Episode 134 Transcript

You're listening to The Fierce Fatty podcast episode 134. How to decode alarmist fat phobic news stories? Hello, my sweaty, poor old friends.

Unknown Speaker 0:38

How are you today? You know, I was like, oh, I need to put a chewing gum in because you know, I like a nice smelling breath, but you can't smell my breath through the podcast airs. So yeah, I don't need to worry about it, I was just thinking

Unknown Speaker 0:47

about that I was not so funny. I have a sip of my cup of tea. So hey, I wanted to talk about giving you giving us like talk about talk about how we can arm ourselves with some knowledge. So that throughout the rest of our lives, when a you see a splashy new headline about how fat people are about to spontaneously combust, about how this is the new thing, this new drug has come out this new thing has come up. And everyone's like, well, look at this, this this study shows is article shows this news thing shows that fat people are whatever. We can take a breath and begin to dissect it a little bit to see, is this is this good science? Or is this? Maybe not so good? And what am I looking for? Exactly? And how can I kind of quickly scan something for some telltale signs of shitness? Because I mean, you know, these, these news articles are often linked to research, to papers, etc. And we take it on face value, that the stuff being reported is factual. And that the study is good and factual and valid and all that type of stuff. So we're giving people credit, where credit is not merit, maybe necessarily do because we're all humans, right? And we want to get our job done, we want to get paid. And we want to go out and watch some Netflix and, you know, go and relax a little bit. And so journalists are under a lot of pressure to bust out articles, bust out stories, and they are not maybe knowledgeable, or even interested in looking at the actual science and dissecting it. And saying, This is not great when they could just say, Okay, I'm going to take the headlines from this thing, make it into an article, make it into a post, make it into a social media thing, whatever. And it's a sexy headline, it's about fatness, we get lots of clicks on that, and so why not? Right? And of course, there's some some journalists are more aligned with with ethics and some maybe not so much. And I think really, what it is, is probably a lot of pressure and capitalism and kind of work, work work and pump out articles and get this done. And what is going to be the most click Beatty stuff. And the click Beatty stuff is the things that's that's alarming, right? All the things it's like, oh, we have a solution to this alarming problem. And so a lot of it is I mean, I just wrote the word the O word into Google and I went to news to see what we've got today. On the 21st of July 2022 on news on the O word. And it's all I can feel my I can feel my chest tightening and I can feel that kind of rush that you know my brain is financing from seeing these images and seeing these titles and what's really one of the most positive oh my goodness, oh my god. Yeah. So I mean, if I didn't, if I hadn't thought about this stuff, then I might look at these headlines and think, oh my god, oh my god. Maybe I was wrong about this whole fat positive thing. Maybe our new research has come out and said that Oh, for activists are pieces of shit,

Unknown Speaker 5:28

God. Yeah. So if we have this information on how to dissect these things, maybe we can be like, Aha. All right, so we've got an article here that says something terrible about fat people or something mirrors a miracle drug about drug or whatever device to make Fat people not fat. Okay, let's have a think. That's, let's look into it and see if it's real. Oh, let's, let's see, fat activists are talking about it. And they've done that work. But it doesn't take too much. Right? Honestly, they tell on themselves. All right. So before we get into that, let's, let's talk about some definitions. Okay, so I'm gonna put links for everything in the show notes. facebook.com, forward slash 134 for this episode. So I'll also stick a video and there's like a three minute video in here which is which is good, which I liked. I'm going to stick in that. So let's hope I don't get like copyright claimed or whatever. But let's talk about like, because there's different words that go around, right, like research paper and journal article and study research article, meta Alam and meta analysis systematic reviews, like what the heck is that? So? Let's start off research paper. Okay, so this is this is quote. So a lot of this is like, resources from universities. And unlike university libraries, who were who were talking about this and teaching about this, so quote, history professor, Dr. Jane Simonson once said, with regards to research papers, that the work and design are your own, but you can't do it without relying on the efforts and wisdom of others. A research paper is a form of writing, usually used in the world of academia by students or colleges or universities designed to investigate and research a topic in which they find their conclusion the student is encouraged and often required to support their findings with facts from reputable resources. A typical research paper can range from 15, five to 15 pages. And there can be an argumentative research paper or an analytical research paper so argumentative. The student will take a controversial subject, create an info inform the audience of the topic and explain their stance known as a thesis, an analytical research paper, the student is required to critique a subject, which is usually in the form of a question, mostly known as an essay or exploration. So basically, a research paper is it might be assigned by a professor like go and study this and make a research paper on x, y, z, and then going out and look at the resources. If you would like me at university, Jesus like fucking the resources I remember, I don't know, I'm 37 Right? When I was at university, the Internet was kind of new still well, it wasn't my it wasn't my in my life. And so you would like research from books and quoting books and this thing called Wikipedia, that was like, the best and totally like, with quote from that a lot. I did an art degree, by the way, so I wasn't doing a lot of writing. So that was okay. That was okay. But anyway, okay, so, a journal article, quote, according to Simon Fraser University, a journal journal article is an article that is written about a very specific topic. Furthermore, you'll typically see a journal article authored by an expert in some field written by another expert in the same respective field. This kind of writing is also called peer reviews. A journal article is a short paper on a particular topic that gets mainly published in issues or periodicals. It will often include up to date research on that subject, including recent developments, reviews on a method or product, short papers, previewing ideas with a journal article, you may find information, for example, on the latest medicine or techniques in a certain field. Okay, so that is a lot of what a journal article is. A lot of what we're hopefully going to be looking at when it comes to looking at studies right, is

Unknown Speaker 9:58

let me break it down. Okay, so If there's someone who's an expert in a subject so this this one of the videos I watched about this, it was a paleontologist. So think about Ross from Friends. So Ross from Friends is out, digging up dinosaurs, and he digs up a dinosaur. And it turns out that to harassers, Rex had a new pink eyeballs. Okay, new study, Tyrannosaurus Rex has pink eyeballs, we never knew, I've got the evidence for it. I've got this finding, we've we found lots of T rexes with, you know, these new pinkeye balls. And so I'm going to write a paper on it. I'm then Well, now that now that I'm Ross from Friends, are awesome friends, is now going to submit what he has written about his findings to a journal so. So you can go online, and there'll be lots of different journals. So it could be like journals related to different industries, different journals relating to different sciences. And the to get into a journal, it's very, very difficult. The process of getting into a journal as you'd submit your paper, and then the editor of the journal or the staff of the editor would read your your work, and they would assess it on many different things like is it interesting? Is it new? Is it relevant? Is the research good? And if they think yeah, to all that, they then may send it to experts in that field, to have a look at. And the experts in the field will read the work from Ross from Friends and say, Actually, Ross, can you tweak this? Can you change that? This is not great. This is great, and soulless, send the paper back to Ross from Friends and say make these changes. And we shall publish it. Or maybe they might just say looks fucking amazing. Ross, how did you find these pink? I bought Tyrannosaurus rexes and then it will be published in the journal, or periodical or whatever it is. And that would be online and you will to get like a magazine version type thing, as well. And so most people who submit things to journals is like 90% Plus or rejected, right. And this whole process could take quite a while it could take a few months, up to a few years. So it's a big deal. And and because it's peer review to it means that other people who are experts have said, Yeah, we think that this looks good. They're kind of like referees. But here's the issue too, is that these journals or periodicals? They too have to kind of think about things, maybe in a little bit, the same way that a journalist is like, is this interesting? Is this newsworthy, right? Or is this boring? Like, if you had a paper, which is like, Hey, be nice to fat people or something like that, they might say, ah, boring. But if it said something like, here's a new device that's straight off the market that makes us fat people thin, that might be seen as more interesting. And so there's a bias there on who gets published. Also, imagine if there is a Oh word researcher, okay. And then the article is on fat people and how they're terrible. It goes to peer review to other people who specialize in obesity research. And just by that title, we know that they're biased against fat people. So they're more likely to say, this looks good because of their own biases. Even though science may point to different things, right? So there's, there's gonna be biases everywhere. Anyway, even though it is in a, it's more it's peer reviewed, it's taking more time is not just like being a rip and make it up you know, some random old story and you know, it it's it's hard work right to get to that place where it's you know, you have a peer reviewed journal article in a periodical or whatever right. So, let me talk about the differences between the differences between what We've spoken about the differences research papers research, okay? So research papers or research articles. Let's talk about the difference between those. Okay, so now what are some of the key differences between these two methods of writing? Research Papers are written traditionally by a student at a university or college, and their work is typically assigned a journal article is an article about a subject that was recently researched or reviewed and written by an expert in that field. While both forms utilize the same techniques, a research paper gets done under the evaluation of a teacher or an instructor. Another small difference is the extent of the references used most often. In a journal article a reader can expect to find an extensive bibliography or is a research paper what Warren is extensive have a reference list. A research paper doesn't get published in any publication unless it's in a reference on how to write where one worries a journal article gets submitted to periodicals or magazines. So a research article or written a written report of a research study or a commentary on or an analysis of a topic of risk of research, or research methodology. Original research articles are the most common type of journal articles. So original research is, hey, I've done a study or hey, I've made a discovery. And that's the most common type of journal article. There detailed studies reporting new work and classifies as primary literature. You may find them refer to as original articles, research, articles, research or even just articles depending on the journal.

Unknown Speaker 16:35

Okay, so let's talk about systematic reviews and meta analysis. So a systematic review answers a defined research question by collecting and summarizing all empirical evidence. So empirical evidence means the information obtained through observation and documentation of certain behavior and patterns or through an experiment. Empirical evidence is a quintessential part of the scientific method, method of research that is applicable in many disciplines. So let me read that again, a systematic reviews answers a defined research question by collecting and summarizing all empirical evidence that fits pre specified eligibility criteria. I'm going to I'm going to make this simple in a second okay. Let me give you a Ross from Friends. thing. A meta analysis is a use of statistical methods to summarize the results of the studies. Systematic Reviews, just like other research articles can be of varying quality, they are a significant piece of work. The center it takes it estimates it takes nine to 24 months to do a systematic review. Not all systematic reviews contain meta analysis. Meta analysis is the use of statistical methods to summarize the results of independent studies. By combining information from all relevant studies, meta analysis can provide more precise estimates on the effect of health care than those derived from individual studies within a review and meta analysis goes beyond critique and in to Gration and conduct secondary statistical analysis on the outcomes of similar studies. It is a systematic systematic review that uses quantitative methods to synthesize and summarize the results. Okay, so let's give an example. All right, so a study is completed on weight bias in kids in Sweden, aged 10 To 10 to 17. Then someone else does a study on weight bias in psychologists in the UK, when some other research team does, does a study in his published a few years later about weight bias in men in Australia, etc, etc, etc. Then, okay, so we've got all of these studies, they're all kind of linked. They're all kind of about weight bias, kind of similar, but kind of can be linked together. So one day, a group of researchers who may be interested in weight bias will say, well, there's loads of studies on weight bias, less, let's do a systematic review. Then they're going to review and summarize the findings in one research paper. So like systematic review, we found that men in Australia struggle with weight bias and so do kids in Sweden and so do psychology, psychologists in the UK, etc, etc. So, the research group may or may not do a meta analysis as part of their systematic review. And if they do, they will look at data and stats and bring it all together. So the systematic review, it's like, okay, so we have all of these voices speaking in a group. So we've got a group of people, and this is like, you know, one research people says, oh, blah, blah, blah. And you know, the research paper says, oh, bla bla. And so then this systematic review is that one person who's like, Oh, I'm going to get all these people win these ideas together. And I'm going to listen to all of them. And I'm going to kind of summarize what they say. And so the, the, that paper is going to be summarizing everyone in the room who's kind of done similar studies into one big thing. Now, the meta analysis is like, Okay, everybody, let's look at your stats. And so you've listened to what they've got to say, and they're like, this is my summary. This is what I've got to say. And then the meta analysis is, okay, what stats have you got got, give me your numbers. And they'll say, we found that 17% of blah, blah, blah, and then someone else will say, we found that 12% of Lella. And then they will put that all together, and then that will be a meta analysis. So saying that?

Unknown Speaker 21:29

Okay. We found out that psychologists in the UK eat 12 Carrots per year. And we found out that kids in Australia, eat 10 characters a year. And some other study says someone else eats eight characters a year. So they will say, Oh, turns out that there's the average carrot eating a year is 10. Carrots, because it was 810 and 12. And let's say this is never gonna happen, probably, but they all had the same amount of people in the study. Exactly. So then, you know, that's like a very basic math, but it could be that the one study had a lot more people and another study had less people. And so this is helpful for when we have lots of studies with maybe not a lot of participants, because then we can group it all together with similar studies and say, we've got more data. But they have to have like similar types of data and data points so that they can be comparative. So if one study said that psychologist eat 12 Carrots a year, and another study said, psychologists eat 14 turnips a day, it wouldn't be comparative data, right? Unless it was like, let's look at how much root vegetables healthcare professionals eat, you know? So, but if it was to be like carrots versus carrots, and it wouldn't work. So, so, not all meta analysis will have a systematic review and vice versa. So you'd have a systematic review, which is the what Hey, everybody, what did you say? And we said this, and then meta analysis is, Hey, everybody, what's your stats? Give me them stats, they're so sexy. And so here is where we need to think about quantitative and qualitative, quantitative research deals with numbers and statistics. So that would be meta. Meta Analysis and qualitative research deals with words and meanings. Okay. So sure, sure, sure. Both both both are great because it's, it's, it's bringing lots of research together, right, the more information we have, the better quality the data. So there's some definitions for you. There are some definitions for you. And so when we're thinking about approaching a paper, which is about fatness or something related to due to fatness, there are some key things that we want to keep in our mind and things that we want to remember right. And even if we just see a headline, the key things are long term weight loss is not possible for the vast majority of people. The reason why I say key things we need to remember is that there are a lot of assumptions made in in studies and people that papers in articles etc. Where we have to have a base understanding of what is what we know is true at the moment, right? And so we can go in and we can go in and with the knowledge that, for example, smoking is probably not great for your health. Right? And smoking, stopping smoking is probably good for your health. Right like it's It's that's pretty well established. And there's not many people disagreeing with that, right. And so it's pretty well established too, that weight loss is not possible for the vast majority of people. And these other things, too, so we can say we've got this baseline of knowledge. And when, when someone makes sweeping statements that say the opposite, then we can say, Ah, there's a little red flag that I'm going to raise. There's a little kind of, is that true? Because what I've noticed is, a lot of these articles start with sweeping statements, that things like we're in the middle middle of a raging obesity epidemic, and, you know, fat people are just bla bla bla bla bla. And, and another thing they'll say is we're, you know, prediction show that we'll be the X amount of the population will be fat by the year 2030. And they'll have predictions which, you know, we don't know about and they're, they're saying fatness is bad, right? That fatness makes people unhealthy, and it doesn't say why. Just the existence of fat people and fatness. That's like kind of like basic things there of okay, but we we don't know that it is actual fatness on a body. But we do know, any negative health outcomes are due to weight stigma due to weight cycling due to lack of access to health care.

Unknown Speaker 26:27

So they're starting off with with faulty faulty statements, untrue statements. So I know so keep thinking things. The key things to remember is long term weight loss is not possible for the vast majority of people, you can be fat and unhealthy. Not everyone individually but fat people as a population. It's okay to be fat and unhealthy, there are interventions you can take to mitigate any increased health. Mortality risks from being fat again at a population level. However, there is no evidence to prove that actually having more adipose tissue on your body fat tissue in your body leads to poor health outcomes. What we do know is that what causes poor health outcomes in fat folks is weight cycling, that's dieting subpar, or lack of access to health care, and experiencing a weight bias. Any type of intentional weight loss including weight loss, surgery is very likely harmful and ineffective. People have better outcomes when they don't focus on weight. Health is largely out of our control. However, we can engage in things that improve our well being if we wish, but no morality point scored for those that do. Okay, so when we approach it when we're approaching a studies, are you so this is what's going to happen? We see an alarming thing. Fat people. Terrible. It's the Daily Mail in the UK has told us Fox News has told us a new study brand new study has come out that says that being fat means that babies are going to die die from fatness or as something terrible is going to happen. Oh my goodness, is this true? Hi, don't want that. That sounds terrible. Hmm, let's go in and do some investigating. So first off, if possible, let's click on the let's click on the link of the article or whatever, and see if we can find a link to the study. Surprise, fucking surprise, often, they won't have a link to the study because who the fuck cares. You don't need to link to the study. So you might have to go and do some Googling to try and find the study yourself. You also might not be able to access it because it could be behind a paywall. But you may be able to get to the kind of overview which could be helpful. You may need to go and as someone who might have might have access or someone working at a university, go into your local library or or go log into your local library online and see if you can get access to that. But you might get enough information just from the article or the news piece, whatever it is. So first off, the first thing to think is what's this study done on humans. Often studies are done on animals, rats, mice, and the results are reported as if the same outcomes would be true in humans. I don't know about you, but I'm not an animal. I'm a human being and my body works differently from a cute little mousy. So it's like you know, scientists were like I have an idea let's test it out on on some some mice and rats whatever. And then if it looks good, then maybe we'll can move to human trials. But reporting on something when it's it's to the stage of we did some research on rats, it's like fucker Now do you remember that song? Geez, in my pants by the lonely was the Lonely Island and it was basically like someone's so someone's so turned on by basic things in life like holding the hat holding hands or holding the door open or, or you know, getting groceries that they just in their pants. This is the jersey and the pants version. It's like something we did a study on animals and excess something which is sexy, and we're going to Jizan our pants and report on it before there's any actual good evidence, you know, it's like it's like, just it's like, you know, I might be going on a date with someone then it's like, oh my god, I just came. It's like, chill, chill, you know?

Unknown Speaker 30:53

So, I remember talking to someone and was like, and the person was like, well, we've got science to show that just having fat tissue means that free radicals are spiraling through our bodies. And I was like, Oh, sounds interesting. Do a little research. Oh, it's done on fucking rats. Oh, really? Okay. Yeah. Come back to me once they've done the you know, human things. And it's you. And they've done this and that and let Allah but no. Okay, so that's the first one. Easy. Number two. If it was done on humans, how many do you remember I'm going to talk about this in a little bit. But remember that was it what two years ago one year ago, the jaw wiring device that came out of New Zealand, super fat phobic in New Zealand and also UK super fat phobic, and it was wiring people's jaw shut. And they came up with they said that they had astounding results. And it turns out it was seven people that they'd done the study on. Yeah, like really? No, seven, seven people. There's not enough information. Now that study could be included in a meta analysis, if many other people had done similar types of studies, but hopefully it will stop right fucking there because it is a piece of shit garbage. hateful, awful. Terrible. Okay, so how many people 1000 people that's when we start to get good data? Thing is 1000 people is it? There's a lot of people and that cost time and that cost money? Why do we need to spend time on money if we want to sell something, which is what these people did with the Joule wiring thing they wanted to sell something? Okay, so how was the data collected? So I want to quote in social sciences structured interviews and self completion questionnaires are perhaps the two most common ways of collecting quantitative data. How the individuals in a sample ie those approached to be surveyed have been identified is crucial in determining the representativeness of the results. There are two main types of samples namely probability and non problem ability samples. A probability sample is a sample in which every individual in the population has the same chance of being included. It is also a prerequisite for being able to generalize the findings to the population. To illustrate the difference, let's say you serve a first year student students by asking student clubs to share the surveys survey on social media. Since this non probability snowball sample has a greater likelihood of reaching students active in such clubs, the results won't be representative or generalizable. So it's an example. Another example, I did this thing where I interviewed people in on the streets of Vancouver, specifically in Kitts Kitsilano, which is the headquarters for Lululemon, very yoga, very thin, very granola, all of that type of stuff. And then also I did it downtown. So lots of tourists. So I had then a thin friend asked people questions about what they think of fat people, and then I did it as a fat person. So it was different kind of like what would they say to the thin person and what would they say to fat people? And that wasn't so I wouldn't say Oh, that's good data because we were in kits. What's the likelihood of most of the people that we approached were thin white Yogi's, with a lot of weight bias, pretty high. But then also we went downtown where there's more tourists what are the chances of the tourists have been a little bit more reflective of the world? Maybe higher, but still it You know, you'd have to if say, if that was a formal study, you'd have to say, you know, these are the people that we spoke to. And to make it good, you'd have to do it with 1000s of people over lots of different areas and all that type of stuff. So see how collecting good data can be more difficult, right? And then sometimes you see in studies, it's like, when people are trying to do studies, and it's like, really hard to get any participants. I know, that's really difficult. So if you ever see a study saying, looking for participants, and they're looking for fat folks, and it's not some fat positive study, then go and help them out, because it's really hard to get people.

Unknown Speaker 35:40

Okay, so how was the data collected? Was it done on humans? How many humans next? How long did they follow the participants. So if you see adverts, you'll see all these kind of claims of like, a works 50% of the time, 100% of the time, or, you know, other way around was 100% of the time, but if there's one other time or some other things like, you know, amazing results, bla bla bla, then you've got like tiny Asterix on the bottom of the screen results are typical. But you don't get to see it, because the diet companies will stop following participants after a little while, because we all know that participants in diets gain weight at three years to five years. And so to say a diet works, we need data post five years. So that's a big clue. How long are people following him for how long are they following folks? If it's less than three to five years, it's gonna raise a it's gonna raise an eyebrow, because we know weight loss is going to happen weight weight gain is going to happen. Next, do the whole authors have conflicting interests? Why was the study done? Okay, so often people writing papers, when they when they talk about how to get people to lose weight are paid by weight loss or anti fat companies, and they must disclose their financial interests so we can understand how much bias they have coming into their findings. Also, what was the reason that the study was done in the first place? Was it to support a new drug or a weight loss method? Like why was the study done so quote, whether the aim of the research was to generate income lobby for policy change, evaluate the impact of the of a program or develop a new theoretical framework. This will influence the research questions data collection and analysis, and the presentation of the results in order to make best use of the findings and and place them in context for your use, it is advisable to bear the aim of the study in mind. Also, it is of equal importance to check if a third party has sponsored or funded the study, as this could further affect the objectivity of the study. If, for example, a student recruitment fair organize a sponsored study on the efficiency of different recruitment methods, you should be critical of the results, particularly if student fairs emerge as the most efficient recruitment method. Yeah, so that's a really good point of, oh, if it shows good findings, or you know, most positive findings, and it's supporting the people who are doing the funding then you can be like huh? Okay, so next to consider is, is it valid and reliable. So on a quote, in research terms, reliability refers to consistency, just as you can count on the consistency of your friend. When something is reliable in science, this indicates some level of consistency. In science validity refers to accuracy. If something is not accurate, it is not valid. Just as reliability applies at multiple levels of the scientific process. So to just validity. Measurement validity refers to how valid or accurate a measure is. As you can see from the definition, validity and reliability are both key points you need to examine in any research study. For a study to be reliable the same experiment must be conducted under the same conditions to generate the same results. For a research study to have validity Validity, you must look at several aspects. Internal validity dictate dictates how many how an experimental design is structured and encompasses all of the steps of the scientific research method. External validity is a process of examining the results and quit questioning whether there are any other possible causal relationships. Let me repeat that. External validity is the process of examining the results and questioning whether there are any possible other possible cause causal relationships It's like, stats 101. Right? Just because something happens, doesn't mean we know the reason why it happens. And that is the basis of our fat science. Right? That

Unknown Speaker 40:19

you know, sometimes we can say fatness cause fatness is correlated with XYZ. And that word correlated is so important, because we don't know why we don't know why. And where people's minds go to is all if the fat cells themselves, it's the fat person. It's the reason why someone is fat is because they don't exercise and they eat bad food, and, you know, all of this in quotation marks. And, and that's not the data is not showing that right. It's, it's like saying, you know, I opened my curtains in the morning and is bright outside. And it's bright outside because the street lamps are wrong, not that the sun is shining, you know, it's like saying this. So the only evidence I've got the only data I've got is it's bright outside, and then coming to the conclusion that it's street lamps that's making it bright. We'll know, you know. And so unless they've done the research to say why. And in fatness we don't have that research. We don't know why. So continuing, we like reliability and validity, or both how well a method message something. Reliable reliability refers to the consistency of a measure where the results can be reproduced under the same conditions. validity refers to the accuracy of a measure where the results really do represent what they are supposed to measure. And so that last line, there is also important revert, like doubt whether results do represent what they're supposed to measure. So a lot of the a lot of studies, it's it's really interesting. They'll say, I'm going to break down the jaw wiring study thing they'll say on, I mean, it's just there's so many things I can say. So many things I can say about it. Firstly, presume that fatness is a problem, right? Then they presume that fatness is an epidemic, then they do this study and say we're going to reduce fatness by putting people on a liquid diet. And they have terrible outcomes. They temporarily lose weight. They stopped the study as soon as they start putting on weight. And then and so instead of saying, Hey, we did this thing, it was fucked up doesn't work. And it's faulty. There's lots of faulty assumptions made to the reason why we're doing this study. They just said, Oh, turns out great. It's life changing. It's what I can't remember the words I'm gonna tell you in a moment. And it's like, what? That's not what your own work says. Your own work says something completely different. And and you know, like, whether the results really do represent what they're supposed to measure. Like, what what are we doing this for? You know, like, I mean, and I know this is not like, directly related, but you know, what are they doing this for? They're doing this theoretically, they didn't mention to make people healthy. But there's no results to show that people were healthier. Only that people temporarily lost weight and had a sucky time doing it. You're on our Yeah, fun. Fun, fun, fun. Okay, so finally, is it peer reviewed, peer reviewed means that other professionals academics have done a sort of quality control on the work to make sure it's up to standard. Let's talk about this in with an example. The University of Otago in Niraj, Maryland, tweeted, a tango and UK researchers have developed a world first. That's not true. Weight Loss device. That's not true. To help the fight of the global Oh, epidemic, that's not true. And that's not true. An intra Oral Device that restricts a person to a liquid diet. That's true. So okay, well, first weight loss device No, because they've had your wiring before. This is okay, technically, they use magnets instead of more wires. So technically, though, we've seen your wiring before.

Unknown Speaker 44:57

Weight Loss device, it's a temporary way Weight Loss device help fight the global obesity epidemic doesn't exist. So already we're starting with a lot of Yeah. Oh, yeah. Okay, but let's look at the study anyway. So it was published in a British dental journal I had I did I did a whole episode on this and diet drugs episode 92 called What's up with the new jaw wiring and diet drugs? Episode 92. Go listen to it if you want to be infuriated. So the lead researcher was Ortega University's Pro Vice Chancellor, Professor Paul Brunton, who claimed that it is a non invasive, wrong. reversible. is starving yourself reversible in regards to the damage it does to your your psychological health? And is that experience of having to walk around the world with your jaw clamped shut? It's reversible in regards to you can take it out of your mouth, a dentist can. Economical why what? Know? What the heck it costs 1000s of dollars? In what way? Is it economical and attractive alternative to surgical procedures? I mean, no, no, no, no. And no. I mean, it is better than surgical procedures. I don't know by how much I guess it's reversible. So I mean, it's not an attractive alternative. All of it needs to fuck off the surgeries and this this thing. So So if we think about the things that we've just spoken about, let me just review, go through the list again. Was it done on humans? If it was done on humans, how many? How was the data collected? How long did they follow participants? Do the authors have conflicting interests? Why was the study done? Is it valid and reliable? Is it peer reviewed? Okay, so seven white women. So tiny numbers, white women, so we don't have a representative of of New Zealand population. How long did they follow the women? Two weeks? Oh, my goodness, it's such a long time. You say yes. That was sarcasm. Two weeks long. Two weeks, these motherfuckers couldn't even follow them for any any longer. Two weeks, over two weeks, they must have had astounding results. Considering all of the hoo ha. With this world first weight loss device, it's going to help the global obesity epidemic. The last 5% Wait.

Unknown Speaker 48:06

I know. Wow. Wow. Wow.

Unknown Speaker 48:11

Wow. So amazing. Two women didn't finish the study. Two weeks after the device was removed. They were reweighed surprise fuckin surprise of weight was coming back. And that's where the data ended. Let's not fucking follow them for any longer because we know what is going to show all the way and more has come back. And so the lead researcher says quote, the fact is, there are no adverse consequences with this device when in his own study. In his own words, he reported the women felt discomfort, speech issues, feeling tense and embarrassed and decreased satisfaction with life. The fact is, there are no adverse consequences with this device. Oh, and that's what he's reported. Not what after, you know, sometimes after, it takes time after these traumas that have happened for us to really unpack it, you know, like, I wonder how many of those seven women you know, five years down the line being like, I can't believe I did that. I can't believe that. I was told that that was a good idea. I can't believe that they will do something so barbaric to me, you know, and I think that the effects from that, that two weeks just two weeks is going to be life changing for those women and also them being like, Oh, you're you're at the cutting edge of science. You've got this device and what the fuck is wrong with me that I can't continue to lose weight unless my jaw is wired shut. We all know listeners of the show that it's because they have They're on a liquid diet and their brains are like please for the love of God feed me food and their brains are doing everything in their power to make sure that they are fed and not returned to that state where they have a jaw wired shut with a liquid diet. And also just just looking at the introduction to this study, quote, the main barrier for people barrier for people for successful weight loss is compliance. That is not true. They just make it up wise. Continuing and this helps them establish new habits. What new habits not eating? Allowing them to comply with a low calorie diet for a period of time. It really kickstart the process no one has ever said that it's it's hard to kickstart a diet no one is saying it's hard to start a diet what I mean yes it is hard to start a diet but that's the time that you know everyone's excited if you were told hey I've got this this magic thing if you do this thing you I guarantee you're going to be thin It's cutting edge is great. You're going to be excited and be like fuck yeah, let's do this right. Is kickstart the process No, it doesn't it kickstart fucking disordered relationship with your body and with food. So even in the text, right, we can go in and be like, the introduction, the summary and the summary is all like, fatness is terrible, everyone's fat and everyone's going to die. And Lola, let's move to ethics declaration. So right at the bottom, the author's note that and as anticipated by the ethics application, patent protection in the device was sought. With that to being done through a new non active holding company, in which the research collaborators had proportionate ownership. Interests. Surprise, surprise, so they're flogging this piece of shit thing. And they did the research. Oh, and shed research so this study it blew up right? Some people luckily with with the things of Holy shit, what the fuck this is terrible and other people being like, finally a cure to fatness, those greedy fatties because we know that it is a What did he say a compliance issue. That fat people just can't stop. Allah? Well, that's why they're jasha lols. And a lot of people read that and I can imagine a lot of people just take it for fact, a scientific study science study without being like, Oh, it was fucking seven women who two dropped out. And the study was for two weeks. Anyway. Is this is this is this?

Unknown Speaker 53:03

Oh, actually, they Yeah. They were trying to sell them this this device. Oh, okay. Yeah. Yep. No, no bias. They're great science. So we can go in and look at these things and be like, Oh Ha, right. Yep. Yep. So some of the things that I just had a quick look at the news. News on the on the O word. First thing that came up, common migraine drugs may help treat fatness or word of mouth study finds what at least they put in the title a mouse Study Finds because normally it would be common migraine drugs. treat obesity, right? And then you would have to click into it, do a little research and then find out that it's a fucking mouse study. At least that one says it so we can be like, Okay, well. Yeah. The next thing I saw was FDA approves this drug for the treatment of fatness in adolescents, ages 12 to 17. So I clicked on it. It was from the company who manufactures the drugs who who paid for the research, surprise, surprise, they say it's amazing. It's a wonderful all those things. Look at the study. And they they didn't study children, so I don't know how it is now being approved for children. And it was over 56 weeks remember? Not over three years, and they lost a tiny amount of weight. Hmm. Yes. You know, and that's just that was just me looking at it for about five minutes. You know, not nothing, nothing. Nothing too much. So we keep these in mind, we keep these in mind. And some tips from some tips from professors on how to read a scholarly article article, an academic article, a peer reviewed article is they say, look at the abstract first. So the abstract is just right at the top, then look at the tables and the data because that's normally where the juicy stuff is. And that's where they show their ass, right? Like the drawer wiring thing. Like you saw this data, this table is so tiny, because they had such little data. And then you see the chart going down, down, down for weight loss, and then going up going up. So it's just that's really easy to relate. Look at the intro. Look at the results. Look at the conclusions. And look at the references. So are they new? Are they interesting? Are they relevant? And Google everything you don't understand? Because you're not the intended audience? And I fucking hate this. I hate this. I hate this. It's so elitist. And why are we always having to? You know, have information that is so not accessible to people. Why? Why can't we have this is, this is really these videos video series, which is an expert explains things to like a five year old, explains their subject to a five year old, a 10 year old, a 15 year old, someone who's in university studying their thing, someone who's got a master's in their thing. And then someone who's up here, right? They so they explained their, their their subject matter in lots of different ways. And it's like, why doesn't? Why don't we have information like that. So you can select your select what level you want to read it, and I'd be like, give me the five year old thing. Explain it and rainbows and glitter plays. So that you we can so it's access accessible, right? And it's not that someone is less intelligent, if they want the accessible version. It's just that we all learn in different ways. And, and that stuff for me is just so it's thick. And it's it my brain is like for fuck sake, why do you have to put that word in there that I have to then go and spend time and Google it and understand the meaning and then go back to when when we could make these things more equitable? And again, oh, when it's written for their peers, but can they not, you know, have a like summary.

Unknown Speaker 57:54

For for people to be able to access it easily and be like, This is what this paper says in a sentence. So you can go out call, I'm going to read it more or I'm not. And having all that behind a paywall. I bet you I don't know this, but I bet you the people who are doing all the hard work and not getting paid. And the you know, the people producing the journal are probably the ones who's getting paid and all that type of stuff. Bet Yeah, bet yeah. Yeah. So if you do see something that comes up, and you're like, Oh, my God, it's true. Um, then take a breath. And remember, or like, is it Who is this done on how long? And you know, not all studies has to be three to five years, right? Because that's just what we know about losing weight. But, you know, if you want to know how many carrots a psychologist is eating, that could be a short term thing. Right. But in regards to weight and that type of stuff. Do they have interests, financial interests, which is a lot of the time especially drug new drugs have come out. It's the drug company who's paying for the studies. So yeah, and sometimes you just need to read what the thing says the the abstract the beginning of it. And it will say, we did a study on to two pigeons. And it turns out that pigeons don't like wearing hats. And then the news article where we look will be like, flock of pigeons love wearing Berets. And you're like, what? Hang on a minute. The study says we did a study on two pigeons and they didn't like it. You know, it can be as simple as that where you're like, Oh, okay. Well, that's silly. Yeah, because they don't do a good job of hiding, hiding the stuff. This stuff. All right. Well, thanks. hanging out with me today. I hope you have a wonderful rest of your day. And I'll see you in a while. Oh,

Unknown Speaker 1:00:09

alligator, stay face fatty