Re: CT: Subsidising Families (Was Income Tax: how does it work?)

Andy Pandy wrote:
"Norman Wells" <norman@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:g4qggi$18o$1$8300dec7@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

The fatter you are the higher your metabolic rate.

No it isn't. You clearly don't understand the term metabolic rate.

Really? Try reading this referenced wiki article, and then explain
why it's wrong:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basal_metabolic_rate

There's no need. The article is right. But referring to it doesn't mean that you understand it.

Pretty obvious really, the bigger your body the more energy it needs
to keep going.

In part, yes of course. But you completely misunderstand the
science here.

Do I really? Quote a reputable source that has a formula for
metabolic rate which doesn't have weight as a significant factor.

Even the article you mention says "... the dietary consumption any particular individual needs in order to maintain body weight. 2000 kilocalories is often quoted but is no more than a guideline". That doesn't mention body weight as a significant factor. It would if it were.


If a 10 stone person eats 20% more than they need, on a permanent
basis, then they will put weight on until their metabolic rate
equals their calorie intake. Then their weight will stabilise.

Not so. They will get bigger and bigger and bigger because the extra
calories a larger person needs than a smaller one are in fact very
few,

Absolute bullshit. They will reach probably about 13-14 stone and
their weight will then stabilise.

Give me any reputable source that says any such thing. Then explain why it doesn't contravene the well established natural law of conservation of energy.

The fact of the matter, which I will explain very simply as it's clear you have no understanding of basic science whatsoever, is that the body is a very efficient machine. It excretes very few of the calories it takes in as food. The calories it takes in as food are utilised in two ways - to produce heat to keep the body at the optimum temperature for its enzymatic processes to work, and to do work by muscular activity. It's the amount of energy required to keep the body at 37C that is by far the larger of the two, and that is what is called basal metabolism. Work is actually a very efficient process - it takes 2 hours of vigorous squash to work off the calories in a cupcake for example.

The rate of heat loss from the body, and hence basal metabolism calorie requirement, depends on several factors. Obviously, it depends on surface area, and a fat person has a larger surface area than a thin one. However, fat is a very insulating substance. The more you have of it, the less heat will escape. These are compensating factors, and it's then just a matter of which is the larger and by how much. Experts differ in what they say here. You've had someone point you in the direction of an article that says basal metabolic rate does not increase with weight but rather decreases. You think, without any knowledge whatsoever, that it surely increases. The Wikipedia article to which you referred states a figure of 2000 calories without any reference to weight, but says it is no more than a guideline. However, it is nevertheless a guideline, which indicates that there really isn't any, or much, difference regardless of your size.

Any calorie intake over and above basal metabolism requirements can be used to do work. If fat people do work, they expend more calories doing it than thin people, but again there is the compensating factor that they tend not to do as much work because they are fat. So, the likelihood is that the work done whether you are fat or thin probably consumes about the same number of calories.

Any calorie intake over and above basal metabolism requirements and work is not excreted, so where does it go? The answer is that it is stored as chemical energy, ie fat. If you consistently exceed the body's calorie requirements for basal metabolism and work, you will produce fat, and you will put on weight, for as long as you do it.


and
any excess over that goes to produce fat and therefore increased
weight. If there is any stabilisation on a diet of 20% excess, it
will be at a weight of several tons, by which time they will have
crushed themselves to death.

Such a person could eat 20% less, and be much fitter and heathier.

Anyone who is fat can eat 20% less for a period and of course become
fitter and healthier. That's because 20% less food than is actually
required to maintain body processes leads to a loss of weight at a
rate of 3 and a half stone a year.

Where do you get this bullshit from? What formula are you using?

Basal metabolism requires 2000 calories a day. A normal man requires about 2700 calories a day for basal metabolism and work. 20% less calorie intake means 540 calories a day less than are required. These can only come from the body's reserves of energy, ie fat, so 540 x 365 = 197,100 calories of fat energy will have to be consumed in a year. One pound of fat is about 4000 calories, which means that 197100 / 4000 = 49 lbs of fat will be consumed in a year. That's 3 and a half stone.

No he won't. He'll lose weight until his metabolic rate equals his
calorie intake. It will only be a problem if he was underweight to
start with.

Nonsense. His weight will decrease and continue to decrease for as
long as he takes in fewer calories than his body needs to maintain
itself whatever its weight, and that's about 2500 to 2700 calories.
That's really simple, fundamental science.

You really don't have a clue, do you?

Well, I do have a BSc from a reputable university and from a time when a degree meant something. What scientific education have you had?



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Magnesium Factor
    ... >>>doesn't work because you don't eat carbohydrates, ... >>>experiments have looked at calories consumed. ... >>>but the very best results came from consuming fat calories. ... >> effect on my weight. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: CT: Subsidising Families (Was Income Tax: how does it work?)
    ... metabolic rate which doesn't have weight as a significant factor. ... It excretes very few of the calories it takes in as ... And the formulae quoted for basal metabolism, ... and a fat person has a larger surface area than a thin one. ...
    (uk.finance)
  • Re: diet needs
    ... the only requirement is for me to gain weight. ... calories is OK. ... Again, high calorie is OK, some fat is OK, but I don't want to eat a lot ... Eating and drinking sugary/high fat foods didn't help - they just gave me ...
    (rec.pets.cats.anecdotes)
  • Re: How many calories to maintain weight
    ... >> In order to maintain the desired weight. ... > In order to lose weight, you need to consume fewer calories than you ... but stick to cuts that are lower in fat. ... That will keep your blood sugar levels more stable, ...
    (sci.med.nutrition)
  • Re: obese chinese kids eat fewer carbs
    ... asian kids coming to n. ... With all meat sources the fat is considered to be ... +530 calories, 1970-2000. ... weight gain and metabolic disorders and obesity the below suggests not. ...
    (sci.med.nutrition)