Students to Be Graded on Weight

[Cain]

1200 cal/day is the minimum recommended for an adult. Any less than that, and it's damn difficult to get all the nutrition you need in a day-- all the proteins, carbs, and fat that the human body needs to survive. IIRC, many food labels now list servings based on a 2000 cal/day diet. The most severe weight loss diets I've seen are 1200 cal/day, and never any lower than that.

[Cain]

{damn, double post}

[lorg]

Isn't that pretty much the recipe for a crash diet? Not a very good thing. Also you do need a certain amount if you don't want to start looking like those little kids in Africa, all skeleton like and bloated at the same time.

[3278]

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.

Well, for what it's worth, I do all three of those things, and still know exactly what my caloric intake is.

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.

*sigh* I think he's dreamy, personally.

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.

Fitness includes weight. It also includes body fat percentage, cardiovascular fitness, and so on. I'm sorry if I wasn't specific enough to say "weight caused by fat," but since you weren't either, I'm not really that worried about it.

You still seem to be thinking of fat percentage, fitness level, and weight to all be the same thing.

Oh, come off it. You know I'm not, and that's just a silly thing to say. Have you just run out of shit to disagree with me about?

They are not. They're related, but none of them have a causal effect on one another.

Wrong. Body fat percentage doesn't have a causal effect on fitness level? That's a load of crap. Your body fat percentage is high enough that it causes severe impact on your level of fitness and your long-term health. Weight is caused by the mass of bone, fat, muscle, and so on, and the ratio of those things to each other, which is completely evidentiary of fitness. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "causal effect," but "being too fat" causes you to "be unfit," so I don't see how your statement can possibly be valid.

I think maybe you're just in denial about needing to drop some fat weight; you keep mentioning how, despite 22-26 percent of your body being made out of fat, you don't need to work on that, and how body fat doesn't effect fitness. And you ignore the Elf when he gives you fitness advice like, "Put the fucking fork down and go run." I don't have a better explanation.

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.

I didn't even once claim that. Let's read what I actually claimed.

"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."

"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."

Now, can you tell me where you get the notion I eat an average of 800 - or 900, depending on which figure you've made up now - calories from? And what, exactly, is a "low average," and how is it useful here? Sounds to me like you just grabbed a random figure that would work as badly for me as possible so you could disagree. Boring.

[Van Der Litreb]

*sigh* I think he's dreamy, personally.

*snots apple juice out his nose* There's a beverage here, man!

[3278]

Isn't that pretty much the recipe for a crash diet? Not a very good thing. Also you do need a certain amount if you don't want to start looking like those little kids in Africa, all skeleton like and bloated at the same time.

1200 calories a day is /horrible/ for you, you're right. Unless you take a lot of supplements, you're unlikely to get the necessary nutritional value out of such a small cross-section of food, particularly if the foods you eat aren't varied, for instance "beans and cheese." I, however, don't have much choice; eating makes me sick, so I do it as little as possible. That's one reason Mountain Dew plays such a strong role in my caloric intake: liquids, as a rule, don't make me sick, so I can cram a thousand calories into me without wishing I were dead.

1200 calories a day is a crash diet from hell. Most anyone who did that would find themselves sleeping most of the time, and not losing any weight because so much of their time was spent snoring. If they /could/ force themselves up and awake, they'd lose fat and muscle mass like a motherfucker while their body tried to adjust from a 2500 calorie diet to a 1200 calorie diet. I, luckily, have been eating this way for years, so my body has already adjusted. As much as it really can.

[Daki]

*sigh* I think he's dreamy, personally.

*snots apple juice out his nose* There's a beverage here, man!

Pardon me while I clean the spit water off my table.

[crone]

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

There's all the things that don't count. Like food from another person's plate, or direct from the cooking pan, or the fridge, or polishing off the leftovers, or any amount less than a tenth of a normal serve (no matter how many of them you take). There is probably a definitive list floating around the 'net somewhere.

[Crazy Elf]

Cain! Stop eating, you fat bastard!

[3278]

"What matters is fitness, not the fact that a quarter of my body is fat!"

[Cain]

Well, for what it's worth, I do all three of those things, and still know exactly what my caloric intake is.

Which means your expertise is identical to someone with an eating disorder.

*sigh* I think he's dreamy, personally.

*choke*

That's it, you owe me a new keyboard!!

Fitness includes weight. It also includes body fat percentage, cardiovascular fitness, and so on. I'm sorry if I wasn't specific enough to say "weight caused by fat," but since you weren't either, I'm not really that worried about it.

Do you think it's impossible to have cardiovascular fitness with a high body fat percentage? You're very wrong. Traditional Eskimos are very fit, and require a hell of a lot of body fat. Sumo wrestlers frequently live into their 90s, despite their massive weight and fat percentage-- they have excellent cardiovascular health and lots of lean muscle.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "causal effect," but "being too fat" causes you to "be unfit," so I don't see how your statement can possibly be valid.

Yes, you are. Unfit! =Too much fat. In fact, you can be underweight and be unfit.

Fat percentage doesn't *cause* a lack of fitness-- more likely, it's a /result/ of a lack of fitness. Yes, they're correlated, but you should know that correlation does not mean causation.

Now, can you tell me where you get the notion I eat an average of 800 - or 900, depending on which figure you've made up now - calories from? And what, exactly, is a "low average," and how is it useful here?

I never claimed that you eat an average of 800-900. I said that if you stated an average of less than 2300 or so a day, you were likely lying or misinformed. For you to maintain your weight on anything less would mean the laws of energy conservation don't apply to you.

[3278]

Well, for what it's worth, I do all three of those things, and still know exactly what my caloric intake is.

Which means your expertise is identical to someone with an eating disorder.

And yet you still haven't shown that I don't know precisely how many calories I take in during any given day, despite this bizarre and spurious comparison to someone with an eating disorder.

Fitness includes weight. It also includes body fat percentage, cardiovascular fitness, and so on. I'm sorry if I wasn't specific enough to say "weight caused by fat," but since you weren't either, I'm not really that worried about it.

Do you think it's impossible to have cardiovascular fitness with a high body fat percentage? You're very wrong. Traditional Eskimos are very fit, and require a hell of a lot of body fat. Sumo wrestlers frequently live into their 90s, despite their massive weight and fat percentage-- they have excellent cardiovascular health and lots of lean muscle.

It is possible to have a high body fat percentage and still be fit, certainly. It is possible to have excellent /cardiovascular/ fitness and still be fat. [I have decent lungs, and I smoke.] However, you, for instance, would be /more/ fit if you didn't have so much fat, being as how you're not an Eskimo. Or a sumo wrestler.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "causal effect," but "being too fat" causes you to "be unfit," so I don't see how your statement can possibly be valid.

Yes, you are. Unfit! =Too much fat. In fact, you can be underweight and be unfit.

There are many ways in which you can be unfit. Simply because being a fat-ass isn't the /only/ way to be unfit doesn't mean being a fat-ass doesn't make you unfit. Unfit can mean you're too fat, too skinny, too muscled, not muscled enough. So "being too fat" does have a causal relationship with "lack of fitness," just as "being too skinny" would. Or perhaps you'd like to turn it around and say lack of fitness causes overfatness; whatever. That's neither here nor there; the point is, if you're overfat, you're not as fit as you would be if you weren't overfat. Fatty.

Now, can you tell me where you get the notion I eat an average of 800 - or 900, depending on which figure you've made up now - calories from? And what, exactly, is a "low average," and how is it useful here?

I never claimed that you eat an average of 800-900.

I suppose not. What you said was, "There is no way you can maintain any sort of activity level and survive on 900 calories a day, average," which I don't, so that doesn't matter. You also said, "You claimed to only consume 800 calories a day, as a low average, and not be losing weight," which is just as misleading, since you chose a "low average," which isn't representative in any way. So I guess, instead of asserting that I eat an average of 800-900 calories a day, what you really did was mention something that doesn't remotely apply to me, and then use a "low average," which is a contradiction if ever I heard one.

I said that if you stated an average of less than 2300 or so a day, you were likely lying or misinformed. For you to maintain your weight on anything less would mean the laws of energy conservation don't apply to you.

That's a nice figure, 2300. Either your diet software or your nutrition textbook claims that's my "maintanance level," although I'm certain either one would also tell you that you don't have anything like the correct amount of information to make that assessment. They probably won't mention - although perhaps they should - that if you just automatically disbelieve everything I say, you're never going to get any kind of accurate analysis done.

Anyway, I can firmly say that I consume less than 2300 calories a day, on average, and am not losing weight. If you'd like, I could just tell you what I eat every day, and you could plug it into your diet program and see if I'm dead yet.

[Daki]

Fitness and %body fat, while semi-related are two seperate things. Even at my heaviest (almost 280 pounds) I could still run several miles and lifted heavy weight. I could still spar and do two minute drills for an hour. But I was still very high in body fat% and still prone to the same problems that could arrise from that.

As an example, I could still run for miles, but I would sweat like a SOB doing it. At a trimmer weight of 225, I barely sweat at all doing that same distance.

[Cain]

And yet you still haven't shown that I don't know precisely how many calories I take in during any given day, despite this bizarre and spurious comparison to someone with an eating disorder.

And how is that related? I said thatyou don't seem to have as much expertise as you claim. Also, you haven't accounted for any alcoholic beverages or nacho chips, all of which can take you over the top.

It is possible to have a high body fat percentage and still be fit, certainly. It is possible to have excellent /cardiovascular/ fitness and still be fat. [I have decent lungs, and I smoke.] However, you, for instance, would be /more/ fit if you didn't have so much fat, being as how you're not an Eskimo. Or a sumo wrestler.

In which case, fitness does *not* include weight. It is frequently correlated with weight, but it does not necessarily include it. Can we agree on that much?

As for myself-- how do you know I'm neither an Inuit or a Sumotori?

There are many ways in which you can be unfit. Simply because being a fat-ass isn't the /only/ way to be unfit doesn't mean being a fat-ass doesn't make you unfit. Unfit can mean you're too fat, too skinny, too muscled, not muscled enough. So "being too fat" does have a causal relationship with "lack of fitness," just as "being too skinny" would. Or perhaps you'd like to turn it around and say lack of fitness causes overfatness; whatever. That's neither here nor there; the point is, if you're overfat, you're not as fit as you would be if you weren't overfat.

Again, sumo wrestlers-- or any professional wrestler, for that matter. The WWF might be full of actors, but they're physically-fit actors with some stiff physical requirements. Would you say they're "not as fit as they could be", even though they can out-cycle you *and* dead lift more?

In those type of sports or perfromance, one needs to have a higher than average fat percentage for extra protection. Added fat makes them healthier.

That's a nice figure, 2300. Either your diet software or your nutrition textbook claims that's my "maintanance level," although I'm certain either one would also tell you that you don't have anything like the correct amount of information to make that assessment.

In order to make a rough assessment, I need your weight, sex, approximate age, and activity level. You've provided all of those. I could get a lot more accurate with your height, a more detailed breakdown of your physical activities, and exact lean muscle percentage. If you don't believe me, you can look up most of the information online, and see for yourself.

The only way you can get by with significantly less than 2300 a day is if you have an incredibly low metabolism (which indicates very little lean muscle) or have virtually no activity at all. There may be some fluxuations, if your activity level qualifies as less that "sedentary" and your metabolism is lower than normal, but there's no way the minimum calories can drop clear to 1600, let alone 800. At least, not without rewriting some physical laws.

[Cain]

Just for a comparison... here's a pic of an actor who's roughly my build (just taller) and has roughly the same body fat perectnage:



To represent Daki, here's a photo of a bodybuilder at >3% body fat:


And for the Elf, here's a picture of the world's most famous skinny Ross:

[Gunny]

Jeezus Daki... you got cut!

...and ugly!!! What happened?!!?!? And what's with the cow lick!?

[Daki]

Hrmmm...

*Grabs his magic pencil and wipes out the cut abs and makes it not so tight... gets rid of the bad haircut and replace it with a longer style flattop... and gets that stupid fucking grin off the face for more of a scowl/serious look. Pencil in a goatee... lessen the cut lines quite a bit*

That's more like it.

[3278]

And yet you still haven't shown that I don't know precisely how many calories I take in during any given day, despite this bizarre and spurious comparison to someone with an eating disorder.

And how is that related? I said thatyou don't seem to have as much expertise as you claim. Also, you haven't accounted for any alcoholic beverages or nacho chips, all of which can take you over the top.

How do I "not have as much expertise" as I "claim?" Which expertise have I claimed? How does comparing me to someone with an eating disorder disprove my claimed expertise?

I don't drink. I mentioned that. And I don't know what you're on about with this nacho chips thing; I do eat tortilla chips sometimes, but they certainly don't alter the basic precepts of what I've been saying. Even at 150 calories for six chips - the worst tortilla chips in the house - I'm looking at a daily average of /maybe/ 75-150 calories in uncounted tortilla chips. No one's asked me for an exact accounting of my daily intake, although you do like to speculate about it a lot.

It is possible to have a high body fat percentage and still be fit, certainly. It is possible to have excellent /cardiovascular/ fitness and still be fat. [I have decent lungs, and I smoke.] However, you, for instance, would be /more/ fit if you didn't have so much fat, being as how you're not an Eskimo. Or a sumo wrestler.

In which case, fitness does *not* include weight. It is frequently correlated with weight, but it does not necessarily include it. Can we agree on that much?

No. Apparently, we mean something different by "fitness." I mean, "Good health or physical condition, especially as the result of exercise and proper nutrition," which most certainly includes the percentage of your body weight made of fat. Now, if you mean /simple body weight,/ than that cannot be correlated with fitness, because not enough variables are known. But if you mean amount of that weight that's fat, then you must agree that one's health is strongly determined by the amount of body fat one has.

Again, sumo wrestlers-- or any professional wrestler, for that matter. The WWF might be full of actors, but they're physically-fit actors with some stiff physical requirements. Would you say they're "not as fit as they could be", even though they can out-cycle you *and* dead lift more?

This is the defense of your thesis? Fat doesn't have anything to do with fitness because some fit people are also fat? Non sequitur.

If you don't believe me, you can look up most of the information online, and see for yourself.

I have, Cain. Plus I have a very intimate relationship with my caloric intake, since I eat the same thing day in and day out, so I know exactly what I eat. You, by the way, don't know what I eat, so your attempts to guess my caloric intake are bound for failure.

The only way you can get by with significantly less than 2300 a day is if you have an incredibly low metabolism (which indicates very little lean muscle) or have virtually no activity at all.

You need to learn to read more closely. I explained very early on in this conversation that my lifestyle is very sedentary. If the reason you don't think I can survive on less than 2300 calories on average per day without losing weight - this despite the fact that I've been doing it for some while now - is because you think I'm not inactive, you should certainly pay more attention to what I've said.

Just for a comparison... here's a pic of an actor who's roughly my build (just taller) and has roughly the same body fat perectnage:

Boy, you wish.

To represent Daki, here's a photo of a bodybuilder at >3% body fat:

Boy, he wishes! Where did Daki say he had ">3%" percent body fat? I mean, certainly, his body fat is greater than 3 percent, but it's a lot more greater than that. His claim was 8-10 percent, which doesn't look like that picture at all.

[Cain]

How do I "not have as much expertise" as I "claim?" Which expertise have I claimed? How does comparing me to someone with an eating disorder disprove my claimed expertise?

I don't drink. I mentioned that. And I don't know what you're on about with this nacho chips thing; I do eat tortilla chips sometimes, but they certainly don't alter the basic precepts of what I've been saying. Even at 150 calories for six chips - the worst tortilla chips in the house - I'm looking at a daily average of /maybe/ 75-150 calories in uncounted tortilla chips.

You made the claim that you know your body extremely well, based on the fact that you've had it for somewhat less than 30 years. Well, there's just as many people with that qualification out there who don't know their bodies at all.

As for the calories-- again, you prove my point. That still doesn't add up.

No. Apparently, we mean something different by "fitness." I mean, "Good health or physical condition, especially as the result of exercise and proper nutrition," which most certainly includes the percentage of your body weight made of fat.

No wonder we're stuck on this point. You've defined "weight" as being part of fitness, then turn around and use the definition to prove that fitness is part of weight. Circular reasoning.

Now, if you mean /simple body weight,/ than that cannot be correlated with fitness, because not enough variables are known.

Correct. You haven't been very specific about only referring to "fat weight".

But if you mean amount of that weight that's fat, then you must agree that one's health is strongly determined by the amount of body fat one has.

Actually, I would say that one's body fat is strongly determined by one's health. If you don't exercise, you tend to gain fat, yes? And if you do exercise, you tend to lose fat *and* gain health, yes? As one's health drops, one's fat tends to increase; however, an increase in fat does not mean one is less healthy than before. They're correlated, but not causal.

As another example-- the bodybuilder I posted isn't as extreme as some, but many push their fat percentage to 3% or less, which is very unhealthy for anyone. If they increase their fat percentage to a more acceptable level-- say, 7-10%, where Daki is-- their overall health would *increase*. Or pubescent females, who start gaining more fat weight than they had previously, as breasts form-- they're not less healthy simply because they're entering puberty, even though they're gaining fat.

I agree that an increase in fat is frequently correlated with a decrease in fitness, but there is not a single causal relationship between the two. An increase in fat does not lead to a decrease in fitness; and a decrease in fitness does not always lead to an increase in fat. They do tend to go together, though.

This is the defense of your thesis? Fat doesn't have anything to do with fitness because some fit people are also fat?

You misunderstand my thesis, then. You're the one claiming a direct causal relationship between fat levels and fitness, and claim it's impossible for someone to be both fat and fit. I'm the one with evidence to the contrary, showing that while the two are related, they're not necessarily the same thing.

You're saying that a fat gain inevitably leads to worse health, with no exceptions, as a cosmic law of physiology. I'm the one with the texts on nurtition and physiology, stating evidence to the contrary.

I have, Cain. Plus I have a very intimate relationship with my caloric intake, since I eat the same thing day in and day out, so I know exactly what I eat. You, by the way, don't know what I eat, so your attempts to guess my caloric intake are bound for failure.

I'm basing my conclusions on what you reported here. If you've fudged your reports, then yes, I'm going to be somewhat off. However, my calculations are very clear, and you can look up the formulas yourself.

You need to learn to read more closely. I explained very early on in this conversation that my lifestyle is very sedentary. If the reason you don't think I can survive on less than 2300 calories on average per day without losing weight - this despite the fact that I've been doing it for some while now - is because you think I'm not inactive, you should certainly pay more attention to what I've said.

You'd need to be practically bedridden to not be losing some weight. Based on the fact that you have a fair number of sitting activities, and walk occasionally, and smoke and drink large amounts of caffiene, that indicates you're well within the "sedentary" level of activity and have a higher than normal resting metabolic rate. In order for your report to be true, you'd either need to have significantly less than that level of activity, have significantly less lean muscle than average (and you've indicated that you used to be a cyclist, so that's not likely to be true) or you're forgetting to add in some details.

That's how the math works out. You can do it yourself, and see-- the calculations aren't that difficult. Now, either you think the laws of math and physics are in error, or you are missing something in your reports.

BTW-- the photos were meant as a joke, 32. I want to see what happens when Elf sees the pic I chose for him.

[3278]

Sure thing, man. I'm certain you must be correct. I don't know how much I eat in a day, how many calories are in it, or what I do. Fat doesn't have anything to do with health, and I'm actually dead because I haven't eaten enough.

[Cain]

Sure thing, man. I'm certain you must be correct. I don't know how much I eat in a day, how many calories are in it, or what I do. Fat doesn't have anything to do with health, and I'm actually dead because I haven't eaten enough.

A little less sarcasm, a little more sincerity, and you'll be closer to the facts of the case.

Do you concede that fat does not inevitably lead to ill health? That, in reality, the relationship is somewhat more complex than all that?

[Crazy Elf]

Fat bastard, stop eating, the end.

[Cain]

I take it "Friends" was never popular in Australia?

[Salvation122]

This is stupid.

[Crazy Elf]

Don't hate me because I'm beautiful, chubmo.

[Cain]

Not much chance of that, Ross.

[Crazy Elf]

Must be my amazing physique, intelligence and samurai-like behaviour then.

[Cain]

Nah, you just strike me as neurotic as David Schwimmer.

[3278]

Do you concede that fat does not inevitably lead to ill health? That, in reality, the relationship is somewhat more complex than all that?

If you're looking for someone to tell you it's okay for you to be so fat, you're looking in the wrong place.

[lorg]

Do you concede that fat does not inevitably lead to ill health? That, in reality, the relationship is somewhat more complex than all that?

I don't think I would sign up on that dotted line. While fat by itself ain't bad, amasing it in large amounts over time is not good for your health. While some small deposites might be beneficial large amounts definetly doesn't have any kind of positive health effects on the body.

While one might feel good, or have good results from medical check ups now, as I do. In the long run lugging around that extra weight is going to put a strain on organs and limbs.

[Marius]

Now, I will grant that for more people than not, my height and weight would mean that they're obese. I'm a little unusual, but I'm not that odd-- I'm just built like a defensive lineman.

Which is kind of unfair to defensive linemen. Ten years ago, you'd have a hard time finding a defensive lineman that weighed as much as you do, forget the fat. Now the bigger guys are more common, but even then not quite where you are. A Dolphins' all pro defensive tackle weighs in at 310 pounds, but has only 8 percent body fat. A Chiefs' rookie this year is one of the five largest men to ever play for the team, at around 350 pounds. He has only 20 percent body fat, and team staff say they'll have it down to 18 percent before he starts playing. When football players let their fitness lag they get fired, as happened to Byron Chamberlain when he showed up with body fat of 24 percent.

[Daki]

Now, I will grant that for more people than not, my height and weight would mean that they're obese. I'm a little unusual, but I'm not that odd-- I'm just built like a defensive lineman.

Which is kind of unfair to defensive linemen. Ten years ago, you'd have a hard time finding a defensive lineman that weighed as much as you do, forget the fat. Now the bigger guys are more common, but even then not quite where you are. A Dolphins' all pro defensive tackle weighs in at 310 pounds, but has only 8 percent body fat. A Chiefs' rookie this year is one of the five largest men to ever play for the team, at around 350 pounds. He has only 20 percent body fat, and team staff say they'll have it down to 18 percent before he starts playing. When football players let their fitness lag they get fired, as happened to Byron Chamberlain when he showed up with body fat of 24 percent.

There is a K-1 fighter named The Beast who weighs in between 350-375 pounds and has a scarey 7% bodyfat. The man is scarey to behold just because of his size.

[Kwyndig]

350-ish with 7%? That's not a man, that's a small mountain made of meat that decided to get up and walk around! I'd hate to run into him... ever.

[Cain]

What's odd is that for both defensife linemen and K-1 fighters, having a higher than average body fat percentage is actually a good thing. Extra fat helps cushion the impacts they take.

And 32-- no, it's not ok to be fat. It's simply that by all the definitions, I'm merely "overweight". Wow, talk about ad hominem attacks...

[Bishop]

What's odd is that for both defensife linemen and K-1 fighters, having a higher than average body fat percentage is actually a good thing. Extra fat helps cushion the impacts they take.

Dude, it ain't the fat that cushions and protects them from the blows. It's the muscle and the conditioning. And yes, I've played football. I was one step away from playing for the local arena team around the time of the tree incident. If you have excess fat, you won't move, run, or hit as well as the other guy who weighs just as much but doesn't have the excess fat.

[3278]

What's odd is that for both defensife linemen and K-1 fighters, having a higher than average body fat percentage is actually a good thing. Extra fat helps cushion the impacts they take.

Definitely. Useless, untensionable dead weight like fat is a much better cushion than variable-density non-inert muscle.

And 32-- no, it's not ok to be fat. It's simply that by all the definitions, I'm merely "overweight". Wow, talk about ad hominem attacks...

Yes, there is no definition under which "overweight" is "fat," and there certainly isn't any justification for considering your borderline obesity to be "fat."

[Cain]

And there's no justification for you to be decieving us about your food intake. Honestly, I think you've made a mistake somewhere.

At any event, I'm hardly "borderline obese" unless you're using a different definition than all the links you posted, all the availiable evidence of medical doctors, and all the scientific research. You're either claiming that all the availiable research into nutrition is completely wrong, or you're making a few simple mistakes due to a lack of knowledge in physiology. Which is it?

[Cain]

Dude, it ain't the fat that cushions and protects them from the blows. It's the muscle and the conditioning. And yes, I've played football. I was one step away from playing for the local arena team around the time of the tree incident.

Fat is a key component in our ability to defend against impact. If you take the force directly to muscle, it gets damaged. If the force is delivered to fat, a few cells might rupture, but your muscles will be unharmed.

Bodybuilders with less than 3% body fat are especially sensitive to blows. Their pain tolerance lessens. On the other hand, sumotoris absorb massive amounts of punishment without flinching. William Perry, aka the Fridge, had an immense amount of body fat and was quite successful as a NFL player.

[Cain]

And just for fun... since 32 described himself as an incredibly overweight cyclist, here's the pic that came to mind...



wuffles 32

[Crazy Elf]

Nah, you just strike me...

Accepted.

[3278]

And there's no justification for you to be decieving us about your food intake. Honestly, I think you've made a mistake somewhere.

You're right, in both cases. I'm actually lying about my food intake so people won't know how incredibly fat I am, and I've forgotten so much of what I ate that my numbers are completely wrong.

At any event, I'm hardly "borderline obese" unless you're using a different definition than all the links you posted, all the availiable evidence of medical doctors, and all the scientific research.

You're right. If the borderline for obesity is 25 percent body fat, then your 22-26 percent body fat percentage definitely does not make you borderline obese.

[3278]

Fat is a key component in our ability to defend against impact. If you take the force directly to muscle, it gets damaged. If the force is delivered to fat, a few cells might rupture, but your muscles will be unharmed.

Absolutely. That's why defensive linemen have 8 percent body fat, instead of 25 percent; so they can damage all their muscles real well. That's what team physicians find is the best way of keeping them in the game.

[3278]

In point of fact, the reason none of your calculations regarding me are correct, Cain, is because you've never once asked what my actual daily average intake is; instead, you have assumed it is 900, or 800 "as a low average," without ever verifying those figures, even after I'd stated they were incorrect. You've disregarded my main source of caloric intake, and haven't asked what it is I do all day. Instead, you've decided that no matter what, if I take in less than 2300 calories a day, I must be losing weight. [This is ironic, since you're the very person who started off this thread by arguing that dropping your intake below your output was not sufficient to continue losing weight; since I've maintained this level of intake for some time now, I think we could expect some serious alterations to my metabolism.]

The other important point is this, and there's no getting around it: no one here believes you have any special expertise in nutrition, simply because you're taking a course at a small community college and have your textbook next to you. [You're a particularly dubious source of information given your own quite obvious lack of fitness and your continued denial that you have a serious fat weight problem.] But look at the people arrayed against you: Crazy Elf is an athlete par excellence, and if you've seen pictures of him, you'll see that he knows "not a fatass" far better than you. I'm a former professional athlete and fitness nerd. Bishop was a football player, weight lifter, and general all-around tank of a human. Marius is closer to being a doctor than you are to being a nurse, a state of affairs I expect to continue long after he really is a doctor and you really are a nurse. Daki is a noted fitness...expert is probably too strong a word, since it implies he has some sort of specialized training, but he is one of the "resident experts" on fitness. You're a college student with a textbook; you can see why we find many of your more dubious claims to be somewhat absurd.

I've been just agreeing with you because I'm tired of talking about it. I know what I eat, and how much I weigh, so it's silly to try to convince someone else of that when they just ignore what you say. Unfortunately, I can't agree without needling you a little, so the conversation keeps dragging on. Hopefully, this post can shed some light on why I'm not interested in continuing this absurd conversation in the absense of any reason to go on.

[Cain]

In point of fact, the reason none of your calculations regarding me are correct, Cain, is because you've never once asked what my actual daily average intake is; instead, you have assumed it is 900, or 800 "as a low average," without ever verifying those figures, even after I'd stated they were incorrect. You've disregarded my main source of caloric intake, and haven't asked what it is I do all day.

In point of fact, you've repeatedly stated your caloric intake at an average of 800-1600 a day, which isn't physically possible. You've stated your activity level as "sedentary", and admitted your main soruce of calories is Mountain Dew.

You don't need any particular expertise, you just need some basic physiology and simple math to do the calculations. But, since you seem to doubt my education-- can you, personally, tell me why the metabolic pathways for fat are worse for one's health than the pathways for sugars? (I know Marius can, but he and I are more in agreement on the science than you and I are.)

See, I've provided the actual math and science involved. You've responded with repeated ad hominem attacks on my supposed lack of expertise, and huge misinterpretations about the availiable science. Now, I'm not out to flame or insult you-- I'm out to try and educate you in the actual science involved. This is biology, one of your strongest fields, you really should understand the basics of food metabolism.

So, if your expertise is so great-- can you, without having to google for answers, explain the differences between the metabolic pathways and why problems can emerge? Can you discuss, say, the role of electrolytes in muscle function? Can you tell me which ones are most important to an athlete, and why, and where they're stored in muscle? Can you discuss the release mechanisms involved in two different types of muscle tissue? Heck, can you name the four food substances that provide energy, and why?

These are basic biocheimistry questions that I covered in a "small community college" nutrition course. They should be no challenge to you, since I know you've got a lot of good background in biology and chemistry.

[3278]

Jeez, man, I don't know any of that stuff. My estimation of my caloric intake is definitely incorrect, since I don't know the metabolic pathways involved. You must be completely right.

[Angel]

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

It's the same for me, in fact it's one of he reasons why I am looking forward to leaving my job, I'll finally find time to eat. Seriously, I am looking forward to gaining 2 to 3 kilograms after I stop working. It's easy to forget to eat, and so I guess it's right when people say it's hard to eat right.

[Cain]

Jeez, man, I don't know any of that stuff.

Exactly my point. You don't seem to have any understanding of metabolic biochemistry. Which, in turn, means you have no understanding of nutrition. Which is exactly the problem; I'm trying to give you some of the correct science involved.

[MissTeja]

32: Are you closet-eating cookies? Hmm? Because other than the days I cook for you, I can vouge that you eat hardly anything. Heck, sometimes I cook for you and you're just not hungry. I think you're hiding cookies. Yup. So, where are they, hmm? Because supposedly a 1600 calorie a day diet is impossible to survive on, so show me the COOKIES!

[3278]

Exactly my point. You don't seem to have any understanding of metabolic biochemistry. Which, in turn, means you have no understanding of nutrition. Which is exactly the problem; I'm trying to give you some of the correct science involved.

My god, man. <i>Let it go.[/i]

[Cain]

32: Are you closet-eating cookies? Hmm?

Ssh! He doesn't want you to know he's hiding the Oreos on you!