Ehh, I don't plan to live long anyway. I'd rather not have kids, I doubt I'll get married so dying at around 60 due to spending too much time in front of a screen and eating way too much pizza...I'm alright with that.
I do it, and actually eat at McDonalds 4-5 times a week since I work there and it is even cheaper, and I'm 20 and weight about 107lbs and I'd say decently healthy. I can't really run, but never could... my lungs being messed up don't help much either...dex-dex said:WHAT?Assassin Xaero said:Study proves that eating McDonalds 4 times a week will make you fat?
well this is news to me!
but to be serious, Many people know that it is not healthy but they still do it because it is required to do so.
True, statistic findings are quite popular in this day and age, but there's actually a whole lot that can go wrong with it [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misuse_of_statistics#Types_of_misuse]. Though it only takes one of those things to make the way this news story is being presented to be an exaggeration: correlation does not imply causation [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation]. Because all statistics are is correlations, no true scientist would attempt to use statistics to imply there is an underlying cause at work. To say, "sitting around on your butt causes you to die young," is scientifically unsound. At most, they may use statistics as a basis to spin hypotheses, "sitting around on your butt has a statistical correlation that suggests a likelihood it may cause you to die young, so lets run some experiments and see if we can establish if that's true." The news agencies don't see the difference, however, and neither do the majority of their viewers, so hey, big scoop!tautologico said:Really? Then I guess you should get out of the Internet, stop using phones and basically almost any piece of modern technology. Almost anything you use nowadays has had statistical techniques applied into their making at some point.
A lot of empty numbers that most of the time don't mean anything. Besides, your logic is flawed. Just because someone used statistic research to make something I use doesn't mean I should stop using it if I don't appreciate statistics. If I need something, or if I like something I will buy it and I wouldn't even think about any statistic research someone did to make it. There are some accurate statistic researches but those are usually about opinions of various people. These "scientific" statistics are just silly.tautologico said:Really? Then I guess you should get out of the Internet, stop using phones and basically almost any piece of modern technology. Almost anything you use nowadays has had statistical techniques applied into their making at some point.
I agree with this statement, nightstands work perfectly for putting your laptop on.veloper said:Sitting is bad, you should spend more time lying down.
Gee, if that statistic continues upwards like that I am probably already dead for years.A study of 4,512 Scottish men published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology found that those who spent 2 or more hours a day in front of a screen were twice as likely to suffer a heart attack than those who didn't. And those that spent 4 or more hours were 50 percent more likely to die of any cause.
Well in my country boy-o were fatter than all of you, AUSTRALIA!mad825 said:...yea, doing a study with the Scottish really only shows the worst case scenario. If I'm not mistaken, Scotland has the worse levels of obesity in the UK.