Posted: 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.
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.3278 wrote:Well, I have to tell you, any plan that involves Daki "looking me over" is one I'm "behind" 100 percent.
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.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.
Just use what the rest of us use. A bottle of Windex and a squeegee.Daki wrote:Oh, and a decontamination fee.
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.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).
Actually, the reverse is frequently true in this country as well.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'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.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.*
*feeds numbers into computer*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.
So, you agree that the obesity epidemic in America is a cultural issue, and not an individual one?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.
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.Cain wrote:So, you agree that the obesity epidemic in America is a cultural issue, and not an individual one?
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.Daki wrote: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.Cain wrote:So, you agree that the obesity epidemic in America is a cultural issue, and not an individual one?
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.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.
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.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 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).DV8 wrote: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.Daki wrote: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.Cain wrote:So, you agree that the obesity epidemic in America is a cultural issue, and not an individual one?
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?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.
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: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.
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.Cain wrote:The next logical step is that since it's a collective issue, it requires a collective solution.
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.
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.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?
Do you believe there's no such thing as collective responsibility?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.
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".*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.
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.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.
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"?I'm sorry, man, but you're just not the exception here. Your BMI and body fat percentage show the same result: borderline obesity.
How do you say things like this with a straight face? Why do you even bother?Cain wrote:So, you have exactly the same qualifications as a 30-year-old woman with an eating disorder, then?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.
I'm not sure. I can't think of one; that should tell you something.Cain wrote:Do you believe there's no such thing as collective responsibility?
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.Cain wrote: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".*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.
Again, would you tolerate it if someone claimed to know more about evolution than you do, solely because he went through puberty?How do you say things like this with a straight face? Why do you even bother?
Then, do you believe that government and corporations can never be held liable for actions done under their auspices?I'm not sure. I can't think of one; that should tell you something.
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.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.
This makes even less sense, since "puberty" and "evolution" don't have anything to do with each other.Cain wrote:Again, would you tolerate it if someone claimed to know more about evolution than you do, solely because he went through puberty?
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:There is no way you can maintain any sort of activity level and survive on 900 calories a day, average.
Only when I'm with Marius.Cain wrote:You mentioned drinking-- do you drink alcoholic beverages on a regular basis?
I believe the government and corporations are made up of individuals who can be held liable for actions they have taken.Cain wrote:Then, do you believe that government and corporations can never be held liable for actions done under their auspices?
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.Crazy Elf wrote:Shit, I often forget to eat. How the hell can people just eat according to routine?
FOX likes the fat articles, apparently.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.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.
The fuck? No request for nude Daki?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.
That's like three-quarters of a shitton of daily cheese.3278 wrote:quarter-pound of cheddar
Yeah. Your piss must come out like snot.Salvation122 wrote:That's like three-quarters of a shitton of daily cheese.3278 wrote:quarter-pound of cheddar
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.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?
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.I have experimental evidence suggesting that's profoundly untrue, but more significantly, where the heck did you get this figure from?
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?I believe the government and corporations are made up of individuals who can be held liable for actions they have taken.
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.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).
Right, and perhaps you can tell us how the metabolic pathway that handles alcohol contributes to the energy use of the human body?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.
And, as a result...they don't have a decent idea of their caloric intake? Do they just add badly?Cain wrote:Evidently not; most of the people I know with eating disorders also have memorized the caloire counts of virtually everything.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?
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:You also seem to be ignoring the very strong evidence that fitness trumps weight, every time.
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: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.3278 wrote:I have experimental evidence suggesting that's profoundly untrue, but more significantly, where the heck did you get this figure from?Cain wrote:There is no way you can maintain any sort of activity level and survive on 900 calories a day, average.
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.Cain wrote: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?3278 wrote:I believe the government and corporations are made up of individuals who can be held liable for actions they have taken.
Oddly enough, no. They either overeat or undereat, or provide some sort of justification for not sticking to the RDAs.And, as a result...they don't have a decent idea of their caloric intake?
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.I don't know how else I'm "ignoring" the evidence that fitness trumps weight, particularly since I believe fitness /includes/ weight.
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.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.
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.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.
I can't believe you just said that your fat percentage does not have a direct causal effect on your weight.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.
Well, 32's such a stickler for strict accuracy, I have to put it that way.I can't believe you just said that your fat percentage does not have a direct causal effect on your weight.
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.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.
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.crone wrote: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.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.
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)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.