Ahh then I suppose that weight is fine.5'6"
I've never seen myself as being short, I just see everyone as being too tall.
Next thing you know people will be saying things like...
Don't wait for a parking spot in the front looping around 20 times in an effort to get a parking spot within the first 3 spaces, park towards the back, walk in, and be done quicker!
The nerve of people! The Audacity! I went to the store the other day and they didn't even have a chariot to take me to my vehicle! I had to carry all the groceries myself!
The audacity!
Bill Maher is only a step above Bill O' Reilly for having a lot of hot air that doesn't add up under scrutiny.Special snowflakes.
Love the recent Bill Maher rant. The far left has gone so far over the edge, to the point where deriding them is easy. They're killing themselves, just like the far right has made a mockery of true conservatism.
I don't think I even know an adult male in real life who weighs 140lbs.
Like I said, suck it. You wanna be a superficial asshole about something that isn't possible to change, there's plenty of racists to keep you in good company these days.
Like I said, suck it. You wanna be a superficial asshole about something that isn't possible to change, there's plenty of racists to keep you in good company these days.
When it comes to mass loss / gain, all that matters is conservation of mass. Energy, in the form of calories is irrelevant.So... you're not actually talking about what I think you are trying to say then.
Better to be short and angry than a turbo-asshole. You should feel bad about who you choose to be.LOL
5'6" and angry.
It's a dangerous combination.
I won't lie. I don't understand your point. I'm not saying you're wrong or that I disagree. I'm just saying I don't understand.When it comes to mass loss / gain, all that matters is conservation of mass. Energy, in the form of calories is irrelevant.
Note: Calories are related to mass. So, people find them convenient to use instead. But they are not exactly equivalent. And that is where a lot of people get into trouble. That isn't even going into details of how the body absorbs and uses the energy. They are starting off wrong before they even begin the process. Eating 1 lb of fiber is not the same as eating 1 lb of sugar. Then, add in the fact that people are using incorrect numbers.
I just linked the first articles on google for 7700 Calories per kg and 9 Calories per gram of fat. Most articles will say 3500 Calories per lb, but I figured I'd limit the math and link directly to the Calories per kg number. Here are others that say 7700 Calories per kg:
http://www.theunitconverter.com/cal...sion/7700-calorie-gram-to-joule-kilogram.html
https://community.fitbit.com/t5/Man...Calories-burned-Calories-consumed/td-p/977771
https://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070515025123AAPGQwc
I could go on and on with links of this number.
Heck, even peer reviewed scientific papers mention it:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2376744/
(note that was 3500 Calories per lb, which equals 3500 Calories / lb * 2.2 lb/kg = 7700 Calories/kg)
The problem is that these commonly used numbers are simply incorrect (and as you state, they are gross oversimplifications of what actually happens in the body). If the body absorbed 100% of the calories with no energy required, then either a gram of fat is 7.7 Calories, or a kg of fat is 9000 Calories (a pound would be 4090 Calories). One of these two numbers--that are in just about every single nutrition textbook ever--is wrong. And not wrong in the sense of rounding, since 7.7 does not round up to 9.
That scientific paper actually goes into the proper answer. The commonly used 7700 Calories / kg of fat or 3500 Calories / lb of fat assumes we are talking about adipose tissue at 87% fat. But the nutrition labels assume pure fat. The rest is probably rounding.
The fiber vs. sugar example is about mass being deceptive because of energy content. Fiber offers little energy in comparison with readily digestible sugar. Some fibers, like psyllium, offer none directly. We can get technical and talk about how some fibers are digested in the colon and some pass through, blah blah blah. But the bottom lines are these:I won't lie. I don't understand your point. I'm not saying you're wrong or that I disagree. I'm just saying I don't understand.
Better to be short and angry than a turbo-asshole. You should feel bad about who you choose to be.
As a tall person I'd rather be shorter because of fewer joint problems from aging. Airplane trips are also really bad. I've had flight attendants move me just to get my legs and feet out of the way.Poking fun of someone's height is so childish you're not supposed to actually get mad.
Regular height people know this.
Let's be friends.
The fiber vs. sugar example is about mass being deceptive because of energy content. Fiber offers little energy in comparison with readily digestible sugar. Some fibers, like psyllium, offer none directly. We can get technical and talk about how some fibers are digested in the colon and some pass through, blah blah blah. But the bottom lines are these:
The body needs fat, protein, and carbs. Each has a different energy density. Fat has the highest. However, contrary to what people were taught for a long time, low fat diets are not good for people. High fat diets aren't good either but they're better than low fat diets.
The best way to lose weight is to be less sedentary and get adequate sleep. People who sleep less than 8 hours weigh 20% more, typically. Sleep and exercise increase metabolism. The other thing about losing weight is to eat a healthy diet. The Mediterranean diet is a good choice, although it's tricky because of mercury in fish thanks to coal power.
Cutting added sugars (and all sugar substitutes) out of one's diet completely is very helpful, along with refined/processed carbs. Also, contrary to common belief, ketosis is not something most people should try to achieve. Carbs have important roles in the body, like keeping water level adequate, ATP level adequate, and helping serotonin production. Ketosis is mainly useful for problematic epilepsy and for surgical weight loss systems.
No, it was something to do with no confusing mass with energy. The point about fiber and sugar is one I explained. 1 lb of fiber = 1 lb of mass with very little energy. 1 lb of sugar = 1 lb of a lot more energy.So all he is saying is that eating healthy is good and eating not healthy is not good?
As a tall person I'd rather be shorter because of fewer joint problems from aging. Airplane trips are also really bad. I've had flight attendants move me just to get my legs and feet out of the way.
I think one of the biggest mistakes is the lack of variance in cardio routines. Merely burning calories won't burn fat. It just tells your body how to store carbs and fat more efficiently. High intensity workouts hasn't stopped anyone from loosing weight.I dont drink soda. I drink coffee and water. I don't eat horribly either. I'll eat a fried egg or two for breakfast. I will have a turkey sandwich and a small amount of chips and some vegetables for lunch. I eat a sensible dinner, maybe 2 pieces of pizza or something, and have a sugary snack sometime throughout the day, maybe a snickers bar or something. I work out EVERY day at least 30-45 minutes of cardio and/or weight lifting. I am barely maintaining my weight -- maybe adding a pound or two every couple months. I crave sugar, even if I go without for a week or two, I still really enjoy it.
There are others who can eat double what I do and have soda throughout the day and are just naturally skinny. There's a lot to this metabolism thing. I'm always cold but have had my thyroid tested and its normal. I'm at 205 right now, but have always been heavy my entire life except for the past couple years. Still, even though I don't eat much and am what most would consider active, I can't lose weight.
I'll try it in a different way.I won't lie. I don't understand your point. I'm not saying you're wrong or that I disagree. I'm just saying I don't understand.
I won't lie. I don't understand your point. I'm not saying you're wrong or that I disagree. I'm just saying I don't understand.
I'll try it in a different way.
1) Suppose you have a box, filled with contents, and that box+contents weighs 150 lbs.
2) Suppose you put 5 lbs of stuff in the box.
3) Suppose you take 4 lbs of stuff out of the box.
What does the box + contents now weigh? Anyone in the world should be able to answer that question. The box + contents now weighs 151 lbs. That answer is true no matter what you put in or what you took out. Put in 5 lbs of water or 5 lbs of sugar and the answer is the same.
Now, if that box was your skin, why does the weight of the items no longer matter, but the energy content (calories) now matters? Answer: it doesn't. We are focusing on calories, when we should actually focus on the weight of things we put in and push out of our bodies.
Calories are related to the weight of the food we eat. Eating two pounds of sugar is double the calories and double the weight of one pound of sugar. So, in that case, focusing on calories and focusing on weight are the same. That is why so many people think about calories, as it is close enough in many cases to the real focus of the weight of the items. But, calories are still not scientifically correct. Two pounds of fiber (no usable calories) and two pounds of sugar (all usable calories) are completely different. It is the weight that matters when we want to lose weight.
Calories are related to the weight of the food we eat. Eating two pounds of sugar is double the calories and double the weight of one pound of sugar. So, in that case, focusing on calories and focusing on weight are the same. That is why so many people think about calories, as it is close enough in many cases to the real focus of the weight of the items. But, calories are still not scientifically correct. Two pounds of fiber (no usable calories) and two pounds of sugar (all usable calories) are completely different. It is the weight that matters when we want to lose weight.
Ok, so I did read this and I think it matters because our bodies are not just lifeless boxes. Our bodies metabolise different types of food in different ways. The type of food very much matters whereas weight can be important, but is not as important as the types of calories we are taking in and quantity of calories.
You are forgetting about the mass of the CO2 and other components that left the bonfire. Mass in - mass out = mass changeThat's basically it. A cardboard box lacks a stomach to convert food into energy, thus the food sits there & simply adds weight instead of being burned for fuel. It's like tossing a wooden log into a bonfire...you're not going to be left with a 5-pound log, you're just going to have some soot & ashes at the end because all of the energy got burned off in the fire.