I'm honored (or "honoured," as they say in Britain) to announce that the University of Bristol has recently completed the world's goofiest study, as published in the International Journal of Obesity. From Reuters News:
Really? So what you're telling me is that you took an overweight guy - who probably already cottoned on to the fact that he was in this study due to his weight - and you told him, "Go ahead, it's all-you-can-eat night at Shakey's!" Did you honestly think he was going to go for it? Contrary to what Homer Simpson would have you believe, overweight people aren't mindless eating machines. If Ferriday had popped over to the U of B Psychology Department, maybe someone there would have explained to her that most problem eaters know they have an eating problem. If they're made to eat in front of a panel of scientists or a camera, they're probably going to limit themselves, even if it's their subconscious cutting them off.
I googled "Danielle Ferriday" because I wanted to see the personification of flawed logic, but all I found were photos of Lost character Daniel Faraday. I think it's safe to assume they're brother and sister - using, of course, Ferridayian Logic. He's a real beanpole so, I think what's happening here is that Danielle is also super thin and therefore completely out of touch with the chubby psyche.
At least that's the theory I plan to submit to the International Journal of Obesity, Defective Studies edition.
Here she is:
ReplyDeletehttp://psychology.psy.bris.ac.uk/people/daniferriday.htm
/michm
You always do this. Do people ever call you Neo?
ReplyDeleteAnd now I feel bad for making fun of her. Thanks a lot.
ReplyDeleteNot Neo, but I have had bosses say they'd like to clone me -- ha ha.
ReplyDeleteGlad to be of service. :)
/michm
Daniel Faraday is actually the character's name.
ReplyDeleteOkay, so now you know I didn't watch Lost. There's an interesting story behind that, but that's a story for another blog.
ReplyDeleteNo offense, but YOU may have some flawed logic in your critique . . . depending on the point of the study. Wasn't her hypothesis simply about whether overweight people physically respond to food cues differently than skinny people? So, by that measure, her study was actually pretty relevant and helpful to show that overweight people (at least in this study) do have different physiological (and psychological) responses to food. Yeah, the last fact thrown in might have been irrelevant, but I don't think it was her main point - or even a minor point - in the study. Sure, I'd have to read the whole thing to know that for sure, but that would take effort :)
ReplyDeleteAlthough I agree with you that most people with food issues could've told her they respond differently to food without the damn study . . . but a lot of people don't get that and just think fat people are lazy and/or don't have willpower.
P.S. Not sure if you will get notified about who this is . . . one of your very random FB friends who happened to be intrigued by post title. Can you guess?
ReplyDeleteOkay, two things here. First, yes, that part of the study is interesting, but I don't consider the part I mocked to be a minor point. Here's the conclusion to the abstract:
ReplyDelete"After cue exposure, overweight individuals experience a greater motivation to consume food but do not desire or consume greater amounts of food. These findings are consistent with evidence that snacking and meal variability predict weight gain and they expose ‘cue reactiveness’ as a potential predisposing factor for overweight."
See? It's not minor at all and it ruins an otherwise great study. Their mouths are watering, but they "do not desire" the pizza? Come on! Why did she need to tack that on when it's so obviously flawed. If she would have left it at the physiological response part, she would have been fine. You can build a great building, but if the foundation is even slightly flawed, it can all come crashing down.
Second, who are you? I like that you took the time to read my blog and to give such a comment, but I'm stickin' my neck out here being snide and identified. If I'm going to spar with someone, I think it's only fair that I have some indication of who they are.
Now that I've seen the part you just quoted I totally agree with you . . . but your first snippet didn't explain all the facts. So thanks for clearing it up. And yes, it's ridiculous to say that because they didn't eat more in the study, they don't eat more in the privacy of their own homes. In fact, one major hallmark of compulsive eating is not eating in front of others and then making up for it while alone. So, I stand corrected, but I think I made your critique better :)
ReplyDeleteAs for who I am, think random Portland girl . . . maybe that still casts a wide net, though . . .