NationStates Jolt Archive

I KNOW that, but I personally don't think it's a DISABILITY unless it's caused by other factors.
Then you personally don't understand what the term DISABILITY means.

Muscle can not hide fat.
Fat is the outermost layer. I had a six pack, but then I gained weight, and no matter how strong my stomach was, you couldn't see the six pack. It's common sense. Fat - like pants - goes on the outside.

Being toned and fit is great though, and it will help your overall appearance, but muscle simply won't "hide" fat.

Uh, what? I don't think you know what you're talking about. It CAN be the outer layer. Have you ever dissected anything, let alone a human being. Fat isn't only on the outside. It sits in different places on different people.

And one can probably assume that he means that he wears it better now that he has so much muscle. A guy with low muscle and a belly is more obviously fat than a person with a lot of muscle and the same belly.

Then you personally don't understand what the term DISABILITY means.

If someone goes and chops off their legs because they want to claim disability, would you recognise that disability?

Because I personally wouldn't.

Uh, what? I don't think you know what you're talking about. It CAN be the outer layer. Have you ever dissected anything, let alone a human being. Fat isn't only on the outside. It sits in different places on different people.

And one can probably assume that he means that he wears it better now that he has so much muscle. A guy with low muscle and a belly is more obviously fat than a person with a lot of muscle and the same belly.

Muscle. Can. Not. Hide. Fat.

I can't believe I'm even trying to push this point. You have to be stupid to think that muscle can hide fat.

I do assume that he means he wears it better, but I simply pointed out that it hasn't "hidden" it, it's made his overall appearance better.

If someone goes and chops off their legs because they want to claim disability, would you recognise that disability?

Because I personally wouldn't.

But it would be a disability by definition.

Since when are words defined by whether or not you understand or recognize them?

If someone goes and chops off their legs because they want to claim disability, would you recognise that disability?

Because I personally wouldn't.

A disability is a condition that makes it difficult or impossible to carry out one or more routine life tasks for a period of time that is long lasting or life long.

IF someone cut off their legs they would have a condition that makes it difficult or impossible to carry out one or more routine life tasks for a period of time that is long lasting or life long, so yes, I would recognize that disability as it falls under the definition of disability that I am familiar with.

Muscle. Can. Not. Hide. Fat.

I can't believe I'm even trying to push this point. You have to be stupid to think that muscle can hide fat.

I do assume that he means he wears it better, but I simply pointed out that it hasn't "hidden" it, it's made his overall appearance better.

Wow, that's almost an argument. Except, well, it's not. But call me stupid if you like. In fact, I'd prefer that you call me stupid, just make sure you keep claiming that fat sits on the outside while you say it. To anyone who actually knows, it's pretty friggin' funny.

Now, again, you fail to understand what he means by hide. Most people aren't walking around with no skin and no clothes. He's talking about what is noticeable (which is what hide means). THe fact is that I weight about 200 pounds even when my body fat is down to what would be considered the low end of healthy. My brother in the same condition is at about 145.

Put 15 pounds of fat on my brother and 25 pounds of fat on me. My brother would have an obvious belly. I (and I also carry fat around my belly when I have it) would still just look muscular as long as I had a shirt on. That's pretty much the definition of hide.

Just to add my two cents?

I'm 6'3", and I weighed 255 lbs last May. I have since plateaued at 195 lbs, having reached that particular weight in September. That's 60 lbs in four months.

Did I exercise? Not really. I mean, no more than I used to (which wasn't much at all). My secret was: eating less. Basically, instead of overeating (which I did all the time), I just ate less of what my meals were.

I know that this spits in the face of everyone who says exercise is crucial, so sorry.

What it immediately shouts out, though... is that you're probably a late-teens-male, maybe early twenties.

It also probably suggests that you previously didn't drink enough water, and probably consumed some fastfood or snackfoods... and probably soda drinks... that you probably indulge in much less of now.

But it would be a disability by definition.

Since when are words defined by whether or not you understand or recognize them?

A disability is a condition that makes it difficult or impossible to carry out one or more routine life tasks for a period of time that is long lasting or life long.

IF someone cut off their legs they would have a condition that makes it difficult or impossible to carry out one or more routine life tasks for a period of time that is long lasting or life long, so yes, I would recognize that disability as it falls under the definition of disability that I am familiar with.

In response to both of you...

I used the word "personally". Meaning, I personally don't consider it a disability. I think obese people who choose to be obese for no other reason than laziness (which is - as I said - probably very rare) do not deserve to claim the disability pension, for example. Disability permits, pensions and other things that help the disabled should be reserved for true sufferers, and I don't feel that someone who chooses to be obese is suffering as much as someone who has a thyroid disease. However, like I keep saying, I highly doubt that there are many obese people who are obese because they "love food" and "want to be that way". That's the kind of sensationalist stuff you see on current affairs programs, but hypothetically, if someone was like that, I personally would find it difficult to put them in the same league as a "true" sufferer.

So continue to argue with me if you want, but I'm the last person who ever makes comments about "fat" people. I'm the last person to judge someone by their weight.

In response to both of you...

I used the word "personally". Meaning, I personally don't consider it a disability. I think obese people who choose to be obese for no other reason than laziness (which is - as I said - probably very rare) do not deserve to claim the disability pension, for example. Disability permits, pensions and other things that help the disabled should be reserved for true sufferers, and I don't feel that someone who chooses to be obese is suffering as much as someone who has a thyroid disease. However, like I keep saying, I highly doubt that there are many obese people who are obese because they "love food" and "want to be that way". That's the kind of sensationalist stuff you see on current affairs programs, but hypothetically, if someone was like that, I personally would find it difficult to put them in the same league as a "true" sufferer.

So continue to argue with me if you want, but I'm the last person who ever makes comments about "fat" people. I'm the last person to judge someone by their weight.

Unfortunately, words aren't personal. They have a meaning.

I personally don't consider you a human being. Am I right?

By the way, do you know what visceral fat is? Intramuscular fat? Or is it stupid to actually know things about the subject about which one is speaking?

Wow, that's almost an argument. Except, well, it's not. But call me stupid if you like. In fact, I'd prefer that you call me stupid, just make sure you keep claiming that fat sits on the outside while you say it. To anyone who actually knows, it's pretty friggin' funny.

Now, again, you fail to understand what he means by hide. Most people aren't walking around with no skin and no clothes. He's talking about what is noticeable (which is what hide means). THe fact is that I weight about 200 pounds even when my body fat is down to what would be considered the low end of healthy. My brother in the same condition is at about 145.

Put 15 pounds of fat on my brother and 25 pounds of fat on me. My brother would have an obvious belly. I (and I also carry fat around my belly when I have it) would still just look muscular as long as I had a shirt on. That's pretty much the definition of hide.

I do understand what he means by "hide" but it's the wrong word. I was an athlete. I've been to nutritionists. I do know what I'm talking about. Muscle can help your overall appearance and make you more toned, but muscle can not magically make your fat disappear. You need to lose weight to lose fat. Sometimes people - I'm not saying you, but some people - think fat can be "turned into" muscle. It can't. You lose fat and you gain muscle.

Fat is the outermost layer.

Only if you are built inside out.

Where do you keep your bones and organs?

You need to lose weight to lose fat.

No, you don't.

I fear you don't know as much as you think you do.

Unfortunately, words aren't personal. They have a meaning.

I personally don't consider you a human being. Am I right?

By the way, do you know what visceral fat is?

If you fail to see how I've explained myself, that's fine.

And, yes, I do.

No, you don't.

I fear you don't know as much as you think you do.

Yes, you do.

You lose fat.
You gain muscle.

If you do these at the same time, you won't notice the difference on the scale.

But if someone were to simply lose body fat without gaining muscle their weight would go down.

A disability is a condition that makes it difficult or impossible to carry out one or more routine life tasks for a period of time that is long lasting or life long.

IF someone cut off their legs they would have a condition that makes it difficult or impossible to carry out one or more routine life tasks for a period of time that is long lasting or life long, so yes, I would recognize that disability as it falls under the definition of disability that I am familiar with.

Amor Puchritudo is well advised to check with Centrelink (our federal Social Security agency) before chopping off her own legs to get the pension. :D

Just a "this is not legal advice" note there.

I'm glad you won at NaNoWriMo! Now your avatar is different from SoWiBi's. Care to tell us your NNWM name?

In response to both of you...

I used the word "personally". Meaning, I personally don't consider it a disability. I think obese people who choose to be obese for no other reason than laziness (which is - as I said - probably very rare) do not deserve to claim the disability pension, for example. Disability permits, pensions and other things that help the disabled should be reserved for true sufferers, and I don't feel that someone who chooses to be obese is suffering as much as someone who has a thyroid disease. However, like I keep saying, I highly doubt that there are many obese people who are obese because they "love food" and "want to be that way". That's the kind of sensationalist stuff you see on current affairs programs, but hypothetically, if someone was like that, I personally would find it difficult to put them in the same league as a "true" sufferer.

So continue to argue with me if you want, but I'm the last person who ever makes comments about "fat" people. I'm the last person to judge someone by their weight.
And in the real world, where words have actual definitions that aren't changed by what idiocy Amor Pulchritudo decides to subscribe to......both the guy who cut off his own legs and the guy whose legs got cut off in an industrial accident have the same exact problem when it comes to completeing life tasks.......in that they have no fucking legs

Disability is about your ability to do stuff, not about how you got into the situation you are in.

If you do these at the same time, you won't notice the difference on the scale.


I rest my case.

One can easily gain weight, and lose fat. Your comment was demonstrably untrue. QED.

Amor Puchritudo is well advised to check with Centrelink (our federal Social Security agency) before chopping off her own legs to get the pension. :D

I live in the same country as you, remember?:tongue:



Disability is about your ability to do stuff, not about how you got into the situation you are in.

And if a lazy sloth stopped being a lazy sloth, he would be able to do things. Unlike someone who has a thyroid disease, for example.

I'm not trying to debate the meaning of the word disability with you here.

I rest my case.

One can easily gain weight, and lose fat. Your comment was demonstrably untrue. QED.

You snipped out the rest of my post. You can't just pick one sentence.

I do understand what he means by "hide" but it's the wrong word. I was an athlete. I've been to nutritionists. I do know what I'm talking about. Muscle can help your overall appearance and make you more toned, but muscle can not magically make your fat disappear. You need to lose weight to lose fat. Sometimes people - I'm not saying you, but some people - think fat can be "turned into" muscle. It can't. You lose fat and you gain muscle.

He didn't say disappear, my uneducated friend. He said hide. They are not the same thing. You keep talking about him claiming that the fat is invisible. He didn't claim that. He claimed that fat can be hidden, i.e. difficult to notice. You've not addressed that at all.

Again, do you know what visceral fat is? Intramuscular fat? Or is it stupid to actually know things about the subject about which one is speaking?

You claim you do, but given that both show that fat can actually hide in muscle and behind muscle, it pretty much demonstrates your point is ignorant.

An athelete can have a very visible stomach muscles that are bloated outward by fat behind the abdominal wall. That fat is called visceral and it's why having an apple-shaped body is dangerous.

There are other body types that carry a lot of fat within their muscle, called intramuscular fat.

Neither of these types of fat are layered over the muscle. So, Mr. Athelete, do you now admit that fat is not the outermost layer (ignoring the wildly stupid missing skin)?

And if a lazy sloth stopped being a lazy sloth, he would be able to do things. Unlike someone who has a thyroid disease, for example.
Not immediately, and until they lost enough weight......they are disabled. Just like when I crushed my knee, it didn't heal immediately, it took 6 months, and while I was waiting for it to heal, and doing surgery, and physical therapy, I wasn't able to do things like if my knee wasn't crushed.

I'm not trying to debate the meaning of the word disability with you here.
You obviously don't understand the meaning of the word disability or you wouldn't be saying the things you are.

I'm not trying to debate the meaning of the word disability with you here.

Good thing, because you're using the word incorrectly.

Neither of these types of fat are layered over the muscle. So, Ms. Athlete, do you now admit that fat is not the outermost layer (ignoring the wildly stupid missing skin)?

Fixed. Sorry, bu the mispronunciation of "athlete" is one of my pet peeves.

I live in the same country as you, remember?:tongue:

The note in brackets was for other readers.

Fixed. Sorry, buT the mispronunciation of "athlete" is one of my pet peeves.

Fixed. Sorry, but typos are one of my pet peeves.

It was a misspelling. I didn't pronounce anything.

Incidentally, if I pronounced it how it was spelled, I'd be correctly pronouncing it. It's the less common pronunciation, but it's still a proper pronunciation.

Do you have lots of pet peeves about people pronouncing things properly?

Personally, I partake of plenty of peeves. Particularly ptyos.

You snipped out the rest of my post. You can't just pick one sentence.

I didn't 'snip' the rest of the post - the rest of the post said the same thing... it sauid you can gain weight through muscle (true) and lose weight in fat (true), and that doing both simultaneously means you might lose weight, gain weight, or just stay level (also true).

All I did was cut the unnecessary repetition to highlight the component that clinches it.

Fixed. Sorry, but typos are one of my pet peeves.

It was a misspelling. I didn't pronounce anything.

Incidentally, if I pronounced it how it was spelled, I'd be correctly pronouncing it. It's the less common pronunciation, but it's still a proper pronunciation.

Do you have lots of pet peeves about people pronouncing things properly?

You seem cranky.
Hypoglycemic, much?
How about a glass of juice?

It rather depends. If the form of logic is 'if...then' it absolutely falls down if the 'if' component can be shown to be faulty.

Amor has a claim about losing weight - but it's fundamental premise can be shown to be flawed. The logic falls apart if you can show that one link doesn't hold.

(The points you made - they were connected statements, but one does not lead to the next as logical cause and effect).

No. I DO NOT THINK THAT. I even SAID that if you lose body fat, you lose weight, but if you gain muscle simultaneously, your weight may stay the same. Your weight could even go up, depending on how much muscle you gain. I do not think that if you lose body fat, you lose weight.

Muscle is more dense than fat. <-- AP's argument defeated.

THAT WAS NOT MY ARGUMENT.


Fucking idiots.

THAT WAS NOT MY ARGUMENT.


Fucking idiots.

You seem cranky.
Hypoglycemic, much?
How about a glass of juice?


hmm.....

You seem cranky.
Hypoglycemic, much?
How about a glass of juice?



No. I DO NOT THINK THAT. I even SAID that if you lose body fat, you lose weight, but if you gain muscle simultaneously, your weight may stay the same. Your weight could even go up, depending on how much muscle you gain. I do not think that if you lose body fat, you lose weight.
Actually, what you said is as follows, the bold part being relevant.
I do understand what he means by "hide" but it's the wrong word. I was an athlete. I've been to nutritionists. I do know what I'm talking about. Muscle can help your overall appearance and make you more toned, but muscle can not magically make your fat disappear. You need to lose weight to lose fat. Sometimes people - I'm not saying you, but some people - think fat can be "turned into" muscle. It can't. You lose fat and you gain muscle.

You seem cranky.
Hypoglycemic, much?
How about a glass of juice?



No. I DO NOT THINK THAT. I even SAID that if you lose body fat, you lose weight, but if you gain muscle simultaneously, your weight may stay the same. Your weight could even go up, depending on how much muscle you gain. I do not think that if you lose body fat, you lose weight.

Here's what you said, and I quote: "...You need to lose weight to lose fat."

Clearly, you don't. You admit as much, yourself.

Your exact words.

I rest my case.

Again.

QED.

hmm.....

To be fair, having words put in ones mouth is really fucking annoying.

To be fair, having words put in ones mouth is really fucking annoying.

Lots of things are annoying, like people who don't understand the definition of words, or people who say things that don't make sense and then flame people for pointing it out, or people who pop into threads for no other reason but to flamebait someone they don't like, or people who defend someone because she's a girl and has boobies no matter how idiotic her "personal" position is.

To be fair, having words put in ones mouth is really fucking annoying.

Even more annoying to have it pointed out that those words came out of their mouth, and were not put in.

Lots of things are annoying, like people who don't understand the definition of words, or people who say things that don't make sense and then flame people for pointing it out, or people who pop into threads for no other reason but to flamebait someone they don't like, or people who defend someone because she's a girl and has boobies no matter how idiotic her "personal" position is.

Or people who make assumption about some other posters motives without knowing jack shit.


For example, youre a girl and have boodies, and I cant bloody stand you.

Or people who make assumption about some other posters motives without knowing jack shit.
Your motive for popping in to make a snarky comment about Jocabia was?

For example, youre a girl and have boodies, and I cant bloody stand you.
We're all aware of it. Saying it over and over doesn't make it any more clear.

Your motive for popping in to make a snarky comment about Jocabia was?


You assume I "popped in". Ive been lurking here for a while. Just dont have much to say. But it is worth point some things out.


Like what I mentioned above.


Besides, I was only refering to your juvenile comment that I was somehow "defending" Amor (Im not) just because shes a chick and has tits. I think youve been spending too much time around your kids if you think so simplistically.

You assume I "popped in". Ive been lurking here for a while. Just dont have much to say. But it is worth point some things out.


Like what I mentioned above.

You have nothing to say on topic, all you have to say is that you don't like Jocabia's method, and that you can't bloody stand me. I assure you that many many people agree, but it doesn't make it on topic and it doesn't add to the debate.

Tell me sir, your motivation.

Besides, I was only refering to your juvenile comment that I was somehow "defending" Amor (Im not) just because shes a chick and has tits.

I thought Amor was a dude. In a heavy metal band.

I'm thinking I've confused two posters, here...

For example, youre a girl and have boodies, and I cant bloody stand you.

How can anyone not like Smunkee?

:o

How can anyone not like Smunkee?

:o
I'm juvenile and stupid and apparently very intolerant of others lifestyles and opinions and stuff.

I thought Amor was a dude. In a heavy metal band.

I'm thinking I've confused two posters, here...

Yeah, I think you have Amor and me confused:p

I'm juvenile and stupid and apparently very intolerant of others lifestyles and opinions and stuff.

Right.

Like I said, how can anyone not like Smunkee! :)

Yeah, I think you have Amor and me confused:p

Are you a dude in a heavy metal band?

That... would explain a lot....

Are you a dude in a heavy metal band?



Yes.



That... would explain a lot....


What are you tryin to say?:p

You seem cranky.
Hypoglycemic, much?
How about a glass of juice?

Didn't get the joke? Would you like me to explain it to you? I assure you, I laughed.

EDIT: By the way, it really was a misspelling. I don't mind being corrected, but you can't expect me to tease you when you're incorrect about the pronunciation and you also have typos in that post where you tell me it's your pet peeve when people make what you perceive as mistakes.

Just to add my two cents?

I'm 6'3", and I weighed 255 lbs last May. I have since plateaued at 195 lbs, having reached that particular weight in September. That's 60 lbs in four months.

Did I exercise? Not really. I mean, no more than I used to (which wasn't much at all). My secret was: eating less. Basically, instead of overeating (which I did all the time), I just ate less of what my meals were.

I know that this spits in the face of everyone who says exercise is crucial, so sorry.

People say that exercise is crucial to good health, not weight loss. You can lose weight a variety of ways. Most of them are not healthy.

Oh, okay. Well, just to let you know, I am healthy -- I originally wanted to lose weight to go to USNA, and now, well, I can meet Navy reqs for physical fitness (number of reps for crunches, push-ups, chin-ups, time on the mile, etc.)

My point remains that weight loss occurred almost entirely without exercise.

I find exercise to be compellingly necessary for my physical and mental health.

I'm skinny, it might be worth noting. I have a BMI of 20.5, and it's never been above 24. In fact, when I was right into drugs and had no interest in food, was unhealithy thin (like, exercise would make me faint from lack of blood sugar) I was still supposedly in a healthy range of BMI.

Exercise is the touchstone of my current lifestyle. I eat healthily, I put on weight when I eat more, lose it when I don't. I control my weight with food intake, but ... exercise is non-negotiable. I get depressed after a few days of not doing enough exercise to raise my pulse or crack a sweat. I go to bed happiest the days I did four hours or more of aerobic work.

And I have no will-power. I'm incredibly crap at "making myself" do things for my own good. This "laziness" runs throughout my being, I'm not even sure what is good for me and what is not, the supposedly obvious "self-interest" fails me until I'm in immediate danger, in pain, or forced to action by others. I'm a huge believer in "when in doubt, do nothing" and I'm always in doubt.

So I'm building my lifestyle around being forced to exercise. I'm not training myself up for any of the well-paying jobs I could do, and I'm not taking my exercise too seriously as "I gotta work out, or I'll die!" I'm putting myself in the position where exercise is the only opton which will feed me.

My advice is worthless for anyone who is trying to balance "losing weight" against the other improvements in their life which their "will-power" could be spent on. But my advice is to get exercise, and preferably meaningful exercise. Walking to the shops, digging a garden, carrying a message in the office when you could more "easily" send a message electronically.

From my own experience and nothing else: exercise is good for you. Any day, no matter how horrific or pointless, is improved by taking to your bed physically tired.

On a lyrical note: if you use your body for something, it knows that it's needed. The body rises to a challenge, and best if that challenge is something the brain believes in too. Like earning money for booze.

I'm skinny, it might be worth noting. I have a BMI of 20.5, and it's never been above 24.

I have little idea of my weight, absolutely no idea about my BMI, I couldn't even accurately state my height, 6.3 or 6.4 depending on who's claiming they're 6 foot.

We do seem to obsess over our health, with all these 'relevant' measurements. I can understand why some people might find it overwhelming, going through cycles of diets and whatnot.

I'm lucky I suppose, the question - what is my BMI - never enters my head.

You have nothing to say on topic, all you have to say is that you don't like Jocabia's method, and that you can't bloody stand me. I assure you that many many people agree, but it doesn't make it on topic and it doesn't add to the debate.

Yeah, whatever. You're just some pommy immigrant with broad shoulders who drinks too much beer and plays a ... what was it ... Bat'leth ?

I'm lucky I suppose, the question - what is my BMI - never enters my head.

Thats good, because the BMI is utterly useless and is a poor indicator of health. A 5'10 muscular and atheletic girl would be considered "overweight" by its standards.

I have little idea of my weight, absolutely no idea about my BMI, I couldn't even accurately state my height, 6.3 or 6.4 depending on who's claiming they're 6 foot.

We do seem to obsess over our health, with all these 'relevant' measurements. I can understand why some people might find it overwhelming, going through cycles of diets and whatnot.

I'm lucky I suppose, the question - what is my BMI - never enters my head.

I know my weight now, I know my weight the day a doctor told me I was dangerously underweight. I know my height. Google "BMI calculator" and you can find yours.

It's not a very useful measurement without other factors considered.

Quite the contrary to "obsessing about my health" I was one of those people who didn't give a fuck about it unless I was feeling really sick.

As Hunter S. Thompson alleges a doctor said to him: "With those symptoms, I'm amazed you are alive. Come back if they stop."

Thats good, because the BMI is utterly useless and is a poor indicator of health. A 5'10 muscular and atheletic girl would be considered "overweight" by its standards.

BMI is a very poor indicator of a person's healthy weight, yes.

But it's "good" not to know it? It's "good" not to know one's own weight?

Let's suppose that Barringtonia is 400 lbs and 5'6''. Ignorance is bliss, huh? He'll be fine?

Thats good, because the BMI is utterly useless and is a poor indicator of health. A 5'10 muscular and atheletic girl would be considered "overweight" by its standards.

Wrong. Not utterly useless. It must be taken with a grain of reality. That is not "utterly useless", that is common sense... a guy who works out 5x a week and is solid muscle is clearly not obese.

BMI is a very poor indicator of a person's healthy weight, yes.

But it's "good" not to know it? It's "good" not to know one's own weight?

Let's suppose that Barringtonia is 400 lbs and 5'6''. Ignorance is bliss, huh? He'll be fine?

My dad either doesn't know his exact weight or at least won't tell us what it is, just that it's over 350 pounds or possibly 400 or something like that, we're not even sure, 5'11. I don't know if normal scales go that high or not. He's obese, we know that much, and it definitely has affected his health. He's in a lot of pain in his back and knees a lot of the time and has occasionally missed work because of it when it gets really severe and has to take really strong pain medication.

For myself I just know that I'm in the 110-115 pound range and that's enough to know, although last time I was weighed I was right in the middle of it; it seems to fluctuate within that range for me anyway. For exercise I only do a minimal amount, like 20-30 minutes of walking a day, and my diet varies. I never purposely don't eat enough or anything but some days now if I don't get up until 10:30 I won't be hungry enough to eat anything until lunchtime, so I'll only be able to have two meals that day and I don't have the capacity to make them bigger meals to make up for it. But on those days I don't have anywhere to go so I don't get more than about 10 minutes of walking for exercise for I would guess 1000-1200 or so calories. So on other days I probably eat 1500-1800 calories.

No idea how many calories my dad eats. I know he eats a salad every day for lunch now. I know he goes to the gym now sometimes too but I imagine the pain makes that harder too. But he always makes sure to warn me and my brothers not to get fat like him.

Wrong. Not utterly useless. It must be taken with a grain of reality. That is not "utterly useless", that is common sense... a guy who works out 5x a week and is solid muscle is clearly not obese.It's not useless, but it isn't very accurate.
I would think that body fat % is a much better way to measure obesity, don't you think? :p

I know that you'd think it works this way based on some of the crap arguments on this forum, but the fact is, that in debate, your argument collapses when you bolster it with weak elements. The weak elements weaken the entire structure of your argument and call into question your understanding and your line of argument in general.

Please don't presume what I know. I live in a world outside of NSG. As for the last statement, that's consistent with what I said. I also said that having a weak or flawed argument does not actually make the facts untrue, it just makes them unconvincing.

It's not useless, but it isn't very accurate.
I would think that body fat % is a much better way to measure obesity, don't you think? :p

It is. It also requires more technology. One of the most accurate is to weigh someone under water with no air in their lungs (body average density), the other being DEXA (dual energy xray absorptiometry). These requires some technology.

BMI is a simple measure that can be rapidly calculated to give a decent idea. Doctors can rapidly tell obese patients just how obese they are, and how much they need to lose to be "overweight" or "standard weight" without the use of calipers, pools, or xrays. Is it entirely accurate? No. Nor do any medical professionals claim that it is. For example, I have moved from 19.3 to 23.4, entirely in muscle mass. My doctor has never suggested that I have gotten closer to being overweight, because he understands that I work out 3x a week and take care of myself.

There are better ways, yes. But those come with the tradeoff of cost and technological needs.

Fixed. Sorry, but typos are one of my pet peeves.

It was a misspelling. I didn't pronounce anything.

Incidentally, if I pronounced it how it was spelled, I'd be correctly pronouncing it. It's the less common pronunciation, but it's still a proper pronunciation.

Do you have lots of pet peeves about people pronouncing things properly?

I figured you would jump on that. I chose "pronunciation" because I assumed that you used that spelling because you pronounce it in that way. While it may be acceptable according to some dictionaries to pronounce it that way, it doesn't change the spelling, but people who pronounce the extra syllable often then spell it that way.

It was light-hearted and I poked fun at my own neurosis. You don't have to be at the podium all the time.

I still couldn't care less about my BMI, I have my annual check up and the doctor tells me whatever he tells me, it's never been about weight.

Unless you have a specific reason to know it, whether being a gym-nut or having weight issues, i don't really see why anyone would care.

For me it's all part and parcel of having 'teh perfect body™', from glossy magazines, to constant advertising on health/beauty and more, we should ignore it all.

I still couldn't care less about my BMI, I have my annual check up and the doctor tells me whatever he tells me, it's never been about weight.

Unless you have a specific reason to know it, whether being a gym-nut or having weight issues, i don't really see why anyone would care.

For me it's all part and parcel of having 'teh perfect body™', from glossy magazines, to constant advertising on health/beauty and more, we should ignore it all.

I personally set my weight gain goals by BMI...my current goal is to get my weight into the "overweight" category by increasing muscle mass while keeping body fat low.

As I said, it isn't the best system...but for those who are obese or like me, it is another tool to measure progress.

I'm 45.

And my current doctor hates me. The doctors I saw 25 years ago (plural because I was seeing them due to a serious illness) agreed that I was right to avoid seeing doctors unless I was actually sick. One of them went so far as to declare that the more I stayed away from doctors, the longer I would live. :D

I do not hold to the boilerplate "at age X, you should get Y tests/treatments Z times/year" rule. Just like healthy weight, I believe this depends on each individual's own health issues.

My grandfather would have agreed... He was an M.D.

I figured you would jump on that. I chose "pronunciation" because I assumed that you used that spelling because you pronounce it in that way. While it may be acceptable according to some dictionaries to pronounce it that way, it doesn't change the spelling, but people who pronounce the extra syllable often then spell it that way.

It was light-hearted and I poked fun at my own neurosis. You don't have to be at the podium all the time.

I was kidding around too. You didn't offend me by correcting me. Remember that my tone of voice is being added by you, not me. Also remember that sarcasm is hard to read in print. I'm not going to be less sarcastic, but if you want me to seem less angry, that's the only way I'm going to actually seem less angry to you.

You know I was a wrestler. We had not trouble with having enough energy. I used to eat about 1000 calories the day before a tournament. I ate some food the day of the tournament, probably about 2000 calories, but I had no trouble with energy. I assure you a wrestling tournament is more active than that of your camp. In fact, I think you'd likely kill many of your campers if you had them keep our activity level for a day.

We also had a doctor. He told us we were very healthy. He encouraged the guys that were "overweight" to lose weight. We had guys whose growth was affected by the level of the diet. We had people who actually caused permanent problems due to the ridiculous level of eating.

We had plenty of energy. Had we been adults, such behavior would have landed a significant percentage of our group in the hospital.

As I said, obviously, children function differently. Any expert on nutrition would tell you that it's entirely different. Children should get more calories, but their tolerances are much, much broader. They can recover from so much more than that which would kill the average adult.

And, yep, when your argument sounds like bullshit, and it does, I call bullshit. It's late tonight, but I will be calling them tomorrow. (Actually, I just left a message for Ira Green.)

I wanted to add one point to this. The argument SOUNDS like bullshit, but on having researched it, it's not bullshit. He is telling the truth, he worked with a camp that used an axe for a job only a scalpel is fit for and even some of the camps experts acknowledge much of the "success" was temporary.

Most people aren't going to change their life by excercising all day and eating 1800 calories with no consideration for their size and age. And, looking at the evidence, most of the people who went to the camp did not, in fact, change their life. It's the camp equivalent of a gimmick diet. People initially lose weight (not even a statistically significant amount) and then they fail later, because the diet is crap.

By the same ridiculous standards the Lemonade diet is a Godsend.

You know I was a wrestler. We had not trouble with having enough energy. I used to eat about 1000 calories the day before a tournament. I ate some food the day of the tournament, probably about 2000 calories, but I had no trouble with energy. I assure you a wrestling tournament is more active than that of your camp. In fact, I think you'd likely kill many of your campers if you had them keep our activity level for a day.
On average, I'd say the campers were exercising 6-8 hours out of the day. Quite a bit of variance.

And yes, it's much harder for them to do the same amount of activity as someone in athletic condition, although you might be surprised at the activity level they managed. Most of them built a good bit of muscle during camp.
We also had a doctor. He told us we were very healthy. He encouraged the guys that were "overweight" to lose weight. We had guys whose growth was affected by the level of the diet. We had people who actually caused permanent problems due to the ridiculous level of eating.
Permanent problems? Doesn't sound too healthy to me.
We had plenty of energy. Had we been adults, such behavior would have landed a significant percentage of our group in the hospital.

As I said, obviously, children function differently. Any expert on nutrition would tell you that it's entirely different. Children should get more calories, but their tolerances are much, much broader. They can recover from so much more than that which would kill the average adult.

And, yep, when your argument sounds like bullshit, and it does, I call bullshit. It's late tonight, but I will be calling them tomorrow. (Actually, I just left a message for Ira Green.)
What argument? I'm presenting my experiences here. All the kids were being fed a pretty consistent ~1800 calories a day and exercising for a certain amount of the day; all lost weight and improved fitness.
Incidentally, here is a summary of the practices written about your camp.


http://www.ecu.edu/cs-admin/news/poe/905/timbercreek.cfm
“Camp Timber Creek is very intriguing,” said Dr. David Collier, an assistant professor of pediatrics and associate director of the Pediatric Healthy Weight and Treatment Center at ECU. “It has shown me some kids I thought were so far out … can successfully lose a lot of weight. The bad news is when they come back. Many if not most of them gain all of that weight back.”

You probably don't want to use unsuccessful weight loss programs as a model. The idea isn't to drop weight. Hell, the levels of weight loss they're talking about (an average of 17 pounds) can be accounted from mostly in water weight.

The weight loss range was from 14 to 55 pounds with an average of 17 pounds. It's pretty easy to tell that a significant majority of people fall in the 14 to 17 pound range based on that range. I could in a couple of days get a person's weight down if I got them to lose water weight.
Their measurements wouldn't change much with a water weight loss. And we were trying to pump them full of water, really. Most sedentary kids seem to go through life more than a little dehydrated. The program was "unsuccessful" in the same way that all such summer camp programs are unsuccessful - kids would go home and then fall back into old habits after a while. Only a handful - call it 25% - would actually change their habits during the year. Again, AFAIK, that would put Ira's in the top end of weight loss camps for kids. Call it sad, but so it is.

The thing to note about that particular summer is that we had campers for a varying length of time - generally about three weeks - and of course, we would see the most change in the campers that stayed the whole summer.

Of the campers that stayed the whole summer... about three times as long, in other words... we did see the most change. As someone who was heavily involved in the athletics side of the program, I can tell you we saw improvements in athletic performance over the course of the program, across the board.
It's not surprising that something smells like bullshit when it is. The camp has a fairly bad recidivism rate. That's what happens when the dietary modifications you make don't work. You have limited success and then you slip right back. 6 weeks of success is not particularly unusual or interesting. It's the long-term of whether or not people are successful. According to the article and the site, people are returning year after year. If the camp was teaching them a better lifestyle, people wouldn't need to regularly return.
Let's take a particular example - Montegas. He's the guy who lost 55 pounds. The next summer, he came back, and he'd gained most of the weight back - about 40 pounds of it.

However, there was a world of difference in his fitness. He started off camp the first summer barely able to walk using a cane; the second summer, he started off barely able to jog. He may not have made progress losing weight during the year, but he did maintain a lot more muscle tone than he started with, which helped him get under 400 the second summer.

Most returning campers the second summer I worked there were in a similar position - about the same weight, but with improved ability. A handful made forward progress by BMI terms during the year, either through losing weight or maintaining weight while adding height.
As a personal trainer, last I checked, I had ONE person who was still obese. One. Obviously, the people who are doing the work are the biggest factor. No question about that.
Kudos to you. I'm sure you're exceptional for a personal trainer, but I wouldn't be surprised to find that personal trainers have a much better success rate than weight loss camps.

A summer camp is a highly artificial environment. It's hard to transfer habits from a summer camp to "during the year" life for kids. Ira has been trying to improve on that end, but it's really an uphill struggle. It also sets them up for disappointment - they won't maintain the same sort of progress they could at when they had time for eight hours of athletics work a day and no temptations in front of them, and it's a short step from feeling you're not making progress to actually not making progress.
Ask Kyronea when he gets back from boot camp if my advice works. Kyronea is an amazing specimen. He should be very proud of himself. I wouldn't dare to take credit for his succes. He did, however, follow my advice. He's had incredible succes for over a year I believe and accomplished his overarching goal which put him into boot camp recently.

EDIT: I'll note that I didn't do a ton of reserch here. I typed in the former name of the camp and EDU (because that was to bits of information you gave me) and it was the first link that popped up.
It's not a bad link to read. The numbers were a little higher my second summer working there (which was to say the 4th summer the camp was in operation). Would they better be served by working with a personal trainer, being put on an individualized nutritional plan, et cetera? Probably.

Did they improve in fitness at camp? Yes, in every single case, except for young Alex O., who came back my second summer without any weight left to lose (he actually took my advice to heart and practiced it during the year), but I think that would count him as a success story for my first summer.

Grumble about bullshit all you like, but I haven't fed you any. Just plain facts.

I wanted to add one point to this. The argument SOUNDS like bullshit, but on having researched it, it's not bullshit. He is telling the truth, he worked with a camp that used an axe for a job only a scalpel is fit for and even some of the camps experts acknowledge much of the "success" was temporary.

Most people aren't going to change their life by excercising all day and eating 1800 calories with no consideration for their size and age. And, looking at the evidence, most of the people who went to the camp did not, in fact, change their life. It's the camp equivalent of a gimmick diet. People initially lose weight (not even a statistically significant amount) and then they fail later, because the diet is crap.

By the same ridiculous standards the Lemonade diet is a Godsend.
Not really the same thing at all. You can't even theoretically sustain the lemonade diet in the long term. The combination of exercise and diet management - appropriate quantities in a nutritionally balanced mix with plenty of fruits and vegetables - are precisely the tools to use for improving fitness in the long haul. Might you want to manage the details of the program more carefully for the most success? Yes.

If our campers stayed on the same diet during the year, and maintained a moderate activity level, almost all would've maintained or lost BMI during the year. (Again, no deficiencies over the two month period for our long-haul folks.) They did also make very significant gains in fitness as well... which I consider to be more important than the BMI figures, and which proved more lasting than the changes in weight.

Compare it to any topical camp. If you go to a fencing camp, a wrestling camp, a dance camp, a music camp, a writing camp... none of those will set habits you maintain. But you will almost certainly make improvements during camp, if the camp is competently run, and you just might pick up some habits that will let you improve during the year, as well.

Not really the same thing at all. You can't even theoretically sustain the lemonade diet in the long term. The combination of exercise and diet management - appropriate quantities in a nutritionally balanced mix with plenty of fruits and vegetables - are precisely the tools to use for improving fitness in the long haul. Might you want to manage the details of the program more carefully for the most success? Yes.

If our campers stayed on the same diet during the year, and maintained a moderate activity level, almost all would've maintained or lost BMI during the year. (Again, no deficiencies over the two month period for our long-haul folks.) They did also make very significant gains in fitness as well... which I consider to be more important than the BMI figures, and which proved more lasting than the changes in weight.

Compare it to any topical camp. If you go to a fencing camp, a wrestling camp, a dance camp, a music camp, a writing camp... none of those will set habits you maintain. But you will almost certainly make improvements during camp, if the camp is competently run, and you just might pick up some habits that will let you improve during the year, as well.

It's not a realistic diet. First of all, they won't be playing all year. They'll be doing actual life stuff. Life isn't a camp. Second, they should not be eating 1800 calories. Third, they certainly shouldn't all be eating the exact same amount of calories.

If one camper fails, it's the camper's fault. If most of the campers fail, it's the camp's fault. According to one of the consultants from the university who was helping that camp, most of them were failing and the weight loss they were experiencing, for the majority of them, is easily explained by water weight.

That reminds me, I have to call that dude back. I've got some questions to ask him about how many people come back yearly.

It's not a realistic diet. First of all, they won't be playing all year. They'll be doing actual life stuff. Life isn't a camp.
Realistic? I think so, actually. But the difference between life and camp is the main reason why most do better at camp than in their regular year life.
Second, they should not be eating 1800 calories.
Why not? Details, please, not unjustified claims.

I laid out two specific claims that you have not disputed. If these claims hold, then you shouldn't be saying they shouldn't:

One. 1800 calories in a well-planned diet is sufficient for them to avoid any and all nutritional deficiencies.

Two. 1800 calories is few enough for them to maintain a healthy weight or lose unusual excess weight given fairly moderate activity levels.
Third, they certainly shouldn't all be eating the exact same amount of calories.
Why not? See above claims. Also see environmental concerns. Feeding all campers the same amount is the best way to insure they (a) obtain adequate nutrition and (b) don't overeat without (c) having to deal with a lot more psychological and social crap.
If one camper fails, it's the camper's fault. If most of the campers fail, it's the camp's fault. According to one of the consultants from the university who was helping that camp, most of them were failing and the weight loss they were experiencing, for the majority of them, is easily explained by water weight.
No. According to you, the amount of weight loss seen at the camp, as reported by Chris (and he's reporting accurately) could be easily explained by water weight.

According to my experience, the loss was not largely water weight, and body composition and fitness changed noticeably during the course of the camp.

The fact that a summer program will not create long term changes in most cases is due to exactly the reasons I mentioned and you repeated.

There's pills and liposuction. I agree with you, but I think that some obese people need to take baths more often. I also think that obese people don't deserve an extra airline seat. I think being a little overweight is okay. If you have a beer belly, that's okay, but if you weigh three hundred pounds, then that's pretty bad.

Surprisingly, anti-obesity is the biggest discrimination in America, but I don't really care myself. I'm more annoyed that they are placing a drain on the healthcare system like smokers and drunks.

There's pills and liposuction. I agree with you, but I think that some obese people need to take baths more often. I also think that obese people don't deserve an extra airline seat. I think being a little overweight is okay. If you have a beer belly, that's okay, but if you weigh three hundred pounds, then that's pretty bad.

Surprisingly, anti-obesity is the biggest discrimination in America, but I don't really care myself. I'm more annoyed that they are placing a drain on the healthcare system like smokers and drunks.
If that's the case, then taxing things that cause obesity should be effective at making them pay their own healthcare costs.

Realistic? I think so, actually. But the difference between life and camp is the main reason why most do better at camp than in their regular year life.

Why not? Details, please, not unjustified claims.

I laid out two specific claims that you have not disputed. If these claims hold, then you shouldn't be saying they shouldn't:

One. 1800 calories in a well-planned diet is sufficient for them to avoid any and all nutritional deficiencies.

Two. 1800 calories is few enough for them to maintain a healthy weight or lose unusual excess weight.

You've not supported those claims. In fact, ignoring point my second point from earlier shows that you're not basing your claims on what we know of nutrition.

Healthy people of different sizes and activity burn different amount of calories. This failed plan, and we know it fails according to those who administer it, fails because it treats different people with different nutritional and caloric needs the same. Your claims are fundamentally wrong. It ignores everything we know about how the body uses calories and the purpose of consumption.

I've mentioned this before. The fact that you don't think it's relevant that your points ignore the bases of our understanding of human nutrition makes me wonder if it's actually possible for you to ever see those 2 points above as addressed. You and I both know how calories are burned by the body. When your points address this, they will have some foundation.

Why not? See above claims. Also see environmental concerns. Feeding all campers the same amount is the best way to insure they (a) obtain adequate nutrition and (b) don't overeat without (c) having to deal with a lot more psychological and social crap.

No, it isn't. It's the EASIEST way. The best way would be to create a specific diet for each camper. Also, (c) will be an issue for that camper when they go home. The idea that you would try to ignore it while they are at camp is one of the reasons the camp you're involved has a miserable failure rate.

No. According to you, the amount of weight loss seen at the camp, as reported by Chris (and he's reporting accurately) could be easily explained by water weight.

Are you kidding? You're seriously saying that the body, especially an obese body, can't lose 14 pounds of water weight?

According to my experience, the loss was not largely water weight, and body composition and fitness changed noticeably during the course of the camp.

The fact that a summer program will not create long term changes in most cases is due to exactly the reasons I mentioned and you repeated.

I'd wager money their fitness increased. Unfortunately, the lazy practices of your camp don't address the actuall real social pressures that exist around eating a healthy diet. So instead of teaching children to be successful in the real world, they offer temporary success that will earn them another six grand the next year.

Oddly, I've managed to find a great deal of success simply by offering tiny bits of advice in emails, or meeting with people for short periods of time during the week back when I was a trainer. It's rather easy to create long-term changes when that is your goal. Given that your camp blatantly ignores human nutritional standards and everything we know about, blatantly ignores the actually pressures obese children face, and basically does nothing to combat the actual problem in any realist way, I don't think they should be held up as an example.

"Hey, guys, I got a 48% on my engineering test. You should all follow my engineering practices."

They say the proof is in the pudding. Your camp's pudding tastes like the dung of a competitive eater after a burrito challenge.

If that's the case, then taxing things that cause obesity should be effective at making them pay their own healthcare costs.

The poor in the west are disproportionately affected by obesity. It would seem wrong to put such a burden on the poor.

The poor in the west are disproportionately affected by obesity. It would seem wrong to put such a burden on the poor.

I don't think it would be placing a particular burden on the poor to tax fast food and soda pop. They aren't staples.

I don't particularly agree with sin taxes, but there is no real reason to claim it's a poor problem.

I don't think it would be placing a particular burden on the poor to tax fast food and soda pop. They aren't staples.

I don't particularly agree with sin taxes, but there is no real reason to claim it's a poor problem.

http://www.thedenverdailynews.com/article.php?aID=2458

It's not a "poor" problem in the way that HIV isn't a "gay" disease, but it is in the way that poor people are affected at a much higher rate than people who aren't. This is due to many factors.

http://www.thedenverdailynews.com/article.php?aID=2458

It's not a "poor" problem in the way that HIV isn't a "gay" disease, but it is in the way that poor people are affected at a much higher rate than people who aren't. This is due to many factors.

I'm not talking about whether or not poor people are disproportionately obese. But there are a variety of factors. For example, stress is considered to be a major contributer to obesity. Poor people are disproportionately stressed.

The point is that McDonald's isn't "poor" food and it's targetting the poor unfairly to put a sin tax on them. Similar with soda. Frankly, I grew up pretty damn poor and we didn't waste our money on things like soda and McDonald's. My parents also both had jobs they worked more than full-time and there were five of us, so I would say they had every bit the time constraint that most poor people have, so that cannot be the excuse for McDonald's.

It is possible to focus on the poor with a sin tax by, say, taxing 40-ounces beers more than wine. It cannot be argued, however, that sin taxes by nature target the poor. It's absolutely possible to avoid that.

You've not supported those claims.
I have. I've pointed out that such happened at camp.

The only cases in which 1800 calories - as an energy intake level - could do them harm is when:

(a) 1800 calories is not sufficient to maintain weight and one no longer has excess weight to lose. E.g., my position at camp, which meant eating a heck of a lot of extra food. In which case you don't have a weight problem anymore, and it's a much simpler matter to adjust your activity and diet cycle to maintain weight. Maintaining is easier than losing.

(b) They are on the smaller end of the scale indicated and not engaging in even moderate levels of physical activity, in which case they could actually manage to gain weight on that. Even campers on the smaller end of the scale had a basal metabolic rate of around 1400 kcal/day, and the difference between that and maintaining weight on 1800 kcal/day is fairly moderate exercise. I.e., a third or less of what we had them doing at camp.

Now, are you going to provide evidence that:

(a) 1800 calories in a well-planned diet will lead to nutritional deficiencies.

(b) 1800 calories a day will lead to weight gain for campers who are unhealthily heavy, when combined with merely moderate levels of physical activity.

If not, I recommend you reconsider your dispute with me.
In fact, ignoring point my second point from earlier shows that you're not basing your claims on what we know of nutrition.

Healthy people of different sizes and activity burn different amount of calories.
Something I've already talked about. At great length.
This failed plan, and we know it fails according to those who administer it,
No.
fails because it treats different people with different nutritional and caloric needs the same.
Again, no. It "fails" because what can be done during the summer is completely shifted during the year.
Your claims are fundamentally wrong. It ignores everything we know about how the body uses calories and the purpose of consumption.
Congratulations. You fail at even reading my statements. Go back. Read carefully. Perhaps go read the link in my signature. I'm the one who decided to bring up thermodynamics and body mechanics.
I've mentioned this before. The fact that you don't think it's relevant that your points ignore the bases of our understanding of human nutrition makes me wonder if it's actually possible for you to ever see those 2 points above as addressed. You and I both know how calories are burned by the body. When your points address this, they will have some foundation.
Congratulations. You haven't even read where I addressed those previously. Now address my points directly, please.
No, it isn't. It's the EASIEST way. The best way would be to create a specific diet for each camper. Also, (c) will be an issue for that camper when they go home. The idea that you would try to ignore it while they are at camp is one of the reasons the camp you're involved has a miserable failure rate.
And?
Are you kidding? You're seriously saying that the body, especially an obese body, can't lose 14 pounds of water weight?
No, I'm not saying it can't. I'm saying that's not what happened. Big difference. I was there working with these kids, hounding them to carry their water bottles everywhere and to drink up.

I was there clocking them on the field, in the swimming pool, teaching them fencing, running around with them, hiking with them, and I saw the very real change in shape and condition they went through. Not a water weight change.
I'd wager money their fitness increased. Unfortunately, the lazy practices of your camp don't address the actuall real social pressures that exist around eating a healthy diet. So instead of teaching children to be successful in the real world, they offer temporary success that will earn them another six grand the next year.
The psychological and social and nutrition side of the program I had next to nothing to do with. So I can't talk about how the camp did or did not address those concerns.

I do know Ira was trying to address them, which is why we generally had psych and nutrition experts on grounds.
Oddly, I've managed to find a great deal of success simply by offering tiny bits of advice in emails, or meeting with people for short periods of time during the week back when I was a trainer.
And one of our most successful campers, in the long term, was a success in the long term as a result of a five minute conversation I had with him one night. Go figure. He trimmed off all his excess weight, and I barely recognized him.
It's rather easy to create long-term changes when that is your goal. Given that your camp blatantly ignores human nutritional standards
Does it? The diet was carefully planned to avoid deficiencies in any area.
and everything we know about, blatantly ignores the actually pressures obese children face,
Does it? Several hours of something more or less billed as group therapy every week.

Was it successful on that account? Hard for me to know. I wasn't on that end of the program.
and basically does nothing to combat the actual problem in any realist way, I don't think they should be held up as an example.
I think I may have mentioned that I don't think that weight loss camps are the solution to the childhood obesity problem.
"Hey, guys, I got a 48% on my engineering test. You should all follow my engineering practices."
A perfectly crap analogy that fails to even remotely resemble the situation.
They say the proof is in the pudding. Your camp's pudding tastes like the dung of a competitive eater after a burrito challenge.
And this is a perfect example of bullshit.

The camp has good results within its program. Its followup could be improved (and is, hopefully, being improved from what it was) and this is a serious problem for all programs of that type.

It's better than what they would do on their own, generally. Just not as much better as we'd like.

Okay, I'm going to adjust my tone, TJ. There are several reasons.

1. I have to say, Ira Green is addressing some of my concerns.
2. Compared to Ira, your rhetoric sucks. Ira does an excellent job of discussing his concerns and mine in terms of the atmosphere.
3. Some of his points directly contradict yours.

I want to be fair to the camp.

I've only read the beginning of the thread, but: my mom has started a weight-loss program for obese people a few months ago, and some of the people in her group were actually told to eat more (one of them was a post-anorexic, and still obese). If you have followed diets in the past, where you took in way too few calories and didn't exercise, that might have helped in the beginning, but in the end your body accustoms itself to fewer calories, and starts to become more efficient. After that, you'll actually gain weight faster, and you'll have to eat less and less to still lose weight, to the point where you almost literally gain weight from water.
So, find out how many calories someone of your age, gender, and height should eat. Take in those calories (carbohydrates coming from bread and pasta are very important here, since they help the metabolism with the burning of calories), do a lot of exercise, and then talk to someone who specialises in this kind of stuff to find out how many calories you can cut for a while, and then after that find out gradually how much you can eat without gaining weight. Also, visit a psychologist: many problems with eating, whether it's boulimia, anorexia, or obesity, have something to do with psychological problems and until you tackle those, there's a great chance of falling back into the same habits again and again.
Lastly, don't expect too much too soon: my mother lost about 12 kilos in the first five or six months, and that's fine; it's not healthy to loose too much too soon. Also: don't try to get a certain clothing size that you had when you were 16 or that your best friend has back; chances are, your ribcage is simply broader than hers, and that your hips widened since you were sixteen. And as a very last thing, please don't think being excessively skinny is fun either: I have a hard time finding clothes that don't fall off my body or make me look like a bean stake, I feel cold very quickly, I get hurt very easily (because my bones are really close to the surface), my breasts are almost non-existing, and when someone hugs me, all they feel is bones. I don't think being this skinny is beautiful, and I feel sick every time another woman (including my mom!) admires my thinness, because usually, I rather have I'd look a bit more like them, with a little bit more meat on my bones. Sure, being obese isn't healthy either, but please don't try to get size zero. It's not healthy, and people who have that size for too long usually die (that or they are children).

Okay, I'm going to adjust my tone, TJ. There are several reasons.

1. I have to say, Ira Green is addressing some of my concerns.
2. Compared to Ira, your rhetoric sucks. Ira does an excellent job of discussing his concerns and mine in terms of the atmosphere.
Ira is a much better salesman than I am.
3. Some of his points directly contradict yours.
I'd actually be interested in hearing what he has to say that's factually different from what I had to say. If you like, PM it to me.

Some differences may be due to changes in the camp over the last couple years. I know he's been trying to get the during-the-year followup much better, for example. He's known since starting the camp that being able to follow up on campers makes all the difference in the world. As I mentioned in my last post, I really didn't have much to do with the psych and nutrition sides of running the camp.

I have a degree in philosophy. This is largely penny-ante stuff. It could be a lot worse.

I'm going to skip the giant post. Here is a summary of what Ira Green and I discussed.

(If you still communicate with him, you're welcome to ask him about it. I'll happily give you my name in TG. It was a good conversation. I like him.)

I let him know that we are discussing the effectiveness of various ways of dieting and this was the point behind my questions. To be clear, I told him that I have an issue with giving the different sized children. He said they do adjust, particularly for the counselors. This is an explicit agreement that 1800 calories is not a one-size-fits-all solution, just as I expressed initially. I did have to differentiate between differences in their not-fat mass and differences in their overall size, but once I did we largely agreed.

These are my notes.

1. The camp averages about 60 kids.
2. Same guy had three camps. The changes were due to locational issues, not a change in format. The second camp, however, was only women.
3. 1800 is a baseline. He said that they individually assess the children and that they give snacks to address differing caloric needs.
4. The majority of the camp is 13 and 14-year-old girls. Their dietary needs are different than adults. Mr. Green agreed.
5. About 20% of children return.
6. He doesn't measure success by weightloss and the specific goal is to increase their self-confidence and pride in order to address a major factor in eating disorders.
7. They get campers from other states and even a few from other countries. I'm a big fan of this. Americans have issues with food that are strange to other cultures. I think it's good for Americans to see this first hand. I told Ira so.
8. Here was one of the things that really turned me when talking to Mr. Green in terms of his interest in the campers. He said they've adjusted their payment scheme to refund money to campers who keep in touch with the camp for 12 weeks after leaving, in an effor to continue their successes beyond the camp.

I like a lot of what he had to say. It still has a pretty poor success rate for weight loss, but I think he makes several decent attempts to cast the net wide. 1800 isn't as low for a young girl as it is for a full-grown man. Camps aren't realistic scenarios and so they are really poor ways of judging a diet, but I think he absolutely capitalizes on all of the positive aspects of a camp. He creates support groups in certain ways, without pressuring kids to be all the same by offering differing activities and small group rooms (2). Overall, he's pretty much optimizing the experience and adjusting somewhat to the campers. It's not unusual for camps to be sweeping in treatment as he pointed out, but he said he makes specific efforts to ensure they are doing as well as they can on that front.

Overall, he presents the camp well, and I've, much to my pleasure, changed my opinion of it. Mr. Green was very polite, very informative, very supportive of our discussion, and very friendly. I liked him and, frankly, for his patience, I may even offer up a donation to the camp next summer. So thanks for that, TJ.

I still disagree with the diet, and I think it's the reason the success rates aren't very high. However, he seems to help some children and some is better than none. I feel like for those he doesn't help in terms of weight loss, the net effect is at best level. For me this is important because failed diets can really be detrimental to a person with an eating disorder or problem's relationship with food.

One last note, I didn't accuse you of being ignorant of thermodynamics, TJ. I accused you of ignoring it in practice. When you ask me to prove there is an issue with a one-size-fits-all caloric intake, you're completely ignoring that the nutritional requirements for different individuals vary by their body mass and their metabolism. Saying you know this and then later treating it as if it doesn't matter is ignoring it.

Ira is a much better salesman than I am.

I'd actually be interested in hearing what he has to say that's factually different from what I had to say. If you like, PM it to me.

Some differences may be due to changes in the camp over the last couple years. I know he's been trying to get the during-the-year followup much better, for example. He's known since starting the camp that being able to follow up on campers makes all the difference in the world. As I mentioned in my last post, I really didn't have much to do with the psych and nutrition sides of running the camp.

Actually, he ran me through what is new and what is old and you pretty much nailed it. The part he directly addressed to me is that he doesn't feel like a flat 1800 calorie diet is a good idea. It's a compromise. He said that they actually adjust some when they can and that they teach children about dieting so that when they get home they will adjust throughout their life. If you're unsure, that's a straight out admission that 1800 calories isn't not a good solution when you're giving advice to an individual.

I actually discussed with him the advantages to working with groups (support, self-esteem, group pride, etc.) versus those of working with individuals (an individualized diet and workout plan, for example). We also discussed some of the disadvantages of each (pretty much flip the advantages). Overall, I didn't see a lot he disagree with from what I'm saying. I would argue that is not how you presented it initially, though along the way, particularly in your last post, you have clarified some.

Actually, he ran me through what is new and what is old and you pretty much nailed it. The part he directly addressed to me is that he doesn't feel like a flat 1800 calorie diet is a good idea. It's a compromise.
Which is about how I described it on page 16, responding to your first objection to what I had said:
Now, I'm not going to say that it wouldn't have been more efficient in some ways to have them on individualized diets tailored more precisely to their needs... but one-size-fits-all was close enough for the following:
Now, perhaps I didn't repeat that part loudly enough; I spent most of my time describing what I saw happen.
He said that they actually adjust some when they can and that they teach children about dieting so that when they get home they will adjust throughout their life. If you're unsure, that's a straight out admission that 1800 calories isn't not a good solution when you're giving advice to an individual.
Did you see me prescribe 1800 calories for everyone? No, of course not. Regulate intake and output and you regulate storage. That's all.

I'm not surprised he does some adjustment on the quiet when he can. As I said, I wasn't running the nutritional side of the program. I think I did mention that he tries very hard to make sure the campers become educated about food, diet, and setting up their own situation at home - but again, that I don't know very much about that side of the program. I was busy on the athletics side of things.
I actually discussed with him the advantages to working with groups (support, self-esteem, group pride, etc.) versus those of working with individuals (an individualized diet and workout plan, for example). We also discussed some of the disadvantages of each (pretty much flip the advantages). Overall, I didn't see a lot he disagree with from what I'm saying. I would argue that is not how you presented it initially, though along the way, particularly in your last post, you have clarified some.
I'm glad you talked with him rather than leave things at arguing with me about it.

Me, too.

You did say some of these things, but diet is very nuanced. As I said, his rhetoric is much better.

In fairness, you and I just had a five-minute conversation over the course of days. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you'd have presented it with some of the appropriate nuance had when had we been discussing orally.

In fairness, you and I just had a five-minute conversation over the course of days. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you'd have presented it with some of the appropriate nuance had when had we been discussing orally.

:eek:

My deepest sympathies.

Could be worse... he could be an assho... I mean a lawyer.

:eek:

I can always count on you to hit the softballs I lob.

My deepest sympathies.


:eek:

:eek:
Judge not our apologetic love-fest! Orally given or not!

Could be worse... he could be an assho... I mean a lawyer.

I also feel sorry for people who make $175 an hour two years out of their degree. Poor bastards.

And I was an asshole years before I even considered studying law.

I can always count on you to hit the softballs I lob.

I`d hit you in the softballs any day of the week.

I`d hit you in the softballs any day of the week.

As long as you do it orally.

Okay, back on topic, TJ is full of shit and I can prove it. Quick someone squeeze him!

:eek:
:eek::eek:
Judge not our apologetic love-fest! Orally given or not!
I`m just wondering how long it would take to get your point across via morse code in that oral fashion. You might be best off just continuing in this medium.

What was this thread originally about before it got all Jocabian?

What was this thread originally about before it got all Jocabian?

My designer breasts. They're made out of alligator skin.

Back on topic, sorta, I love me some juicy curves. So long as there's proportions that aren't too far out of whack, my libido responds.

You so wish.

I have a fever, and I've been ill now for over a week. What you just did right now could be considered a crime against humanity.

Also, I threw up in my mouth a little.

I have a fever, and I've been ill now for over a week. What you just did right now could be considered a crime against humanity.

Also, I threw up in my mouth a little.

It's okay. I'll let you keep up the public persona.

Back on topic, sorta, I love me some juicy curves. So long as there's proportions that aren't too far out of whack, my libido responds.

I know you're trying to say something "nice"....but it's really come off as scummy.

"I'd hit it" is not a compliment to any of the females I know.

You seem really really out of character in this whole "fat person" area, but I feel the need to point out to you, in case you didn't know, that women don't exist to activate your libido, and if for some reason we don't, it's not really our big worry.

It's okay. I'll let you keep up the public persona.

You know I'm much more unpleasant towards you in unmoderated situations.

I know you're trying to say something "nice"....but it's really come off as scummy.

"I'd hit it" is not a compliment to any of the females I know.

You seem really really out of character in this whole "fat person" area, but I feel the need to point out to you, in case you didn't know, that women don't exist to activate your libido, and if for some reason we don't, it's not really our big worry.

While it is true that no one is here to set my libido off, that doesn't change the fact that some people do. Sometimes it's because she has curves that would be considered fat by modern society.

I know you're trying to say something "nice"....but it's really come off as scummy.

"I'd hit it" is not a compliment to any of the females I know.

You seem really really out of character in this whole "fat person" area, but I feel the need to point out to you, in case you didn't know, that women don't exist to activate your libido, and if for some reason we don't, it's not really our big worry.

As a counterpoint, I'd disagree that his comment was scummy or that he was saying women exist to activate his libido. Seemed to me he was pointing out that he's not buying into the 'rail thin is the only sexy body type' hype.

As a counterpoint, I'd disagree that his comment was scummy or that he was saying women exist to activate his libido. Seemed to me he was pointing out that he's not buying into the 'rail thin is the only sexy body type' hype.

Except IIRC he spent most of yesterday talking about how fat people shouldn't be treated as equals, so this came off to me as a "well, if they're hot they can exist, but otherwise they're just a bunch of fatass annoyances"

Except IIRC he spent most of yesterday talking about how fat people shouldn't be treated as equals, so this came off to me as a "well, if they're hot they can exist, but otherwise they're just a bunch of fatass annoyances"

Well I'll let him speak for himself:)

I'm 16, and I weigh ~225 pounds, at 5'6". I don't know if I'm obese, but I sure am fat. I've been fat since 4th grade. However, no doctor has ever told me to eat healthier, or less. I even went in for a complete physical, for marching band... and all the doctor told me was that I didn't have a hernia. Now, I know that I should eat healthier. But, my mom (and I for that matter) can't afford to buy fruits and vegetables on a weekly basis. Microwave burritos, microwave dinners, chips, and all that fun stuff - we can afford that. But, I don't believe that my diet and exercise is the only reason I'm fat.

My sister is underweight and eats the same stuff, in the same quantities, that my mom and I do, and doesn't even exercise at all. That tells me that it's in my genetics to gain weight easily. I used to walk to school everyday from 3rd grade to 8th grade. More than a mile, and in 6th grade, in knee-deep snow uphill. I didn't lose weight, at all. Now that I live 5 miles from my high school, I can't walk to school.

I also eat less than I have before. My schedule permits me to eat a bagel, cereal, or toast for breakfast, lunch at school (no healthy food there, really, that's doesn't literally make me sick! surprise!), and whatever dinner my mom is able to afford to make. I don't want to blame society, but society doesn't make it easy for fat people to lose weight. It's expensive, and really comes down to whether or not you can afford to do it. I don't see free gym memberships being given out. I don't see cheap fruits and vegetables anywhere. I don't see affordable health food plans. I don't see affordable nutritionists. If I were rich, I wouldn't be fat.

(And no, I haven't read anything but the first page. I just thought I'd share my story. :P)

I don't want to blame society, but society doesn't make it easy for fat people to lose weight. It's expensive, and really comes down to whether or not you can afford to do it. I don't see free gym memberships being given out. I don't see cheap fruits and vegetables anywhere. I don't see affordable health food plans. I don't see affordable nutritionists. If I were rich, I wouldn't be fat.There does seem to be a correlation between what society wants and what is more expensive to do.
In times of food scarcity, being overweight was idealized.

There does seem to be a correlation between what society wants and what is more expensive to do.
In times of food scarcity, being overweight was idealized.

Something to wish for?


.... No, wait, that's horrible.

Except IIRC he spent most of yesterday talking about how fat people shouldn't be treated as equals, so this came off to me as a "well, if they're hot they can exist, but otherwise they're just a bunch of fatass annoyances"

Yeah, I do wonder what Intangelon is up to. If he's feeling trollish, why not just get a puppet and do it right?

BTW, are you going to TG me your NaNoWriMo name, or am I going to have to read the stories of all the winners and try to pick which one is you? ;)

*snip*
Now, I know that I should eat healthier. But, my mom (and I for that matter) can't afford to buy fruits and vegetables on a weekly basis. Microwave burritos, microwave dinners, chips, and all that fun stuff - we can afford that.
*snip*

I don't believe that. Unless you're living on an oil-rig or something, cooking your own meals from raw ingredients ought to be cheaper.

It's not a question of vegies, fruit and grains as well as prepared meals. Instead of!