razzleccentric: (iEat)
There's not much I can say about this latest wave of "fat friends make you fat" mania, other than to point out that the researchers who concocted this "study" fairly tortured their data into submission. Methodology HURTS, baby.

For starters, they didn't actually follow people over the course of years - that takes forethought and money and we don't bother with that anymore. They took handwritten tracking sheets from Framingham Heart Study interviews conducted between 1971 and 2003 (only seven interviews per person over the course of that 32-yr stretch) on which the interviewees were asked to list *one* person they might be in contact with in a few years.

From this list the authors created "38,611 different people connections" (people connections, I like that) and plugged that mess of data into a virtual network imaging program to create pretty 3-dimentional designs based on algorithms. Note: different algorithm = different result. Then in order to wring any kind of statical connections from it all, "These authors created models and ran countless simulations, with so many assumptions and complex selections and elimination of variables, that no one could hope to unravel it."

Even then, they couldn't get good odds - so instead of reporting results were null they used the time-honored technical trick of comparing them to each other. The final analysis? Obesity was associated less with genetics, geographical proximity, being married, etc. than with... wait for it... SAME SEX MALE FRIENDS.

Since I'm sure 99% of the press this report is getting is aimed at women, why is nobody (except the the few, the proud, and the scientifically literate) pointing out that same sex female and opposite sex friendships had no bearing whatsoever on social BMI, no matter how much data cosmetology went on...?

Well, I guess I did have something to say about it after all. Anthropologists should, particularly medical anthropologists. This framing of fat as contagion, as impurity, as danger, is a cultural issue that we need to address - preferably sometime before the advent of fat internment camps.
razzleccentric: (Penn: Shut The Fuck Up)
The American Anthropological Association reports that the National Science Foundation's authorization bill for FY2008 is imminently scheduled to come up for debate on the House floor. Two proposed amendments – introduced by Reps. John Campbell (R-CA) and Scott Garrett (R-NJ) – would prohibit further funding of nine currently funded NSF grants in the Social, Behavioral and Economics Science Division, based on their quote "silly titles" unquote. Not surprisingly, five of the nine grants targeted fall under the research realms of anthropology or archaeology (the others appear to be behavioral psych and primatology).


Offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey
At the end of section 3, add the following new subsection;
(h) LIMITATION.-None of the funds authorized under this section may be used for research related to

(1) The reproductive aging and symptom experience at midlife among Bangladeshi Immigrants, Sedentees, and White London Neighbors

(2) The diet and social stratification in ancient Puerto Rico

Offered by Mr. Campbell of California
At the end of section 3, add the following new subsection;
(h) LIMITATION.-None of the funds authorized under this section may be used for research related to

(1) archives of Andean Knotted-String Records

(2) the accuracy in the cross-cultural understanding of others’ emotions;

(3) bison hunting on the late prehistoric Great Plains;

(4) team versus individual play;

(5) sexual politics of waste in Dakar, Senegal;

(6) social relationships and reproductive strategies of Phayre’s Leaf Monkeys; and

(7) cognitive model of superstitious belief. [!!!!!!!!!]



Whatever anyone may or may not think of knotted-string records, since when is it the job of a couple asshat politicians to decide what is worthy of scientific research and what is not? I think the National SCIENCE Foundation should keep making that call. SCIENCE. That's their JOB.

What I'd really like to do is take a hardcopy of these republicans' cognitive model of superstitious belief and stick it up their asses. Sideways.

razzleccentric: (Food: HFCS Kills!)
Nutrition: So Now You’re What Your Children Eat?

New York Times
Published: January 9, 2007

Adults who live with children eat more fat, and more saturated fat, than those who do not, according to a new study.

The report, published online last week in The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine, was based on data from the Third National Health and Nutrition Survey, a six-year nationwide study of more than 33,000 people carried out by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

According to background information in the article, the correlation between adults’ and children’s diets has usually been attributed to parental influence. But in the case of fat intake, it may be that children and teenagers, who consume more fat than other age groups, influence the diets of their parents.

Read more... )

I'd really like to see them do this again, but with sugar (and HFCS, of course) intake.


razzleccentric: (Default)

December 2011

181920212223 24


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 26th, 2017 07:15 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios