Clear logical arguments, supported by facts and correct – to my mind at least – conclusions is the only reason I come back to read your articles. This is such a gem of an article, and seeing all the backhoes and power tools that have minimised the use of sheer muscle power on building sites, obviously correct.
Tim Worstall
Most kind: but all the heavy lifting there was done by Chris Snowden.
NiV
Body weight is mostly water, not fat.
Therefore it’s clear that the reason for weight increases is that we don’t sweat as much. By reducing the manual labour we do, we are now excreting slightly less water than we consume and thereby steadily getting heavier.
It’s just as logical as what’s being said here.
Churm Rincewind
Anyone able to provide any evidence for TW’s assertions? Or is it all just made up?
Snowdon is yet another Spiked buffoon. He was completely demolished on Channel 4 News by Professor Mike Lean, the Chair of Human Nutrition at the University of Glasgow. It was embarrassing to watch. Food consumption has NOT decreased. Yes, people are less active but they are also eating more. The evidence for that is indisputable.
NiV
“Yes, people are less active but they are also eating more. The evidence for that is indisputable.”
The evidence is disputed by, among others, the British Medical Journal and DEFRA.
The usual sound bite style interview? Claiming “completely demolished” is somewhat fanciful? Quite a few of the issues Lean talked about are specifically referred to in the Snowdon report?
And does any of it actually matter?
Ie, calories in minus calories out and all that? That’s it – does it actually matter whether it’s because you’re idle or simply can’t keep your gob shut (or both)?
You mean an interview where a gobshite Spiked hack claims not to know whether the organisation he wrote for gets any funding from the food industry? And says it doesn’t matter in any case.
The interview where Snowden’s request for evidence was immediately responded to by Professor Lean providing, erm, evidence?
Let me see, who’s views should I give more weight to? A gobby, freelance hack with a history degree or a respected doctor and academic who has devoted his professional life to the study of nutrition (oh, and also has a history degree, to boot)? Tough one that.
NiV
“Let me see, who’s views should I give more weight to? A gobby, freelance hack with a history degree or a respected doctor and academic who has devoted his professional life to the study of nutrition (oh, and also has a history degree, to boot)? Tough one that.”
Whose views should we give more weight to? Yours? Or, shall we say, the views of John Locke as he writes in his ‘Essay Concerning Human Understanding’…?
The first is, to allege the opinions of men, whose parts, learning, eminency, power, or some other cause has gained a name, and settled their reputation in the common esteem with some kind of authority. When men are established in any kind of dignity, it is thought a breach of modesty for others to derogate any way from it, and question the authority of men who are in possession of it. This is apt to be censured, as carrying with it too much pride, when a man does not readily yield to the determination of approved authors, which is wont to be received with respect and submission by others: and it is looked upon as insolence, for a man to set up and adhere to his own opinion against the current stream of antiquity; or to put it in the balance against that of some learned doctor, or otherwise approved writer. Whoever backs his tenets with such authorities, thinks he ought thereby to carry the cause, and is ready to style it impudence in any one who shall stand out against them. This I think may be called argumentum ad verecundiam.
Or we could go with Feynman’s “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts”, if you prefer. Or there are many more.
Never mind the professor’s qualifications and career, where did he get his evidence from? And how does one resolve the conflict with the sources I linked to?
PF
@ Mike
The interview where Snowden’s request for evidence was immediately responded to by Professor Lean providing, erm, evidence?
Notwithstanding that Snowdon was looking at the UK, was this the American evidence which Snowden made clear he had already considered?
a gobshite Spiked hack
It gets clearer…
whose views should I give more weight to?
NiV puts it more eloquently.
Churm Rincewind
@TW: The problem is that Snowdon’s report is an outlier. Historic data on consumption of sugars in the UK are generally suspect, but there’s a general consensus that sugar consumption in the UK has remained broadly static over many years – see, for example,http://www.sig-nurture.com/children-and-youth/view-category.html.
Certainly this provides evidence that we should look elsewhere for the causes of any rise in obesity, but Snowden’s report…well let’s be kind and say that it rather overstates the case.
Tim,
Clear logical arguments, supported by facts and correct – to my mind at least – conclusions is the only reason I come back to read your articles. This is such a gem of an article, and seeing all the backhoes and power tools that have minimised the use of sheer muscle power on building sites, obviously correct.
Most kind: but all the heavy lifting there was done by Chris Snowden.
Body weight is mostly water, not fat.
Therefore it’s clear that the reason for weight increases is that we don’t sweat as much. By reducing the manual labour we do, we are now excreting slightly less water than we consume and thereby steadily getting heavier.
It’s just as logical as what’s being said here.
Anyone able to provide any evidence for TW’s assertions? Or is it all just made up?
http://www.iea.org.uk/publications/research/the-fat-lie
Snowdon is yet another Spiked buffoon. He was completely demolished on Channel 4 News by Professor Mike Lean, the Chair of Human Nutrition at the University of Glasgow. It was embarrassing to watch. Food consumption has NOT decreased. Yes, people are less active but they are also eating more. The evidence for that is indisputable.
“Yes, people are less active but they are also eating more. The evidence for that is indisputable.”
The evidence is disputed by, among others, the British Medical Journal and DEFRA.
http://www.bmj.com/content/311/7002/437
http://www.ifs.org.uk/economic_review/fp253.pdf
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmhealth/23/23.pdf (see p24)
I’ve seen people saying both. I don’t know who’s right.
@ Mike Power
Great, do you have the links?
http://blogs.channel4.com/tom-clarke-on-science/obesity-crisis-sorting-fat-fiction/1221
The usual sound bite style interview? Claiming “completely demolished” is somewhat fanciful? Quite a few of the issues Lean talked about are specifically referred to in the Snowdon report?
And does any of it actually matter?
Ie, calories in minus calories out and all that? That’s it – does it actually matter whether it’s because you’re idle or simply can’t keep your gob shut (or both)?
@PF If it doesn’t matter I suggest you take it up with Snowdon. He wrote the bloody report, not me!
@PF “The usual sound bite style interview?”
You mean an interview where a gobshite Spiked hack claims not to know whether the organisation he wrote for gets any funding from the food industry? And says it doesn’t matter in any case.
The interview where Snowden’s request for evidence was immediately responded to by Professor Lean providing, erm, evidence?
Let me see, who’s views should I give more weight to? A gobby, freelance hack with a history degree or a respected doctor and academic who has devoted his professional life to the study of nutrition (oh, and also has a history degree, to boot)? Tough one that.
“Let me see, who’s views should I give more weight to? A gobby, freelance hack with a history degree or a respected doctor and academic who has devoted his professional life to the study of nutrition (oh, and also has a history degree, to boot)? Tough one that.”
Whose views should we give more weight to? Yours? Or, shall we say, the views of John Locke as he writes in his ‘Essay Concerning Human Understanding’…?
Or we could go with Feynman’s “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts”, if you prefer. Or there are many more.
Never mind the professor’s qualifications and career, where did he get his evidence from? And how does one resolve the conflict with the sources I linked to?
@ Mike
Notwithstanding that Snowdon was looking at the UK, was this the American evidence which Snowden made clear he had already considered?
It gets clearer…
NiV puts it more eloquently.
@TW: The problem is that Snowdon’s report is an outlier. Historic data on consumption of sugars in the UK are generally suspect, but there’s a general consensus that sugar consumption in the UK has remained broadly static over many years – see, for example,http://www.sig-nurture.com/children-and-youth/view-category.html.
Certainly this provides evidence that we should look elsewhere for the causes of any rise in obesity, but Snowden’s report…well let’s be kind and say that it rather overstates the case.