Students to Be Graded on Weight

3278 · Post by **3278** » Tue Jun 08, 2004 3:16 am

Well, I have to tell you, any plan that involves Daki "looking me over" is one I'm "behind" 100 percent.

Daki · Post by **Daki** » Tue Jun 08, 2004 3:24 am

This is just my opinion but... "acceptable" does not mean "good." Acceptable means the majority of doctors used in that survey feel you are within "acceptable" boundries for being overweight. Doesn't mean you are in good shape, or even healthy. Just that you are overweight but not in a high risk group for health issues such as diabetes, heart attack, etc.

If you are fine being "acceptable", more power to you but, and I only speak for myself, I would never allow myself to be just "acceptable". I want to be healthy. Moreso, I want to be in very good physical condition. Going to back to one of the original points... you can lose weight and keep it off.

I have no idea what 32's shape or condition is and wouldn't even presume to take a guess as to what would be "healthy" for him to lose. Not without seeing him at the very least. Most likely I would suggest the same thing I tell almost everyone I have trained:

- Slowly integrate weight lifting exercises into your weekly activites. Start with 3 days per week and add another day of exercise for each week after two weeks. Try to hit all major muscles groups and start with machines... then integrate more freeweight exercises.

- Keep the diet to a moderate calorie intake with one high protein meal at night.

- Make sure each workout includes a cardio portion.

The workout would need to be adjusted as it goes on but you can burn off fat very quickly in that manner. In all truth, the only way you can continually burn off fat amounts is through weight training or high-calliber cardio. It's something CE mentioned that I forgot to touch on.

You body has a baseline body fat amount that it will maintain. Diet alone will only take you to a certain point because there is a finite point where calorie intake cannot be reduced any further without leading to partial starvation and muscle atrophy. This is your "natural" body fat %... where you body is getting all the nurtrients it needs to function and no excess. You will not gain additional body fat but you will not lose any either.

If you want to reduce your body fat below the natural level you have to add in weight training. That will reduce the amount of stored body fat. If you keep your diet under control and keep a calorie intake at a level where you are not over-eating, then you could stop the weight training and not build body fat levels (or may experience minor body fat increase due to muscle degenerating to fat because of underuse... this possibility is removed if you weight train for strength increase of size increase).

*pulls himself back on track* Right, 32... losing 40 pounds. Honestly Cain, no one knows the exact amount needed to lose before you FEEL "in shape". You just know it once you reach that point. For me, "in shape" was 5% body fat and 200 pounds. Now I feel in shape at around 7-8% body fat. You have a hunch what must be lost to reach that feeling and it adjusts as the weight dissapears (and possibly comes back if you are gaining muscle mass). Don't be so quick to judge what would put him in the hospital since you have no clue what his current condition and level is.

Daki · Post by **Daki** » Tue Jun 08, 2004 3:27 am

3278 wrote:Well, I have to tell you, any plan that involves Daki "looking me over" is one I'm "behind" 100 percent.

Just so you know, my "special" services require the signing of a waiver of liability, cash payment, of most major insurance carriers (no fucking HMOs!). Oh, and a decontamination fee.

Cain · Post by **Cain** » Tue Jun 08, 2004 3:45 am

Right, 32... losing 40 pounds. Honestly Cain, no one knows the exact amount needed to lose before you FEEL "in shape". You just know it once you reach that point. For me, "in shape" was 5% body fat and 200 pounds. Now I feel in shape at around 7-8% body fat. You have a hunch what must be lost to reach that feeling and it adjusts as the weight dissapears (and possibly comes back if you are gaining muscle mass). Don't be so quick to judge what would put him in the hospital since you have no clue what his current condition and level is.

Oh, I know I can't-- not without seeing him in a doctor's office, complete with impedance tests, latex gloves, and lubricant.

However, at a baseline guess, and assuming that his frame isn't exceptionally scrawny, I'd say that 40 lbs is probably unrealistic for the average 5'11", 180-lb male in his late 20's-early 30's. And unnecessary, to boot; 10-20 pounds would me more than adequate.

For me, personally... I'm built like a sumo. While there are many things I could do to improve my fitness, I prefer to add strength and endurance rather than reduce my weight. Since my focus is martial arts, as long as I can survive an extended sparring session and can punch a hole in a cinderblock, I'll feel pretty good about my fitness level. YMMV, of course.

Cash · Post by **Cash** » Tue Jun 08, 2004 2:26 pm

Daki wrote:Oh, and a decontamination fee.

Just use what the rest of us use. A bottle of Windex and a squeegee.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Tue Jun 08, 2004 3:39 pm

Daki wrote:Honestly Cain, no one knows the exact amount needed to lose before you FEEL "in shape". You just know it once you reach that point. For me, "in shape" was 5% body fat and 200 pounds. Now I feel in shape at around 7-8% body fat. You have a hunch what must be lost to reach that feeling and it adjusts as the weight dissapears (and possibly comes back if you are gaining muscle mass).

This is another one of those self-awareness and common sense issues; everyone has a pretty decent idea of what "healthy" must look and feel like on them, if only the one built into their reptile brain. The most "basic" people in the world maintain a standard of fitness. Obesity isn't a common problem in even the most advanced of other animals.

I have no problem telling when I've gotten to "fit," if only because I've been there before. [Before my career as an Evil Mastermind, I was a professional cyclist.] Generally, unless people have some psychological condition that causes them to mispercieve their ideal or their current condition, we all know what "healthy" is.

And that's one reason I think it's important to have a realistic self-image when it comes to fitness. I know a number of people - male and female - who seem to think that they're perfectly healthy, and that their weight is normal, when in fact they're actually quite obese. I think it's important that people admit to themselves - if not other people - when they've got a fitness problem.

I've got a fitness problem, alright. It's called "cheese." I eat about 400-800 calories a day - sometimes as much as half my daily intake of calories - in cheese. 400 calories is pretty close to an hour of walking for me, roughly, and it's an hour of walking I usually don't do. Now, my intake is very low right now; 800-1600 calories a day, give or take, depending on whether or not I eat one meal or two.*

If I drink Mountain Dew in any given day, my caloric intake shoots from 400-800 to 1500-1900. I lead a fairly sedentary lifestyle, spending most of my time reading, typing, that sort of thing, so 1900 calories leaves a big remainder. Not drinking Mountain Dew is key to my weight loss. I can drink it and stay the same weight, but if I remove it and replace it with water, this really great thing happens to my body where my muscles get bigger [from hydration] and I get skinnier. There have been times I've lost weight while still drinking Mountain Dew, but that was during the eight or so months I injested nothing /but/ Mountain Dew. [The trick to something which makes you piss all the time, of course, is drinking it /all the time./ That way, your body always has /some/ water in it, and you don't turn into the mummy.]

When I decided previously to lose weight, the only changes I made to my lifestyle were:

Stop drinking Mountain Dew.
Drink at least one-half gallon of water a day.**
Walk whenever I'm smoking.

I smoke about once an hour when I'm awake, for five to ten minutes. I'm usually awake, say, 18 hours, so that's 90-180 minutes of walking a day. An extra three hours of walking - and I like to walk pretty quickly - makes a big difference.

I moderate my meals around convenience, not fitness. I don't eat particularly healthy foods, because I'm not very interested in food, and I'd rather not have to spend more time making it than I have to. So a typical daily menu for me would be a can of chili, a quarter-pound of cheddar cheese, and some nacho chips. Or perhaps Hamburger Helper.

But I take a lot of vitamins, and spending a few hours walking a day makes a /big/ difference in your energy level and your metabolism, and when you're only taking in 400-800 calories a day, it's not very hard to lose weight.

Now, not everyone should do anything like this. 400 calories a day? Three hours of walking? I'm very lucky to have a body that works fairly well, for all its infirmities. Like all former pro athletes, I've got a good foundation of fitness; which I've slowly allowed to erode, unfortunately.

I also build muscle mass very quickly, although it takes me longer than most people to tone it. When I'm working on fitness, I usually go the route of "better living through chemistry," so I take creatine along with the rest of my supplements and pharmecuticals. It's just stupid how much difference reasonable, well-timed creatine usage and thorough hydration can make in your musclulature, and the kind of energy and vigor it gives you to be so full of water, and to have so much of it in the muscle fibres, swelling and pressurizing them. Of course, I also take the weightlifter's vitamins that make you piss neon. I just like chemicals.

40 pounds of fat? Yeah, I could probably do that and still be healthy. I'm /sure/ of it, actually. That's a return to complete fitness, though; that's a final target weight, and that's not something I'm prepared to commit to right now! [There's so much /cheese/ where I live.] But I would like, before I'm 30 - which doesn't give me much time - to get healthy again, and this time not to let my fitness slip. [Or try not to; maybe it will, which just means I'll have to do it again. That's okay; it's easy.] I usually drink a lot after personal apocalypses, which is what messes me up; I don't find it difficult, normally, to /maintain/ weight at all, which is maybe somewhat expected for a guy who only eats once a day.

My ideal weight would be around 180, but trading out the fat for muscle. Because of my build - barrel chest, broad shoulders, thick legs - I just end up with a lot of muscle weight and mass, which is really good, since I don't do anything to maintain it right now. When I'm most fit, I've vastly increased the amount of water in my system****

The more active I am, the more I need to eat. I can feel it. I don't know how in-tune with your body you are, but I can feel that point when I've run out of daily energy and moved to "reserve power." If you have any self-awareness, self-honesty, and common sense at all, I'm sure you know what I mean. I can tell when my muscles aren't big enough, when they don't have enough fuel or fluid, when my lungs need more air - which is pretty often*** - and when I haven't eaten enough, or when I'm eating too much.

Diet plans are regiments designed to help you find the willpower to just eat what you should and get the activity you need to. It can be much simpler than Atkins or Jenny Craig. It can be a pair of good shoes and some common sense eating.

It's such an incredibly modern problem; that obesity can be widespread somewhere is a measure of the amount of surplus we have. Obesity is certainly not unknown in "primate-ive" cultures or third-world nations, but obesity on the scale of the United States is this amazing kind of evidence that the modern system of progress produces surplus, and that in fact, all technological advancement, from the development of the plough in Egypt six thousand years ago - the first instrument of surplus - to our modern urban utility support network - water, power, gas - is about generating surplus. By that standard, America is indeed the pinnacle of modernity. However, surplus leads almost inevitably within a culture to excess, which leads to collapse. It's not difficult to see historic parallels between modern America and certain other large, successful nations, these the failed ones from the past.

*Which I would prefer not to do, but have found I really need to.

**Which usually ended up being at least one gallon of liquid a day, since I just like to have something to drink all the time.

***I spent the first four years of my life in and out of the hospital with pneumonia. I had severe asthma, and was allergic to just about everything. I started cycling when I was ten, and have overcome my asthma and allergies, and I haven't had a severe lung infection of any kind in probably 10 years. I started smoking at 16, then started walking 10-15 miles a day. I still smoke a pack a day, but can hold my breath for 4 minutes, but cannot run a mile. [I've never run a mile, although I've cycled a hundred at once.] Anyway, the point is, I know what I have, and what I /should/ have.

****The problem, of course, with Mountain Dew is that it makes you piss so much. All that caffeine takes the water out of you and dumps it in the toilet where it's not doing you any good. So I gain a /lot/ of water weight when I become fit, because that water stays /in/ my body, stuffed into my big giant bulging manly muscles!

3278 · Post by **3278** » Tue Jun 08, 2004 4:00 pm

I just took a quick nip out for a cigarette, and grabbed my mother's pedometer on the way out the door. The smoke took three minutes, during which I walked 373 steps, 0.36 miles, which, according to this [which doesn't allow for metabolic or statural calibration] burned 20 calories. I smoke 20 cigarettes a day. If this was a representative one - and at three minutes, I'd tend to think I was quick - I would walk 7,460 steps, 7.2 miles, and burn 400 calories.

Given my intensely calorie-controlled diet [when I'm not drinking Mountain Dew or eating cheese] that's an incredible percentage of my daily intake, burned just by walking alone. And increasing my level of activity - walking around once an hour, broadly spaced throughout the day - boosts my metabolism, meaning the other 23 hours of my day [3 minutes walking, 20 times a day] I'm burning more fuel than normal. It's easy. I can make a giant change to my fitness out of time I was wasting before, and you can, too. Almost anyone can, unless they're so harried they're already active enough to not /have/ a weight problem.

Cain · Post by **Cain** » Tue Jun 08, 2004 5:30 pm

I have no problem telling when I've gotten to "fit," if only because I've been there before. [Before my career as an Evil Mastermind, I was a professional cyclist.] Generally, unless people have some psychological condition that causes them to mispercieve their ideal or their current condition, we all know what "healthy" is.

And that's one reason I think it's important to have a realistic self-image when it comes to fitness. I know a number of people - male and female - who seem to think that they're perfectly healthy, and that their weight is normal, when in fact they're actually quite obese. I think it's important that people admit to themselves - if not other people - when they've got a fitness problem.

Actually, the reverse is frequently true in this country as well.

Most American women, regardless of their actual weight, will express a desire to lose weight. Now, they can be well within a healthy range, this particular variable doesn't seem to change much based on size. In your particular case, losing 40 lbs is highly excessive-- it sounds like 140 lbs was your target weight when you were 16. You're correct that 180 lbs is a perfectly safe weight for you, as long as you're active; but at a very rough estimate, 40 lbs is most of the body fat you have.

Now, if you mean 40 lbs of fat and water weight, that's possibly different. Without an impedance test or the like, I can't tell precicely how much fat you can lose. But 2 lbs of body fat is not a safe percentage for any male over 100 lbs.

I've got a fitness problem, alright. It's called "cheese." I eat about 400-800 calories a day - sometimes as much as half my daily intake of calories - in cheese. 400 calories is pretty close to an hour of walking for me, roughly, and it's an hour of walking I usually don't do. Now, my intake is very low right now; 800-1600 calories a day, give or take, depending on whether or not I eat one meal or two.*

I'm guessing much more towards the high end. An adult human body *requires* a minimum of 1200 calories a day to avoid starvation; 1000 if you have very minimal activity. An *infant* requires 500. There is absolutely no way you can be consistently consuming only 800 calories a day and not be badly malnourished or starving.

There's no way a "good foundation of fitness" can account for that. Either your numbers are off, or you've got some radically unrealistic expectations. People on extreme diets are restricted to 1200 calories a day-- that's the most dramatically, grossly, obese people, who weigh in at 400-500 lbs and are candidates for gastric bypass!

This page can give you an estimate of your minimum daily caloric needs to maintain your weight. For you, based on the numbers you gave and assuming a "Sedentary" lifestyle, you require 2333 calories a day to just maintain your weight. If you're not losing weight, either you've got an incredibly low base matabolism (and thus, virtually no lean muscle, which I don't believe) or you're seriously understating your calories.

Tell you what. I just happen to have a decent calorie counting program on my computer (left over from my nutrition class). Could you tell us the exact amounts and type of foods you eat in a day? Based off of that, I think I can come up with a more precice count.

I moderate my meals around convenience, not fitness. I don't eat particularly healthy foods, because I'm not very interested in food, and I'd rather not have to spend more time making it than I have to. So a typical daily menu for me would be a can of chili, a quarter-pound of cheddar cheese, and some nacho chips. Or perhaps Hamburger Helper.

*feeds numbers into computer*

Okay, assuming you're eating a full 15 oz can of chili con carne w/ beans, and not eating an especially "lean" variety, that's 500 calories right there. 4 oz of cheddar is another 450 or so. We're over 800 without adding in the chips, and I can't measure that without knowing the amounts; but normal tortilla chips-- leaving aside the nacho flavoring-- comes in at about 150 calories per ounce. This also assumes nothing else eaten or anything to drink other than water. Mountain Dew, IIRC, comes in at 120 caloies per can.

Hamburger helper, once you include 1/2 lb of leanest ground beef, clocks in at 1200 or more calories. (Probably closer to 1500; I seem to recall that the box calls for a full pound.)

I think you've got some unrealistic calorie expectations, there. Your typical menu looks a whole damn lot closer to the 1600-2000 mark. Which exactly fits your current lack of weight loss.

It's such an incredibly modern problem; that obesity can be widespread somewhere is a measure of the amount of surplus we have. Obesity is certainly not unknown in "primate-ive" cultures or third-world nations, but obesity on the scale of the United States is this amazing kind of evidence that the modern system of progress produces surplus, and that in fact, all technological advancement, from the development of the plough in Egypt six thousand years ago - the first instrument of surplus - to our modern urban utility support network - water, power, gas - is about generating surplus. By that standard, America is indeed the pinnacle of modernity. However, surplus leads almost inevitably within a culture to excess, which leads to collapse. It's not difficult to see historic parallels between modern America and certain other large, successful nations, these the failed ones from the past.

So, you agree that the obesity epidemic in America is a cultural issue, and not an individual one?

The next logical step is that since it's a collective issue, it requires a collective solution. Remember, the current American relationship to food tracks directly back to Eleanor Roosevelt, who pushed a "Clean your plate" mentality after the Depression. Well, things have since swung from one extreme to the other. One woman single-handedly pushed culture into the shape we're familiar with. Why several hundred government legistators can't be asked to do the same is beyond me.

Daki · Post by **Daki** » Tue Jun 08, 2004 5:57 pm

Uh, Cain... I think you missed the whole part about 32 having a large intake of vitamins. All those facts and figures you quoted are not relevant because they do not account for someone who has an additional intake of vitamins.

Daki · Post by **Daki** » Tue Jun 08, 2004 6:02 pm

Cain wrote:So, you agree that the obesity epidemic in America is a cultural issue, and not an individual one?

I would never agree with that statement. It's still a personal choice over whether or not you want to indulge in "fast food" or spend the extra 5-10 minutes and make your own meal. It's still a personal choice to exercise or not.

DV8 · Post by **DV8** » Tue Jun 08, 2004 6:30 pm

Daki wrote:
Cain wrote:So, you agree that the obesity epidemic in America is a cultural issue, and not an individual one?
I would never agree with that statement. It's still a personal choice over whether or not you want to indulge in "fast food" or spend the extra 5-10 minutes and make your own meal. It's still a personal choice to exercise or not.

A "personal choice" that the majority of the country seems to neglect. When you're talking about a consumerism-induced obesity epidemic, as is safe to do in almost all western countries, then you can safely say it's become part of the culture as well as part of the individual.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Tue Jun 08, 2004 6:50 pm

Which is why, dragging this back on topic slightly, we need to change our lifestyle, and this program seems like a small step towards it.

Cain · Post by **Cain** » Tue Jun 08, 2004 7:22 pm

Uh, Cain... I think you missed the whole part about 32 having a large intake of vitamins. All those facts and figures you quoted are not relevant because they do not account for someone who has an additional intake of vitamins.

Vitamins cannot make up for a lack of calories. You can give a starving man all the vitamins you like; he'll still starve without food energy. And there's no way any human adult can survive for long at a light activity level on an average 800 calories a day. Your basic survival functions require more than that.

I think 32 is vastly understating his daily caloric intake. My guess, based on his description and numbers input into my Diet Analysis software, places his average intake at closer to 1600-2000 cal/day, and possibly higher, depening on how much soda and chips he consumes. Since 2300 is about the maintenance level for him, I'd hazard a guess that it's closer to the top end of that range.

Which is why, dragging this back on topic slightly, we need to change our lifestyle, and this program seems like a small step towards it.

I quite agree; and if the "report cards" include accurate, complete, and easy-to-understand informantion about the BMI, then it's a good idea. And assuming that each child is weighted in private, by at least a RN who knows how to calibrate a balance scale. But I don't think it's nearly enough-- I think we need some serious overhauls at the school cafeteria, total elimination of vending machines (including from the teacher's lounge!) and some serious pushes towards fitness over weight loss.

For the record-- Daki's BMI is somewhat over 27, which technically means he's "overweight". Which goes to prove that the BMI is only good for those who have average builds with average amounts of lean muscle. He and I are exceptions.

Daki · Post by **Daki** » Tue Jun 08, 2004 7:56 pm

DV8 wrote:
Daki wrote:
Cain wrote:So, you agree that the obesity epidemic in America is a cultural issue, and not an individual one?
I would never agree with that statement. It's still a personal choice over whether or not you want to indulge in "fast food" or spend the extra 5-10 minutes and make your own meal. It's still a personal choice to exercise or not.
A "personal choice" that the majority of the country seems to neglect. When you're talking about a consumerism-induced obesity epidemic, as is safe to do in almost all western countries, then you can safely say it's become part of the culture as well as part of the individual.

I was approaching the question from the standpoint of, if someone were to say "I'm fat because society creates an environment that fosters obesity", I would reply that it is a personal choice whether or not you use that as an excuse or actually take steps to better your health/weight/etc. In the end, it's your personal choice (with exceptions).

3278 · Post by **3278** » Tue Jun 08, 2004 9:16 pm

Cain wrote:In your particular case, losing 40 lbs is highly excessive-- it sounds like 140 lbs was your target weight when you were 16. You're correct that 180 lbs is a perfectly safe weight for you, as long as you're active; but at a very rough estimate, 40 lbs is most of the body fat you have.

For the love of god, man, please stop second-guessing my personal experience from a position of ignorance. Believe that I am in my body, and a wise and intelligent man who has observed his body carefully for almost 30 years. I know what my body needs, and I know it better than you - with insufficient information and a class in nutrition - possibly could. What in the world makes you think that you could know better than I?

You're 5'8" and 250 lbs, 22-26 percent of them fat and you believe your self-knowledge is sufficient to determine that you are not borderline obese when by any reasonable standard, you are, but you deny that my self-knowledge is sufficient to determine my own healthy weight, despite my having been a pro athlete and thus well-aquainted with my own fitness. You're being a goober.

Cain wrote:I'm guessing much more towards the high end. An adult human body *requires* a minimum of 1200 calories a day to avoid starvation; 1000 if you have very minimal activity. An *infant* requires 500. There is absolutely no way you can be consistently consuming only 800 calories a day and not be badly malnourished or starving.

One can of Hormel Turkey Chili with Beans, 400 calories. Half a bag of shredded cheese, 360 calories. Depending on whether or not I eat once or twice a day, that's just about 800 - 1600 calories* [a little more once you figure in the chips.] Mountain Dew is 110 calories per 8 ounces, and raises my caloric intake accordingly, as I stated. Listen to me: I know what I'm talking about.

Cain wrote:The next logical step is that since it's a collective issue, it requires a collective solution.

I think it's a collection of personal problems, and requires a personal solution. I reject the abrogation of personal rights and responsibilities to units larger than the individual or family.

*800 isn't the lowest, but it's the lowest common intake. Today, for instance, I just haven't eaten anything. I might have 400 calories of solids sometime later, but not right now. I've had one litre of Mountain Dew, which is obviously most of my energy intake for the day. 1600 certainly isn't the highest; sometimes, I eat with my grandparents. In any case, my average is right around 1200, which works for my unique situation, but wouldn't be recommended for anyone else, necessarily.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Tue Jun 08, 2004 9:22 pm

Cain wrote:For the record-- Daki's BMI is somewhat over 27, which technically means he's "overweight". Which goes to prove that the BMI is only good for those who have average builds with average amounts of lean muscle. He and I are exceptions.

Well, Daki doesn't have 22-26 percent body fat, which is why the body fat percentage is superior to the BMI, as you've already stated, despite the fact that you continue to use the BMI in all your calculations, and the simplified BMI which utilizes only height and weight, instead of the more common, more detailed BMI which includes build, gender, age, and so on.

I'm sorry, man, but you're just not the exception here. Your BMI and body fat percentage show the same result: borderline obesity.

Daki · Post by **Daki** » Tue Jun 08, 2004 9:46 pm

At best guess, I'm in the 8-10% body fat range right now and that's only because I'm eating like crap lately. I'm due for my bi-annual check at the end of the month.

Cain · Post by **Cain** » Tue Jun 08, 2004 10:14 pm

Believe that I am in my body, and a wise and intelligent man who has observed his body carefully for almost 30 years. I know what my body needs, and I know it better than you - with insufficient information and a class in nutrition - possibly could. What in the world makes you think that you could know better than I?

So, you have exactly the same qualifications as a 30-year-old woman with an eating disorder, then? I know several women like that-- they say they know their bodies best, but then go on to spout nonsense, like how the Atkins diet is so wonderful for heart health or how their body only really needs grapefruit.

Woudl you tolerate it if someone claimed to know more about evolution than you do, because they went through puberty?

I think it's a collection of personal problems, and requires a personal solution. I reject the abrogation of personal rights and responsibilities to units larger than the individual or family.

Do you believe there's no such thing as collective responsibility?

*800 isn't the lowest, but it's the lowest common intake. Today, for instance, I just haven't eaten anything. I might have 400 calories of solids sometime later, but not right now. I've had one litre of Mountain Dew, which is obviously most of my energy intake for the day. 1600 certainly isn't the highest; sometimes, I eat with my grandparents. In any case, my average is right around 1200, which works for my unique situation, but wouldn't be recommended for anyone else, necessarily.

Based on your own numbers, you've already consumed over 450 calories. If you have about three-four nacho chips, that'll take you up to six hundred. That's pretty big for "not eating anything".

Well, Daki doesn't have 22-26 percent body fat, which is why the body fat percentage is superior to the BMI, as you've already stated, despite the fact that you continue to use the BMI in all your calculations, and the simplified BMI which utilizes only height and weight, instead of the more common, more detailed BMI which includes build, gender, age, and so on.

Um... you are aware that the "more common, more detailed BMI" doesn't actually exist, right? The "simplified BMI" is the *real* BMI, which only accounds for height and weight, and is accurate enoughfor the average build. I'm sorry, you've got your facts wrong, and you keep referring to some chart that doesn't exist.

I'm sorry, man, but you're just not the exception here. Your BMI and body fat percentage show the same result: borderline obesity.

Let me get this straight. You think that, without seeing you, I cannot possibly draw informed conclusions about your body composition, despite being given detailed information about your height, weight, build, diet, and excercise level *and* having access to several advanced texts *and* specialized programs designed to to this very thing... and you think you can decide I'm obese based on *one* factor, with no other knowledge than : "This is how my body works, and I know it's an exception"?

In point of fact, *the* BMI (not "my" BMI, there's only one BMI standard) says I'm grossly obese; my body fat percentage, as interpreted by my nutritionist and several doctors, says that I'm mildly overweight. That's not to say that I couldn't lose a few pounds, but that "a few pounds" is all I really need to lose; and honestly, it's far better for me to try and maintain my weight and increasing my fitness. (Which, incidentally, is true for most "obese" people-- increasing their fitness is a more desireable goal than decreasing their weight, and a safer one to boot.)

I think that if we shifted our focus from weight to fitness, we'd solve a lot of the obesity-related problems we have. Quite honestly, it's very hard to separate the two issues, obesity from a lack of fitness. However, we've seen that a lack of fitness is a major component of obesity-related disorders; so maybe if we work on that part, we can solve the rest.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Tue Jun 08, 2004 10:42 pm

Cain wrote:
3278 wrote:Believe that I am in my body, and a wise and intelligent man who has observed his body carefully for almost 30 years.
So, you have exactly the same qualifications as a 30-year-old woman with an eating disorder, then?

How do you say things like this with a straight face? Why do you even bother?

Cain wrote:Do you believe there's no such thing as collective responsibility?

I'm not sure. I can't think of one; that should tell you something.

Cain wrote:
*800 isn't the lowest, but it's the lowest common intake. Today, for instance, I just haven't eaten anything. I might have 400 calories of solids sometime later, but not right now. I've had one litre of Mountain Dew, which is obviously most of my energy intake for the day. 1600 certainly isn't the highest; sometimes, I eat with my grandparents. In any case, my average is right around 1200, which works for my unique situation, but wouldn't be recommended for anyone else, necessarily.
Based on your own numbers, you've already consumed over 450 calories. If you have about three-four nacho chips, that'll take you up to six hundred. That's pretty big for "not eating anything".

Based on my numbers, I've consumed 440 calories. I haven't eaten three or four nacho chips - although even the least nutritious tortillas in the house would only be 75 calories for three or four large chips - so it won't take me up to six hundred. If I have a can of beans later - and I probably will - I'll have 400 additional calories of solids, just like I said. In total, for the day, that will mean I've had 880 calories, which I don't think is "pretty big," even though it includes both the intake I referred to as "not eating anything" [the Mountain Dew] and the possible future intake [the beans]. I have no idea where you come up with this stuff.

ak404 · Post by **ak404** » Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:08 pm

I've seen 32. He's a moderately healthy guy. He smokes, drinks, and sits in front of the comp alot, but he's not an urban slacker.

Now, me, I'm a big fat Asian.

Bishop · Post by **Bishop** » Wed Jun 09, 2004 1:53 am

Yeah. You weigh about as much as my right leg. /Maybe/ both legs. Soaking wet. And covered in mud.

Cain · Post by **Cain** » Wed Jun 09, 2004 2:41 am

How do you say things like this with a straight face? Why do you even bother?

Again, would you tolerate it if someone claimed to know more about evolution than you do, solely because he went through puberty?

There is no way you can maintain any sort of activity level and survive on 900 calories a day, average. You mentioned drinking-- do you drink alcoholic beverages on a regular basis?

I'm not sure. I can't think of one; that should tell you something.

Then, do you believe that government and corporations can never be held liable for actions done under their auspices?

crone · Post by **crone** » Wed Jun 09, 2004 3:07 am

3278 wrote:The more active I am, the more I need to eat. I can feel it. I don't know how in-tune with your body you are, but I can feel that point when I've run out of daily energy and moved to "reserve power." If you have any self-awareness, self-honesty, and common sense at all, I'm sure you know what I mean. I can tell when my muscles aren't big enough, when they don't have enough fuel or fluid, when my lungs need more air - which is pretty often*** - and when I haven't eaten enough, or when I'm eating too much.

No doubt I am seriously fucked in the head, but I never know that kind of thing. I don't even usually know if I'm hungry or not, I just eat according to routine. I know I am not the only person like this, though, especially not the only overweight person.

Crazy Elf · Post by **Crazy Elf** » Wed Jun 09, 2004 4:49 am

Shit, I often forget to eat. How the hell can people just eat according to routine?

3278 · Post by **3278** » Wed Jun 09, 2004 9:09 am

Cain wrote:Again, would you tolerate it if someone claimed to know more about evolution than you do, solely because he went through puberty?

This makes even less sense, since "puberty" and "evolution" don't have anything to do with each other.

Cain, I know more about my fitness than you do because I know a lot about fitness and a lot about me, while you know however much you know about fitness [not, apparently, any more than the rest of us, if this conversation is to be believed] and virtually nothing about me [well, my fitness, at any rate]. I know my calorie intake better than you do because I know exactly what I eat, and have the calories for those things memorized. Doesn't it seem to you like the kind of person who memorizes the number of calories in his chili might have some decent idea of his total caloric intake?

Cain wrote:There is no way you can maintain any sort of activity level and survive on 900 calories a day, average.

I have experimental evidence suggesting that's profoundly untrue, but more significantly, where the heck did you get this figure from? Not from me, I'm certain.

Cain wrote:You mentioned drinking-- do you drink alcoholic beverages on a regular basis?

Only when I'm with Marius.

Cain wrote:Then, do you believe that government and corporations can never be held liable for actions done under their auspices?

I believe the government and corporations are made up of individuals who can be held liable for actions they have taken.

lorg · Post by **lorg** » Wed Jun 09, 2004 10:24 am

Crazy Elf wrote:Shit, I often forget to eat. How the hell can people just eat according to routine?

Don't know, I could never eat just cause it is breakfast, lunch or dinner according to the clock. I eat when I'm hungry and when I'm not I don't. I tend to stay hungry for a while before eating, like now. It is about lunch here (actually 20 past noon) and I'm starting to feel a bit hungry but I'll probably not eat for another four or five hours, when I'm done with todays work. The meal I usually skip is lunch.

OK, so while 3278 and Cain continue trading diet tips or whatever it is they are doing I'm moving on (feeeeeeell the burn!

) . So is the school that is going to do this, or other schools thinking about similar ideas going to remove the coke and candy vending machines from the school area? Stop serving "junk" food for lunch etc? or will it be biz as usual as in "you are fat" now go have cheese snacks, chips and a coke for lunch in our cafeteria (or where ever they do serve it).

FOX Expert: Evidence Thin on Fat Epidemic

NEW YORK — A Rockefeller University obesity expert says there's thin evidence supporting the notion that the United States is suffering from a fat epidemic.

FOX likes the fat articles, apparently.

Daki · Post by **Daki** » Wed Jun 09, 2004 1:12 pm

When I am on a fat burning routine, my daily calorie intake is around 1800 per day. Just my cardio workout alone burns 1000-1100 calories (one hour on a stair climber). So my net intake for the day is about 700.

Van Der Litreb · Post by **Van Der Litreb** » Wed Jun 09, 2004 1:35 pm

NEW YORK — A Rockefeller University obesity expert says there's thin evidence supporting the notion that the United States is suffering from a fat epidemic.

Perhaps this expert should go sit somewhere in the local mall and look at the people walking by.

Van Der Litreb · Post by **Van Der Litreb** » Wed Jun 09, 2004 2:46 pm

Cain & 3278:

I didn't [really, really didn't..] want it to come to this, but I think it's time for the both of you to *deep breath* post nude pictures of yourselves, and let Bulldrek be the judges.

Daki · Post by **Daki** » Wed Jun 09, 2004 2:56 pm

Van Der Litreb wrote:Cain & 3278:

I didn't [really, really didn't..] want it to come to this, but I think it's time for the both of you to *deep breath* post nude pictures of yourselves, and let Bulldrek be the judges.

The fuck? No request for nude Daki?

DV8 · Post by **DV8** » Wed Jun 09, 2004 4:12 pm

We got those not so long ago, we're still recovering from them.

Daki · Post by **Daki** » Wed Jun 09, 2004 5:01 pm

I will have to search the apartment for hidden cameras tonight. Again.

Ares · Post by **Ares** » Wed Jun 09, 2004 7:01 pm

5'11" and 140 lbs. I bicycle regularly and don't eat enough because I don't have anyone to cook for me, and I hate going out to eat alone. So I usually just have lunch at work, and order pizza on weekends.

When I get really hungry, I feast on the brains of drifters who pass by my house.

Salvation122 · Post by **Salvation122** » Wed Jun 09, 2004 8:13 pm

3278 wrote:quarter-pound of cheddar

That's like three-quarters of a shitton of daily cheese.

Szechuan · Post by **Szechuan** » Wed Jun 09, 2004 8:15 pm

Salvation122 wrote:
3278 wrote:quarter-pound of cheddar
That's like three-quarters of a shitton of daily cheese.

Yeah. Your piss must come out like snot.

Cain · Post by **Cain** » Wed Jun 09, 2004 9:32 pm

Cain, I know more about my fitness than you do because I know a lot about fitness and a lot about me, while you know however much you know about fitness [not, apparently, any more than the rest of us, if this conversation is to be believed] and virtually nothing about me [well, my fitness, at any rate]. I know my calorie intake better than you do because I know exactly what I eat, and have the calories for those things memorized. Doesn't it seem to you like the kind of person who memorizes the number of calories in his chili might have some decent idea of his total caloric intake?

Evidently not; most of the people I know with eating disorders also have memorized the caloire counts of virtually everything. You also seem to be ignoring the very strong evidence that fitness trumps weight, every time. You acknowledge it, but then you go on and say something that apparently contradicts it. I'm more than a little confused as to what you actually know and believe.

I have experimental evidence suggesting that's profoundly untrue, but more significantly, where the heck did you get this figure from?

The same Nutrition text I've been citing. Infants, on average, require 500 calories a day; an adult has at many times more body mass. A 90-lb teenage girl requires at least 1300 at a "very light" activity level, on average. Sorry, but unless you're advocating that the laws of energy conservation are crap, I have to assume you're vastly overstating the case.

As for aclohol-- are you aware of how many calories there are per gram in alcohol? The only food substance that has more is fat.

I believe the government and corporations are made up of individuals who can be held liable for actions they have taken.

So, if a corporation does something wrong, it cannot be held liable? Any redress has to come out of individual pockets? Or, let's say a corporation is hired to provide workers for a task. The corporation double-books its workers, so it defaults. Should the workers who failed to show up for the second job be held liable?

Or, to make this a bit more topical-- the USA destroyed a lot of Iraq while kicking out Saddam. Do you think the USA as a whole is not responsible for repairing the damage? Should the reconstruction bill come out of the paychecks of the individual soldiers? Or should Bush himself pay for everything out of his own pocket? Or do you think the country as a whole has a responsibility to fix things broken in its name?

In both cases, a collective unit has a collective responsibility.

So is the school that is going to do this, or other schools thinking about similar ideas going to remove the coke and candy vending machines from the school area? Stop serving "junk" food for lunch etc? or will it be biz as usual as in "you are fat" now go have cheese snacks, chips and a coke for lunch in our cafeteria (or where ever they do serve it).

Personally, I think that's be a much better idea. I think 32 does as well-- switching school food from the greasy oversalted artificial junk to healthy, low-fat foods would be a great step in the right direction.

Marius · Post by **Marius** » Wed Jun 09, 2004 9:39 pm

As for aclohol-- are you aware of how many calories there are per gram in alcohol? The only food substance that has more is fat.

Right, and perhaps you can tell us how the metabolic pathway that handles alcohol contributes to the energy use of the human body?

3278 · Post by **3278** » Wed Jun 09, 2004 9:46 pm

Cain wrote:
3278 wrote:Doesn't it seem to you like the kind of person who memorizes the number of calories in his chili might have some decent idea of his total caloric intake?
Evidently not; most of the people I know with eating disorders also have memorized the caloire counts of virtually everything.

And, as a result...they don't have a decent idea of their caloric intake? Do they just add badly?

Cain wrote:You also seem to be ignoring the very strong evidence that fitness trumps weight, every time.

How? Because of the way I eat? Maybe you haven't noticed, but I'm not putting my "chili and cheese" diet forth as a solution for weight loss or fitness. It's the worst possible thing a person could do, eating one high-fat meal a day, and washing it down with a couple litres of sugar and caffeine. I've not once suggested that people eat the way I'm eating right now. I don't know how else I'm "ignoring" the evidence that fitness trumps weight, particularly since I believe fitness /includes/ weight.

Cain wrote:
3278 wrote:
Cain wrote:There is no way you can maintain any sort of activity level and survive on 900 calories a day, average.
I have experimental evidence suggesting that's profoundly untrue, but more significantly, where the heck did you get this figure from?
The same Nutrition text I've been citing. Infants, on average, require 500 calories a day; an adult has at many times more body mass. A 90-lb teenage girl requires at least 1300 at a "very light" activity level, on average.

That's not the figure I was referring to. I was referring to your 900-calorie average, which isn't a figure I've stated, but one which you seem to have developed on your own. It's inaccurate, by the way. It's really, really inaccurate.

Cain wrote:
3278 wrote:I believe the government and corporations are made up of individuals who can be held liable for actions they have taken.
So, if a corporation does something wrong, it cannot be held liable? Any redress has to come out of individual pockets? Or, let's say a corporation is hired to provide workers for a task. The corporation double-books its workers, so it defaults. Should the workers who failed to show up for the second job be held liable?

Cain, I'm not going to talk with you about this. You and I believe primary responsibility in life resides in two different places, and I'm not interested in going round and round about it. You're not going to suddenly change my mind with another round of socratic nonsense.

ak404 · Post by **ak404** » Wed Jun 09, 2004 9:49 pm

I was always of the opinion that alcohol by itself was relatively...free of calories. It was all the other shit in booze - sugar from fruit, carbs from wheat, and so on - that gave the most energy.

MooCow · Post by **MooCow** » Wed Jun 09, 2004 9:56 pm

Hey.... I thought you died?

Cain · Post by **Cain** » Wed Jun 09, 2004 10:31 pm

And, as a result...they don't have a decent idea of their caloric intake?

Oddly enough, no. They either overeat or undereat, or provide some sort of justification for not sticking to the RDAs.

I don't know how else I'm "ignoring" the evidence that fitness trumps weight, particularly since I believe fitness /includes/ weight.

And there we go. Tell me, would you consider Daki to be unfit? By any standard, he's overweight, although he's definitely not overfat.

Fitness does *NOT* include weight. Fitness is frequently correlated with weight, but they are not interchangeable terms. The science and biology of this is perfectly clear.

You still seem to be thinking of fat percentage, fitness level, and weight to all be the same thing. They are not. They're related, but none of them have a causal effect on one another.

That's not the figure I was referring to. I was referring to your 900-calorie average, which isn't a figure I've stated, but one which you seem to have developed on your own. It's inaccurate, by the way. It's really, really inaccurate.

You claimed to only consume 800 calories a day, as a low average, and not be losing weight. That's not possible. Either you've got virtually no metabolism, you're bedridden, or you're suggesting that the laws of physics and conservation stop working at your body. There is no concieveable way that you could only consume even 1600 calories a day, average, and not be losing weight-- teenage girls at 110 lbs can lose weight at that amount.

ak404 wrote:I was always of the opinion that alcohol by itself was relatively...free of calories. It was all the other shit in booze - sugar from fruit, carbs from wheat, and so on - that gave the most energy.

Hardly. Pure alcohol can be metabolized in the body, and contains roughly 7 calories per gram. Pure table sugar only has 4 calories per gram. Fat has the most, at 9; food energy is largely dependant on the number of high-energy hydrocarbon bonds availiable.

And assuming I understand Marius's question correctly-- Ethanol is converted to acetaldehyde, then is further converted into acetate. This acetate is converted into acetyl CoA, which can then enter the Krebs cycle for energy or be converted into fat. That's the short answer; the long answer would take a few pages as I recite the specific dehydrogenase enzymes and the precice mechanics of the TCA cycle, as well as draw a comparative example of the metabolism of fatty acids, amino acids, and monosaccharides.

FlameBlade · Post by **FlameBlade** » Wed Jun 09, 2004 10:37 pm

*Prances through the thread, singing*

I'm a fat boy...I'm a fat boy...I'm a fat boy...
Nothing can stop me...Nothing can stop me...

*Leaves the thread with several people in lab coats chasing.*

Salvation122 · Post by **Salvation122** » Thu Jun 10, 2004 3:36 am

Cain wrote:You still seem to be thinking of fat percentage, fitness level, and weight to all be the same thing. They are not. They're related, but none of them have a causal effect on one another.

I can't believe you just said that your fat percentage does not have a direct causal effect on your weight.

Cain · Post by **Cain** » Thu Jun 10, 2004 3:45 am

I can't believe you just said that your fat percentage does not have a direct causal effect on your weight.

Well, 32's such a stickler for strict accuracy, I have to put it that way.

Fat percentage is one way of increasing your weight. So's gaining muscle mass. So does drinking lots and lots of water. Since weight gain ! = Fat gain, they're not technically a causal relationship.

crone · Post by **crone** » Thu Jun 10, 2004 3:47 am

ak404 wrote:I was always of the opinion that alcohol by itself was relatively...free of calories. It was all the other shit in booze - sugar from fruit, carbs from wheat, and so on - that gave the most energy.

Alcohol has 7 calories/gram (fat has 9, carbs and protein have 4). This metabolic pathways stuff Marius was talking about is all news to me, though, so maybe those calories don't have any actual effect in your body, or something.

Crazy Elf · Post by **Crazy Elf** » Thu Jun 10, 2004 3:59 am

Cain, you're a chubmo. As Nike would say, "You're fat, run."

Although I do have this diet for you that may help. It's called "Stop Eating You Fat Fuck". It's a one step plan where you see food, and you don't eat it. You don't have to worry about looking into what you have to eat, and a ballanced diet, you just have to stop eating, you fat fuck. It comes with a motivational tape, too. It's gaffa tape, you put it over your mouth.

Stop eating, you fat fuck.

Cain · Post by **Cain** » Thu Jun 10, 2004 4:19 am

crone wrote:
ak404 wrote:I was always of the opinion that alcohol by itself was relatively...free of calories. It was all the other shit in booze - sugar from fruit, carbs from wheat, and so on - that gave the most energy.
Alcohol has 7 calories/gram (fat has 9, carbs and protein have 4). This metabolic pathways stuff Marius was talking about is all news to me, though, so maybe those calories don't have any actual effect in your body, or something.

Oh, they have an effect, all right. They enter the final cycle at the same stage as fats, which I assume is what he meant. I didn't quite understand what he was asking, so I'm not sure.

Marius · Post by **Marius** » Thu Jun 10, 2004 4:29 am

Actually, I was sort of underhandedly asking you to go ahead and put a bunch of information here taht I didn't want to write out. Those metabolic pathways are seared into my cortex these days, but still I'd have had to go verify them. (Actually, I went and verified them anyway, but it still saved me time.)

Cain · Post by **Cain** » Thu Jun 10, 2004 4:32 am

Hey, no harm no foul. I just got done with a very nasty physiology final, so that stuff's kinda seared into my brain as well. (Got a 3.9, too-- not too shabby when 50% of the class failed.) You've indavertently helped me with a couple questions here and there, so I'm glad to return the favor.

I take it, then, that I did figure out what you were asking?

Liniah · Post by **Liniah** » Thu Jun 10, 2004 6:30 am

Cain wrote:There is no concieveable way that you could only consume even 1600 calories a day, average, and not be losing weight-- teenage girls at 110 lbs can lose weight at that amount.

Ok, I haven't read through all the posts here cause I've not been around too much the past few days, however, isn't the number they use for 'normal calories per day' on food packages 1200? If so, then why would you expect someone such as a 110lb person to lose weight at 1600 per day? I mean, I don't have US packaging here to look at, but I really thought the 1200 calorie diet was supposed to be about average, or at least what average should be. (would check on this myself, but Veed needs to finish his paper when he's done his shower, which is right now)