75% of Americans Too Fat or Dumb to Join Army

[MrJonno]

There is never going to be conscription in the UK most the population would just tell the government to piss off (General strike beats any firearms). I do love our complete lack of patriotism wouldnt want to be anywhere else

Not that there could possible be any need , sure someone might lob a few ICBM at us but no one is seriously going to bother with an amphibious invasion

Don't assume it could never happen. The Normans did it once, and they could do it again. Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom.

Don't listen to him! Assume it won't happen. Darwin will be pleased.

No we might get nuked, not invaded not to mention conscripts are a complete waste of time versus a professional army

[JimC]

When I took lots of drugs and smoked, I was skinny...

Now, with no drugs, no smoking but a certain amount of gin, I am a little larger...

[Svartalf]

There is never going to be conscription in the UK most the population would just tell the government to piss off (General strike beats any firearms). I do love our complete lack of patriotism wouldnt want to be anywhere else

Not that there could possible be any need , sure someone might lob a few ICBM at us but no one is seriously going to bother with an amphibious invasion

Don't assume it could never happen. The Normans did it once, and they could do it again. Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom.

Don't listen to him! Assume it won't happen. Darwin will be pleased.

No we might get nuked, not invaded not to mention conscripts are a complete waste of time versus a professional army

Depends on your objective... conscripts are certainly not as effective as highly trained pros when it comes to highly coordinated operations, especially if they involve projection far away from the home land, but if you expect a war close to home, they can fill up the ranks very handlily, and if you've taken time to train them when young, they'll be all the more efficient for it.

That, and conscription is a great tool for national identity and cohesion. I do notice that France had a lot less trouble between communities back when conscription was a quasi universal male bonding experience... not saying that dropping it is the only explanation to what we have now, but it looks like a factor in it.

[Coito ergo sum]

I'm limiting calories to around 1500 a day, and have increased my rollerblading to 15.5 miles most days, which the various calculators estimate is around 800 calories burned. So I'm running a daily calorie deficit of about 1300 calories off a 2000 normal budget. At that rate I *should* be losing 2 pounds a week using the basic math of 3500 calories per pound, but I'm closer to 1 pound in actuality.

That's because when you semistarve yourself, your body lowers your metabolism to try to make up for it. That's the part that Coito keeps missing.

No, I don't keep missing that. In fact, I said exactly that earlier in this thread. It's not good to reduce calories too much for the very reason you said. Your metabolism starts to drag. I've never suggested that anyone "semistarve" themselves. They just need a caloric deficit. 500 calories per day, using a combination of a small reduction in calories, and a small increase in exercise, and that caloric deficit can be created.

Metabolism is what needs to be estimated to get your basal metabolic rate. That determines the number of calories per day your body needs to maintain itself at the current weight. You reduce calories below your basal metabolic rate to lose weight. That doesn't mean to eat only 700 calories per day. What is recommended is if your basal metabolic rate is 2500, that you reduce your caloric intake to 2250 and exercise 30 minutes per day to burn 250 calories. That creates a caloric deficit of 500 a day. Calories in and exercise levels can then be modified as experience dictates.

Basal metabolic rate changes, of course. Very heavy people have higher metabolisms than lighter people, because it takes more calories per day to maintain their weight than a lighter person. Example: Someone 5' 5" tall and 200 pounds needs more calories to maintain that weight than someone 5'5" tall and weighing 120 pounds.

[Jesus_of_Nazareth]

There is never going to be conscription in the UK most the population would just tell the government to piss off (General strike beats any firearms). I do love our complete lack of patriotism wouldnt want to be anywhere else

Not that there could possible be any need , sure someone might lob a few ICBM at us but no one is seriously going to bother with an amphibious invasion

Fight for Britain? F#ck that! - whatever i was fighting for would be sold down the river by some Politico sooner rather than later (pretty sure that Grandad weren't fighting in WWII for the Britain of 2012).......and I probably wouldn't then get my legs back.

My invasion plans are to fuck off somewhere else ASAP. or change sides

[Warren Dew]

No, I don't keep missing that. In fact, I said exactly that earlier in this thread. It's not good to reduce calories too much for the very reason you said. Your metabolism starts to drag. I've never suggested that anyone "semistarve" themselves. They just need a caloric deficit. 500 calories per day, using a combination of a small reduction in calories, and a small increase in exercise, and that caloric deficit can be created.

This sounds reasonable, but then you say:

Metabolism is what needs to be estimated to get your basal metabolic rate.

Which of course is impossible without knowing what you're eating first. In other words, you're still missing the fact that metabolic rate depends on diet.

[MrJonno]

There is never going to be conscription in the UK most the population would just tell the government to piss off (General strike beats any firearms). I do love our complete lack of patriotism wouldnt want to be anywhere else

Not that there could possible be any need , sure someone might lob a few ICBM at us but no one is seriously going to bother with an amphibious invasion

Fight for Britain? F#ck that! - whatever i was fighting for would be sold down the river by some Politico sooner rather than later (pretty sure that Grandad weren't fighting in WWII for the Britain of 2012).......and I probably wouldn't then get my legs back.

My invasion plans are to fuck off somewhere else ASAP. or change sides

Me too maybe claim political asylum in Scotland or even better the Netherlands

[Coito ergo sum]

No, I don't keep missing that. In fact, I said exactly that earlier in this thread. It's not good to reduce calories too much for the very reason you said. Your metabolism starts to drag. I've never suggested that anyone "semistarve" themselves. They just need a caloric deficit. 500 calories per day, using a combination of a small reduction in calories, and a small increase in exercise, and that caloric deficit can be created.

This sounds reasonable, but then you say:

Metabolism is what needs to be estimated to get your basal metabolic rate.

Which of course is impossible without knowing what you're eating first. In other words, you're still missing the fact that metabolic rate depends on diet.

People tend to know what they're eating.

An individual's basal metabolic rate is estimated through technical means, and it is not impossible to do. It's impossible to guess at someone's metabolic rate exactly, although most people of the same height and weight are within a statistical norm. People don't vary wildly or randomly. That's statiistically proven.

Moreover, a good estimate can be gotten by hooking oneself up to a calorie tracking device like a heart rate monitor of good quality. Wear that for 24 hours, and it will tell you how many calories you're burning per hour. Or, one can look at a chart for males or females of certain heights and weights, and use the general rule of thumb. Adjust calories down, and exercise up, and then see what happens after a week or two. If that's not working, then adjust calories down again a little bit more, and exercise up a little bit more, and see what happens.

You're not going to change metabolism hugely by changing what you eat. You can do it somewhat, but you're not going to like, double, metabolic rate by eating a different combination of foods.

There are scientific formulas for getting really close to a persons basal metabolic rate -- The Cunningham Formula (RMR): P = 500 + (22 x Lean Body Mass in Kg). There are other formulas.

The basal metabolic rate varies between individuals, of course, and I'm not claiming that the formula results in a balls-on accurate statement of every person's BMR. But, it provides an estimate. People need to start with the best estimate they can get, and then they work from there. Most of the difference, incidentally, between individuals relative to BMR is accounted for by differences in lean body mass (about 60% of the difference in BMR between individuals depends on differences in lean body mass which is muscle and bone - that accounts for most of the reason men lose weight easier than women -- men tend to have higher muscle and bone content than women as a percentage of body weight). Greater fat content explains about 7% or 10%, or thereabouts, of differences. Fatter people tend to lose weight a little easier than skinnier people, which explains why the last few pounds are always more difficult than the first few.

Here is a good article for anyone that is interested: http://www.runnersworld.com/article/0,7 ... -0,00.html

[Gawd]

I did qualify my statements with "aside from medical issues," which covers the diabetic issue you cited. That doesn't apply to the average fat person.

It was not the diabetes that caused that effect. It was the insulin - the same insulin a nondiabetic person would have created himself, just concentrated in two locations rather than uniformly spread throughout the body.

If it did apply to the average fat person, then it would have applied 30 and 50 years ago too. We were a much skinnier people too.

Maybe you were a much skinnier person 30 years ago. I'm still thin, because I actually understand how different foods cause different effects in the body.

30 years ago, full fat meat was not considered unhealthy; we emphasized a balanced diet. Today, we emphasize a high grains, high carb, highly insulinogenic diet. Thus the increase in fat.

Your logic is not worthy of an atheist. I give you endurance athletes who eat gigantic quantities of "evil" carbs.

[Warren Dew]

Your logic is not worthy of an atheist. I give you endurance athletes who eat gigantic quantities of "evil" carbs.

I'm pretty sure that none of Coito, myself, or the average fat person really qualifies as an endurance athelete.

Still, endurance atheletes aren't immune to fat. Check out Bill Rodgers' muffin top:

[Warren Dew]

You're not going to change metabolism hugely by changing what you eat. You can do it somewhat, but you're not going to like, double, metabolic rate by eating a different combination of foods.

The numbers provided by amused work out to a decrease in basal metabolic of 650 kcal/day. I consider that a pretty big change.

[amused]

... Here is a good article for anyone that is interested: http://www.runnersworld.com/article/0,7 ... -0,00.html

Thanks for that. It explained the 'muscle uses more calories than fat' advice, and how it's not that useful for weight control anyway. More aerobic exercise gives the best bang for the effort. We all know that, we just don't want to admit it.

[Gawd]

Your logic is not worthy of an atheist. I give you endurance athletes who eat gigantic quantities of "evil" carbs.

I'm pretty sure that none of Coito, myself, or the average fat person really qualifies as an endurance athelete.

Still, endurance atheletes aren't immune to fat. Check out Bill Rodgers' muffin top:

You missed the point by a marathon. "Evil" carbs by themselves are not the cause of fat America, excessive caloric intake and practically non-existent physical activity are.

And Bill Rodgers got lazy. You can't eat the same amount like someone that actually runs regularly. Duh.

[Coito ergo sum]

You're not going to change metabolism hugely by changing what you eat. You can do it somewhat, but you're not going to like, double, metabolic rate by eating a different combination of foods.

The numbers provided by amused work out to a decrease in basal metabolic of 650 kcal/day. I consider that a pretty big change.

Wasn't amused talking about starvation diet? That's a different issue than the type of food you eat increasing metabolism.

[amused]

My numbers were rough estimates. I don't think I'm really hitting them because my weight loss doesn't reflect them. For me it's a shoot for the stars to hit the moon sort of thing.