”, and “coherence”
    P2) If there were a lawlike account of psychological events, we would need to dispense with such concepts since they are external impositions on the events.
    P3) We can’t dispense with such concepts when discussing psychological events.
    C) Therefore psychophysical laws don’t exist

    P1) For psychological events to be reduced to physical descriptions, there … would have to be physical equivalents to terms like “rationality”, “consistency”, “desire”
    P2) No such physical equivalents of these terms (and other psychological terms) exist
    C) Thus psychological terms described as physical events cannot be reduced to physical explanations

    For the claim “genes cause psychological traits (ie intelligence)” to be true, psychophysical reductionism must also be true. Psychophysical reductionism is false. Therefore the claim “genes cause psychological traits (ie intelligence) cannot be true.

    Just present Munro’s argument that psychophysical reductionism is true.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    "...For the claim “genes cause psychological traits (ie intelligence)” to be true, psychophysical reductionism must also be true."..."

    It is completely obvious that in fact genes do cause traits (eg intelligence), along with other factors. The genes are part of the necessary conditions. And without them, there are no sufficient conditions that will generate traits or intelligence.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. Anonymous[159] • Disclaimer says:
    @RaceRealist88
    Either you can address the argument or you can't.

    Either you can address the argument or you can’t.

    LOL. He can either sling bullshit on your terms, goddammit, or he can shut the hell up ’cause he’s wrong.

    Got it. Duly noted. Never seen that one before. Straight outa Compton, izzit?

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    Good to know you can't address it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. @Anonymous
    If there are no genes there is no brains, no psychology and no physiology. The reductionism is permissive, not singular. What difference does it make? Obviously, the difference between existence and non-existence.

    The brain is a necessary pre-condition for human mindedness but not a sufficient condition. You can’t just appeal to genes saying ‘genes build brains’ and think that’s sufficient to establish the claim that ‘genes cause psychological/mental traits.’

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    But it is obviously a component of the sufficient conditions for their existence. Point to anything that is a sufficient condition for any trait, without the genes/brains aspect.

    You cannot name one sufficient condition for any trait, that is independent of genes.

    The genes are part of the sufficient conditions.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. Anonymous[381] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    It’s a conceptual, not empirical matter, so evidence is irrelevant.

     

    True, but all valid, repeatable, verifiable evidence supports that genetic transmission of psychological traits does not happen. Predisposition to the acquisition of a particular behavior is not cause. Yepper, it sure does look like cause to the non-scientist, but that don't make it so.

    Name the psychological traits. How do they arise? You will find that without the genes, there will be no such traits. For the traits to exist, the genes have to have been and have to continue to be operating. The genes are underpinning the traits in a reductionist manner, along with other inputs, current and past. The traits do in fact depend on genes, in a causal manner. And other things. The reductionism is polyfunctional. Multiple inputs, including genes. No genes, no traits.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    1) genes don't directly cause traits, they contribute to variation
    2) genes cannot logically cause psychological traits because psychophysical reductionism is false---the mental does not reduce to the physical.

    Nevermind the fact that, for instance cognition, intentional states are irreducible to brain states/structure.
    , @Anon
    I can point to a trait, name it, that is genetically based. And there are others.

    Crankiness. Irritability.

    The genetic basis? The master regulator of inflammation, NF kappa B, and the multiple receptor systems that activate NF kappa B (such as TLRs, and other inflammation priming receptors). This is tied to something else that happens with age. But why bother, the commenters are not in the life sciences. Or is there anyone here actually in a life science?

    Other traits that I can name, include hormonal based (and others), and are thus genetic based traits. But again, for the confirmation bias challenged, it is pointless.

    In order to really come to grips with the question it is necessary to actually name traits. Then it is possible to look for genetic &/or other reductionist causes.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. @Anonymous

    Either you can address the argument or you can’t.
     
    LOL. He can either sling bullshit on your terms, goddammit, or he can shut the hell up 'cause he's wrong.

    Got it. Duly noted. Never seen that one before. Straight outa Compton, izzit?

    Good to know you can’t address it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. @Anonymous
    Name the psychological traits. How do they arise? You will find that without the genes, there will be no such traits. For the traits to exist, the genes have to have been and have to continue to be operating. The genes are underpinning the traits in a reductionist manner, along with other inputs, current and past. The traits do in fact depend on genes, in a causal manner. And other things. The reductionism is polyfunctional. Multiple inputs, including genes. No genes, no traits.

    1) genes don’t directly cause traits, they contribute to variation
    2) genes cannot logically cause psychological traits because psychophysical reductionism is false—the mental does not reduce to the physical.

    Nevermind the fact that, for instance cognition, intentional states are irreducible to brain states/structure.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    "2) genes cannot logically cause psychological traits because psychophysical reductionism is false—the mental does not reduce to the physical."

    This is false. There are identifiable mental states that are reductionist to physical, and genetic causes. These include but are not limited to hormonal direct control of thinking. If you won't believe it then you will never understand teenagers, nor the aged, nor any other people for that matter.

    Small changes in hormonal levels and balances have profound effects on mind and cognition.

    Perhaps you have never heard the phrase "it's the disease talking". If you are not in the life sciences, you'll probably not get it.

    TNF alpha will directly cause specific mental states. Other cytokines will also cause specific mental states. This field is actually quite large. You have to read physiology, pharmacology, toxicology etc. Then maybe you'll know something.

    , @Santoculto
    Because ... It's false.
    Why?

    "Genes don't directly cause traits. Contribute to variation"

    Example required..
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. Anon[381] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous
    Name the psychological traits. How do they arise? You will find that without the genes, there will be no such traits. For the traits to exist, the genes have to have been and have to continue to be operating. The genes are underpinning the traits in a reductionist manner, along with other inputs, current and past. The traits do in fact depend on genes, in a causal manner. And other things. The reductionism is polyfunctional. Multiple inputs, including genes. No genes, no traits.

    I can point to a trait, name it, that is genetically based. And there are others.

    Crankiness. Irritability.

    The genetic basis? The master regulator of inflammation, NF kappa B, and the multiple receptor systems that activate NF kappa B (such as TLRs, and other inflammation priming receptors). This is tied to something else that happens with age. But why bother, the commenters are not in the life sciences. Or is there anyone here actually in a life science?

    Other traits that I can name, include hormonal based (and others), and are thus genetic based traits. But again, for the confirmation bias challenged, it is pointless.

    In order to really come to grips with the question it is necessary to actually name traits. Then it is possible to look for genetic &/or other reductionist causes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    Crankiness. Irritability.

    The genetic basis? The master regulator of inflammation, NF kappa B, and the multiple receptor systems that activate NF kappa B (such as TLRs, and other inflammation priming receptors). This is tied to something else that happens with age.
     
    Could you please elaborate on this connection? Does it result in any concrete advice for reducing crankiness and irritability? Have the relevant genes (well, SNPs) showed up in any of the recent polygenic score work?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. utu says:
    @RaceRealist88
    How can genetic reductionism be proven? How can it be shown that genes are difference-makers to psychology/behavior? You can't prove it empirically. Check out this arguments from Davidson and Ross and get back to me.

    How can it be shown that genes are difference-makers to psychology/behavior?

    Are you saying that difference in level of aggressiveness can’t be shown to be genetically linked? Look at dogs or Soviet fox breeding experiment.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Soviets had mafia.

    In USSR the experiment is you.

    Mafia cannot be caused by genes. It's irreducible. Genesisticism is reductionism.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. utu says:
    @Hu Mi Yu

    Less sympathy for those who claim “Some people either eat less and lose no weight”. If you have evidence that people really don’t lose weight when they eat less, publish it, and I will post about your work on my blog.
     
    Some people have a hibernation gene. When they fast, their metabolism slows down. They go to sleep for days at a time. I am one of them. I had some papers on this a few years ago.

    Another problem is that some of us lose muscle instead of fat. This problem gets worse as we age. It is scary to finally meet weight goals after hibernating for a year and be unable to do a single push up.

    I am sure there are many other genetic factors that you discount due to your personal bias. It is amusing to read that you think intelligence is dominated by genetic factors but metabolism is not. Either you believe in evolution and genetic variation or you don't. If intelligence is affected by genetics, then so is metabolism.

    In my experience high IQ types are generally overweight but not obese. They have a higher than average incidence of minor health problems such as allergies that require intelligence to survive. The thin ones are more photogenic and social. They receive disproportionately more publicity and credit.

    Fast or slow metabolism or hibernation or whatever does not violate the law of conservation of energy which what CICO is. Measure energy intake and energy spent and the equation will always balance. And od not forget to include the energy content of your poop whether you are hibernating or not.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hu Mi Yu

    Fast or slow metabolism or hibernation or whatever does not violate the law of conservation of energy which what CICO is.
     
    CICO is just conservation of energy, but many people interpret this to mean that overweight people simply need to eat less. That is different. Everyone's metabolism drops when they eat less: some more than others. There is no guarantee that a you can lose significant weight in the way you want to (ie losing fat, not muscle).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. Anon[381] • Disclaimer says:
    @RaceRealist88
    The brain is a necessary pre-condition for human mindedness but not a sufficient condition. You can't just appeal to genes saying 'genes build brains' and think that's sufficient to establish the claim that 'genes cause psychological/mental traits.'

    But it is obviously a component of the sufficient conditions for their existence. Point to anything that is a sufficient condition for any trait, without the genes/brains aspect.

    You cannot name one sufficient condition for any trait, that is independent of genes.

    The genes are part of the sufficient conditions.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    You cannot name one sufficient condition for any trait, that is independent of genes.
     
    Pay attention. Causation is the issue.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. Anon[381] • Disclaimer says:
    @RaceRealist88
    "independent of genetic reductionism, there is psychophysical reductionism"

    Right. Genetic reductionism and psychophysical reductionism are both false.

    Ill ask again: what's the argument that psychophysical reductionism is true?

    1) All formal thinking is incompossibly determinate
    2) No physical process or functions of physical processes are incompossibly determinate
    3) No physical or functional process is formal thinking
    3) Machines are purely physical
    4) Machines don't engage in formal thinking
    5) We engage in formal thinking
    ∴ We are not purely physical

    (Ross's Immaterial Aspects of Thought)

    P1) To explain psychological events, we need to rely on terms like “desire”, “rationality”, “consistency”, and “coherence”
    P2) If there were a lawlike account of psychological events, we would need to dispense with such concepts since they are external impositions on the events.
    P3) We can’t dispense with such concepts when discussing psychological events.
    C) Therefore psychophysical laws don’t exist

    P1) For psychological events to be reduced to physical descriptions, there ... would have to be physical equivalents to terms like “rationality”, “consistency”, “desire”
    P2) No such physical equivalents of these terms (and other psychological terms) exist
    C) Thus psychological terms described as physical events cannot be reduced to physical explanations

    For the claim "genes cause psychological traits (ie intelligence)" to be true, psychophysical reductionism must also be true. Psychophysical reductionism is false. Therefore the claim "genes cause psychological traits (ie intelligence) cannot be true.

    Just present Munro's argument that psychophysical reductionism is true.

    “…For the claim “genes cause psychological traits (ie intelligence)” to be true, psychophysical reductionism must also be true.”…”

    It is completely obvious that in fact genes do cause traits (eg intelligence), along with other factors. The genes are part of the necessary conditions. And without them, there are no sufficient conditions that will generate traits or intelligence.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    Saying that something is "completely obvious" is not an argument. Conceptual arguments refute psychophysical reductionism.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. Anon[381] • Disclaimer says:
    @RaceRealist88
    1) genes don't directly cause traits, they contribute to variation
    2) genes cannot logically cause psychological traits because psychophysical reductionism is false---the mental does not reduce to the physical.

    Nevermind the fact that, for instance cognition, intentional states are irreducible to brain states/structure.

    “2) genes cannot logically cause psychological traits because psychophysical reductionism is false—the mental does not reduce to the physical.”

    This is false. There are identifiable mental states that are reductionist to physical, and genetic causes. These include but are not limited to hormonal direct control of thinking. If you won’t believe it then you will never understand teenagers, nor the aged, nor any other people for that matter.

    Small changes in hormonal levels and balances have profound effects on mind and cognition.

    Perhaps you have never heard the phrase “it’s the disease talking”. If you are not in the life sciences, you’ll probably not get it.

    TNF alpha will directly cause specific mental states. Other cytokines will also cause specific mental states. This field is actually quite large. You have to read physiology, pharmacology, toxicology etc. Then maybe you’ll know something.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    Still doesn't address anything. Making assertions are not arguments. My claim (mental/intentional states are irreducible) still stands.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  153. Anonymous[234] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon
    But it is obviously a component of the sufficient conditions for their existence. Point to anything that is a sufficient condition for any trait, without the genes/brains aspect.

    You cannot name one sufficient condition for any trait, that is independent of genes.

    The genes are part of the sufficient conditions.

    You cannot name one sufficient condition for any trait, that is independent of genes.

    Pay attention. Causation is the issue.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    There is an extensive list of gene products, endogenous products and exogenous products that have direct reproducible and verifiable effects in causing mental/cognitive states and to a greater or lesser extent dictating the thinking in those states.

    I will mention just one. Oxytocin.

    It is you that needs pay attention. You have simply been unable to discern causality.

    It is possible that you are unaware of the effects of oxytocin and other extremely powerful gene products that have direct causal effects on cognitive states. Perhaps you and RaceRealist88 are not up on your physiology.

    And neither you, nor anyone else, can name a trait or any mental effect or affect in which genes are not directly causally related.

    Name one.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. @RaceRealist88
    You should blog and Feinman and Fine 2004.

    https://nutritionj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1475-2891-3-9

    You assume that all calories are equal upon ingestion. Feinman and Fine show that this assumption is false.

    The paper is about metabolic advantage, that is, whether a particular diet is more effective than another, and also whether, in that particular debate, whether it is appropriate to invoke thermodynamics.

    My claim is not about different diets. It is merely that ingesting fewer calories is the main factor in weight loss. If, under controlled conditions, it could be shown that calories were not the main factor, that would be interesting.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    "It is merely that ingesting fewer calories is the main factor in weight loss."

    You saying only "ingest fewer calories" is misleading, because you're not saying anything else outside of that, which makes me think that you assume that all kcal are "equal" upon consumption.

    "If, under controlled conditions, it could be shown that calories were not the main factor, that would be interesting."

    Decreasing insulin is a main factor in decreasing weight. When insulin is spiked, so is blood glucose. The body then uses the glucose from the consumed carbohydrates for energy, and not the fat stores of the body. Since the the body is" running "on glucose and not fat, then it has no need tk shed the fat. Combined with the fact that when insulin is elevated then fat cannot be unlocked from the adipocite, then you have the conditions for diabesity/metabolic syndrome.

    Feinman and Fine 2004 is most definitely relevant to the discussion here.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. @Liza
    If eating too much makes you fat, why do we all see countless folks who sit around doing no physical labor, eat like pigs - and still stay skinny, virtually all their lives? There are a few in my family like that. So, tell me why your theory of overeating = fat doesn't always work?

    A proper study, under controlled conditions is what we require, not anecdotes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    What is a "proper study, under controlled conditions"? Is it ethical?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. @res

    If you are slim, but not underweight, even better. It isn’t that hard….
     
    That last one is harder than it might seem and is the subject of some controversy at the moment. Epidemiological data seems to indicate that the healthiest (lowest mortality) BMI for men is something like 22-30, where "normal" is typically considered to be 18.5-24.9 and "overweight" is 25-29.9

    Personal discussions with some people working in the field revealed that they originally wished health guidelines to be that BMI should not go above 22, but they were told that whatever the evidence in its favour, it would be very hard to sell. So, they settled for BMI 25. Like alcohol guidelines, these are indicative only.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    That is very interesting given that it seems counter to some of the recent work suggesting higher BMIs are better than previously thought. Could you elaborate some more? If you don't want to give names, are there any papers (hopefully multiple author) I could look at?

    I suspect there are unmeasured variables which play havoc with BMI analysis. A big one is body composition of course. Also issues with various health problems (e.g. cancer) causing underweight. I suspect a big part of the low BMI/mortality relationship is just the lesser caloric reserve being a problem with getting through temporary problems. For example, I know someone skinny who had real problems with sufficient caloric intake during cancer treatment.

    P.S. The response to the "higher BMI is OK" work are very much in line with what you relate.
    , @RaceRealist88
    They didn't tell you that BMI is a useless measure?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. @Hu Mi Yu

    Less sympathy for those who claim “Some people either eat less and lose no weight”. If you have evidence that people really don’t lose weight when they eat less, publish it, and I will post about your work on my blog.
     
    Some people have a hibernation gene. When they fast, their metabolism slows down. They go to sleep for days at a time. I am one of them. I had some papers on this a few years ago.

    Another problem is that some of us lose muscle instead of fat. This problem gets worse as we age. It is scary to finally meet weight goals after hibernating for a year and be unable to do a single push up.

    I am sure there are many other genetic factors that you discount due to your personal bias. It is amusing to read that you think intelligence is dominated by genetic factors but metabolism is not. Either you believe in evolution and genetic variation or you don't. If intelligence is affected by genetics, then so is metabolism.

    In my experience high IQ types are generally overweight but not obese. They have a higher than average incidence of minor health problems such as allergies that require intelligence to survive. The thin ones are more photogenic and social. They receive disproportionately more publicity and credit.

    I think you have made assumptions which were no part of my argument, and are peripheral to it. Metabolism like anything else can show individual variation, and will be influenced by genetic factors. Variations in exercise, sleep patterns, type of work, types of food and so on will all have an influence. So will going on holiday.

    However, the basic principle remains, which is that a person who is fatter than they want to be has to find a way to eat less. I have not specified how to do so, only said that that is what they need to do.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    "find a way to eat less"

    Intermittent fasting with a LCHF diet combined with resistance training and light cardio as to not mask decreases in body fat lost from the diet.

    , @Hu Mi Yu

    However, the basic principle remains, which is that a person who is fatter than they want to be has to find a way to eat less.
     
    Or increase their metabolism, or decrease their absorption of food, or take amphetamines, or decide they feel better when they carry more weight.

    I have not specified how to do so, only said that that is what they need to do.
     
    Eat less is simplistic advice. What to eat is also important. Some foods are addictive, such as those containing fructose. I have followed Dr. Lustig for several years now, and a low fructose diet made a big difference.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/21/fructose-poison-sugar-industry-pseudoscience

    There are many different diets that people find work for them, probably because of genetic differences in metabolism. Finding the diet the works for you requires intelligence, experimentation, and ignoring experts who claim their advice works for everyone.
    , @Santoculto
    Maybe people who was born fat need to eat/is hungry to eat based on their birth-size... (((((((maybe))))))
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. @James Thompson
    The paper is about metabolic advantage, that is, whether a particular diet is more effective than another, and also whether, in that particular debate, whether it is appropriate to invoke thermodynamics.

    My claim is not about different diets. It is merely that ingesting fewer calories is the main factor in weight loss. If, under controlled conditions, it could be shown that calories were not the main factor, that would be interesting.

    “It is merely that ingesting fewer calories is the main factor in weight loss.”

    You saying only “ingest fewer calories” is misleading, because you’re not saying anything else outside of that, which makes me think that you assume that all kcal are “equal” upon consumption.

    “If, under controlled conditions, it could be shown that calories were not the main factor, that would be interesting.”

    Decreasing insulin is a main factor in decreasing weight. When insulin is spiked, so is blood glucose. The body then uses the glucose from the consumed carbohydrates for energy, and not the fat stores of the body. Since the the body is” running “on glucose and not fat, then it has no need tk shed the fat. Combined with the fact that when insulin is elevated then fat cannot be unlocked from the adipocite, then you have the conditions for diabesity/metabolic syndrome.

    Feinman and Fine 2004 is most definitely relevant to the discussion here.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. @James Thompson
    I think you have made assumptions which were no part of my argument, and are peripheral to it. Metabolism like anything else can show individual variation, and will be influenced by genetic factors. Variations in exercise, sleep patterns, type of work, types of food and so on will all have an influence. So will going on holiday.

    However, the basic principle remains, which is that a person who is fatter than they want to be has to find a way to eat less. I have not specified how to do so, only said that that is what they need to do.

    “find a way to eat less”

    Intermittent fasting with a LCHF diet combined with resistance training and light cardio as to not mask decreases in body fat lost from the diet.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. Anon[381] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    You cannot name one sufficient condition for any trait, that is independent of genes.
     
    Pay attention. Causation is the issue.

    There is an extensive list of gene products, endogenous products and exogenous products that have direct reproducible and verifiable effects in causing mental/cognitive states and to a greater or lesser extent dictating the thinking in those states.

    I will mention just one. Oxytocin.

    It is you that needs pay attention. You have simply been unable to discern causality.

    It is possible that you are unaware of the effects of oxytocin and other extremely powerful gene products that have direct causal effects on cognitive states. Perhaps you and RaceRealist88 are not up on your physiology.

    And neither you, nor anyone else, can name a trait or any mental effect or affect in which genes are not directly causally related.

    Name one.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    Mental traits are irreducible to physical states (genes, brain structure/states). You're assuming that m = p---that the mental can be reduced to the physical. Yet you've provided no argument.

    Mind-body reduction require functional definitions of mental properties in terms of lower level properties. This is not possible, due to Kripke's normativity argument. Intentional states (mental states are intentional states since mental states are directed at things) are therefore irreducible to the physical.

    http://wab.uib.no/agora/tools/alws/collection-8-issue-1-article-43.annotate

    Cognition falls into the realm of "intentional state" and is, too, irreducible to the physical.

    Your assertions don't cut it. It's not "obvious" that genes "do" anything.
    , @Anonymous

    It is you that needs pay attention. You have simply been unable to discern causality.
     
    I am completely unconcerned. If you wish to believe that psychological traits are caused by genes, by all means, knock yourself out.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. res says:
    @Liza
    . See, you are already placing conditions on the idea that calories (ie, quantity) is the only factor, which is what the article was saying. You yourself are admitting that people differ in their responses to equivalent food because of endocrine challenges, digestive health and overall metabolic efficiency.

    But people with endocrine/metabolic problems would have to reduce their intake of food/calories to the point that they don't get enough nutrients to maintain a decent level of health irrespective of fatness of their body. That's no way to live, you'll get sicker than just being fat. They need to have their deeper problems dealt with.

    I know a woman who was about 350 lb. all her adult life. Well, guess what - when she was about 75 years of age, they found out she had severe thyroid problems. And you can't imagine how damn many times doctors told her to "just go on a diet". I would like to tie all those basterds to a pole, give them a last cigarette, and proceed.

    But in any case, I thank you for your polite reply. They tend to be sometimes hard to find around here at unz.

    See, you are already placing conditions on the idea that calories (ie, quantity) is the only factor, which is what the article was saying.

    Could you point me to what makes you say that? I think you are reading more into the article than is there. Perhaps a result of so many comments which strawman it?

    You yourself are admitting

    More like vigorously asserting ; )

    But people with endocrine/metabolic problems would have to reduce their intake of food/calories to the point that they don’t get enough nutrients to maintain a decent level of health irrespective of fatness of their body. That’s no way to live, you’ll get sicker than just being fat. They need to have their deeper problems dealt with.

    This is one challenge. Figuring out which problem(s) are both important and solvable. Maintaining nutrient status with decreasing calories should be fairly straightforward with multivitamins and perhaps some additional targeted supplements (e.g. Omega 3 fatty acids). Hypothyroid is an important special case–if you look around you can find doctors who are good about this. As I see it, the steps to debugging a severe food problem (not just overweight, but also things like Crohn’s disease) are something like:
    - Check thyroid status.
    - Sort out digestion and absorption. This may involve things like food allergies, hydrochloric acid/digestive enzyme/probiotic supplements, more/different fiber, etc.
    - Sort out glucose issues. For example, try to normalize to three satiating meals per day (intermittent fasting is probably even better, but harder for most at first). Fat and protein tend to have a more moderate glycemic response. The conventional recommendation of responding to low blood sugar by drinking juices is insane IMO.
    - Shore up nutrient status. As mentioned above, a good multivitamin and selective other supplements on a more individual basis. This will work best after the other steps, but probably best to start first since it is easy and should help at least a little.
    - Once those are under control think more about which specific foods and portion sizes are appropriate.
    - At least minimal exercise. This is as much about ensuring a well functioning body as it is about weight. A good baseline might be walking as tolerated along with at least basic strength (e.g. pushups or analogs) and flexibility (e.g. yoga or “stretching”) work.

    I know a woman who was about 350 lb. all her adult life. Well, guess what – when she was about 75 years of age, they found out she had severe thyroid problems. And you can’t imagine how damn many times doctors told her to “just go on a diet”. I would like to tie all those basterds to a pole, give them a last cigarette, and proceed.

    You are preaching to the choir here ; ). Doctors who
    1. Miss something important.
    2. Are supremely confident in their conclusions nonetheless.
    Are all too prevalent and both harmful and infuriating.

    But in any case, I thank you for your polite reply. They tend to be sometimes hard to find around here at unz.

    Thanks, I try, even if I don’t always succeed. I think it is the only way to have a useful conversation about topics of disagreement. Thank you for engaging in a similar fashion.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. res says:
    @Anonymous
    You attempt to force a very simple concept -- natural selection -- into a conceptual modality that YOU define. What you are doing is intellectually dishonest, and a very perceptible flag (from my personal point of view, of course), that discussion is futile.

    I'm old, and I just don't bother anymore with Those Who Brook No Interpretation But Their Own.

    Be well.

    Well said.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    He didn't "say" anything.

    Maybe you can identify an error in my reasoning. Does NS have a mind? Are there laws of selection?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. res says:
    @Anon
    I can point to a trait, name it, that is genetically based. And there are others.

    Crankiness. Irritability.

    The genetic basis? The master regulator of inflammation, NF kappa B, and the multiple receptor systems that activate NF kappa B (such as TLRs, and other inflammation priming receptors). This is tied to something else that happens with age. But why bother, the commenters are not in the life sciences. Or is there anyone here actually in a life science?

    Other traits that I can name, include hormonal based (and others), and are thus genetic based traits. But again, for the confirmation bias challenged, it is pointless.

    In order to really come to grips with the question it is necessary to actually name traits. Then it is possible to look for genetic &/or other reductionist causes.

    Crankiness. Irritability.

    The genetic basis? The master regulator of inflammation, NF kappa B, and the multiple receptor systems that activate NF kappa B (such as TLRs, and other inflammation priming receptors). This is tied to something else that happens with age.

    Could you please elaborate on this connection? Does it result in any concrete advice for reducing crankiness and irritability? Have the relevant genes (well, SNPs) showed up in any of the recent polygenic score work?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Yes it does (advice that is)! And for the answers (there are several) what needs to be appreciated is that the inflammatory character of our system increases with age. The cures for this are in our diet, principally, and require us to shift our diets with age to a more anti-inflammatory diet. This inflammatory increase with age leads to multi-dimensional issues, including cardiac arrhythmias, lung congestion, more head aches, joint pains, tendency to have strokes, etc... And they can be cured or drastically improved by diet.

    If you look up anti-inflammatory diet, you will find a mixture of good and bad advice. The more you read about this, and try things, the more you'll be able to sort out the answers.

    A central physiologic/biochemical system is the arachidonic acid cascade. PGE2, leukotrienes, lipoxins, thromboxane, and other effectors come out of the arachidonic acid cascade. This is one of the systems our biochemistry uses to get rapid responses that require, in some cases rapid inflammation. Very powerful molecules. Unfortunately, it is overdone, partly because of our diet. This goes straight to the omega-6 / omega-3 fatty acid balance in the diet. PGE2 => head aches. More fish oil, less head aches, but there is a limit, you have to have the arachidonic acid cascade operative at some base level. The problem is the western diet is so distorted, that the population suffers from excessive arachidonic acid cascade overproduction. Too much soybean oil corn oil, cotton seed oil, etc.

    Another system is the ROS - reactive oxygen species - produced by inflammatory axes, that causes lots of problems. The treatments are antioxidants, vitamin C, E, and again the omega 3 fatty acids/fish oil. The wrinkles just keep opening up once you start digging, vitamin E are not all the same!

    And by the way, excessive activation of inflammation decreases intelligence.

    To get a more full appreciation for this, there are multiple communication molecule/transmitter/mediator channels. The problems can't be solved by addressing just one of the channels.

    Oh, and something on topic, adipose tissue is inflammatory. More bad news for the obese.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. res says:
    @James Thompson
    Personal discussions with some people working in the field revealed that they originally wished health guidelines to be that BMI should not go above 22, but they were told that whatever the evidence in its favour, it would be very hard to sell. So, they settled for BMI 25. Like alcohol guidelines, these are indicative only.

    That is very interesting given that it seems counter to some of the recent work suggesting higher BMIs are better than previously thought. Could you elaborate some more? If you don’t want to give names, are there any papers (hopefully multiple author) I could look at?

    I suspect there are unmeasured variables which play havoc with BMI analysis. A big one is body composition of course. Also issues with various health problems (e.g. cancer) causing underweight. I suspect a big part of the low BMI/mortality relationship is just the lesser caloric reserve being a problem with getting through temporary problems. For example, I know someone skinny who had real problems with sufficient caloric intake during cancer treatment.

    P.S. The response to the “higher BMI is OK” work are very much in line with what you relate.

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Thompson
    University of Cambridge lecturer discussing leptin deficiency and what were the characteristics of being overweight in the general population. In fact, normal range should be 18-23, she argued. However, they thought that would be impossible. This was given at an Alumnus lecture series 8-10 years ago. We might be able to find a brochure somewhere. I think she was at Addenbrooke's at that time. Apparently she made those points in public.

    The facts may have changed since then. However, I think we should probably be leaner, on average.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. Hu Mi Yu says:
    @utu
    Fast or slow metabolism or hibernation or whatever does not violate the law of conservation of energy which what CICO is. Measure energy intake and energy spent and the equation will always balance. And od not forget to include the energy content of your poop whether you are hibernating or not.

    Fast or slow metabolism or hibernation or whatever does not violate the law of conservation of energy which what CICO is.

    CICO is just conservation of energy, but many people interpret this to mean that overweight people simply need to eat less. That is different. Everyone’s metabolism drops when they eat less: some more than others. There is no guarantee that a you can lose significant weight in the way you want to (ie losing fat, not muscle).

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    Strength training and a high protein diet staves off muscle loss during times of caloric restriction.
    , @utu
    You need to eat less fatso. There is no way around it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. @Anon
    There is an extensive list of gene products, endogenous products and exogenous products that have direct reproducible and verifiable effects in causing mental/cognitive states and to a greater or lesser extent dictating the thinking in those states.

    I will mention just one. Oxytocin.

    It is you that needs pay attention. You have simply been unable to discern causality.

    It is possible that you are unaware of the effects of oxytocin and other extremely powerful gene products that have direct causal effects on cognitive states. Perhaps you and RaceRealist88 are not up on your physiology.

    And neither you, nor anyone else, can name a trait or any mental effect or affect in which genes are not directly causally related.

    Name one.

    Mental traits are irreducible to physical states (genes, brain structure/states). You’re assuming that m = p—that the mental can be reduced to the physical. Yet you’ve provided no argument.

    Mind-body reduction require functional definitions of mental properties in terms of lower level properties. This is not possible, due to Kripke’s normativity argument. Intentional states (mental states are intentional states since mental states are directed at things) are therefore irreducible to the physical.

    http://wab.uib.no/agora/tools/alws/collection-8-issue-1-article-43.annotate

    Cognition falls into the realm of “intentional state” and is, too, irreducible to the physical.

    Your assertions don’t cut it. It’s not “obvious” that genes “do” anything.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Name one... ;)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. @James Thompson
    Personal discussions with some people working in the field revealed that they originally wished health guidelines to be that BMI should not go above 22, but they were told that whatever the evidence in its favour, it would be very hard to sell. So, they settled for BMI 25. Like alcohol guidelines, these are indicative only.

    They didn’t tell you that BMI is a useless measure?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  168. @Hu Mi Yu

    Fast or slow metabolism or hibernation or whatever does not violate the law of conservation of energy which what CICO is.
     
    CICO is just conservation of energy, but many people interpret this to mean that overweight people simply need to eat less. That is different. Everyone's metabolism drops when they eat less: some more than others. There is no guarantee that a you can lose significant weight in the way you want to (ie losing fat, not muscle).

    Strength training and a high protein diet staves off muscle loss during times of caloric restriction.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    You are still eating too much fatso.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  169. @res
    Well said.

    He didn’t “say” anything.

    Maybe you can identify an error in my reasoning. Does NS have a mind? Are there laws of selection?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  170. @James Thompson
    A proper study, under controlled conditions is what we require, not anecdotes.

    What is a “proper study, under controlled conditions”? Is it ethical?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  171. @Anon
    "2) genes cannot logically cause psychological traits because psychophysical reductionism is false—the mental does not reduce to the physical."

    This is false. There are identifiable mental states that are reductionist to physical, and genetic causes. These include but are not limited to hormonal direct control of thinking. If you won't believe it then you will never understand teenagers, nor the aged, nor any other people for that matter.

    Small changes in hormonal levels and balances have profound effects on mind and cognition.

    Perhaps you have never heard the phrase "it's the disease talking". If you are not in the life sciences, you'll probably not get it.

    TNF alpha will directly cause specific mental states. Other cytokines will also cause specific mental states. This field is actually quite large. You have to read physiology, pharmacology, toxicology etc. Then maybe you'll know something.

    Still doesn’t address anything. Making assertions are not arguments. My claim (mental/intentional states are irreducible) still stands.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Admit it, RaceRealist88, you don't know much of anything about physiology do you? How much biology or medicine or biochemistry do you know? Is your profession/job in any such field?

    Your pretension is not even a question.

    For you or any one else that can't understand that there are direct causal reductionist effects in mental/cognitive states with direct effects on control of thinking, go talk to someone that has been castrated, or try it your self.

    On the other hand try getting a testosterone shot, and see what it does for your mental state, and thinking.

    Basically, anyone that knows anything about real biology, physiology, medicine, biochemistry, etc, knows there are real reductionist causes to mental states and thinking. For which I can name many mental states and reductionist causes of them.

    Deny your testosterone's effect on your own mind. How do I know you are a man?

    And you have not named one state that there are no causal reductionist elements present.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  172. @Anon
    "...For the claim “genes cause psychological traits (ie intelligence)” to be true, psychophysical reductionism must also be true."..."

    It is completely obvious that in fact genes do cause traits (eg intelligence), along with other factors. The genes are part of the necessary conditions. And without them, there are no sufficient conditions that will generate traits or intelligence.

    Saying that something is “completely obvious” is not an argument. Conceptual arguments refute psychophysical reductionism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Conceptual arguments cannot refute facts. That is one of your errors.

    Name a mental state in which there are no direct reductionist causal elements present.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  173. @Anonymous
    You attempt to force a very simple concept -- natural selection -- into a conceptual modality that YOU define. What you are doing is intellectually dishonest, and a very perceptible flag (from my personal point of view, of course), that discussion is futile.

    I'm old, and I just don't bother anymore with Those Who Brook No Interpretation But Their Own.

    Be well.

    Where is the error in my reasoning? Is (1) true? Is (2) true?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  174. @Gary
    Mr. Thompson, you must not fat shame the obese chain-smoking degenerates we see
    around us every day by espousing your simple health philosophy. You are hurting
    feelings of the snowflakes who dominate the attention of mainstream media of
    USS Titanic. On the contrary, according to prevailing Cultural Marxist commie
    propaganda, we must glorify the self-selected morbidly obese (especially females).
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  175. Anonymous[150] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon
    There is an extensive list of gene products, endogenous products and exogenous products that have direct reproducible and verifiable effects in causing mental/cognitive states and to a greater or lesser extent dictating the thinking in those states.

    I will mention just one. Oxytocin.

    It is you that needs pay attention. You have simply been unable to discern causality.

    It is possible that you are unaware of the effects of oxytocin and other extremely powerful gene products that have direct causal effects on cognitive states. Perhaps you and RaceRealist88 are not up on your physiology.

    And neither you, nor anyone else, can name a trait or any mental effect or affect in which genes are not directly causally related.

    Name one.

    It is you that needs pay attention. You have simply been unable to discern causality.

    I am completely unconcerned. If you wish to believe that psychological traits are caused by genes, by all means, knock yourself out.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    That means you can't name a state lacking causal reductionist elements, and you're simply trying to divert attention from that.

    If not, name one.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  176. Hu Mi Yu says:
    @James Thompson
    I think you have made assumptions which were no part of my argument, and are peripheral to it. Metabolism like anything else can show individual variation, and will be influenced by genetic factors. Variations in exercise, sleep patterns, type of work, types of food and so on will all have an influence. So will going on holiday.

    However, the basic principle remains, which is that a person who is fatter than they want to be has to find a way to eat less. I have not specified how to do so, only said that that is what they need to do.

    However, the basic principle remains, which is that a person who is fatter than they want to be has to find a way to eat less.

    Or increase their metabolism, or decrease their absorption of food, or take amphetamines, or decide they feel better when they carry more weight.

    I have not specified how to do so, only said that that is what they need to do.

    Eat less is simplistic advice. What to eat is also important. Some foods are addictive, such as those containing fructose. I have followed Dr. Lustig for several years now, and a low fructose diet made a big difference.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/21/fructose-poison-sugar-industry-pseudoscience

    There are many different diets that people find work for them, probably because of genetic differences in metabolism. Finding the diet the works for you requires intelligence, experimentation, and ignoring experts who claim their advice works for everyone.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  177. utu says:
    @RaceRealist88
    Strength training and a high protein diet staves off muscle loss during times of caloric restriction.

    You are still eating too much fatso.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  178. utu says:
    @Hu Mi Yu

    Fast or slow metabolism or hibernation or whatever does not violate the law of conservation of energy which what CICO is.
     
    CICO is just conservation of energy, but many people interpret this to mean that overweight people simply need to eat less. That is different. Everyone's metabolism drops when they eat less: some more than others. There is no guarantee that a you can lose significant weight in the way you want to (ie losing fat, not muscle).

    You need to eat less fatso. There is no way around it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  179. Liza says:
    @res

    Time for a little more sympathy, maybe.
     
    Perhaps time for a little more discussion of how to successfully lose weight (for those who want to)? Dr. Thompson's statement is quite direct (making it sound harsh and unsympathetic) and a bit simplistic, but is much more true than false IMHO. I argue with RR88 a fair bit about just how true CICO is (not to mention things like "Psychophysical reductionism" ; ), but at the end of the day what matters is how people best achieve their goals. And for that (with respect to weight loss) I think he gives some good advice regarding controlling the insulin response (e.g. preventing spike/crash) and intermittent fasting. Telling people to eat less is not terribly helpful by itself.

    FWIW I have never had problems with excess weight, but know more than I would like about food cravings. IMHO many of the people who talk about eating less and not losing weight conveniently forget the times they experience cravings and down a bag of potato chips or the equivalent in ice cream, pastries, sugary drinks, etc.

    As for sympathy, the body tends to gravitate towards setpoints. Changing those is hard. People who are naturally thin (and have never tried to bulk up) often fail to understand that.

    P.S. I think for most people weight matters less than health and energy levels, but weight often serves as a good proxy for addressing those. Important to remember that body composition matters as well.

    With any serious or chronic (such as over-fat) problem, the only thing that is useful is to promote overall health. Forcing an unwanted diet onto yourself always backfires because it does not deal with underlying metabolic problems. Or sometimes, psychological issues.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  180. utu says:

    For fatsos Hu Mi Yu and RaceRealist88. Enjoy your caloric restrictions and fasting and your scientific outlook at what is natural pleasure for normal people.

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Thompson
    A great film. Thanks for reminding me about it.
    , @RaceRealist88
    No problem fasting every day and once a week. It's a lifestyle. Try it out.
    , @FKA Max
    Intermittent Fasting Day in the Life

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhAOyZx4DdI

    Intermittent Fasting Day in the Life (Aggressive Fat Loss)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56j3dC5AnxU
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  181. @res
    That is very interesting given that it seems counter to some of the recent work suggesting higher BMIs are better than previously thought. Could you elaborate some more? If you don't want to give names, are there any papers (hopefully multiple author) I could look at?

    I suspect there are unmeasured variables which play havoc with BMI analysis. A big one is body composition of course. Also issues with various health problems (e.g. cancer) causing underweight. I suspect a big part of the low BMI/mortality relationship is just the lesser caloric reserve being a problem with getting through temporary problems. For example, I know someone skinny who had real problems with sufficient caloric intake during cancer treatment.

    P.S. The response to the "higher BMI is OK" work are very much in line with what you relate.

    University of Cambridge lecturer discussing leptin deficiency and what were the characteristics of being overweight in the general population. In fact, normal range should be 18-23, she argued. However, they thought that would be impossible. This was given at an Alumnus lecture series 8-10 years ago. We might be able to find a brochure somewhere. I think she was at Addenbrooke’s at that time. Apparently she made those points in public.

    The facts may have changed since then. However, I think we should probably be leaner, on average.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    It comes down to hunger/satiety hormones, too. Ghrelin, PPY, leptin, CCK, NPY, PPY etc etc. Interestingly, ghrelin is decreased in obese Caucasians (https://sci-hub.tw/10.2337/diabetes.50.4.707) (ghrelin is a hunger hormone). Another good paper (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5661704/). I have read other research showing that obese people have higher levels of ghrelin, though.

    The brain is what regulates weight. The energy balance system—also known as the “weight thermostat”— is centered in the hypothalamus. It controls hunger, metabolism and physical activity based information from the body’s short- and long-term needs. Body weight is regulated by feedback signals from the hormone leptin. This tells the brain whether or not current fat stores are on target for the body’s defended range (its body set weight). So, for example, when kcal are decreased too much, the brain panics thinking that it is starving and so increases production of hunger hormones and decreases production of satiety hormones. This leads to high amounts of eating until they get back to their defended range (body set weight).

    The fact of the matter is, one of the main drivers of fat gain is increased insulin production. When insulin is high, then so is blood glucose; since the body has the glucose to use for energy then body fat is not used for energy. Think about how much and how often people spike their insulin and then think why people can’t lose weight… because their insulin is not low enough.

    Leptin and insulin respond to the brain’s responsiveness to satiety signals. So increased leptin means decreased satiety and so, since leptin is high, they stop eating sooner. Thus, the long-term goals of the energy balance system is reflected in short-term goals. Leptin resistance is one possible reason why the body set weight increases.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  182. @utu
    For fatsos Hu Mi Yu and RaceRealist88. Enjoy your caloric restrictions and fasting and your scientific outlook at what is natural pleasure for normal people.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYWFlsKhUys

    A great film. Thanks for reminding me about it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  183. @utu
    For fatsos Hu Mi Yu and RaceRealist88. Enjoy your caloric restrictions and fasting and your scientific outlook at what is natural pleasure for normal people.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYWFlsKhUys

    No problem fasting every day and once a week. It’s a lifestyle. Try it out.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  184. @James Thompson
    University of Cambridge lecturer discussing leptin deficiency and what were the characteristics of being overweight in the general population. In fact, normal range should be 18-23, she argued. However, they thought that would be impossible. This was given at an Alumnus lecture series 8-10 years ago. We might be able to find a brochure somewhere. I think she was at Addenbrooke's at that time. Apparently she made those points in public.

    The facts may have changed since then. However, I think we should probably be leaner, on average.

    It comes down to hunger/satiety hormones, too. Ghrelin, PPY, leptin, CCK, NPY, PPY etc etc. Interestingly, ghrelin is decreased in obese Caucasians (https://sci-hub.tw/10.2337/diabetes.50.4.707) (ghrelin is a hunger hormone). Another good paper (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5661704/). I have read other research showing that obese people have higher levels of ghrelin, though.

    The brain is what regulates weight. The energy balance system—also known as the “weight thermostat”— is centered in the hypothalamus. It controls hunger, metabolism and physical activity based information from the body’s short- and long-term needs. Body weight is regulated by feedback signals from the hormone leptin. This tells the brain whether or not current fat stores are on target for the body’s defended range (its body set weight). So, for example, when kcal are decreased too much, the brain panics thinking that it is starving and so increases production of hunger hormones and decreases production of satiety hormones. This leads to high amounts of eating until they get back to their defended range (body set weight).

    The fact of the matter is, one of the main drivers of fat gain is increased insulin production. When insulin is high, then so is blood glucose; since the body has the glucose to use for energy then body fat is not used for energy. Think about how much and how often people spike their insulin and then think why people can’t lose weight… because their insulin is not low enough.

    Leptin and insulin respond to the brain’s responsiveness to satiety signals. So increased leptin means decreased satiety and so, since leptin is high, they stop eating sooner. Thus, the long-term goals of the energy balance system is reflected in short-term goals. Leptin resistance is one possible reason why the body set weight increases.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    So you admit reductionist causality to the mental states and associated thinking in hunger, thirst, etc, by the above discourse on ghrelin etc? Cracks in the facade?

    Or will you also deny that the mental states in hunger thirst etc and the associated thinking have reductionist causality, mediated by such things as ghrelin etc?

    Really this is too much.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  185. @James Thompson
    I think you have made assumptions which were no part of my argument, and are peripheral to it. Metabolism like anything else can show individual variation, and will be influenced by genetic factors. Variations in exercise, sleep patterns, type of work, types of food and so on will all have an influence. So will going on holiday.

    However, the basic principle remains, which is that a person who is fatter than they want to be has to find a way to eat less. I have not specified how to do so, only said that that is what they need to do.

    Maybe people who was born fat need to eat/is hungry to eat based on their birth-size… (((((((maybe))))))

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  186. Anon[381] • Disclaimer says:
    @res

    Crankiness. Irritability.

    The genetic basis? The master regulator of inflammation, NF kappa B, and the multiple receptor systems that activate NF kappa B (such as TLRs, and other inflammation priming receptors). This is tied to something else that happens with age.
     
    Could you please elaborate on this connection? Does it result in any concrete advice for reducing crankiness and irritability? Have the relevant genes (well, SNPs) showed up in any of the recent polygenic score work?

    Yes it does (advice that is)! And for the answers (there are several) what needs to be appreciated is that the inflammatory character of our system increases with age. The cures for this are in our diet, principally, and require us to shift our diets with age to a more anti-inflammatory diet. This inflammatory increase with age leads to multi-dimensional issues, including cardiac arrhythmias, lung congestion, more head aches, joint pains, tendency to have strokes, etc… And they can be cured or drastically improved by diet.

    If you look up anti-inflammatory diet, you will find a mixture of good and bad advice. The more you read about this, and try things, the more you’ll be able to sort out the answers.

    A central physiologic/biochemical system is the arachidonic acid cascade. PGE2, leukotrienes, lipoxins, thromboxane, and other effectors come out of the arachidonic acid cascade. This is one of the systems our biochemistry uses to get rapid responses that require, in some cases rapid inflammation. Very powerful molecules. Unfortunately, it is overdone, partly because of our diet. This goes straight to the omega-6 / omega-3 fatty acid balance in the diet. PGE2 => head aches. More fish oil, less head aches, but there is a limit, you have to have the arachidonic acid cascade operative at some base level. The problem is the western diet is so distorted, that the population suffers from excessive arachidonic acid cascade overproduction. Too much soybean oil corn oil, cotton seed oil, etc.

    Another system is the ROS – reactive oxygen species – produced by inflammatory axes, that causes lots of problems. The treatments are antioxidants, vitamin C, E, and again the omega 3 fatty acids/fish oil. The wrinkles just keep opening up once you start digging, vitamin E are not all the same!

    And by the way, excessive activation of inflammation decreases intelligence.

    To get a more full appreciation for this, there are multiple communication molecule/transmitter/mediator channels. The problems can’t be solved by addressing just one of the channels.

    Oh, and something on topic, adipose tissue is inflammatory. More bad news for the obese.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu

    arachidonic acid cascade, eukotrienes, lipoxins, thromboxane, and other effectors, Very powerful molecules, reactive oxygen species – produced by inflammatory axes
     
    Just scientifically sounding mumbo jumbo. Great rewarding field for charlatans.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  187. @RaceRealist88
    Mental traits are irreducible to physical states (genes, brain structure/states). You're assuming that m = p---that the mental can be reduced to the physical. Yet you've provided no argument.

    Mind-body reduction require functional definitions of mental properties in terms of lower level properties. This is not possible, due to Kripke's normativity argument. Intentional states (mental states are intentional states since mental states are directed at things) are therefore irreducible to the physical.

    http://wab.uib.no/agora/tools/alws/collection-8-issue-1-article-43.annotate

    Cognition falls into the realm of "intentional state" and is, too, irreducible to the physical.

    Your assertions don't cut it. It's not "obvious" that genes "do" anything.

    Name one… ;)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  188. @utu

    How can it be shown that genes are difference-makers to psychology/behavior?

     

    Are you saying that difference in level of aggressiveness can't be shown to be genetically linked? Look at dogs or Soviet fox breeding experiment.

    Soviets had mafia.

    In USSR the experiment is you.

    Mafia cannot be caused by genes. It’s irreducible. Genesisticism is reductionism.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  189. Anon[381] • Disclaimer says:
    @RaceRealist88
    Still doesn't address anything. Making assertions are not arguments. My claim (mental/intentional states are irreducible) still stands.

    Admit it, RaceRealist88, you don’t know much of anything about physiology do you? How much biology or medicine or biochemistry do you know? Is your profession/job in any such field?

    Your pretension is not even a question.

    For you or any one else that can’t understand that there are direct causal reductionist effects in mental/cognitive states with direct effects on control of thinking, go talk to someone that has been castrated, or try it your self.

    On the other hand try getting a testosterone shot, and see what it does for your mental state, and thinking.

    Basically, anyone that knows anything about real biology, physiology, medicine, biochemistry, etc, knows there are real reductionist causes to mental states and thinking. For which I can name many mental states and reductionist causes of them.

    Deny your testosterone’s effect on your own mind. How do I know you are a man?

    And you have not named one state that there are no causal reductionist elements present.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    "Basically, anyone that knows anything about real biology, physiology, medicine, biochemistry, etc, knows there are real reductionist causes to mental states and thinking. For which I can name many mental states and reductionist causes of them."

    See my first comment in this thread and Ross' Immaterial aspects of thought. You're wrong. Reductionism is false. You've provided no argument, you've only provided claims.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  190. @RaceRealist88
    1) genes don't directly cause traits, they contribute to variation
    2) genes cannot logically cause psychological traits because psychophysical reductionism is false---the mental does not reduce to the physical.

    Nevermind the fact that, for instance cognition, intentional states are irreducible to brain states/structure.

    Because … It’s false.
    Why?

    “Genes don’t directly cause traits. Contribute to variation”

    Example required..

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  191. Anon[381] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    It is you that needs pay attention. You have simply been unable to discern causality.
     
    I am completely unconcerned. If you wish to believe that psychological traits are caused by genes, by all means, knock yourself out.

    That means you can’t name a state lacking causal reductionist elements, and you’re simply trying to divert attention from that.

    If not, name one.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  192. Anon[381] • Disclaimer says:
    @RaceRealist88
    Saying that something is "completely obvious" is not an argument. Conceptual arguments refute psychophysical reductionism.

    Conceptual arguments cannot refute facts. That is one of your errors.

    Name a mental state in which there are no direct reductionist causal elements present.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    Evidence is not relevant to conceptual argumentation.

    Mental states are intentional states, intentional states are irreducible. I'll make the claim all intentional states are irreducible to physical structure.

    I've provided a few arguments that establish the claim. Your response?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  193. Anon[381] • Disclaimer says:
    @RaceRealist88
    It comes down to hunger/satiety hormones, too. Ghrelin, PPY, leptin, CCK, NPY, PPY etc etc. Interestingly, ghrelin is decreased in obese Caucasians (https://sci-hub.tw/10.2337/diabetes.50.4.707) (ghrelin is a hunger hormone). Another good paper (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5661704/). I have read other research showing that obese people have higher levels of ghrelin, though.

    The brain is what regulates weight. The energy balance system—also known as the “weight thermostat”— is centered in the hypothalamus. It controls hunger, metabolism and physical activity based information from the body’s short- and long-term needs. Body weight is regulated by feedback signals from the hormone leptin. This tells the brain whether or not current fat stores are on target for the body’s defended range (its body set weight). So, for example, when kcal are decreased too much, the brain panics thinking that it is starving and so increases production of hunger hormones and decreases production of satiety hormones. This leads to high amounts of eating until they get back to their defended range (body set weight).

    The fact of the matter is, one of the main drivers of fat gain is increased insulin production. When insulin is high, then so is blood glucose; since the body has the glucose to use for energy then body fat is not used for energy. Think about how much and how often people spike their insulin and then think why people can’t lose weight… because their insulin is not low enough.

    Leptin and insulin respond to the brain’s responsiveness to satiety signals. So increased leptin means decreased satiety and so, since leptin is high, they stop eating sooner. Thus, the long-term goals of the energy balance system is reflected in short-term goals. Leptin resistance is one possible reason why the body set weight increases.

    So you admit reductionist causality to the mental states and associated thinking in hunger, thirst, etc, by the above discourse on ghrelin etc? Cracks in the facade?

    Or will you also deny that the mental states in hunger thirst etc and the associated thinking have reductionist causality, mediated by such things as ghrelin etc?

    Really this is too much.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    It doesn't have to be "reductionist", when I look at a client I don't say "your test results say you have elevated ghrelin and this is why you're hungry all the time", because that doesn't make any sense. The whole system needs to be looked at, not reducing the system to the sum of its parts.

    The fact that these hormones contribute to hunger and satiety etc doesn't mean that "reductionism" is true, since I've provided arguments that refute it. (You've provided none.)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  194. @Anon
    Conceptual arguments cannot refute facts. That is one of your errors.

    Name a mental state in which there are no direct reductionist causal elements present.

    Evidence is not relevant to conceptual argumentation.

    Mental states are intentional states, intentional states are irreducible. I’ll make the claim all intentional states are irreducible to physical structure.

    I’ve provided a few arguments that establish the claim. Your response?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  195. @Anon
    Admit it, RaceRealist88, you don't know much of anything about physiology do you? How much biology or medicine or biochemistry do you know? Is your profession/job in any such field?

    Your pretension is not even a question.

    For you or any one else that can't understand that there are direct causal reductionist effects in mental/cognitive states with direct effects on control of thinking, go talk to someone that has been castrated, or try it your self.

    On the other hand try getting a testosterone shot, and see what it does for your mental state, and thinking.

    Basically, anyone that knows anything about real biology, physiology, medicine, biochemistry, etc, knows there are real reductionist causes to mental states and thinking. For which I can name many mental states and reductionist causes of them.

    Deny your testosterone's effect on your own mind. How do I know you are a man?

    And you have not named one state that there are no causal reductionist elements present.

    “Basically, anyone that knows anything about real biology, physiology, medicine, biochemistry, etc, knows there are real reductionist causes to mental states and thinking. For which I can name many mental states and reductionist causes of them.”

    See my first comment in this thread and Ross’ Immaterial aspects of thought. You’re wrong. Reductionism is false. You’ve provided no argument, you’ve only provided claims.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  196. @Anon
    So you admit reductionist causality to the mental states and associated thinking in hunger, thirst, etc, by the above discourse on ghrelin etc? Cracks in the facade?

    Or will you also deny that the mental states in hunger thirst etc and the associated thinking have reductionist causality, mediated by such things as ghrelin etc?

    Really this is too much.

    It doesn’t have to be “reductionist”, when I look at a client I don’t say “your test results say you have elevated ghrelin and this is why you’re hungry all the time”, because that doesn’t make any sense. The whole system needs to be looked at, not reducing the system to the sum of its parts.

    The fact that these hormones contribute to hunger and satiety etc doesn’t mean that “reductionism” is true, since I’ve provided arguments that refute it. (You’ve provided none.)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  197. Anon[381] • Disclaimer says:

    Basically the position of RaceRealist88 and Anonymous[150] are saying something like

    “When I’m hungry, I don’t think about food.”

    And, ‘men don’t think about sex’.

    RaceRealist88 has provided no facts, and no arguments refuting reductionism in mental states and associated thinking. RaceRealist88 is just digging himself in deeper in an untenable position. RaceRealist88′s position is that he doesn’t need any facts. He has no facts to support his position.

    People just laugh if you deny thinking about food when you’re hungry, or if you deny thinking about something to drink when you’re thirsty. Deny what testosterone does to a man’s thinking. No one will believe you. Likewise, deny what estrogen does for women’s thinking. No one will believe you.

    And how did I know RaceRealist88 is a man? And you have not provided one mental state in which reductionism is not causally involved. And you can’t, so you avoid it.

    Name a mental state that genetic reductionism is not involved in.

    When you’re hungry, you think about food. Fact. Go ahead and deny it. No one will believe you. People will laugh.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    "RaceRealist88 has provided no facts, and no arguments refuting reductionism in mental states and associated thinking"

    See my first comment in this thread. See one argument from Ross and the other from Davidson that refute reductionism. "Facts" (empirical data) are irrelevant; the matter conceptual, not empirical.

    Do you have an argument showing that reductionism is true? I've provided two showing its false. Once you refute them then we can go to the others.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  198. @Anon
    Basically the position of RaceRealist88 and Anonymous[150] are saying something like

    "When I'm hungry, I don't think about food."

    And, 'men don't think about sex'.

    RaceRealist88 has provided no facts, and no arguments refuting reductionism in mental states and associated thinking. RaceRealist88 is just digging himself in deeper in an untenable position. RaceRealist88's position is that he doesn't need any facts. He has no facts to support his position.

    People just laugh if you deny thinking about food when you're hungry, or if you deny thinking about something to drink when you're thirsty. Deny what testosterone does to a man's thinking. No one will believe you. Likewise, deny what estrogen does for women's thinking. No one will believe you.

    And how did I know RaceRealist88 is a man? And you have not provided one mental state in which reductionism is not causally involved. And you can't, so you avoid it.

    Name a mental state that genetic reductionism is not involved in.

    When you're hungry, you think about food. Fact. Go ahead and deny it. No one will believe you. People will laugh.

    “RaceRealist88 has provided no facts, and no arguments refuting reductionism in mental states and associated thinking”

    See my first comment in this thread. See one argument from Ross and the other from Davidson that refute reductionism. “Facts” (empirical data) are irrelevant; the matter conceptual, not empirical.

    Do you have an argument showing that reductionism is true? I’ve provided two showing its false. Once you refute them then we can go to the others.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  199. Can one be intelligent/act intelligently without thinking?

    By the way, Denis Noble refuted genetic reductionism.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3262309/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  200. FKA Max says: • Website
    @utu
    For fatsos Hu Mi Yu and RaceRealist88. Enjoy your caloric restrictions and fasting and your scientific outlook at what is natural pleasure for normal people.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYWFlsKhUys

    Intermittent Fasting Day in the Life

    Intermittent Fasting Day in the Life (Aggressive Fat Loss)

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    Everybody does fasting when they sleep. And yes it is intermittent. And is it obligatory to wear no shirt?

    ‘It’s Easier to Fool People Than to Convince Them That They Have Been Fooled’
     
    , @Anonymous
    The real broscience in his videos is clenbuterol. Eat clen, tren hard.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  201. utu says:
    @Anon
    Yes it does (advice that is)! And for the answers (there are several) what needs to be appreciated is that the inflammatory character of our system increases with age. The cures for this are in our diet, principally, and require us to shift our diets with age to a more anti-inflammatory diet. This inflammatory increase with age leads to multi-dimensional issues, including cardiac arrhythmias, lung congestion, more head aches, joint pains, tendency to have strokes, etc... And they can be cured or drastically improved by diet.

    If you look up anti-inflammatory diet, you will find a mixture of good and bad advice. The more you read about this, and try things, the more you'll be able to sort out the answers.

    A central physiologic/biochemical system is the arachidonic acid cascade. PGE2, leukotrienes, lipoxins, thromboxane, and other effectors come out of the arachidonic acid cascade. This is one of the systems our biochemistry uses to get rapid responses that require, in some cases rapid inflammation. Very powerful molecules. Unfortunately, it is overdone, partly because of our diet. This goes straight to the omega-6 / omega-3 fatty acid balance in the diet. PGE2 => head aches. More fish oil, less head aches, but there is a limit, you have to have the arachidonic acid cascade operative at some base level. The problem is the western diet is so distorted, that the population suffers from excessive arachidonic acid cascade overproduction. Too much soybean oil corn oil, cotton seed oil, etc.

    Another system is the ROS - reactive oxygen species - produced by inflammatory axes, that causes lots of problems. The treatments are antioxidants, vitamin C, E, and again the omega 3 fatty acids/fish oil. The wrinkles just keep opening up once you start digging, vitamin E are not all the same!

    And by the way, excessive activation of inflammation decreases intelligence.

    To get a more full appreciation for this, there are multiple communication molecule/transmitter/mediator channels. The problems can't be solved by addressing just one of the channels.

    Oh, and something on topic, adipose tissue is inflammatory. More bad news for the obese.

    arachidonic acid cascade, eukotrienes, lipoxins, thromboxane, and other effectors, Very powerful molecules, reactive oxygen species – produced by inflammatory axes

    Just scientifically sounding mumbo jumbo. Great rewarding field for charlatans.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    there is a typo there, apologies, it should be leukotrienes.

    You'll think thromboxane is mumbo jumbo, until you have a stroke.

    Look up some of those terms, see what they mean.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  202. utu says:
    @FKA Max
    Intermittent Fasting Day in the Life

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhAOyZx4DdI

    Intermittent Fasting Day in the Life (Aggressive Fat Loss)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56j3dC5AnxU

    Everybody does fasting when they sleep. And yes it is intermittent. And is it obligatory to wear no shirt?

    ‘It’s Easier to Fool People Than to Convince Them That They Have Been Fooled’

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    "Everybody does fasting when they sleep."

    Right. And some people choose to continue that for four more hours.
    , @Anonymous
    Nekkidness is obligatory in the homosexual world of "fitness," how else would one pay for grossly overpriced pig-food (whey) supplements and the gear?

    Bodybuilding represents an activity where men in scanty lingerie, called posing trunks, flex their big muscles in front of a crowd. Prior to the show the competitors remove their body hair and cover themselves in oil. There may be a lot of women in the audience, but there are also a lot of men who are homosexual and did not come to the show just for an autograph.

    Why Are Bodybuilders Doing G4P [Gay 4 Pay]
    http://nattyornot.com/why-are-bodybuilders-doing-g4p/
     
    Shirt off = faggot baiting.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  203. Anon[381] • Disclaimer says:
    @utu

    arachidonic acid cascade, eukotrienes, lipoxins, thromboxane, and other effectors, Very powerful molecules, reactive oxygen species – produced by inflammatory axes
     
    Just scientifically sounding mumbo jumbo. Great rewarding field for charlatans.

    there is a typo there, apologies, it should be leukotrienes.

    You’ll think thromboxane is mumbo jumbo, until you have a stroke.

    Look up some of those terms, see what they mean.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  204. @utu
    Everybody does fasting when they sleep. And yes it is intermittent. And is it obligatory to wear no shirt?

    ‘It’s Easier to Fool People Than to Convince Them That They Have Been Fooled’
     

    “Everybody does fasting when they sleep.”

    Right. And some people choose to continue that for four more hours.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  205. Anonymous[274] • Disclaimer says:
    @RaceRealist88
    Either you can address the argument or you can't.

    Either you understand conceptually or you can’t. The fully conceptual rises above the need for argumentation altogether. If you’re proffering arguments, you do not yet grasp the concept of the conceptual. Argumentation leads to a conniptual state.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    So you can't refute the argument.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  206. Anonymous[274] • Disclaimer says:
    @FKA Max
    Intermittent Fasting Day in the Life

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhAOyZx4DdI

    Intermittent Fasting Day in the Life (Aggressive Fat Loss)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56j3dC5AnxU

    The real broscience in his videos is clenbuterol. Eat clen, tren hard.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  207. @Anonymous
    Either you understand conceptually or you can't. The fully conceptual rises above the need for argumentation altogether. If you're proffering arguments, you do not yet grasp the concept of the conceptual. Argumentation leads to a conniptual state.

    So you can’t refute the argument.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    You're implying that you observe evidence of something. So you reject pure concepts. How does it feel to be hoist on your own petard?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  208. Anonymous[694] • Disclaimer says:
    @utu
    Everybody does fasting when they sleep. And yes it is intermittent. And is it obligatory to wear no shirt?

    ‘It’s Easier to Fool People Than to Convince Them That They Have Been Fooled’
     

    Nekkidness is obligatory in the homosexual world of “fitness,” how else would one pay for grossly overpriced pig-food (whey) supplements and the gear?

    Bodybuilding represents an activity where men in scanty lingerie, called posing trunks, flex their big muscles in front of a crowd. Prior to the show the competitors remove their body hair and cover themselves in oil. There may be a lot of women in the audience, but there are also a lot of men who are homosexual and did not come to the show just for an autograph.

    Why Are Bodybuilders Doing G4P [Gay 4 Pay]

    http://nattyornot.com/why-are-bodybuilders-doing-g4p/

    Shirt off = faggot baiting.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  209. Anonymous[111] • Disclaimer says:
    @RaceRealist88
    So you can't refute the argument.

    You’re implying that you observe evidence of something. So you reject pure concepts. How does it feel to be hoist on your own petard?

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    I'm implying that the argument provided refutes the fact that mental abilities are genetically transmitted/inherited.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  210. @Anonymous
    You're implying that you observe evidence of something. So you reject pure concepts. How does it feel to be hoist on your own petard?

    I’m implying that the argument provided refutes the fact that mental abilities are genetically transmitted/inherited.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    You've referencing your argument as evidence of refutation. Unfortunately, as you stated previously, evidence is irrelevant, so you've refuted nothing relevant.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  211. Anonymous[253] • Disclaimer says:
    @RaceRealist88
    I'm implying that the argument provided refutes the fact that mental abilities are genetically transmitted/inherited.

    You’ve referencing your argument as evidence of refutation. Unfortunately, as you stated previously, evidence is irrelevant, so you’ve refuted nothing relevant.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Anonymous[253], looks like he's got another problem too (several), hypothesis contrary to fact.
    , @RaceRealist88
    "Evidence is irrelevant" meaning "empirical evidence"

    "It’s not an empirical matter. It’s conceptual. Evidence is irrelevant."

    My argument is evidence for my claim "the genetic inheritance of psychological traits is logically impossible."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  212. Anon[381] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous
    You've referencing your argument as evidence of refutation. Unfortunately, as you stated previously, evidence is irrelevant, so you've refuted nothing relevant.

    Anonymous[253], looks like he’s got another problem too (several), hypothesis contrary to fact.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  213. @Anonymous
    You've referencing your argument as evidence of refutation. Unfortunately, as you stated previously, evidence is irrelevant, so you've refuted nothing relevant.

    “Evidence is irrelevant” meaning “empirical evidence”

    “It’s not an empirical matter. It’s conceptual. Evidence is irrelevant.”

    My argument is evidence for my claim “the genetic inheritance of psychological traits is logically impossible.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Evidence is irrelevant
    My argument is evidence

    LOL

    Better than Monty Python's argument clinic skit, conceptually speaking, even if you are a solo act.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  214. Anonymous[436] • Disclaimer says:

    It is just possible that you are attempting to follow a newer fashion in a respectable philosophy department than anything current when I formally studied philosophy but I suspect – partly from your “words have meanings” – that you are a primitive dogmatic amateur with no particular qualification to pontificate. As you claim the high ground on “intellectual rigor” I invite you to contest the positions taken in

    https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/common-genetic-factors-found-5-mental-disorders

    and perhaps explain why it is not dealing with causation. Perhaps because, in a post-modern age, the bullies who may have you in their thrall have appropriated the word and made it unfashionable? Or can you give a substantial answer?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  215. Anonymous[436] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    You are either ignorant of the genetic contribution to the causation of e.g. poor memory, optimistic personality or schizophrenia (no different in concept from the causation of a person’s h
     
    Yadda, yadda, yadda.

    No. Psychological disorders, if not a direct effect of organic brain dysfunction, are not CAUSED by genes. There may be a contributing effect, a "worsening" effect perhaps, but not a CAUSAL effect.

    Words have meanings. If you wish to blur and/or re-associate meaning with items that are not directly related (or, for instance, causal), that is your option. If you choose to say that "pink" is rilly, rilly, rilly, oh yes it is, "red", that is your option.

    Doing so, however, is an indicator of a lack of intellectual rigor.

    It is just possible that you are attempting to follow a newer fashion in a respectable philosophy department than anything current when I formally studied philosophy but I suspect – partly from your “words have meanings” that you are a primitive dogmatic amateur. As you claim the high ground on “intellectual rigor” I invite you to contest the positions taken in

    https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/common-genetic-factors-found-5-mental-disorders

    and perhaps explain why it is not dealing with causation. Perhaps because, in a post-modern age, the bullies who may have you in their thrall have appropriated the word and made it unfashionable? Or can you give a substantial answer?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  216. Anonymous[311] • Disclaimer says:
    @RaceRealist88
    "Evidence is irrelevant" meaning "empirical evidence"

    "It’s not an empirical matter. It’s conceptual. Evidence is irrelevant."

    My argument is evidence for my claim "the genetic inheritance of psychological traits is logically impossible."

    Evidence is irrelevant
    My argument is evidence

    LOL

    Better than Monty Python’s argument clinic skit, conceptually speaking, even if you are a solo act.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    You don't understand the objection.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  217. utu says:

    Largest study ever in 21 century proves that the intermittent fasting plan and high carb diet work.

    Venezuelans lose average of 19lb in weight due to nationwide food shortages, study suggests

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/venezuela-weight-loss-average-19lb-pounds-food-shortages-economic-crisis-a7595081.html

    As a result, Venezuelans are increasingly relying on cheap foods like potatoes.

    Read More
    • LOL: Daniel Chieh
    • Replies: @James Thompson
    Interesting. A sad natural experiment.
    , @RaceRealist88
    "Largest study ever in 21 century proves that the intermittent fasting plan and high carb diet work."

    This is dumb. You can also see Ancel Keys' "starvation" experiments for the same effect.

    https://idmprogram.com/the-biology-of-starvation-calories-part-v/
    , @FKA Max
    This might actually not be the unhealthiest thing for the Venezuelans, who had among the highest rates of adult obesity in the world:

    Latin America has some of the highest obesity rates in the world. Mexico overtook the US in 2013 as the world’s most obese country and is expected to continue to see a steady rise in its obese population. In 2015, over 70% of Mexico’s overall population and 57% of children were considered overweight. Venezuela, Argentina and Chile have similar rates. This situation places an enormous burden on the healthcare sector, as obesity is a precursor to more severe health issues.
     
    - https://pharmaphorum.com/views-and-analysis/latin-american-healthcare-impact-of-ageing-chronic-conditions-and-obesity/ Archived link: http://archive.is/2Q927

    https://pharmaphorum.com/images/Obesity-Fig3.JPG

    Diabetes Care in Venezuela


    In Venezuela, the weighted prevalence of diabetes was 7.7% and prediabetes was 11.2%. Diabetes was the fifth leading cause of death (7.1%) in 2012 with the mortality rate increasing 7% per year from 1990 to 2012. In 2012, cardiovascular disease and diabetes together were the leading cause of disability-adjusted life years.T2D drivers are genetic, epigenetic, and lifestyle, including unhealthy dietary patterns and physical inactivity. Obesity, insulin resistance, and metabolic syndrome are present at lower cutoffs for body mass index, homeostatic model assessment, and visceral or ectopic fat, respectively.
     
    - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214999615012692

    Silver lining; the Maduro government is reaching its goal sooner than expected:


    Authorities launched a public relations campaign Tuesday to halt a steady rise in obesity that threatens to lead to a costly, public health crisis if left unchecked.

    Under the slogan "Get informed, eat healthy" President Nicolas Maduro's government hopes over the next five years to cut in half the nearly 40 percent rate of obesity among Venezuelans, a condition putting them at greater risk of heart disease and diabetes.

    According to the World Health Organization, 67.5 percent of Venezuelans over age 20 are overweight, more than in any country in South America and nearly equal to the 69 percent rate in the United States.
     

    - http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-venezuela-battles-obesity-amid-dearth-of-good-food-2014aug26-story.html#
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  218. @utu
    Largest study ever in 21 century proves that the intermittent fasting plan and high carb diet work.

    Venezuelans lose average of 19lb in weight due to nationwide food shortages, study suggests
    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/venezuela-weight-loss-average-19lb-pounds-food-shortages-economic-crisis-a7595081.html

    As a result, Venezuelans are increasingly relying on cheap foods like potatoes.
     

    Interesting. A sad natural experiment.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    Ancel Keys did a similar experiment. See the link in my previous comment. No conclusion from this "natural experiment" refutes any contentions made by proponents of LCHF/IF.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  219. @Anonymous
    Evidence is irrelevant
    My argument is evidence

    LOL

    Better than Monty Python's argument clinic skit, conceptually speaking, even if you are a solo act.

    You don’t understand the objection.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    An argument isn't just contradiction.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  220. @utu
    Largest study ever in 21 century proves that the intermittent fasting plan and high carb diet work.

    Venezuelans lose average of 19lb in weight due to nationwide food shortages, study suggests
    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/venezuela-weight-loss-average-19lb-pounds-food-shortages-economic-crisis-a7595081.html

    As a result, Venezuelans are increasingly relying on cheap foods like potatoes.
     

    “Largest study ever in 21 century proves that the intermittent fasting plan and high carb diet work.”

    This is dumb. You can also see Ancel Keys’ “starvation” experiments for the same effect.

    https://idmprogram.com/the-biology-of-starvation-calories-part-v/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  221. @James Thompson
    Interesting. A sad natural experiment.

    Ancel Keys did a similar experiment. See the link in my previous comment. No conclusion from this “natural experiment” refutes any contentions made by proponents of LCHF/IF.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  222. FKA Max says: • Website
    @utu
    Largest study ever in 21 century proves that the intermittent fasting plan and high carb diet work.

    Venezuelans lose average of 19lb in weight due to nationwide food shortages, study suggests
    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/venezuela-weight-loss-average-19lb-pounds-food-shortages-economic-crisis-a7595081.html

    As a result, Venezuelans are increasingly relying on cheap foods like potatoes.
     

    This might actually not be the unhealthiest thing for the Venezuelans, who had among the highest rates of adult obesity in the world:

    Latin America has some of the highest obesity rates in the world. Mexico overtook the US in 2013 as the world’s most obese country and is expected to continue to see a steady rise in its obese population. In 2015, over 70% of Mexico’s overall population and 57% of children were considered overweight. Venezuela, Argentina and Chile have similar rates. This situation places an enormous burden on the healthcare sector, as obesity is a precursor to more severe health issues.

    https://pharmaphorum.com/views-and-analysis/latin-american-healthcare-impact-of-ageing-chronic-conditions-and-obesity/ Archived link: http://archive.is/2Q927

    Diabetes Care in Venezuela

    In Venezuela, the weighted prevalence of diabetes was 7.7% and prediabetes was 11.2%. Diabetes was the fifth leading cause of death (7.1%) in 2012 with the mortality rate increasing 7% per year from 1990 to 2012. In 2012, cardiovascular disease and diabetes together were the leading cause of disability-adjusted life years.T2D drivers are genetic, epigenetic, and lifestyle, including unhealthy dietary patterns and physical inactivity. Obesity, insulin resistance, and metabolic syndrome are present at lower cutoffs for body mass index, homeostatic model assessment, and visceral or ectopic fat, respectively.

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214999615012692

    Silver lining; the Maduro government is reaching its goal sooner than expected:

    Authorities launched a public relations campaign Tuesday to halt a steady rise in obesity that threatens to lead to a costly, public health crisis if left unchecked.

    Under the slogan “Get informed, eat healthy” President Nicolas Maduro’s government hopes over the next five years to cut in half the nearly 40 percent rate of obesity among Venezuelans, a condition putting them at greater risk of heart disease and diabetes.

    According to the World Health Organization, 67.5 percent of Venezuelans over age 20 are overweight, more than in any country in South America and nearly equal to the 69 percent rate in the United States.

    http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-venezuela-battles-obesity-amid-dearth-of-good-food-2014aug26-story.html#

    Read More
    • Replies: @Johan Meyer
    It must be a Latin American thing. Pinochet also boosted life expectancy by caloric intake restriction---see Andre Gunder Frank's open letters to Arnold Harbeggar and Milton Friedman. Examples include 22700% (sic) inflation on bread in 1975, and much stunting. The main difference is that Pinochet did it with US economic support, while Maduro does it under US sanctions.

    But extra life expectancy is extra life expectancy, regardless of the reigning power responsible for the caloric intake restriction.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  223. Anonymous[332] • Disclaimer says:
    @RaceRealist88
    You don't understand the objection.

    An argument isn’t just contradiction.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    Arguments establish claims. My claim "psychological traits cannot be genetically transmitted" is established by my argument "For genes to cause psychological traits (ie intelligence), psychophysical laws have to exist (laws linking mental events under their mental descriptions and physical events under their physical descriptions; laws connecting psychological or mental states with physical states). Psychophysical laws do not exist; psychophysical reductionism is false (see Davidson’s anomalous monism, Ross’ Immaterial Aspects of Thought, Nagel’s Mind and Cosmos, etc). Therefore the genetic transmission of psychological traits is logically impossible."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  224. @Anonymous
    An argument isn't just contradiction.

    Arguments establish claims. My claim “psychological traits cannot be genetically transmitted” is established by my argument “For genes to cause psychological traits (ie intelligence), psychophysical laws have to exist (laws linking mental events under their mental descriptions and physical events under their physical descriptions; laws connecting psychological or mental states with physical states). Psychophysical laws do not exist; psychophysical reductionism is false (see Davidson’s anomalous monism, Ross’ Immaterial Aspects of Thought, Nagel’s Mind and Cosmos, etc). Therefore the genetic transmission of psychological traits is logically impossible.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  225. Anonymous[632] • Disclaimer says:

    Repeating yourself isn’t an argument, it’s just repetition. My claim is established by Monty Python’s Argument Clinic sketch.

    But maybe you just need google scholar to pull yourself out of such a display of utter ignorance.

    A simple genetic basis for a complex psychological trait in laboratory mice
    J Flint, R Corley, JC DeFries, DW Fulker, JA Gray… – …, 1995 – science.sciencemag.org

    Only 488,999 more results to go. Scientific arguments establish claims of genetic transmission of psychological traits.

    You think your word magic undoes reality. It doesn’t.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    As you say, there are a lot of articles on these topics.

    open access article:
    The Neural and Genetic Basis of Executive Function: Attention, Cognitive Flexibility, and Response Inhibition
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3933483/


    Sickness behaviors are dictated by real time genetic programs. "Cytokine theory of disease" q.v. Hypothesis based on this for mental disorders:
    Med Hypotheses. 2005;65(2):316-29.
    Non-termination of sickness behavior as precipitating factor for mental disorders.
    Viljoen M1, Panzer A.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15922107

    And some simple stuff: the diurnal, circadian rhythm is dictated by ongoing genetic programs dictating melatonin and glucocorticoids levels, with environmental inputs (light), with obvious direct effects on the mind.

    The mind, consciousness, mental states are gene products, with substantial environmental inputs. The genetic programs responsible operate in several time frames, with multiple regulatory feedback loops. IE, there are real time gene programs, programs several hours old, days, weeks, months and years - decades old gene programs (via gene expression) converging causally in creation of current mental states.

    When we get a head ache, it's a real time gene expression program making it happen. The gene program - head ache exercises substantial control of the mind and thinking at the time. The clearing of the head ache, return of homeostasis, is a genetic program.

    , @RaceRealist88
    The argument hasn't been addressed.

    Empirical evidence is irrelevant to conceptual objections/a priori arguments.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  226. @FKA Max
    This might actually not be the unhealthiest thing for the Venezuelans, who had among the highest rates of adult obesity in the world:

    Latin America has some of the highest obesity rates in the world. Mexico overtook the US in 2013 as the world’s most obese country and is expected to continue to see a steady rise in its obese population. In 2015, over 70% of Mexico’s overall population and 57% of children were considered overweight. Venezuela, Argentina and Chile have similar rates. This situation places an enormous burden on the healthcare sector, as obesity is a precursor to more severe health issues.
     
    - https://pharmaphorum.com/views-and-analysis/latin-american-healthcare-impact-of-ageing-chronic-conditions-and-obesity/ Archived link: http://archive.is/2Q927

    https://pharmaphorum.com/images/Obesity-Fig3.JPG

    Diabetes Care in Venezuela


    In Venezuela, the weighted prevalence of diabetes was 7.7% and prediabetes was 11.2%. Diabetes was the fifth leading cause of death (7.1%) in 2012 with the mortality rate increasing 7% per year from 1990 to 2012. In 2012, cardiovascular disease and diabetes together were the leading cause of disability-adjusted life years.T2D drivers are genetic, epigenetic, and lifestyle, including unhealthy dietary patterns and physical inactivity. Obesity, insulin resistance, and metabolic syndrome are present at lower cutoffs for body mass index, homeostatic model assessment, and visceral or ectopic fat, respectively.
     
    - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214999615012692

    Silver lining; the Maduro government is reaching its goal sooner than expected:


    Authorities launched a public relations campaign Tuesday to halt a steady rise in obesity that threatens to lead to a costly, public health crisis if left unchecked.

    Under the slogan "Get informed, eat healthy" President Nicolas Maduro's government hopes over the next five years to cut in half the nearly 40 percent rate of obesity among Venezuelans, a condition putting them at greater risk of heart disease and diabetes.

    According to the World Health Organization, 67.5 percent of Venezuelans over age 20 are overweight, more than in any country in South America and nearly equal to the 69 percent rate in the United States.
     

    - http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-venezuela-battles-obesity-amid-dearth-of-good-food-2014aug26-story.html#

    It must be a Latin American thing. Pinochet also boosted life expectancy by caloric intake restriction—see Andre Gunder Frank’s open letters to Arnold Harbeggar and Milton Friedman. Examples include 22700% (sic) inflation on bread in 1975, and much stunting. The main difference is that Pinochet did it with US economic support, while Maduro does it under US sanctions.

    But extra life expectancy is extra life expectancy, regardless of the reigning power responsible for the caloric intake restriction.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  227. Anonymous[381] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous
    Repeating yourself isn't an argument, it's just repetition. My claim is established by Monty Python's Argument Clinic sketch.

    But maybe you just need google scholar to pull yourself out of such a display of utter ignorance.

    A simple genetic basis for a complex psychological trait in laboratory mice
    J Flint, R Corley, JC DeFries, DW Fulker, JA Gray… - …, 1995 - science.sciencemag.org

    Only 488,999 more results to go. Scientific arguments establish claims of genetic transmission of psychological traits.

    You think your word magic undoes reality. It doesn't.

    As you say, there are a lot of articles on these topics.

    open access article:
    The Neural and Genetic Basis of Executive Function: Attention, Cognitive Flexibility, and Response Inhibition

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3933483/

    Sickness behaviors are dictated by real time genetic programs. “Cytokine theory of disease” q.v. Hypothesis based on this for mental disorders:
    Med Hypotheses. 2005;65(2):316-29.
    Non-termination of sickness behavior as precipitating factor for mental disorders.
    Viljoen M1, Panzer A.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15922107

    And some simple stuff: the diurnal, circadian rhythm is dictated by ongoing genetic programs dictating melatonin and glucocorticoids levels, with environmental inputs (light), with obvious direct effects on the mind.

    The mind, consciousness, mental states are gene products, with substantial environmental inputs. The genetic programs responsible operate in several time frames, with multiple regulatory feedback loops. IE, there are real time gene programs, programs several hours old, days, weeks, months and years – decades old gene programs (via gene expression) converging causally in creation of current mental states.

    When we get a head ache, it’s a real time gene expression program making it happen. The gene program – head ache exercises substantial control of the mind and thinking at the time. The clearing of the head ache, return of homeostasis, is a genetic program.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    "The mind, consciousness, mental states are gene products"

    All three are irreducible to physical states.

    "The genetic programs"

    "Program"?

    "When we get a head ache, it’s a real time gene expression program making it happen. The gene program – head ache exercises substantial control of the mind and thinking at the time. The clearing of the head ache, return of homeostasis, is a genetic program."

    Gibberish.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  228. Anonymous[381] • Disclaimer says:

    Gene programs running the mind:

    Cytokine theory of disease:

    Brain Behav Immun. 2001 Mar;15(1):7-24.
    Cytokine-induced sickness behavior: where do we stand?
    Dantzer R1.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11259077

    over a hundred articles refer to that one:

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?linkname=pubmed_pubmed_citedin&from_uid=11259077

    Twenty years of research on cytokine theory of disease:

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17088043

    as open access article

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1850954/

    “the newly-defined role of cytokines in a wide variety of systemic co-morbid conditions, ranging from chronic heart failure to obesity, may begin to explain changes in the mental state of these subjects.”

    Cytokines are regulated in real time genetically.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    "Gene programs running the mind:"

    Genes aren't "programs", "blueprints", "recipes", or a "code."

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2018/07/15/dna-is-not-a-blueprint/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  229. @Anonymous
    Repeating yourself isn't an argument, it's just repetition. My claim is established by Monty Python's Argument Clinic sketch.

    But maybe you just need google scholar to pull yourself out of such a display of utter ignorance.

    A simple genetic basis for a complex psychological trait in laboratory mice
    J Flint, R Corley, JC DeFries, DW Fulker, JA Gray… - …, 1995 - science.sciencemag.org

    Only 488,999 more results to go. Scientific arguments establish claims of genetic transmission of psychological traits.

    You think your word magic undoes reality. It doesn't.

    The argument hasn’t been addressed.

    Empirical evidence is irrelevant to conceptual objections/a priori arguments.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Genes aren't merely conceptual/a priori ideals, they're physically real, thus, evidence is relevant.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  230. @Anonymous
    As you say, there are a lot of articles on these topics.

    open access article:
    The Neural and Genetic Basis of Executive Function: Attention, Cognitive Flexibility, and Response Inhibition
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3933483/


    Sickness behaviors are dictated by real time genetic programs. "Cytokine theory of disease" q.v. Hypothesis based on this for mental disorders:
    Med Hypotheses. 2005;65(2):316-29.
    Non-termination of sickness behavior as precipitating factor for mental disorders.
    Viljoen M1, Panzer A.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15922107

    And some simple stuff: the diurnal, circadian rhythm is dictated by ongoing genetic programs dictating melatonin and glucocorticoids levels, with environmental inputs (light), with obvious direct effects on the mind.

    The mind, consciousness, mental states are gene products, with substantial environmental inputs. The genetic programs responsible operate in several time frames, with multiple regulatory feedback loops. IE, there are real time gene programs, programs several hours old, days, weeks, months and years - decades old gene programs (via gene expression) converging causally in creation of current mental states.

    When we get a head ache, it's a real time gene expression program making it happen. The gene program - head ache exercises substantial control of the mind and thinking at the time. The clearing of the head ache, return of homeostasis, is a genetic program.

    “The mind, consciousness, mental states are gene products”

    All three are irreducible to physical states.

    “The genetic programs”

    “Program”?

    “When we get a head ache, it’s a real time gene expression program making it happen. The gene program – head ache exercises substantial control of the mind and thinking at the time. The clearing of the head ache, return of homeostasis, is a genetic program.”

    Gibberish.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  231. @Anonymous
    Gene programs running the mind:

    Cytokine theory of disease:

    Brain Behav Immun. 2001 Mar;15(1):7-24.
    Cytokine-induced sickness behavior: where do we stand?
    Dantzer R1.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11259077

    over a hundred articles refer to that one:
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?linkname=pubmed_pubmed_citedin&from_uid=11259077

    Twenty years of research on cytokine theory of disease:
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17088043
    as open access article
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1850954/

    "the newly-defined role of cytokines in a wide variety of systemic co-morbid conditions, ranging from chronic heart failure to obesity, may begin to explain changes in the mental state of these subjects."

    Cytokines are regulated in real time genetically.

    “Gene programs running the mind:”

    Genes aren’t “programs”, “blueprints”, “recipes”, or a “code.”

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2018/07/15/dna-is-not-a-blueprint/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Shall I go with many thousands of actual scientists, that use the term 'genetic program', 'gene program' or some variant in peer reviewed literature , or with some unknown non-peer reviewed commenter? Easy. Scientists use the term, and I know what they're talking about.

    Example:
    Title
    "Genetic programs in human and mouse early embryos revealed by single-cell RNA sequencing"
    https://www.nature.com/articles/nature12364

    It's a peer review accepted term. There are many thousands of articles using such terms. Of course for people that know nothing of molecular biology, the term may be unfamiliar.

    , @Anonymous
    Genes are physically real, a reality you hilariously keep trying to deny.

    “Programs”, “blueprints”, “recipes”, or a “code” are all metaphors for how genes behave. Again, scholar.google will help you understand that science is well informed of the metaphors' limitations.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  232. Anon[381] • Disclaimer says:
    @RaceRealist88
    "Gene programs running the mind:"

    Genes aren't "programs", "blueprints", "recipes", or a "code."

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2018/07/15/dna-is-not-a-blueprint/

    Shall I go with many thousands of actual scientists, that use the term ‘genetic program’, ‘gene program’ or some variant in peer reviewed literature , or with some unknown non-peer reviewed commenter? Easy. Scientists use the term, and I know what they’re talking about.

    Example:
    Title
    “Genetic programs in human and mouse early embryos revealed by single-cell RNA sequencing”

    https://www.nature.com/articles/nature12364

    It’s a peer review accepted term. There are many thousands of articles using such terms. Of course for people that know nothing of molecular biology, the term may be unfamiliar.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    "Shall I go with many thousands of actual scientists, that use the term ‘genetic program’, ‘gene program’ or some variant in peer reviewed literature , or with some unknown non-peer reviewed commenter? Easy. Scientists use the term, and I know what they’re talking about."

    Appeal to authority. There are many quotes in the article I've provided that refute the claim that DNA/genes are a "code."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  233. Anonymous[333] • Disclaimer says:
    @RaceRealist88
    The argument hasn't been addressed.

    Empirical evidence is irrelevant to conceptual objections/a priori arguments.

    Genes aren’t merely conceptual/a priori ideals, they’re physically real, thus, evidence is relevant.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  234. @Anon
    Shall I go with many thousands of actual scientists, that use the term 'genetic program', 'gene program' or some variant in peer reviewed literature , or with some unknown non-peer reviewed commenter? Easy. Scientists use the term, and I know what they're talking about.

    Example:
    Title
    "Genetic programs in human and mouse early embryos revealed by single-cell RNA sequencing"
    https://www.nature.com/articles/nature12364

    It's a peer review accepted term. There are many thousands of articles using such terms. Of course for people that know nothing of molecular biology, the term may be unfamiliar.

    “Shall I go with many thousands of actual scientists, that use the term ‘genetic program’, ‘gene program’ or some variant in peer reviewed literature , or with some unknown non-peer reviewed commenter? Easy. Scientists use the term, and I know what they’re talking about.”

    Appeal to authority. There are many quotes in the article I’ve provided that refute the claim that DNA/genes are a “code.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    By attempting to deny something , as 'appeal to authority', RaceRealist88 destroys his own position, based entirely as it is, on an appeal to authority, the references. He has not refuted genes as code, as they obviously are, for coding DNA code proteins.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  235. Anonymous[199] • Disclaimer says:
    @RaceRealist88
    "Gene programs running the mind:"

    Genes aren't "programs", "blueprints", "recipes", or a "code."

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2018/07/15/dna-is-not-a-blueprint/

    Genes are physically real, a reality you hilariously keep trying to deny.

    “Programs”, “blueprints”, “recipes”, or a “code” are all metaphors for how genes behave. Again, scholar.google will help you understand that science is well informed of the metaphors’ limitations.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    Do genes exist. Are they units of inheritance?

    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00165258

    I'd recommend reading what some philosophers, like Evelyn Fox Keller and Thomas Fogle write about "genes."

    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/molecular-genetics/#GenSke

    Are genes active causes?

    Either way, none of this addresses my argument. Can you address it or not? My argument establishes my claim that genes do not cause psychological traits. You're appealing to genes as if it means something. It really doesn't.

    "Genes aren’t merely conceptual/a priori ideals, they’re physically real, thus, evidence is relevant."

    How do you know? Either way, since the mental is irreducible to the physical and genes (whatever they are) are physical, then the mental cannot be reduced to genes and by proxy, intelligence cannot either because it is a mental ability.

    "“Programs”, “blueprints”, “recipes”, or a “code” are all metaphors for how genes behave. Again, scholar.google will help you understand that science is well informed of the metaphors’ limitations."

    Genes don't behave.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  236. @Anonymous
    Genes are physically real, a reality you hilariously keep trying to deny.

    “Programs”, “blueprints”, “recipes”, or a “code” are all metaphors for how genes behave. Again, scholar.google will help you understand that science is well informed of the metaphors' limitations.

    Do genes exist. Are they units of inheritance?

    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00165258

    I’d recommend reading what some philosophers, like Evelyn Fox Keller and Thomas Fogle write about “genes.”

    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/molecular-genetics/#GenSke

    Are genes active causes?

    Either way, none of this addresses my argument. Can you address it or not? My argument establishes my claim that genes do not cause psychological traits. You’re appealing to genes as if it means something. It really doesn’t.

    “Genes aren’t merely conceptual/a priori ideals, they’re physically real, thus, evidence is relevant.”

    How do you know? Either way, since the mental is irreducible to the physical and genes (whatever they are) are physical, then the mental cannot be reduced to genes and by proxy, intelligence cannot either because it is a mental ability.

    ““Programs”, “blueprints”, “recipes”, or a “code” are all metaphors for how genes behave. Again, scholar.google will help you understand that science is well informed of the metaphors’ limitations.”

    Genes don’t behave.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  237. Anonymous[183] • Disclaimer says:

    Genes are physical. Everything behaves. Steel behaves in certain ways.* You’re behaving like a retarded dumbass playing word-magic games trying to avoid reality, which you consider an “argument.”

    * Why does high carbon steel behave in a brittle manner?

    https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_does_high_carbon_steel_behave_in_a_brittle_manner

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    "Genes are physical."

    I agree. And the mental is irreducible to the physical (meaning genes and brain structure). You've not even attempted to rebut Davidson or Ross.

    Give it a try.

    What is behavior? How can inanimate objects behave? How can an inert molecule behave?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  238. @Anonymous
    Genes are physical. Everything behaves. Steel behaves in certain ways.* You're behaving like a retarded dumbass playing word-magic games trying to avoid reality, which you consider an "argument."

    * Why does high carbon steel behave in a brittle manner?
    https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_does_high_carbon_steel_behave_in_a_brittle_manner

    “Genes are physical.”

    I agree. And the mental is irreducible to the physical (meaning genes and brain structure). You’ve not even attempted to rebut Davidson or Ross.

    Give it a try.

    What is behavior? How can inanimate objects behave? How can an inert molecule behave?

    Read More
    • Replies: @FatBloke

    What is behavior? How can inanimate objects behave? How can an inert molecule behave?
     
    Have you been getting confused by anthropomorphic language again? Awwww.
    , @Anon
    Biological psychology: all those lesion results. Too bad for RaceRealist88. We know mental states have reducible aspects from the lesion data. And from genetic, biochemical and molecular biology data also.

    and BTW, behavior is a descriptor also of inanimate objects. So the word games are just failed attempts at equivocation. Anonymous[183] is right. Equivocations will get RaceRealist88 nowhere.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  239. FatBloke says:
    @RaceRealist88
    "Genes are physical."

    I agree. And the mental is irreducible to the physical (meaning genes and brain structure). You've not even attempted to rebut Davidson or Ross.

    Give it a try.

    What is behavior? How can inanimate objects behave? How can an inert molecule behave?

    What is behavior? How can inanimate objects behave? How can an inert molecule behave?

    Have you been getting confused by anthropomorphic language again? Awwww.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    Answer the questions. What is behavior? How can things with no minds behave?

    It's incredible how people can't address a simple argument.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  240. @FatBloke

    What is behavior? How can inanimate objects behave? How can an inert molecule behave?
     
    Have you been getting confused by anthropomorphic language again? Awwww.

    Answer the questions. What is behavior? How can things with no minds behave?

    It’s incredible how people can’t address a simple argument.

    Read More
    • Replies: @FatBloke

    How can things with no minds behave?
     
    Looks like I was right.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  241. FatBloke says:
    @RaceRealist88
    Answer the questions. What is behavior? How can things with no minds behave?

    It's incredible how people can't address a simple argument.

    How can things with no minds behave?

    Looks like I was right.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    Looks like I was right. No one can address a simple argument.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  242. @FatBloke

    How can things with no minds behave?
     
    Looks like I was right.

    Looks like I was right. No one can address a simple argument.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    We have a self-declared winnarz in the special intellect olympics! Does it help your fragile self-esteem?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  243. Anonymous[213] • Disclaimer says:
    @RaceRealist88
    Looks like I was right. No one can address a simple argument.

    We have a self-declared winnarz in the special intellect olympics! Does it help your fragile self-esteem?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  244. Anon[381] • Disclaimer says:
    @RaceRealist88
    "Genes are physical."

    I agree. And the mental is irreducible to the physical (meaning genes and brain structure). You've not even attempted to rebut Davidson or Ross.

    Give it a try.

    What is behavior? How can inanimate objects behave? How can an inert molecule behave?

    Biological psychology: all those lesion results. Too bad for RaceRealist88. We know mental states have reducible aspects from the lesion data. And from genetic, biochemical and molecular biology data also.

    and BTW, behavior is a descriptor also of inanimate objects. So the word games are just failed attempts at equivocation. Anonymous[183] is right. Equivocations will get RaceRealist88 nowhere.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  245. Anon[381] • Disclaimer says:
    @RaceRealist88
    "Shall I go with many thousands of actual scientists, that use the term ‘genetic program’, ‘gene program’ or some variant in peer reviewed literature , or with some unknown non-peer reviewed commenter? Easy. Scientists use the term, and I know what they’re talking about."

    Appeal to authority. There are many quotes in the article I've provided that refute the claim that DNA/genes are a "code."

    By attempting to deny something , as ‘appeal to authority’, RaceRealist88 destroys his own position, based entirely as it is, on an appeal to authority, the references. He has not refuted genes as code, as they obviously are, for coding DNA code proteins.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  246. Anon[320] • Disclaimer says:

    Much of this is based on the fact that if you are intelligent, you don’t choose to marry an unhealthy person or many into an unhealthy family even if your prospective spouse is healthy. You recognize you have other options in life.

    In Victorian times, basic parental advice to children was: Don’t marry into a family with poor health. In that era, poor health was more common and more obvious. If your girlfriend was pale and thin, she probably had consumption.

    Dumb people, by contrast, live for the moment and never think beyond it, so they mate with those they want to have sex with, and they never give two thoughts about the health of their mate.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  247. Anon[320] • Disclaimer says:
    @anon
    What a condescending attitude toward the science of the relationship between food, appetite and health - sneering at any criticism of your simplistic view of the subject.

    I see the paid trolls are showing up before the election.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  248. @RaceRealist88
    Your "dictum", which is also the mainstream dictum, is false:

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/12/30/is-diet-an-iq-test/

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2018/03/18/the-weight-loss-and-thermodynamics-fallacy/

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/08/11/the-calories-incalories-out-myth/

    Associations aren't causes; if intelligence is taken to be a mental ability then it cannot be reduced to genes or brain structure/states because psychophysical reductionism is false. Numerous a priori arguments establish the claim that the mental is irreducible to the physical. For instance, Ross' Immaterial Aspects of Thought; Nagle's arguments in Mind and Cosmos; Davidson's argument against the existence of psychophysical and psychological laws.

    Thinking is a mental activity which results in a thought. So if thinking is a mental activity which results in a thought, what is a thought? A thought is a mental state of considering a particular idea or answer to a question or committing oneself to an idea or answer.

    These mental states are, or are related to, beliefs. When one considers a particular answer to a question they are paving the way to holding a particular belief; when they commit themselves to an answer they have formulated a new belief.

    Beliefs are propositional attitudes: believing p involves adopting the belief attitude to proposition p. So, cognition is thinking: a mental process that results in the formation of a propositional belief.

    When one acquires a propositional attitude by thinking, a process takes place in stages. Future propositional attitudes are justified on earlier propositional attitudes. Cognition is thinking; thinking is a mental state of considering a particular view (proposition).

    Since thoughts are related to, or are beliefs, and beliefs are irreducible to brain states, then thoughts, too, are irreducible to brain states.

    “16. Mind: physicalism 56.5%; non-physicalism 27.1%; other 16.4%.”

    Quoted from Bourget & Chalmers, “What do Philosophers Believe”, 2013.

    (https://philpapers.org/archive/BOUWDP)

    Since physicalism is the current dominant view in philosophy of mind, your categorical assertion that “psychophysical reductionism is false” needs justification, and a lot of it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All James Thompson Comments via RSS