I'm picturing a bag of sugar hanging upside down from a jungle gym.

Doing sugar crunches.

Back in the nineteenth century "invert sugar" would mean "gay sugar."

Since there's no chronic disease that *only* obese people get (i.e., thin people get The Diabetes, too), that's not exactly a shocker.

I'm not disputing the research, but this is a logical fallacy. Non-smokers can get lung cancer, that does not mean that smoking can't cause lung cancer.

Duly chastened.

Since there's no chronic disease that *only* obese people get (i.e., thin people get The Diabetes, too), that's not exactly a shocker. (Er, to me. I know there are tons of people who think that OMGDEATHFATZ, but they are wrong.)

I agree (and my overweight self just got a clean bill of health in my last medical visit), but no risk factor is going to give a perfect correlation. There are smokers who still live to a ripe old age, and non-smokers who get lung cancer; it's still pretty clear that smoking elevates one's risk of lung disease (and a whole host of other conditions, of course).

Hee. Crosspost, right down to the choice of counterexample.

I do actually care about correcting people's misperceptions of the deathfatz, so since I seem to love the logical fallacies, what would be a better way to re-state my logical fallacy? (Serious question, not sarcasm. I hate looking like a jackass, and I'm actually really embarrassed -- NOT angry -- at being called out for relying on a logical fallacy.)

I am with Steph- for people who do reading on the subject, not so much a surprise. But still good to hear of a study that might get taken seriously.

WRT Sugar- this weird thing has been happening to me lately. I have been craving sugar. Like super duper and a lot. Like to the point of eating brown sugar. I did this as a kid, but as an adult, I am not really fond of sweets. When I was restricting what I ate in my 20's, I did used to sleep eat cookies and crackers, but I am just not fond of sweets.

I do actually care about correcting people's misperceptions of the deathfatz, so since I seem to love the logical fallacies, what would be a better way to re-state my logical fallacy?

I wish I knew - the problem is that most of the alternative risk factors proposed (like high sugar intake) also correlate with obesity, so it's really difficult to separate the two in people's minds. Humans are generally not good at distinguishing correlation from causation.

Humans are generally not good at distinguishing correlation from causation.

That's why we had to invent science! Then we had a method to correct for our need for instinctive, "that feels right" half-truths and falsities.

Man, the comments on that article are more infuriating than usual, even by SFGate comment thread standards. Nobody's challenging or even addressing the science; it's just a solid wall of WAH I LOVE MY SUGAR NANNY STATE BOO OBAMA WANTS TO TAX US ALL INTO OBLIVION STARTING WITH MY PRECIOUS, PRECIOUS SUGAR SOCIALISMCAKES.

PRECIOUS SUGAR SOCIALISMCAKES

I fully intend to steal this as the name of the organic bakery I'll be opening in Williamsburg next year.