http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=633097
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=642367
nadinbrzezinski (104,592 posts) 179. Social science is not well, science
They are quite different in both method and research.
Logic fail...
Have a good life.
Bye.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=643135Do you suppose DUmmie Eridani actually received the 'iggy' award?
eridani (34,524 posts) 191. I'm well aware of real science, given that I have a doctorate in biochemistry
That seems to be the problem here. I've spent my entire adult career doing research, writing articles, working on various commercial problems and having my work constantly shredded (and improved) by co-workers and reviewers. I've done a good bit of shredding myself. I'm starting to realize that few people on your generic discussion boards will react to citations of scientific work that way, preferring instead to read the conclusion and assume that everyone in the thread absolutely must agree with it because it comes from an Official Source.
Here's a clue--you post a link and I will actually read the article and evaluate the methodology and come to an opinion as to whether the data supports the conclusions, and whether the conclusions of the article have any logical relationship to the point the person citing it was trying to make.
Instead of analysis of what articles say, all I've gotten from you is that the normal scientific evaluation process is bad, and that everyone should just look at conclusions in scientific articles and accept them. That's one of the reasons why election integrity is such an uphill struggle--too many people think that if the machine said so, it has to be right.
Two more shots at rationality here
1. In what way is a study on dietary regimen adherence (NOT weight loss) with 86% male subjects relevant to the real world, where the majority of dieters are female and have far more extensive histories of dieting than men typically do?
2. Why is a study in which weight and other physiological parameters measured once at the beginning of the study and once at the end just as good as a study where regular measurements of all parameters are taken at frequent intervals throughout the study?
You don't want to even try, then I'll give up too.
It's one excuse after another with nads and her weight. I am a dumpy slob but it isn't my fault. :mental:
Also once you reach a certain level, the goal s not to be thin and svelte, but to lose and maintain 30% of body mass index. Which is why me and my doctor are happy as can be.
Also once you reach a certain level, the goal s not to be thin and svelte, but to lose and maintain 30% of body mass index. Which is why me and my doctor are happy as can be.
BMI ranges
Your BMI is just a number; if you have nothing to compare it to and no idea what "normal" should be, it's meaningless. Therefore, in 1998, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute published a BMI guide in its "Clinical Guidelines on the Identification, Evaluation, and Treatment of Overweight and Obesity in Adults." It identified five BMI ranges, including underweight (BMI less than 18.5), normal weight (BMI 20-25), overweight (BMI 25-30), obese (BMI 30-35) and morbidly obese (BMI 35+). These ranges are still the standard today.
It's one excuse after another with nads and her weight. I am a dumpy slob but it isn't my fault. :mental:
am I reading the BMI differently than she is? :???:
am I reading the BMI differently than she is? :???:Well, her BMI would appear to be in the neighborhood of 50, so if she lost 30% she'd get down to the 35 threshold of "morbidly obese", instead of her current "walking timebomb" level.
You know, one would "see" nadin in an entirely different light if she had, for example, the personality and spirit of any of the women of conservativecave; her physical blobs and blemishes would be minimized, or even invisible, if she were sweet of temperament and mellow of nature.I would see her in a different light if she wasn't blocking all of it.
The eye "takes in" more than what it physically sees.
In this case, it's an exact match, nadin's physical appearance and nadin's attitude about things; pretty ugly.
I would see her in a different light if she wasn't blocking all of it.:lol: :lol:
The crazy bald dwarf was really shaken up by her photo spread!
The crazy bald dwarf was really shaken up by her photo spread!
She's furiously attacking everyone in sight and arguing how hers is the ideal physique we should strive to attain.
She's getting nuttier and fatter by the day.
Yup, nutcase nadin has reached that ideal basketball shape.
And all poor old Chief Abbott ever hears is , "Feed me, Seymour, feed me!"
You do have to admit that she is less prone to injury as a result of a fall.And she's so thoroughly inflated, she has no problem with wrinkles.
eridani (34,524 posts) 191. I'm well aware of real science, given that I have a doctorate in biochemistry
That seems to be the problem here. I've spent my entire adult career doing research, writing articles, working on various commercial problems and having my work constantly shredded (and improved) by co-workers and reviewers. I've done a good bit of shredding myself. I'm starting to realize that few people on your generic discussion boards will react to citations of scientific work that way, preferring instead to read the conclusion and assume that everyone in the thread absolutely must agree with it because it comes from an Official Source.
Here's a clue--you post a link and I will actually read the article and evaluate the methodology and come to an opinion as to whether the data supports the conclusions, and whether the conclusions of the article have any logical relationship to the point the person citing it was trying to make.
Instead of analysis of what articles say, all I've gotten from you is that the normal scientific evaluation process is bad, and that everyone should just look at conclusions in scientific articles and accept them. That's one of the reasons why election integrity is such an uphill struggle--too many people think that if the machine said so, it has to be right.
Two more shots at rationality here
1. In what way is a study on dietary regimen adherence (NOT weight loss) with 86% male subjects relevant to the real world, where the majority of dieters are female and have far more extensive histories of dieting than men typically do?
2. Why is a study in which weight and other physiological parameters measured once at the beginning of the study and once at the end just as good as a study where regular measurements of all parameters are taken at frequent intervals throughout the study?
You don't want to even try, then I'll give up too.
You do have to admit that she is less prone to injury as a result of a fall.
Weebles wobble but they don't fall down . . . :-)Good one !
Taking advice on dieting from Nads is like getting shooting lessons from Barney Fife.He only has one bullet, so he has to make it count.
He only has one bullet, so he has to make it count.
Taking advice on dieting from Nads is like getting shooting lessons from Barney Fife.Sounds like a trending item on Twitter.
Weebles wobble but they don't fall down . . . :-)
(http://toymania.homestead.com/files/weeble16.jpg)
Thu May 3, 2012, 11:18 AM
nadinbrzezinski (104,602 posts)
165. Yup, I wish this was an OP quite frankly
same thing.
I own a scale, I rarely get on it anymore.
Best post in the thread, from the DUmp's catastrophically obese dietician:
Don't most bathroom scales measure only up to 300 pounds?She has two.
Thu May 3, 2012, 11:18 AM
nadinbrzezinski (104,602 posts)
165. Yup, I wish this was an OP quite frankly
same thing.
I own a scale, I rarely get on it anymore.