Posted: July 21, 2017 at 04:04PM
30 minutes ago in Field Notes
Field of Science
-
-
Higher Education, the GOP doesn't have much use for it3 days ago in The Phytophactor
-
Cognitive biases in drug discovery, part 2: Anchoring, availability and representativeness
1 week ago in The Curious Wavefunction -
-
CRISPR gene editing controversy - does it cause unexpected mutations?
1 week ago in Genomics, Medicine, and Pseudoscience
2 comments:
Markup Key:
- <b>bold</b> = bold
- <i>italic</i> = italic
- <a href="http://www.fieldofscience.com/">FoS</a> = FoS
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Oh please. Not another one of these "Being Fat Causes X, Y and/or Z" studies...
ReplyDeleteFirst, the BMI is a joke of a metric. Why use a crap metric to predict one's odds of getting cancer? Second, no weight gain after 21? Well then I guess every single male will be screwed once they hit 30, or once their wife gets pregnant (sympathy gain).
This is just another on of those studies that was undertaken to give the effect of helping to public with research funding.
The funny this is, there is nothing but "correlations" here. There are no experimentally determines biological mechanisms. Why? Becasue cancer is not 1 disease and it, as a whole, is really complicated. Why does being fat cause cancer? Could it be that environmental toxins are fat soluble? Thus, the toluene we breath and the gas station stays with us much longer that we would like?
How hard is it to just come out and say:"Don't be fat, it is bad for you" instead of wasting money trying to sell the message wrapped in a scary health-scare wrapper.
I completely agree. Everytime there is a hint of any such connection which as you said is always some correlation, the media has to blurt it out in a headline. Also, is it news anymore that generally dieting and exercising will keep you healthy?
ReplyDelete