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


"Norman Wells" <norman@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:g4sks3$2r6$1$8300dec7@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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.

At least I've read it...which seems to be more than you have.

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.

It then goes on to quote two formulae, which both have weight as a significant
factor.

The first one shows for men, that every extra kg of weight results in 13.751
extra kcals per day. The second one, which is supposed to be more accurate more
modern lifestyles, every extra kg of weight results in an increase of 9.99
kcals.

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 bull***. 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.

Use the formula in the wiki article I quoted (and which you said was right). Or
one of the online calculators which have been referenced.

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.

Exactly. And the formulae quoted for basal metabolism, in the article I quoted
and you agreed was right, shows weight makes a big difference to 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.

Er, you obvously didn't get to bit with the formulae, or didn't understand them.

It also references an online calculator for BMR. Try using that and coming back
and telling weight doesn't make a significant difference.

A 15 stone 40 year old 5'10" man uses 28% more energy at rest than a 10 stone
one.

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.

The amount of "work" most people do these days is simply walking around, going
up and down stairs etc. Fat and thin people would probably do around around the
same. Of course you could be confusing cause and effect - someone who does less
work is likely to become fatter.

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.

Many of your organs will enlarge as you become fatter, and so need more energy.

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 bull*** 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.

Now use the formula quote in the wiki article (which you said was right) to
account for weight.

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.

Snap. But even O-level physics should tell you it takes more energy to heat a
larger mass, it takes more energy to move a larger mass, it takes more energy to
pump blood around a larger body, etc.

--
Andy




.

Loading