Watching Bill Nye episode 8 fat diets

Is there a higher quality version of this? Would be dope for a phone background

I fucking hate this guy

God those are dope

Request it here

...

Who's "they"?

youtube.com/watch?v=Wllc5gSc-N8

Whats her routine fit?

Fucking hell, I've been getting triggered all day on /lgbt/ over his sex junk bullshit and how he's fucking with fitness too? What are you doing to me, Bill Nye?

GILFOYLE?! NOT YOU TOO!

Got any proof it's not?

Your day will come as swiftly as his.

Start fucking children.

>Who's "they"?
Bill Nye the Sellout Goy

> He thinks science is the explanation of absolutes

It's not religion user

Science isn't a belief system.

This isn't real, is it?

>This information doesn't fit my worldview
>therefore it is wrong

>This information doesn't directly affect me in anyway
>I will be upset about it regardless

>this information being pushed as "science" is objectively false, it's a well meaning lie repeated by people who think the path to mental health is creating a false reality.

>the new false information will be used to create public policy which will directly effect me and make it criminal to point out the above fact.

If you are going to attend or have kids that are going to attend a university at any time in the near future this 100% will affect you.

You also don't get to change scientific definitions based on dubious non peer-reviewed claims and act like others are wrong when they point out your bullshit.

Psychology is a pseudoscience major for people who couldn't hack it in a real scientific discipline. There are intelligent people with psychology degrees, but they are certainly not the majority.

>you're not allowed to call out retarded bullshit for what it is

Ok kid

>unironically watching bill chuck the science cuck

Back in the day, yes. If you think modern psychology is how it was from the 1900's to about 1990 then you are completely wrong. It's essentially applied neuroscience now. In another 50 years it won't even be 2 different fields anymore. It's something that happens a lot in scientific fields. They were one, one broke off and has been drifting back towards the other.

That being said there is way too much "pop" psychology still floating around because most of the people talking about these points are using the old shitty psychology from between 1950 and 1980 to make their points.

Psychology is honestly just a glorified Facebook article. I attend the University of Washington which has the best medical school in the entire nation. The phsycology programs are pretty iffy. They aren't based off neuroscience. They're rather based off broad studies. And while there definitely are a lot of real scientific influences, it will make bold claims like math anxiety being a condition because it alters your brain activity. It's nonsense. Of course it alters your brain activity. Anyone who knows ANYTHING about the hypothalamus, amygdala, or cerebrum knows that the brain constantly rewires activity for even the smallest activities. We have different brain activity just from lifting which is caused by our CNS rewiring to the most efficient motor neurons. But they present this information in such a way to make things based off complete social subjectivity, like gender, pee shyness, etc. to absolute scientific fact. It's more of a glorified sociology than neuroscience.

Obesity is, in fact, hugely heritable. While all the sciences with "social" in their name have been suffering humiliation upon humiliation beneath the replication crisis, behavioral genetics has been pumping out broad, powerful, highly replicated research demonstrating the high heritability of all human behaviors, including the ones that make you fat.

That doesn't mean it can't be corrected. The obesity epidemic is pretty new. Basically all of it happened since the 1980s, and the first world of 1980 is not hugely genetically different from the first world of 1950, when no one was fat.

Something in society or our environment changed, probably around the late 70s or so, maybe a little earlier or later depending on what kind of lead time we're looking at. That change interacted badly with some common gene or set of genes and lots of people got fat.

When we figure out what the problem is, we can make this go away.

I have the complete opposite experience. I studied my neuroscience undergrad at the top neuroscience research school in Canada and my psychology classes were pretty indistinguishable from my neuroscience classes. Maybe it was more unique to the school but even my professors commented on how there probably won't be two disciplines within their lifetimes (which I thought was a little optimistic, but still).

Are you sure those weren't psychiatry classes?

I can tell you exactly what changed. Scientists came out and announced that fats in foods were what made people overweight. So food companies started taking the fats out of their products, but found that their foods became flavorless without the fats, and people weren't buying them. So they turned to sugar to make their food more enjoyable, not knowing that it was far more fattening. When they found that sugar caused obesity they switched to corn syrup and sweeteners, which your body has no understanding of what to do with besides store, further increasing obesity. And at this point they've become apathetic to the obesity crisis in America and around the world, and have instead focused on simply selling their shit to anybody who's still dumb enough to not care about their body.

Yes. It wasn't medical school. It was just my undergrad.

Actually you have it backwards. The sugar companies paid a lot of money to researchers in the 50's to write studies saying that fat is bad for you. All of these were fake. It's one of the greatest scientific fuck-ups in the entirety of human history and is STILL fucking our shit up because of it. So because these corrupt researchers at Harvard thought 50k was enough to fuck the population they came out with a study that said fat is bad and makes you fat. Lo and behold companies started taking fat out but their products would taste like shit (who knew?). So they added sugar (as was the plan all along) to make their products more palatable. This shit science went uncontested for almost 50 years.

All it took was 50k in bribes from a sugar company to some Harvard researchers to completely fuck the world's shit up.

I guess I forgot that detail. That's evil incarnate right there. Selling out the rest of the world for $50000. That's what every one of us combined was worth to the researchers at Harvard.

>I can tell you exactly what changed. Scientists came out and announced that fats in foods were what made people overweight. So food companies started taking the fats out of their products, but found that their foods became flavorless without the fats, and people weren't buying them. So they turned to sugar to make their food more enjoyable, not knowing that it was far more fattening. When they found that sugar caused obesity they switched to corn syrup and sweeteners, which your body has no understanding of what to do with besides store, further increasing obesity.

A strong theory, but by no means the only contender. For example, how do you explain this?

>And at this point they've become apathetic to the obesity crisis in America and around the world, and have instead focused on simply selling their shit to anybody who's still dumb enough to not care about their body.
Capitalism is an optimisation process. You either make the most delicious, least filling food you can, or you behave in a pro social way and the guy who went with the most delicious/least filling plan takes all your market share and buys your company out when you're bankrupt.

>libtard Psychology professor says that 70% of your body weight is inherited
They didn't actually say this right.

I mean it's not wrong, you inherit your whole genome from your parents. What's he trying to say though? Humans are human due to their human parents? No fucking shit. Fatties are fat because they overeat.

Its more true than you think. Epigenetics have been proven.

free though is dead desu

70% of weight is correlated with your parents weight. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT IS GENETIC.

I'm quantitative neuropsych and many people get into this feild because they want to be a 'scientist' but are scared/bad at math.

Unless they are actively punlishing papers don't listen to psychologists who say shit like that.

I'm also a liberal and this shit pisses me off soooooo much.

Are you retard. Corn syrup is fucking sugar not some magical pixie dust that turns you fat as soon as you consume it. And sweeteners are zero calorie.

Yeah the fat makes you fat meme is fucking stupid but the sugar and carb meme is even worse; no you can't blame a fucking macronutrient for making you fat because you lack self-control.

am i the only one who wants to beat this guy up till he just cant move? i mean im not a violent man but i would go apeshit on this faggot , i find him and his faggy ass suits/bowties so incredibly annoying and pretentious i just want to track him down and beat him until my hands start shaking

There is a grain of truth to this but that's it.

While in the womb your mother's scenario will define what genes are turned on or off. If it's a famine then your children's gene for "preserve as much fat as possible" might be turned on. This means when they're born they will then absorb fat better than you normally would because it improves survivability in such scenarios. This is a very simple example but it's how epigentics work. Your mother's experience helps the baby be prodded towards the right direction.

This ultimately means that yes your genetics will influence your weight in the way they're saying (lets ignore personality evolutionary chains here) but that doesn't mean you have no control.

> behavioral genetics

Probably something like 70% of your (natural) lean mass is inherited. Wouldn't be too outlandish, except it's basically meaningless

Oh yeah? The earth is flat, user.

...

(((they)))

>they will then absorb fat better than you normally would

You absorb ~97% of the fat you eat, even if you absorbed 100% it wouldn't make a difference

It was an example.

It also applies to anxiety disorders

sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S009130571630096X

I want more images like these

I'd be very wary about Ivy League backed studies, many today are politically motivated as well

Logic says otherwise.

>bill steps on stage
>"hey fuck white people right!?"
>"did you know that cuckolding is actually a fetish that is most common among white people with high IQ"S?"
crowd chants BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL!

This timeline has already given us Trump, his immigration, foreign and military policies, we're seeing the start of ww3, and we're watching a washout have a mental breakdown.

I for one like where this is going.

if you over eat with fat vs over eating with sugar, you will still be overeating

sugar works on the reward system moreso than the fat, so it is easier to become addicted to.

That's it/

epigenetics are not inherited, you retard

No it doesn't. we are told the horizon drops away from the view at a rate of the 8 inches times the number of miles square. That mean that at 3 miles the horzon should be 5 feet lower than eye level. Seeing as the horizon is no 3 miles away, it should literally impossibly to stand anywhere, even in a valley and have the horizon visible when looking straight ahead, which it is.

And if you bring up mountains that just compounds the problem because on a mountain, the horizon is even still at eye level.

In that same vein, we are able to see many object at sea (where there are no valleys and mountains, as water conforms to the shape of the earth) like light houses and islands much MUCH farther than the ball earth model allows for. Vid on that:
youtube.com/watch?v=FWLOT3Tqi-Q Examples start 44 seconds in.

Already, pure logic should certainly say: This is proof that the ball earth model is inconsistent with reality. The only reason it would not do so is two reason: 1) That one who fails to see it doesn't want to admit they were deceived/have been living a lie or 2) because science is a religion dogma.

It's usually the second one, imo.

Yes they are. It's been shown great grandmothers influence is passed down. So that's 3 generations of inheritance.

Wrong.

epigenetics are a potential genetic expression.

If you have the genetics to have a 200 IQ but never apply yourself or read a book, your IQ will not be 200.

If you have the genetics for weight retention, poor willpower and insulin sensitivity and gorge yourself on food, you will gain weight.

epigenetics come from extrinsic factors, you goddamn retard.

also, the gene expression for fat cells being resistant to oxidation occur ONLY AFTER THE FAT CELL EXISTS. You have to gain the weight for this to occur.

You want to guess what reverses this gene expression?

You guessed it, diet and fucking exercise.

You're talking complete non-sense, it's no wonder you're a tripfag.

I didn't know you browse /tv/, Eddie.

>no one has ever gone to space
>every country that has ever gone into orbit is lying
>all footage taken from orbit is faked
>all amateur footage taken by weather balloons with cameras on them is fake
>every commercial pilot is payed to keep quiet
>every geologist is payed to keep quiet
>every physicist is payed to keep quiet
>every astronomer is payed to keep quiet
>I took the bait

I'm not that guy. I usually only browse Veeky Forums, /pol/ and sometimes /x/ and /co/.

I specifically didn't bring up space. I brought up the bare minimum needed to disprove the globe which, I think, subconsciously or not, you purposely ignored to disprove an easier argument I never made.

Told ya science is a religion. :^)

Shut the fuck up globecuck.

He did disprove you though. We have evidence from high altitude that earth is a sphere. You use simple arguments with a flawed understanding of them to extrapolate complex ideas.

Actualllllyy the Earth isn't a sphere. It's not a perfect round object so it can't be a sphere. But that's just being autistic

You have pictures which your eyes disprove. That you would trust pictures more than your eyes proves that science is a religion.

If dietary fat doesn't make you fat then what does? Humans can only synthesize around 4-10 grams of fat per day from carbohydrates even in a huge caloric surplus.
You can store dietary fat and you can synthesize it, where is this mystical third source of fat?

dumbass

There are spectrums invisible to the human eye yet we have photographs proving they exist. The human eye is not perfect.

That's irrelevant. We are talking about visible light and what should be seen in order to confirm that reality conforms to the model and that the model conforms to reality. The model and reality disagree.

Try to keep your replies within the frame of the actual conversation Why not?

>where is this mystical third source of fat?
The ass.

I'm not that guy, I'm a third party.

Statement : You should trust your eyes more than photographs
Counter : Your eyes can't see everything, they're not perfect

Also because this is fun. Hallucinations exist, which are clearly visible to the people seeing them. Claiming to trust your eyes only shows that you don't understand how "sight" works.

you're either a special kind of dumb smart or a very subtle troll. either way not gonna respond to you anymore.

Go to Wikipedia and read the first sentence of the article on epigenetics.

Yes, you can change your epigenetic expression.

But the epigenome is certainly heritable.

...

>oh no, he beat me
>better stop responding!

Stupid dumb flat earth scum.

So what you are saying is not that weight/bodyfat % is inherited, but that behaviors that lead to over-eating are inherited. Well color me green and call me Gerald! What a fucking surprise!! Do you really think that children will pick up behavior from their parents, who they spend a vast majority of their time with?!? Fucking hell, how observant...

And as for working out what went wrong, well, how about high fructose corn syrup? The rapid growth of tv and computers, leading to falling activity rates? More ready-prepared foods available, that are high in sugar, refined & simple carbs and saturated fats?

Shit, you are dense if you can't work this out for yourself.

2/10, made me reply.

Humans can only synthesize around 4-10 grams of fat per day from carbohydrates even in a huge caloric surplus.

do you have a source on that?

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11722954

>the horizon is even still at eye level.

the horizon is literally always at eye level if you're looking at it. that's how the horizon works...

Wait, hold up a second. Are you.... I mean.... are you really saying that...and correct me if I'm wrong.... But do you mean to tell me .... that, and maybe I'm just crazy.... but are you actually implying...that science can CHANGE? (Please don't get angry at me if that's not what youean I just want to make sure for myself and others?

Things that were true 20 years ago are still true today

Gen Ed =/= cutting edge

I'm honestly blown away you are so willfully ignorant that you believe something we thought was true 20 years just stays that way. Like as if our understanding of something can only change if enough decades pass. Did you know every single scientific discovery that's happened was preceded the day before by a different understanding? Gosh how crazy.

What chromosomes are needed to be transgendered then?

None, chromosomes don't decide your gender any more than your blood type decides your personality or your star sign decides your love life.

Then explain the 23rd chromosome pair, fag

>inb4 "sex isn't gender!!!"

>this is what marxists actually believe

Chromosomes literally decide your gender, you actual Fucking retard