Slashdot Mirror
Study Proves Having Fat Friends Makes You Fat
Xemu writes "Having fat friends makes you fat, researchers from Harvard Medical School and the University of California says after after examining 12,067 individuals and 38,611 of their relatives and friends. In same-sex friendships, people were 71 per cent more likely to put on weight if a friend of theirs became obese. "It's not that obese or non-obese people simply find other similar people to hang out with. Rather, there is a direct, causal relationship," says Harvard professor Nicholas Christakis."
I saw a show on discover/tlc/whatever the other day, about some severly overweight people. One guy ate 33000 Calories a day (actually, 33,000,000 calories, or 33,000 kilocalories if you want to be scientific). I thought about it, and that guy eats more in a day then I do in a week. Significantly more. They showed one of his meals, and it covered like an entire bed. Just the sausage course was like 6 sausages. there must have been at least 10 other plates there. All covered with greasy or sugar food. It was truly disgusting, and you wonder what the people bringing him the food (because he could no longer walk) were thinking.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
Correlation does not mean causation... 'nuff said.
The fact that "correlation does not mean causation" does not imply that all scientific studies are bogus, nor that all conclusions drawn from statistical analyses are unfounded. There is simply more to the story. and if you RTFA you would know that.
Also, some generalizations are actually true of the majority of cases, in which case they are useful.
In other words, yes, the study PROVES causality.
I'm suspicious of this fat-friends-make-you-fat story. Heard 'experts' on radio this morning repeating this story, using words like 'infectious', 'contagious'. Smacks of Sensationalist Journalism, and Susy Public will go away thinking she'll get fat if she sits next to a fat person.
7 /1969924.htm
This on the other hand is a much better story:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/healthreport/stories/200
It's an interview with Dr Robert Lustig, Professor of Pediatric Endocrinology at the University of California, San Francisco. He says, yes, we're getting fat, but the question is why our bodies don't enact a defense against this. One of the culprits: Fructose (Corn Syrup) which food and drink manufacturers have been putting in everything. Your body has real problems regulating this. Fructose with Fibre is ok (an Orange), but without Fibre it's very bad (Orange Juice). Apart from the vitamins, you might as well be drinking pop. Very interesting link: transcript and MP3.
Other than some of the depressed people, yeah, it is that easy. I never even noticed it, but I got up to 25 lbs. overweight. You know what I did? I ate less. Counted calories, weighed myself and got the rate right, at about 3 lbs a week, and in a little over three months I lost 40 lbs. Then, once you reach your goal weight & fat percentage you slowly eat more until you're holding steady. Done, you're not fat anymore.
Smoking? Stop. Chew some gum, survive a week, don't go get drunk for a few months, you're done. That's how I did it.
Skinny? Eat more. Lift weights. Join the National Guard, try four months of infantry training. You won't be skinny anymore. Once again, that's how I did it.
Basically what I'm saying is, if you can't handle these simple tasks then you suck at life. No, seriously, you do, almost by definition. And at least half of the depressed people, too. The other half? Stop going off your meds! It's only been a month! Yes, you're still crazy!
<xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
Probably should read the article. Though it's not airtight, they acknowledge the difference between correlation and causation and claim the way they are using the data implies causation. It wasn't a quick study, it looked at 30 years of data in a number of ways and how people changed over time as connections were made and broken. It's actually pretty interesting.
And it isn't terribly surprising either: people tend to eat with and share activities (or lack of) with friends. These factors have huge influence on weight. So a causal relationship, while not proved by this logic, is certainly plausible.
But read the article -- the correlation/causation confusion is a pet peeve of mine, too, but they seem to be seeing beyond that in this case.
But you can too because they apparently put it on the Internet free0
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/357/4/37
New England Journal of Medicine
The Spread of Obesity in a Large Social Network over 32 Years
Nicholas A. Christakis, M.D., Ph.D., M.P.H., and James H. Fowler, Ph.D.
357:370-379 July 26, 2007
Slashdotters will no doubt be interested in the Kamada-Kawai algorithm in Pajek software which is used to generate the social network images like this one http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/357/4/370 /F1 Networks are where it's at today.
They had 12,000 subjects (from the Framingham Heart Study) who had filled out detailed questionnaires, including the names of people (often also in the study) whom they regarded as friends. They compared friends, spouses, siblings and neighbors.
There were 3 kinds of friends: (1) I consider you my friend, and vice versa (2) I consider you my friend, but you don't consider me your friend (3) You consider me your friend, but I don't consider you my friend.
The strongest influence was on mutual friends. In case (2), if you were fat, you would influence me, but not vice versa.
They tried to prove that it was a causal effect, and not just an association, by watching to see what happens over time. If friend A gets fat, friend B gets fat a year later.
Mutual friends had the strongest influence. Women friends had a stronger influence than male friends.
Opposite-sex friends had no effect on each other.
Siblings had an effect on each other. But same-sex siblings had the strongest effect, and opposite-sex siblings had the least effect (almost none).
Spouses had a slightly weaker effect. (Which is surprising if you expect them to eat the same food.)
Neighbors had no effect on each other. So it has nothing to do with the driving distance to Macdonalds.
You could run that social networking analysis program on Slashdot.
High fructose corn syrup is definetly part of the problem. But of course, so are portions. "Do you want to make it a mega-lard-ass size for 15 cents more?" A portion of McDonalds fries (regular size) was 230 kCals in the 60s, now its over 400. A chipolte buritto is about 2/3s of the energy a health 20-40 year-old male needs in a day (granted he is the typical office worker who gets 20-30 minutes of excersize 4 times per week).
EVERYWHERE foods potions have gotten larger. Few people realize that A.) It takes 10-15 minutes to feel full. B.) Thirst is often mistaken for hunger C.) What tastes awesome (like McDonalds, candy, steak, etc) isn't an acceptable meal choice. Eat a pack of star-bursts over 2-3 days, not 10 minutes.
Basically, people are either too ignorant, apathetic, or lazy to make good nutrition choices. You really shouldn't even give little kids that much juice, becauses its nutritional content (high simple carbs) is similar to soda-pop.
BTW, all this came from the M.S. nutrition teacher I had last semester.
Skipping meals is a surefire way to foul up your metabolism. Contrary to what others have said, the exercise was good. Not as good as interval training, but walking is good cardio. However, eating on an inconsistent schedule, not eating enough, or eating the wrong foods will cause weight gain. And the combination often leads to binging.
I used to skip breakfast and lunch and wonder why I was 300 pounds. I stopped drinking soda, started eating healthy meals every three hours, and started consistently exercising and the weight just melted off.
It's just an easy way to get a general assessment. Body fat percentage, resting heart rate, heart rate during exercise, etc., are much better metrics of one's overall fitness and health.
I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.
But what has really convinced me was the weight loss that some of my friends experienced from eliminating HFCS from their diets. I've made the same dietary a couple of months ago. I now buy the somewhat more expensive Coke made in Mexico that Costco and I find other alternatives to products that use HFCS (it's somewhat disturbing how many products use it). In 2 months, I've lost 15 pounds so far. I don't exercise any more than I did before and I still eat a ton of fatty foods.
ADM can continue to fund bogus studies that show that HFCS isn't any worse for you than cane sugar, but I'm never going back. I'm feel healthier and have more energy since I've changed my diet. I have yet to meet anyone who's given up HFCS who doesn't see similar results.
Being fat is a choice. You choose to start the day with bacon and eggs, you choose to drink soda and other high-calorie beverages, you choose to stuff those cheeseburgers into your fat face. You choose not to get up off your ass and get some exercise.
I didn't really "choose" to be fat. I did choose to take medicine whose side effect was major weight gain but the alternative was death, and I'd rather get through the issue and work off the weight later than be worm food. After gaining 110 lbs, I've seen exactly how fat people live life and the work required to get that weight back off.
As a fat person, you can still vote, still have a job, still do generally "everything" you expect. Except be comfortable in airplanes, or ride some of the rollercoasters at the amusement park. Oh, and be listened to as attentively as the thin person next to you. Or be taken as seriously at a job interview as the next thin person. It's subtle but real, and my thin friends don't see it at all. In that way it is similar to being a middle-class black person at a white-collar job.
(Of course the "oppression" isn't nearly as bad as actual black middle class experience these days. But it mirrors the lighter end of it, and for many middle-class white people it's the closest they'll come to it. See Ellis Cose's excellent book "The Rage of a Privileged Class: Why Do Prosperous Blacks Still Have the Blues?" for good discussion covering the entire spectrum of black oppression including the "not being taken seriously" part.)
As for losing weight, once your body has gained a huge amount of weight and kept it on for more than a few months, losing the weight becomes a real challenge. Dieting means not eating with friends and family anymore which here in America means instant social isolation. No more potlucks at church, no more barbecues, and no more food at parties. Your life is literally: work, exercise, count calories, and find individually fulfilling things to do in the 2 remaining evening hours of the day while your friends are out having a life.
Exercise also requires a lot more thinking than most people are used to. For instance, if you weigh more than 300 pounds you simply cannot run or use a stairmaster machine because you risk permanent knee injury, and you cannot really "walk" on the treadmill either as that doesn't burn enough calories to benefit you. However, you can use an elliptical trainer, stationary bike, and punching bag to kick the heart rate up. A personal heart rate monitor only costs $70 and goes a long way to ensuring the workout intensity remains high.
Losing serious amounts of weight requires the kind of dedication we normally associate with martial arts. A fat person who is seriously losing weight (and I've lost 30 of my 110 extra pounds so far) needs to know as much about fitness as an amateur bodybuilder. It requires money to buy healthier food, gym membership and/or personal training, and equipment, and it also requires enough free time to actually use those fitness resources and shop for food correctly. Finally, it requires a lot of not fucking caring about the world because even your closest family might not notice the first six months and 30 pounds and you'd better stick with it despite all the negative reinforcement around you. The world will always think I suck (because I "chose" to eat crap) until that magic moment I stop looking fat and people start seeing me as a real person again.
Having been in the fat shoes, I have a lot more sympathy for people who have little free time and money and aren't quite introverted enough to handle the social isolation.
Comparing yourselves to minorities who have actually been oppressed is sickening.
Now that's rich: here on Slashdot, the enclave of middle-class white privilege, we're finally told that minorities really are oppressed!
The study is talking about probabilistic causation.
= 300 about indeterminism= 228 about causal analysis
Read on wikipedia about regression, gaussian distribution (central limit theorem) and explained variance and it should become clearer.
A good book about causal modelling is: http://bayes.cs.ucla.edu/BOOK-2K/
It's not like we experience determinism in the real world. here are two of the many papers patrick suppes wrote on this topic:
http://suppes-corpus.stanford.edu/article.html?id
http://suppes-corpus.stanford.edu/article.html?id
http://www.glycemicindex.com
What is the Glycemic Index?
Not all carbohydrate foods are created equal, in fact they behave quite differently in our bodies. The glycemic index or GI describes this difference by ranking carbohydrates according to their effect on our blood glucose levels. Choosing low GI carbs - the ones that produce only small fluctuations in our blood glucose and insulin levels - is the secret to long-term health reducing your risk of heart disease and diabetes and is the key to sustainable weight loss.
In other words - it's not just counting calories. Some calories are actually worse for you. Sucrose is better for you than fructose, for example.
Way to go, samzenpus. Slashdot, sigh. Not really, it said there is an inclination to become obese if you have obese friends and family. It didn't comment on the obvious - you tend to have the same activity level as those you associate with socially. the quick comparison is this, if your friends mountain bike, then you will likely do so. If your friends sit around the tv all day with donuts, you probably will do the same thing when you are with them. I don't believe there is any challenge to the idea that your activity level is associated with your level of obesity.
What annoys me about articles like this is that there is an implication, both by the title, and in the copy itself, that there is some sort of virus or bacteria causing the "Obesity Epidemic" - thus we focus on finding a "Cure" for the "Disease". You can argue that this social programming is contagious since it does seem to have a lot of lemming type behavior causing the problem. But perpetuating the "I'm fat because I'm infected" myth only allows people to shirk responsibility onto someone or something else. - And that is annoying, I don't think people take as much responsibility for their own actions as they should. And I think we focus too much on who is a fault, rather than finding a solution to a problem.
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
Actually HFCS is worse than sugar because it doesn't get processed by you body to send the right satiety signals to your body -- you get the calories but you don't feel full as a result! BAD THING! This is the really ugly side of HFCS.
Also remember that in the late 1800s the average per capita consumption of sugar was on the order of 2 pounds per YEAR. Now we're close to that per week.