How various subreddits effected my calorie intake [OC]

cleos · 10ヶ月前

You probably are eating more than 1500 calories. If not, you're losing weight.

Your BMR is about 1700 calories and your TDEE is over 2100 assuming no physical activity. If you're actually eating 1500 calories, you should be losing one pound a week at this rate.

cleos · 10ヶ月前

My hypothesis was that "fat shaming" subreddits impacted my diet most significantly as was proven right.

A recent study found that weight discrimination is associated with increased risk for obesity.

Abstract:

Participants who experienced weight discrimination were approximately 2.5 times more likely to become obese by follow-up (OR = 2.54, 95% CI = 1.58–4.08) and participants who were obese at baseline were three times more likely to remain obese at follow up (OR = 3.20, 95% CI = 2.06–4.97) than those who had not experienced such discrimination.

Behold, the self-fulfilling prophecy. You expected that fat shaming subreddits would pressure you to eat less, so you ate less in face of those expectations. Relatedly, see confirmation bias.

It would have been interesting to see you include a baseline measure where you didn't look at any particular subs and did your normal browsing, and/or did a control week and looked at r/aww or some other neutral sub.

What order did you do the subs in? That's relevant information when you're doing an experiment. Order matters, especially when it comes to something like calorie-monitoring. If it's in the order of the graph, the increase in your calorie intake could be explained by your calorie restrictions in the first two weeks, observing that your highest caloric intake is in the week following viewing the fatpeople subs. In science, this is called a "confound." We can't know for sure what causes the calorie changes because variables co-vary (subreddit type with time/sequence in change).

Interestingly, day 2 of the second fatpeople subreddits is your last very low calorie days. In the four measured days following that, your caloric intake increases, with three of those being above the 1500 calories per day you try to consume. It would have been interesting if you had recorded your caloric intake on the "off" days as well to see if there were any residual effects.

Additionally, I consumed more calories when I browsed plain old /r/food than when I browsed /r/foodporn.

The gap between foodporn and food is only 80 calories - while the two values are numerically different, they probably aren't statistically significant, meaning that it's likely that they happened by chance. This may be true for the fatpeoplehate subs as well. If you have the spreadsheets with the recorded data, I can run ANOVAs for you. In future iterations of the study, you should track for more days - maybe 10 instead of 5.

I do commend you for doing this experiment, though. I love this kind of thing.

slowmotionforall · 1年前

The 'just girly things' meme is typically meant to refer to common experiences shared by girls. I like the idea, but I thought, going in, it was going to be little things that feminists do.

'Stare blankly at them when they make a rape joke,' just feministy things

'Talking about rape culture at the cafe' just feministy things

'Reading Gayle Rubin before bed' just feministy things

'Quoting Audre Lorde while bowling' just feministy things ^I ^may ^have ^done ^this

I like both ideas. I think these types of things are meant to build solidarity within the community. I also like the idea of a parody of 'just girly things' that reflects our shared oppression, but I don't think calling it 'just feministy things' makes sense with regard to how the meme is typically used. Maybe something like "these are also just girly things."

EveryonesFriendJoe · 1年前

Psychiatrists are mental health professionals that are able to directly treat you with medication. Psychologists may recommend medication, but treat you with psychotherapy.

This isn't an either/or thing. A large portion of people who go for therapy also receive medication, but one person provides therapy and the other provides medication, so a client is seeing two different people. Typically, a client will meet with their therapist once a week or every other week for about 50 minutes per session and they will see their psychiatrist once every 1-3 months. My point was that a psychiatrist (nor a psychologist) is simply a "higher level" therapist.

A counselor tries to do a job that overlaps with a psychologist, but typically has much less formal education and training.

In my original post, I indicated that this is not the case. For a licensed counselor with a master's degree, the difference between a clinical psychologist with a PhD/PsyD and a licensed counselor with a master's degree is not that the clinical psychologist is more "professional." Clinical psychologists do go to school longer and take more courses, but many of these courses are either in research or assessment - for example, the program at my school requires that doctoral students be able to administer IQ tests and other forms of assessment (geriatric assessment, childhood assessment). While a clinical psychologist receives more education, it's not that that master's counselors are learning "Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Beginner" and PhDs are learning "CBT Intermediate & Advanced."

I agree with you, but the danger here is that anybody can call themselves a counselor. You could get someone with a formal education, or you can get a church volunteer that went through several weeks of training. A psychologist is almost guaranteed to have a certain education level.

Just to clarify, my post was strictly referring to counselors/therapists who have master's in counseling or psychology. Assuming that the poster's friend went through a mental health agency, chances are they were seeing someone who was a master's level counselor or therapist.

EveryonesFriendJoe · 1年前

Psychiatry is a specialization during residency training. Those years are in psychiatry and some seminars in clinical training, but those additional years are not analogous to the curriculum that clinical psychologists follow.

Psychiatrists can counsel clients. Most don't. The terms "psychologist" and "psychiatrist" cannot be used interchangeably. Only about 60% of psychatrists do talk therapy with any of their clients at all (and their meetings are shorter, and only about 12% of administer talk therapy to all of their clients. The primary client-doctor interaction between clients and psychatrists are med check-ups and med-changes.

All this means that psychiatrists have less training in psychotherapy practices and actually practice psychotherapy less often than clinical psychologists do.

I was responding to someone who was suggesting that that a poster's friend see a clinical psychologist or a psychiatrist because they're more "professional." That isn't the case, and it's a kind of misinformation to anyone who might read this and think they can't afford "good help."

EveryonesFriendJoe · 1年前

She needs a better therapist. Therapists and counselors don't have the same education as psychiatrists and psychologists. Most of the time, therapists and counselors are educated as social workers. Perhaps she needs a higher level professional. For the record, just about anybody can call themselves a counselor or therapist. Psychologists have much more formal education and can handle most patients. Psychiatrists have a lot of education, but can also prescribe medication (unlike psychologists).

Just want to say that a lot of this is incorrect.

Psychiatrists are people with MDs who specialize in psychiatric medicine. They do not have an extensive background in clinical training, and they do not typically do psychotherapy.

Secondly, this is not in "defense" of counselors but rather clarity behind what clinical psychologists are trained in. I would not want to discourage an individual from seeking out therapy for because they feel like they can only be treated by someone of a higher pay grade.

Counselors should not be construed as "less professional" therapists than clinical psychologists. Their training is different, and M.A.s in clinical psychology who become licensed counselors are more similar to PhDs and PsyDs in clinical psychology than M.A.'s in Counseling or M.S.W.'s as far as treatment goes. Clinical psychology tends to focus more on disorders, counseling tends to focus more on general life problems.

The difference between masters and doctorates in psychology is two years of coursework, a dissertation, and an internship (and LPCs need supervised hours, anyway), and much of those additional two years of coursework are related to research/statistics or assessment of various populations.

More important than the therapist's degree is their areas of specialty and the theoretical approach and method of practice that they use.

Sci-nado · 1年前

We already consider the possibility of coincidences in the form of null hypothesis significance testing. Articles that are published in (premier) journals typically only publish results with p-values of less than .05, and skewed towards p-values lower than that (a p value of .05 means that there is 5% chance that the data acquired is a result of chance).

The researchers conducted studies demonstrating that a storm's "gender" influences perceptions of its severity. So if you want to argue that the death toll finding is purely due to chance (a very small probability), then you are also going to have to start getting into the argument that peoples' perceptions of a storm's severity are unrelated to efforts toward preparedness or death toll.

Sci-nado · 1年前

The data files the researchers used are available on this page.

There is no correlation between year and and number of deaths.

rhiever · 1年前

Do you know how many times I've seen the generic "he" used on Reddit, today alone?

At least three. Probably more, but definitely three.

Do you know how many comments I saw asking "why 'he?'

Zero.

cleos · 1年前

guy.

No, but you're close.

cleos · 1年前

The brain, lungs, and kidneys are just part of animal anatomy.

Wouldn't it be easier if we just called it all "that pink squishy stuff?"

ericmm76 · 1年前

Doesn't matter.

Two wrongs do not make a right.

Regardless of whether the Gawker headline is sensationalized or not, you also misrepresented the student, and directly from her own words. You also used sensationalized language, referring to the woman as "prudish" and saying she had a "vendetta" against the student. These are not words that the original author used. You are the one declaring that the woman was using the fathers as "bullshit excuses." The author of this blog post clearly believes that the fathers were a significant force leading to being kicked out.

The essence of the story, according to the author, is that she was kicked out because it was seen as her responsibility not to arouse men.

I was told that the way I dressed and moved my body was causing men to think inappropriately about me, implying that it is my responsibility to control other people’s thoughts and drives.

That the authority figure making the decision to have her removed was a woman is not the most significant factor in this piece. Multiple parties, both the woman and these chaperoning fathers that, and quote "do nothing for five hours other then watch girls in short dresses and heels dance to upbeat music" placed responsibility on her not to arouse men.

When she arrived at the prom, Mrs. D told her to keep her dress down. She agreed to do so. When she entered the prom, she observed grown men ogling her from above and felt "a little grossed out" by it. These men then told Mrs. D that she was dressing and acting provocatively, and that was the catalyst to her removal.

Gawker could write "Teen Girl Expelled from School For Showing Ankles," but that still wouldn't give you license to also sensationalize her story or downplay the role of the fathers.

ericmm76 · 1年前

Although the article misrepresents the role, you need to be cautious about downplaying the dads' roles. The author of that blog post you linked to indicated she was very uncomfortable with their behavior.

But what I want to know is if the people involved in this situation at the Richmond Homeschool Prom are adult enough to own up to their wrong actions as well. And refund my group as they verbally promised to do, and issue an apology for kicking me out of my senior prom because their husbands felt as though my body was something they had a right to control.

. . .

I felt violated by the sheer number of male parents that were assigned to do nothing for five hours other then watch girls in short dresses and heels dance to upbeat music. I think that it is sick and wrong that they assigned them to sit on a balcony above us and look down on us and single us out for our clothes or dancing.

This whole thing is much more than Mrs. D "having a vendetta" against her, and she makes that clear.

pdmcmahon · 1年前

This sign isn't funny. It promotes gender stereotypes and those are harmful.

That said, this sign is not equal to its opposite.

This sign is in a Home Depot or some other kind of DIY building store.

Where the employees are predominantly men (especially if it's not a chain store) catering to kinds of work that are primarily done by men for hobby, but also for pay (woodworking, plumbing, electric work, even house painting and renovation). These are male-dominated fields, in large part due to different socialization and expectations for what boys and girls should do.

This sign is a joke, probably written by a man, in a store patroned and run largely by men in a male-dominated industry.

DonTago · 1年前

Out of curiosity, how many hours (round to one decimal point) do you think men work per day and how many do you think women work per day?

Secondly, why do you think women work fewer hours than men do? And is this in any way related to differential socialization of boys and girls, different opportunities that employees may receive rather than simple volunteering ("Hey, Bob, and you stick around and help us with this project?"), or differential parental obligations?

DonTago · 1年前

Where do you think experience and opportunities come from?

Men in female-dominated positions enjoy something called a "glass escalator," which refers to a quicker increase in promotions and raises.

A few studies:

Budig, M. J. (2002). Male Advantage and the Gender Composition of Jobs: Who Rides the Glass Escalator?. Social Problems, 49(2), 258.

One on teaching:

Cognard-Black, A. J. (2004). WILL THEY STAY, OR WILL THEY GO? Sex-Typical Work among Token Men Who Teach. Sociological Quarterly, 45(1), 113-139.

But that's not the most interesting study.

The most interesting study is a psychology one, which found that, given identical experiences, skills, and qualifications, a male named resume will be rated as more hireable, competent, offered more mentorship and a higher salary.

A very recent study found that when emails are worded identically, faculty respond more often to emails white male names than any other combination of race and gender names (with male names getting more responses enjoying a higher response rate than female names).

Men have more experience and opportunities than women because they are offered more and have more success in seeking out experience than women do simply by gender alone.

DonTago · 1年前

Because women earn just 66 cents for every dollar a man makes for the same work.

For as STEMy as Reddit proclaims itself to be, it's very curious as to why nobody actually looks at the hard data.

Apparently you don't know this, but the government collects a great deal of data and generates many reports, every year, on labor statistics, justice statistics, and so on.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics has a report that breaks down median wage earnings by gender, occupation, and full-time employment status. Go down to Table 18 on page 59. Whaddya know. For the exact same occupations, women earn less than men do.

PollTaker1 · 1年前

In reality, you don't actually need that many people to get a good representation of everybody overall.

Wikipedia has a pretty good article on this. A sample of 10 has about a 30% margin of error, while a sample of 100 has just a 10% margin of error.

You can test this out yourself. Go on facebook, or go on /r/samplesize and create a poll asking some questions. You'll probably find that after about 50 participants or so, the percentages stop fluctuating. If 78% of the first 50 people you sample report liking purple gumdrops, chances are that the percentage will remain in the high 70's or low 80's even if you go ask another 500 people.

Gallup polls are typically done with 500 to 1,000 participants, with error margins in the +/- 5 to 3% range. To get it down to 1%, you'll need to increase the number of participants x10, which probably isn't worth it.

In fact, having a sample can be so big, it's actually a problem.

In psychology, most studies are conducted with 250 or fewer participants - the median is probably around 150. In psychology, most studies are experiments so things are a little bit different than they are with poll surveys, but there's another point here:

Researchers are very interested in statistical significance. If we make 100 people stay up all night and 100 people get a solid 8 hours sleep, then test their cognitive performance, the groups' scores will vary to some extent - the odds are low that they would be exactly the same, to the decimal. But how do we know whether the differences are significantly different or not? With math!

But then there's another problem. There is statistical significance, which is what you read about in articles all the time, and practical significance. For example, a researcher could conduct a study and find that right-handed people have significantly higher ratings of happiness than left-handed people do. But that could mean that, on a seven-point likert scale (1 = very unhappy, 7 = very happy), the right-handed people had an average score of 4.52 and the left-handed people had an average score of 4.35. Those numbers could be significantly different, but they might not be practically or meaningfully different.

And the problem with these kind of significance tests is that the larger your sample size is, the easier it is to get significance. Sample sizes with several thousand cases/participants can yield significance on a 5-point scale with only a difference of .10 or .15. Power analysis is used to assess what the appropriate sample size for a statistical test should be.

kittenborn · 1年前

why someone would choose to use "feminist" rather than "egalitarian" or "humanist" etc.

Because "egalitarian" doesn't actually get at anything: not the term, and not the actual -ism that it tries to suggest itself to be.

Calling oneself an egalitarian is like calling someone an environmentalist because they don't run around setting forests on fire or because they believe that global warming is a thing. It doesn't indicate any actual conceptual understanding of the problems going on except knowing that there are problems. Somewhere.

Sexism is not a "battle of the sexes." It isn't a case of "both men and women have shit do deal with, and the feminists are mad that women have more to deal with."

Feminism holds that gender inequality is part of the foundation of the foundation of society, and that there is organization and logic to gender inequality. The use of "logic" here does not mean that it is sound, correct, or valid, only that there is a systematic pattern to it. Men not being allowed to show emotion is related to the oppression of women. Pressure on men to "bring home the bacon" is related to the oppression of women. Nothing occurs in a vacuum - it is all interrelated, and its primary function is to maintain inequality through the oppression of women (which can necessitate some side effects for men).

long218 · 1年前

What about Asians?

New study just came out finding that faculty members respond more to white men than any other racial or gender group, with the biggest gap being for Asian women.

Despite the stereotype of being good at school, Asian people get shafted by faculty.

And amounts of grants or scholarships given out?

"Caucasian students receive more than three-quarters (76%) of all institutional merit-based scholarship and grant funding, even though they represent less than two-thirds (62%) of the student population. Caucasian students are 40% more likely to win private scholarships than minority students."

Source

I'm gonna take a shot in the dark and say the AA bans haven't done anything to resolve this problem.

hergieherg · 1年前

What I find interesting is the amount of focus on the lack of women in STEM while there is almost no focus on the lack of men in nursing, teaching, social work, etc.

You know what those fields have in common? Lack of prestige and low pay. Especially social work. Nursing pays well, but it's not a particularly prestigious job or one seen as challenging or important as, say, bioengineering.

BTW, fun fact:

You may have heard of the glass ceiling - the difficulty for women to get into high status positions in male-dominated fields.

There's also something called the glass escalator - where men tend to get promoted faster than women in female-dominated jobs. The first study I heard about in reference to this was a qualitative study with male nurses, which I can no longer find, but this is an quantitative study that says the same thing.

Here is another:

Budig, M. J. (2002). Male Advantage and the Gender Composition of Jobs: Who Rides the Glass Escalator?. Social Problems, 49(2), 258.

One on teaching:

Cognard-Black, A. J. (2004). WILL THEY STAY, OR WILL THEY GO? Sex-Typical Work among Token Men Who Teach. Sociological Quarterly, 45(1), 113-139.

Men definitely make up a minority of teachers, but those that do are promoted into more administrative positions.

If you want to rally for men to get involved in these occupations, then by all means, go ahead, nobody is going to stop you. But if you can't figure out why women are concerned with promoting STEM participation among girls and women, you need get in touch with the world.

Libertatea · 1年前

I'm confused. Why is this post being upvoted? Did you and everybody who upvoted this not read the article?

This was not a correlational study looking at toy selection and associated career choices. It was an experiment.

From the article:

Researchers had groups of girls play with one of three dolls.

From the linked Springerlink article:

Thirty-seven girls from the US Pacific Northwest, aged between four to seven years old, were randomly assigned to play for five minutes with either a sexualized Doctor Barbie or Fashion Barbie doll, or with more a more neutral Mrs. Potato Head doll. The girls were then shown photographs of ten occupations and asked how many they themselves or boys could do in the future. The girls who played with a Barbie doll – irrespective of whether it was dressed as a fashion model or a doctor – saw themselves in fewer occupations than are possible for boys. Those girls who played with Mrs. Potato Head reported nearly as many career options available for themselves as for boys

PurpleHyacinth · 1年前

Once we strip sex work of all exploitation, trafficking, slavery, rape, and minors, then we should have a talk about legalization.

Once we strip sex work of all exploitation, trafficking, slavery, rape, and minors, it might lose its appeal.

It seems to me that discussion about prostitution as it relates to patriarchy is stifled due to threats of the label "sex-negative." But I think there needs to be a careful examination of why prostitution, as a thing, exists, and why it looks the way it does. You can make the argument that men have "carnal needs," or that both women and men have "carnal needs" and women have been socialized to deny theirs which is why they don't engage in consumption of prostitution like men do, but the argument can also be made that prostitution is a system produced by patriarchy and through which patriarchy is maintained.

cleos · 1年前

HAHAHAHA

I actually left 9gag for Reddit because of the misogyny on 9gag. Because I liked the format of 9gag, I went to r/funny and r/ffffuuuuuu first, realized it was a hell hole there, too, and backed the hell out of there.

I was on 9gag when it was just a baby, starting back in 2009. Minimalistic white page, one image at a time, to the side of each page being the arrows and a solitary link to the comments.

It wasn't always bad. For the first two years or so, it was pretty good. But the sexist and sexual content started to become more frequent. And then it grew. I don't think is growth purely caused the increase in sexist content - I am sure that much of the growth comes from the sexist culture that arose. And 9gag grew very rapidly. Numbers were doubling every few months, and even in that early period of growth, people were unreachable.

There was a time when people could only comment through Facebook, and you would think that would somehow stop the sexist content and comments. It didn't. At all. Despite what people claim, it wasn't the lack of anonymity that facilitated the misogyny - because the reality was that nobody was being held accountable even when the names were known.

cleos · 1年前

Even when their qualifications are literally identical, men are perceived as more competent, more hireable, and offered higher starting salaries.

cleos

次のモデレーターです

トロフィーケース

本日のreddit gold目標額達成率