Children’s sugar consumption halved since tax announcement, study finds
www.theguardian.com
Experts say success soft drinks shows expansion of tax to cover other foods and drinks is a ‘no brainer’
  • @[email protected]English
    2•2 months ago

    I’m guessing you’ll ignore any evidence I provide based on BMI, which is the only useful form of weight information available at the historical population level (given that it’s based on weight and height, which has also changed)?

    • @[email protected]English
      -1•2 months ago

      Yes, because BMI is complete junk science. The BMI categories have been changed several times since it was created. It was also devised to work exclusively for white european men. It’s totally worthless for almost every purpose for which it is used.

      • @[email protected]English
        1•2 months ago

        Well then, congratulations, you’ve arrived at a stance you can never be argued out of regardless of it’s truth.

        • @[email protected]English
          1•2 months ago

          Sure I can - find actual average weight, in lbs. of americans in the 1970s and compare them to today. It’s actually pretty easy to change my mind.

          The problem is that you can’t find that evidence, because it doesn’t exist, because the studies we have show that average weight hasn’t changed very much.

          You’re the person here who is zealously refusing to change their position based on facts, not me - my views are shaped on years of research and review of the scientific literature. Your views are based on your lifetime of being exposed to a media narrative based on pseudoscience. designed to push an ideological goal.

          • @[email protected]English
            1•2 months ago

            Taller people are heavier. If you’re not adjusting for that your data will be funny. Guess what, if you adjust for that using the square of height you’ve invented raw BMI. The categories are probably arbitrary, but you don’t need them, and a different exponent will generally show the same trajectory if by different magnitudes.

            Although come to think of it, the population got taller, so the trend would be even stronger if we weren’t factoring that out.

            I’m willing to change my mind too, and I do indeed have a lifetime of exposure to media and experts behind this, although I don’t believe in conspiracy theories which seems to be what you’re suggesting by a certain ideology being pushed.

            Here’s the first paper that comes up, using BMI, about the exact breakdown of how it increased: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(16)30054-X/fulltext

            • @[email protected]English
              1•2 months ago

              That’s a fun paper, because they basically find no actual negative health effect, then just ignore that fact and continue as if they did.

              First, the global focus on the obesity epidemic has largely overshadowed the persistence of underweight in some countries. Our results show the need to address the remaining underweight problem

              Second, although adiposity has been consistently shown to be an independent risk factor for several NCDs in individual-level epidemiological studies, at the population level, the effect of rising BMI on the course of mortality reduction has so far been somewhat small in high-income countries

              All the study shows is that as people get richer they can overcome being underweight, which is an incredibly good thing - it reduces health risks significantly. Then it goes back to the usual moral panic shit about how that’s actually a bad thing.

              Essentially everything you ever heard about weight and fat is ideological, not scientific, in basis. Research consistently finds results that aren’t statistically significant, then just blathers about how that statistically significant result would exist if they could account for x y z. There’s no scientific basis to the claim.

              The basics of it are that extremes on either end, of being underweight or very overweight, are health risks. The health risk of being “overweight” are massively overstated, because people like to judge and bully fat people.

              • @[email protected]English
                1•2 months ago

                I mean, there’s also

                Second, although adiposity has been consistently shown to be an independent risk factor for several NCDs in individual-level epidemiological studies

                in the same exact excerpt.

                Yes, being poor and starving still sucks. Nobody cares because it happens outside of the magic Western bubble, but that’s another issue for another thread.

                I think I’ve proven my point here, so I’ll just duck out.

                • @[email protected]English
                  1•2 months ago

                  Yeah, because the individual-level studies aren’t worth shit, that’s the point. They’re like the scientific level of analogies. You get these studies that are on like, 15 people or whatever that make some statistically significant finding, then it later turns out that they either very selectively chose their test subjects, the methodology was a complete joke, they p-hacked the findings into worthlessness or all of the above. If the individual level studies scaled up, if they were actually finding something real, they would be reflected in population-level studies. The fact that they aren’t pretty clearly demonstrates that there isn’t a strong correlation.

                  Low weight is a significant health issue in wealthy countries too. It’s a massive contributor to mortality rates, as much as high adiposity is. But it’s not discussed because it’s less popular to bully people for being skinny as it is to bully people for being fat.

                  But sure, I’m the one who refuses to change his mind when challenged.