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

Quoting WillBrink:
>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.

Now that's certainly convincing!

>An opinion needs to be (or at
>least should be) based on some applicable knowledge and experience of
>the topic beyond just your own

If you've got definitive evidence that a 5' 1", 100#, fine boned
female would -always- be too thin, other than on your say-so, please
feel free to present it. (I'm willing to concede that it -might- or
-could- be a bit thin, depending, because hey, that's what I said in
the first place...)

>and prefaced with "I think" all the time.

Which I've done for the most part so far, including prefacing
statements with the use of 'might' and likely'.

On the other hand, -you- haven't done so.

>> >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?

Well hell, while we're at it, let's argue about whether 98# or 95#
would be too skinny, or 90#...

Point being, I originally stated "100#", you changed the goalposts.

>> 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

Actually I was just attempting to communicate further with you. Flesh
out my position, as it were.

If you seriously think that I've backpedaled, please outline where and
how I've done so.
(our entire exchange so far remains unsnipped in this reply)

>but fine, I accept your point. Don't agree with it, but accept it.

Okie doke.
Frankly, you have a funny way of showing it, though.

>> >> 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...

*shrug* Hey, it's your page...

>BMI is essentially worthless, especialy to anyone athletic.

I agree; see below.

>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.

....meaning that, if anything, they should be able to carry a bit more
scale weight / have a higher BMI than 'the average woman'.

But yet, some of them are actually at the same (or lower) BMI than the
example of a 100# 5' 1" female would be.
 >> Stay informed about: After two weeks of strict diet and heavy exercise, I haven.. 

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

That would be false, lots of epidemiological studies correlate waistline with
health risks.

> but actual direct methods

Dissection?
>
>> 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."

Tape measure is better than the mirror, better than the scale, better than calipers.
 >> Stay informed about: After two weeks of strict diet and heavy exercise, I haven.. 

In article <418hc1t6ltns442723rkro1p06n251f3ld.DeleteThis@4ax.com>,
Suze <suze_anderson@spamcop/dot/obvious> wrote:

> >>
> >> ...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.
>
> Now that's certainly convincing!

Glad to hear it.

>
> >An opinion needs to be (or at
> >least should be) based on some applicable knowledge and experience of
> >the topic beyond just your own
>
> If you've got definitive evidence that a 5' 1", 100#, fine boned
> female would -always- be too thin, other than on your say-so, please
> feel free to present it.

Do the math. At 5'1" and a healthy BF, how much LBM can a 5'1" woman
carry at 100lbs? She would eaither have to be very lean (exposing her to
an increased risk of other problems) or totally lacking LBM.

> Which I've done for the most part so far, including prefacing
> statements with the use of 'might' and likely'.
>
> On the other hand, -you- haven't done so.

Been "doing so" for millions of people for over a decade now.

>
> >> >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?
>
> Well hell, while we're at it, let's argue about whether 98# or 95#
> would be too skinny, or 90#...

Too fat is an accepted concept these days, but too skinny is not, due to
brain washing of people (in particular woman) by current trends. Yes, 90
would be too low as would be 100 regardless of BMI.

>
> Point being, I originally stated "100#", you changed the goalposts.
>
> >> 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
>
> Actually I was just attempting to communicate further with you. Flesh
> out my position, as it were.

Understood.

>
> If you seriously think that I've backpedaled, please outline where and
> how I've done so.
> (our entire exchange so far remains unsnipped in this reply)
>
> >but fine, I accept your point. Don't agree with it, but accept it.
>
> Okie doke.
> Frankly, you have a funny way of showing it, though.

My bad.



> >> 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...
>
> *shrug* Hey, it's your page...
>
> >BMI is essentially worthless, especialy to anyone athletic.
>
> I agree; see below.

You agree but you mention BMI as it related to the gals on that page?

>
> >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.
>
> ...meaning that, if anything, they should be able to carry a bit more
> scale weight / have a higher BMI than 'the average woman'.

Exactly.

>
> But yet, some of them are actually at the same (or lower) BMI than the
> example of a 100# 5' 1" female would be.

How exactly have you decided they would have equiv or lower BMI? It's
also irrelevant. What they have is lower BF and a higher LBM, and even
if it corresponds to another women, they will have lower risk of
sarcopenia, osteoporosis, and many other ills.

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

In article <A6%xe.98722$6g3.72092@tornado.texas.rr.com>,
T <T.RemoveThis@nothingbut.net> wrote:

> WillBrink wrote:
> > In article <wGExe.93800$6g3.366@tornado.texas.rr.com>,
> > T <T.RemoveThis@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
>
> That would be false, lots of epidemiological studies correlate waistline with
> health risks.

Which has zero to do with your statement. How much epi research have you
done and do you know it's limitations? Direct intervention studies are
far more useful and do find visceral fat is a risk factor for many
pathologies. Has little to do with my point and your statement.

>
> > but actual direct methods
>
> Dissection?

There are a few others. Look them up perhaps.

> >
> >> 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."
>
> Tape measure is better than the mirror, better than the scale, better than
> calipers.

The tape measure can and will lead a person down the same problematic
road as the scale and mirror (though both have their uses) and direct
measurements of LBM and BF changes using calipers, DEXA, etc. are
superior and look at what actually matters: fat loss vs weight loss. As
with the scale, tape measure will never tell you what you lost exactly,
bone, water, muscle, and you hope, some fat. Having worked with a few
thousand people at this point, it's not uncommon to see the scale go
down as well as inches lost, with the person actually getting fatter,
that is, they lost LBM and fat and ended up a smaller version of their
former self with just as much BF, if not more, then when they started.

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

I'm not a Doctor but it sounds like you are stressing your body too
much and expecting results yesterday. An average person dieting should
eat at least 1500 kcals per day or your body will think a famine is
happening. Your body will hold on to as much fat a possible because
fat is the easiest way to store kcals. You may also be replacing fat
with muscle. Muscle weighs 2X is much as fat. Muscle also retains the
all-important nutrient water.

A good way to keep sane is to weight yourself once a week and to have
an accurate bodyfat test done onces a month.

Good luck, Dan
http://debunkbigpharma.blognation.us/blog
 >> Stay informed about: After two weeks of strict diet and heavy exercise, I haven.. 

On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 09:46:41 -0400, WillBrink
<WillBrink*NOSPAM*@Comcast.net> wrote:

>In article <418hc1t6ltns442723rkro1p06n251f3ld.DeleteThis@4ax.com>,
> Suze <suze_anderson@spamcop/dot/obvious> wrote:
>
>> >>
>> >> ...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.
>>
>> Now that's certainly convincing!
>
>Glad to hear it.
>
>>
>> >An opinion needs to be (or at
>> >least should be) based on some applicable knowledge and experience of
>> >the topic beyond just your own
>>
>> If you've got definitive evidence that a 5' 1", 100#, fine boned
>> female would -always- be too thin, other than on your say-so, please
>> feel free to present it.
>
>Do the math. At 5'1" and a healthy BF, how much LBM can a 5'1" woman
>carry at 100lbs? She would eaither have to be very lean (exposing her to
>an increased risk of other problems) or totally lacking LBM.
>
>> Which I've done for the most part so far, including prefacing
>> statements with the use of 'might' and likely'.
>>
>> On the other hand, -you- haven't done so.
>
>Been "doing so" for millions of people for over a decade now.

<snort>

All you've been doing you little reptile is give about two dozen
people at MFW the shits!!
 >> Stay informed about: After two weeks of strict diet and heavy exercise, I haven.. 

OR you are both morons. Two weeks isn't enough time to gauge anything.
 >> Stay informed about: After two weeks of strict diet and heavy exercise, I haven.. 

In article <WillBrink*NOSPAM*-8A6266.15585403072005@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
WillBrink <WillBrink*NOSPAM*@Comcast.net> wrote:

>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....

That's because you got it wrong. Lead isn't quite dense enough, and
most people have no experience with it. Try asking "Which weighs
more, a pound of goose feathers or a pound of gold?" and see who gets
the right answer.

Seth
--
"People that don't listen to me live to regret it." -- Will Brink
 >> Stay informed about: After two weeks of strict diet and heavy exercise, I haven.. 

In article <WillBrink*NOSPAM*-CA02C0.09370202072005@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
WillBrink <WillBrink*NOSPAM*@Comcast.net> wrote:
>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!
>
>>depending on build and muscle mass. Hence
>> my use of 'might' and 'likely'.
>
>At under 100lbs at 5'1" there wont be any muscle mass. Duh.

There might. There might even be some fat in the right places. It
really does depend on the build. (Though I might be concerned about
low bone density in those circumstances.)

Seth
--
Who cares? Shut up and lift. -- Watson (the pencil neck) Davis
 >> Stay informed about: After two weeks of strict diet and heavy exercise, I haven.. 

In article <juv1c1pb6grchff65oq4dj84mslbtc29qg RemoveThis @4ax.com>,
Jeannie Sanderson <This group only> wrote:

>I am a 39 year old woman at 5'1" and 140 lbs. My doctor said I should
>wegh under 100 lbs to be good size with my small stature. I begin to
>eat under 1000 kkal a day Monday 6-13. I use a postal scale to verify
>all quantities, and only water is not recorded. I used a elliptical
>trainer 6 days a week and it reads 250 kkals when I stop. Every other
>day I a;lso have a triner push me on universal machines until I am
>exhaused. About 90 minutes. This seems liek a lot of work and little
>food and I am 140 lbs still. I don't understand.

Simple: your body hates you. ($1 to Lyle)

Seth
--
"There is no such thing as an essential carbohydrate" -- Will Brink
Except sushi rice, seaweed, and wasabi.
 >> Stay informed about: After two weeks of strict diet and heavy exercise, I haven.. 

"Seth Breidbart" <sethb.RemoveThis@panix.com> wrote
> David Cohen <sammiesdad.RemoveThis@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>"Sarah Wethered" <swethered.RemoveThis@shaw.ca> wrote
>>> According the WW, I'm just fine
>>
>>According to DC, you're a tub of lard.
>>
>>> -- thanks for making my 60 lb weight loss
>>> insignificant.
>>
>>A comment from a total stranger on Usenet can do that to you? Wow. You
>>don't
>>suppose that lack of self-esteem is more of the root problem than your
>>weight?
>>
>>> Go back under the rock you came from.
>>
>>OK.
>
> Hey, David (you, not him), I didn't know you were doing oddball
> lifts. That the 200 lb rock you're carrying around, or are you up to
> 300 lbs yet?

I was inspired after attending the recent Las Vegas Highland Games.

Been trying to pick up hot Irish and Scottish chicks since then.

David
 >> Stay informed about: After two weeks of strict diet and heavy exercise, I haven.. 

"Seth Breidbart" <sethb.DeleteThis@panix.com> wrote
> WillBrink <WillBrink*NOSPAM*@Comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>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....
>
> That's because you got it wrong. Lead isn't quite dense enough, and
> most people have no experience with it. Try asking "Which weighs
> more, a pound of goose feathers or a pound of gold?" and see who gets
> the right answer.

People in your circle of friends have experience with pounds of goose
feathers and pounds of gold?

You have weird friends, Seth.

David
 >> Stay informed about: After two weeks of strict diet and heavy exercise, I haven.. 

David Cohen wrote:
> "Seth Breidbart" <sethb RemoveThis @panix.com> wrote
> > David Cohen <sammiesdad RemoveThis @earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>"Sarah Wethered" <swethered RemoveThis @shaw.ca> wrote
> >>> According the WW, I'm just fine
> >>
> >>According to DC, you're a tub of lard.
> >>
> >>> -- thanks for making my 60 lb weight loss
> >>> insignificant.
> >>
> >>A comment from a total stranger on Usenet can do that to you? Wow. You
> >>don't
> >>suppose that lack of self-esteem is more of the root problem than your
> >>weight?
> >>
> >>> Go back under the rock you came from.
> >>
> >>OK.
> >
> > Hey, David (you, not him), I didn't know you were doing oddball
> > lifts. That the 200 lb rock you're carrying around, or are you up to
> > 300 lbs yet?
>
> I was inspired after attending the recent Las Vegas Highland Games.
>
> Been trying to pick up hot Irish and Scottish chicks since then.
>
> David

Do they go farther in the caber toss than other nationalities?

Richard
 >> Stay informed about: After two weeks of strict diet and heavy exercise, I haven..