After two weeks of strict diet and heavy exercise, I haven..

WillBrink wrote:


>>stop looking at the scale!
>
> That's actually the best advice so far.
>
>>Last but not least honey - measure yourself!
>>Keep track using a diary
>
> Measure what? Pant size or actual bodyfat? The former is of little use
> compared to the latter.

Au contraire, waist fat is key. Visceral fat is important, subcutaneous fat is
just a vanity problem. 28" waist is perfect.*



T


* math nerd humor, sorry. A perfect number is one where the divisors add up to
the number. 6: 1,2,3. *28*, 1,2,4,7,14. 496, left as an exercise**



**Or I'm lazy.
 >> Stay informed about: After two weeks of strict diet and heavy exercise, I haven.. 

"Deb in Northern California" <d.kester.RemoveThis@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote
>I can't resist this one!!!

The Krispy Kremes aren't surprised.
>
> A lb of lead or a lb of feathers, weigh exactly the same! They are both a
> lb no matter what. Now, if you want the volume per square inch, then
> there is a difference, but a pound weighs the same whether in sand,
> bricks, lead or feathers!

Is she serious? Is she joking? <whack, whack> Damn this old Sarcastimometer!
Never working when you need it

David

> "WillBrink" <WillBrink*NOSPAM*@Comcast.net> wrote
>> "tessa" <tabyrne00.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> Jeannie,
>>> I have had similar problems myself. I found though that even though I
>>> did not lose weight right away, I did lose inches. I think it took
>>> about 3 weeks before I actually started losing pounds. It is very
>>> frustrating but we all know that muscle weighs more than fat.
>>
>> Err, no. Think about what you just said and get back to us. What weighs
>> more, a lb of lead or a lb of feathers?
 >> Stay informed about: After two weeks of strict diet and heavy exercise, I haven.. 

Quoting WillBrink:
>In article <0d5cc196dlup0c4vc1gtv1s2hep9uf83ti.RemoveThis@4ax.com>,
> Suze <suze_anderson@spamcop/dot/obvious> wrote:
>
>> Quoting WillBrink:
>> >In article <ne14c1tunbkca9rm6ommfu37ed538ou4gp.RemoveThis@4ax.com>,
>> > Suze <suze_anderson@spamcop/dot/obvious> wrote:
[...]
>> >> 100# might be just a tad low for a 5' 1" small-framed female, but
>> >> likely not by much. There would still be something left of her.
>> >
>> >Yes, we call them bones.
>>
>> _You_ might. _I_ may not,
>
>Is there another term for bones I don't know about? Do tell!

Meaning I don't necessarily think it's gonna be bony...
>>depending on build and muscle mass. Hence
>> my use of 'might' and 'likely'.

....and that you and the rest of "we" are free to sort opinions out
amongst yourselves.

>At under 100lbs at 5'1" there wont be any muscle mass. Duh.

Well, I said 100#, not under 100#.

For whatever it's worth, I certainly don't mean to imply that a 5'1"
female -must- or should get down to 100# to look good. However, I do
think it can be in the range of attractive and healthy. Depends.

>> For such a diminutive person (very short and fine boned), female,
>> -and- newbie to WT, 100# just does not seem like much of a stretch to
>> me.
>
>Sorry to hear it.
>
>> The female friends and acquaintances I have that are in that range of
>> height/weight (or close) generally look great.
>
>They would generally look skinny as hell. Yes I know many people have
>gotten it in their head it's the ideal.

Will, since that's your opinion, then why would you have your site
('friends' section) link to the webpages of some females that have
equivalent BMIs (or lower) according to their stats?
 >> Stay informed about: After two weeks of strict diet and heavy exercise, I haven.. 

In article <je3fc155k5km9r183v3j9v14j7nu5dja78 DeleteThis @4ax.com>,
Suze <suze_anderson@spamcop/dot/obvious> wrote:

> Quoting WillBrink:
> >In article <0d5cc196dlup0c4vc1gtv1s2hep9uf83ti DeleteThis @4ax.com>,
> > Suze <suze_anderson@spamcop/dot/obvious> wrote:
> >
> >> Quoting WillBrink:
> >> >In article <ne14c1tunbkca9rm6ommfu37ed538ou4gp DeleteThis @4ax.com>,
> >> > Suze <suze_anderson@spamcop/dot/obvious> wrote:
> [...]
> >> >> 100# might be just a tad low for a 5' 1" small-framed female, but
> >> >> likely not by much. There would still be something left of her.
> >> >
> >> >Yes, we call them bones.
> >>
> >> _You_ might. _I_ may not,
> >
> >Is there another term for bones I don't know about? Do tell!
>
> Meaning I don't necessarily think it's gonna be bony...

Then you "think" wrong.


> >>depending on build and muscle mass. Hence
> >> my use of 'might' and 'likely'.
>
> ...and that you and the rest of "we" are free to sort opinions out
> amongst yourselves.

My opinions are about 9,087,490,01 times better informed then yours
however and actually based on something. An opinion needs to be (or at
least should be) based on some applicable knowledge and experience of
the topic beyond just your own and prefaced with "I think" all the time.

>
> >At under 100lbs at 5'1" there wont be any muscle mass. Duh.
>
> Well, I said 100#, not under 100#.

So 99.9lbs would be too low then?

>
> For whatever it's worth, I certainly don't mean to imply that a 5'1"
> female -must- or should get down to 100# to look good. However, I do
> think it can be in the range of attractive and healthy. Depends.

You are sort of back peddling here but fine, I accept your point. Don't
agree with it, but accept it.

>
> >> For such a diminutive person (very short and fine boned), female,
> >> -and- newbie to WT, 100# just does not seem like much of a stretch to
> >> me.
> >
> >Sorry to hear it.
> >
> >> The female friends and acquaintances I have that are in that range of
> >> height/weight (or close) generally look great.
> >
> >They would generally look skinny as hell. Yes I know many people have
> >gotten it in their head it's the ideal.
>
> Will, since that's your opinion, then why would you have your site
> ('friends' section) link to the webpages of some females that have
> equivalent BMIs (or lower) according to their stats?

So many correction to make, so little time...BMI is essentially
worthless, especialy to anyone athletic. None of the people in the pics
would be in the "skinny-fat" catagory and carry more LBM and lower BF
then the average woman.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/
 >> Stay informed about: After two weeks of strict diet and heavy exercise, I haven.. 

In article <wGExe.93800$6g3.366@tornado.texas.rr.com>,
T <T.DeleteThis@nothingbut.net> wrote:

> WillBrink wrote:
>
>
> >>stop looking at the scale!
> >
> > That's actually the best advice so far.
> >
> >>Last but not least honey - measure yourself!
> >>Keep track using a diary
> >
> > Measure what? Pant size or actual bodyfat? The former is of little use
> > compared to the latter.
>
> Au contraire, waist fat is key.

Wrong, and testing "waist" fat is not done by simple belt size measure
but actual direct methods

> Visceral fat is important,

Yes.

> subcutaneous fat
> is
> just a vanity problem.

Err, wrong again. Visceral fat is associated with some specific risks,
that does not mean sub Q fat is a "vanity problem."


> 28" waist is perfect.*

Even with the humor, it's a goofy statement.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/
 >> Stay informed about: After two weeks of strict diet and heavy exercise, I haven.. 

In article <3ioo16Fmp53uU1.RemoveThis@individual.net>,
"Deb in Northern California" <d.kester.RemoveThis@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote:

> I can't resist this one!!!
>
> A lb of lead or a lb of feathers, weigh exactly the same! They are both a
> lb no matter what. Now, if you want the volume per square inch, then there
> is a difference, but a pound weighs the same whether in sand, bricks, lead
> or feathers!

Exactly! So, when people say "muscle weighs more then fat" they are
incorrect and adding to the confusion. Muscle can't weigh more then fat
no more then fat can weight more then feathers if a volume is not given.


>
> Debbie
>
> "WillBrink" <WillBrink*NOSPAM*@Comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:WillBrink*NOSPAM*-53EFF5.09385102072005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> > In article <1119986980.534452.160480.RemoveThis@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > "tessa" <tabyrne00.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Jeannie,
> >> I have had similar problems myself. I found though that even though I
> >> did not lose weight right away, I did lose inches. I think it took
> >> about 3 weeks before I actually started losing pounds. It is very
> >> frustrating but we all know that muscle weighs more than fat.
> >
> > Err, no. Think about what you just said and get back to us. What weighs
> > more, a lb of lead or a lb of feathers?
> >
> > --
> > Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/
> >
> >
>
>

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/
 >> Stay informed about: After two weeks of strict diet and heavy exercise, I haven.. 

In article <_6Gxe.243$BK1.225@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"David Cohen" <sammiesdad.TakeThisOut@earthlink.net> wrote:

> "Deb in Northern California" <d.kester.TakeThisOut@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote
> >I can't resist this one!!!
>
> The Krispy Kremes aren't surprised.
> >
> > A lb of lead or a lb of feathers, weigh exactly the same! They are both a
> > lb no matter what. Now, if you want the volume per square inch, then
> > there is a difference, but a pound weighs the same whether in sand,
> > bricks, lead or feathers!
>
> Is she serious? Is she joking? <whack, whack> Damn this old Sarcastimometer!
> Never working when you need it
>
> David
>
> > "WillBrink" <WillBrink*NOSPAM*@Comcast.net> wrote
> >> "tessa" <tabyrne00.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Jeannie,
> >>> I have had similar problems myself. I found though that even though I
> >>> did not lose weight right away, I did lose inches. I think it took
> >>> about 3 weeks before I actually started losing pounds. It is very
> >>> frustrating but we all know that muscle weighs more than fat.
> >>
> >> Err, no. Think about what you just said and get back to us. What weighs
> >> more, a lb of lead or a lb of feathers?

Baby steps David, baby steps. At least it's not an RD telling people
muscle weighs more then fat.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/
 >> Stay informed about: After two weeks of strict diet and heavy exercise, I haven.. 

WillBrink <WillBrink*NOSPAM*@Comcast.net> wrote:

> In article <3ioo16Fmp53uU1.RemoveThis@individual.net>,
> "Deb in Northern California" <d.kester.RemoveThis@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote:
>
> > I can't resist this one!!!
> >
> > A lb of lead or a lb of feathers, weigh exactly the same! They are both a
> > lb no matter what. Now, if you want the volume per square inch, then there
> > is a difference, but a pound weighs the same whether in sand, bricks, lead
> > or feathers!
>
> Exactly! So, when people say "muscle weighs more then fat" they are
> incorrect and adding to the confusion. Muscle can't weigh more then fat
> no more then fat can weight more then feathers if a volume is not given.

I thought volume was implied in the post (re-cited below). S/he talks
about losing inches but not pounds. Implied is the idea that volume is
being reduced, yet weight is staying the same. So the question arises:
how is this possible? The person's suggested solution: maybe your body
composition is changing to become more muscular. That would explain
decreased volume while weight stays the same.

Am I missing something here?

In article <1119986980.534452.160480.RemoveThis@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"tessa" <tabyrne00.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Jeannie,
> I have had similar problems myself. I found though that even though I
> did not lose weight right away, I did lose inches. I think it took
> about 3 weeks before I actually started losing pounds. It is very
> frustrating but we all know that muscle weighs more than fat.
 >> Stay informed about: After two weeks of strict diet and heavy exercise, I haven.. 

In article <1gz4hbe.1qfw95w1r6m06jN%nono@way.com>,
nono.TakeThisOut@way.com (Preacher) wrote:

> WillBrink <WillBrink*NOSPAM*@Comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <3ioo16Fmp53uU1.TakeThisOut@individual.net>,
> > "Deb in Northern California" <d.kester.TakeThisOut@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > > I can't resist this one!!!
> > >
> > > A lb of lead or a lb of feathers, weigh exactly the same! They are both
> > > a
> > > lb no matter what. Now, if you want the volume per square inch, then
> > > there
> > > is a difference, but a pound weighs the same whether in sand, bricks,
> > > lead
> > > or feathers!
> >
> > Exactly! So, when people say "muscle weighs more then fat" they are
> > incorrect and adding to the confusion. Muscle can't weigh more then fat
> > no more then fat can weight more then feathers if a volume is not given.
>
> I thought volume was implied in the post (re-cited below). S/he talks
> about losing inches but not pounds. Implied is the idea that volume is
> being reduced, yet weight is staying the same. So the question arises:
> how is this possible? The person's suggested solution: maybe your body
> composition is changing to become more muscular. That would explain
> decreased volume while weight stays the same.
>
> Am I missing something here?

Not at all, but the advice often given that "muscle weighs more then
fat" is incorrect. She, in a round about way, accounts for volume, but
many don't.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/
 >> Stay informed about: After two weeks of strict diet and heavy exercise, I haven.. 

WillBrink <WillBrink*NOSPAM*@Comcast.net> wrote:

> In article <1gz4hbe.1qfw95w1r6m06jN%nono@way.com>,
> nono.TakeThisOut@way.com (Preacher) wrote:
>
> > WillBrink <WillBrink*NOSPAM*@Comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <3ioo16Fmp53uU1.TakeThisOut@individual.net>,
> > > "Deb in Northern California" <d.kester.TakeThisOut@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I can't resist this one!!!
> > > >
> > > > A lb of lead or a lb of feathers, weigh exactly the same! They are both
> > > > a
> > > > lb no matter what. Now, if you want the volume per square inch, then
> > > > there
> > > > is a difference, but a pound weighs the same whether in sand, bricks,
> > > > lead
> > > > or feathers!
> > >
> > > Exactly! So, when people say "muscle weighs more then fat" they are
> > > incorrect and adding to the confusion. Muscle can't weigh more then fat
> > > no more then fat can weight more then feathers if a volume is not given.
> >
> > I thought volume was implied in the post (re-cited below). S/he talks
> > about losing inches but not pounds. Implied is the idea that volume is
> > being reduced, yet weight is staying the same. So the question arises:
> > how is this possible? The person's suggested solution: maybe your body
> > composition is changing to become more muscular. That would explain
> > decreased volume while weight stays the same.
> >
> > Am I missing something here?
>
> Not at all, but the advice often given that "muscle weighs more then
> fat" is incorrect. She, in a round about way, accounts for volume, but
> many don't.

I guess I thought volume was ALWAYS implied. Of course it doesn't make
sense to say that a pound of muscle weighs more than a pound of fat. But
I doubt that's what the original poster intended. Don't most people mean
a "brick" (some undefined volume) of muscle weighs more than a "brick"
(the same undefined volume) of fat?
 >> Stay informed about: After two weeks of strict diet and heavy exercise, I haven.. 

In article <1gz4mx3.ys710udwvqk0N%nono@way.com>,
nono.RemoveThis@way.com (Preacher) wrote:

> WillBrink <WillBrink*NOSPAM*@Comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <1gz4hbe.1qfw95w1r6m06jN%nono@way.com>,
> > nono.RemoveThis@way.com (Preacher) wrote:
> >
> > > WillBrink <WillBrink*NOSPAM*@Comcast.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <3ioo16Fmp53uU1.RemoveThis@individual.net>,
> > > > "Deb in Northern California" <d.kester.RemoveThis@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I can't resist this one!!!
> > > > >
> > > > > A lb of lead or a lb of feathers, weigh exactly the same! They are
> > > > > both
> > > > > a
> > > > > lb no matter what. Now, if you want the volume per square inch, then
> > > > > there
> > > > > is a difference, but a pound weighs the same whether in sand, bricks,
> > > > > lead
> > > > > or feathers!
> > > >
> > > > Exactly! So, when people say "muscle weighs more then fat" they are
> > > > incorrect and adding to the confusion. Muscle can't weigh more then fat
> > > > no more then fat can weight more then feathers if a volume is not
> > > > given.
> > >
> > > I thought volume was implied in the post (re-cited below). S/he talks
> > > about losing inches but not pounds. Implied is the idea that volume is
> > > being reduced, yet weight is staying the same. So the question arises:
> > > how is this possible? The person's suggested solution: maybe your body
> > > composition is changing to become more muscular. That would explain
> > > decreased volume while weight stays the same.
> > >
> > > Am I missing something here?
> >
> > Not at all, but the advice often given that "muscle weighs more then
> > fat" is incorrect. She, in a round about way, accounts for volume, but
> > many don't.
>
> I guess I thought volume was ALWAYS implied.

I wish that were true.

> Of course it doesn't make
> sense to say that a pound of muscle weighs more than a pound of fat. But
> I doubt that's what the original poster intended. Don't most people mean
> a "brick" (some undefined volume) of muscle weighs more than a "brick"
> (the same undefined volume) of fat?

Do you have any idea how many people fall for that simple trick
question, which i didn't invent, which is "what weighs more, a lb of
lead or a lb of feathers?" to which many answer "a lb of lead of
course!" Yes, it's that bad....

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/
 >> Stay informed about: After two weeks of strict diet and heavy exercise, I haven.. 

"WillBrink" <WillBrink*NOSPAM*@Comcast.net> wrote in message
news:WillBrink*NOSPAM*-039C0A.11265703072005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> In article <3ioo16Fmp53uU1.TakeThisOut@individual.net>,
> "Deb in Northern California" <d.kester.TakeThisOut@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote:
>
> > I can't resist this one!!!
> >
> > A lb of lead or a lb of feathers, weigh exactly the same! They are both
a
> > lb no matter what. Now, if you want the volume per square inch, then
there
> > is a difference, but a pound weighs the same whether in sand, bricks,
lead
> > or feathers!
>
> Exactly! So, when people say "muscle weighs more then fat" they are
> incorrect and adding to the confusion. Muscle can't weigh more then fat
> no more then fat can weight more then feathers if a volume is not given.
>
This is 'heavy' stuff. Will, your 'old prof' would be proud of you!
 >> Stay informed about: After two weeks of strict diet and heavy exercise, I haven.. 

On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 13:19:24 -0400, WillBrink
<WillBrink*NOSPAM*@Comcast.net> wrote:

>In article <1gz4hbe.1qfw95w1r6m06jN%nono@way.com>,
> nono DeleteThis @way.com (Preacher) wrote:
>
>> WillBrink <WillBrink*NOSPAM*@Comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > In article <3ioo16Fmp53uU1 DeleteThis @individual.net>,
>> > "Deb in Northern California" <d.kester DeleteThis @NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > > I can't resist this one!!!
>> > >
>> > > A lb of lead or a lb of feathers, weigh exactly the same! They are both
>> > > a
>> > > lb no matter what. Now, if you want the volume per square inch, then
>> > > there
>> > > is a difference, but a pound weighs the same whether in sand, bricks,
>> > > lead
>> > > or feathers!
>> >
>> > Exactly! So, when people say "muscle weighs more then fat" they are
>> > incorrect and adding to the confusion. Muscle can't weigh more then fat
>> > no more then fat can weight more then feathers if a volume is not given.
>>
>> I thought volume was implied in the post (re-cited below). S/he talks
>> about losing inches but not pounds. Implied is the idea that volume is
>> being reduced, yet weight is staying the same. So the question arises:
>> how is this possible? The person's suggested solution: maybe your body
>> composition is changing to become more muscular. That would explain
>> decreased volume while weight stays the same.
>>
>> Am I missing something here?
>
>Not at all, but the advice often given that "muscle weighs more then
>fat" is incorrect. She, in a round about way, accounts for volume, but
>many don't.

You know what they mean but you are just being pedantic, and
desperately trying not to be wrong again.
 >> Stay informed about: After two weeks of strict diet and heavy exercise, I haven..