Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
news:cff1kg5t5enetnn1otbuemveup9tnh28ea@4ax.com:

> On Mon, 13 Sep 2021 09:12:04 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
> Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>>news:2mrujgplgtgqi17ig0kg1a8rq7ccjdo3ms@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On 13 Sep 2021 12:11:33 GMT, Jaimie Vandenbergh
>>> <jaimie@usually.sessile.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> <snippo>
>>>
>>>>Even then, the coronary artery disease I am susceptible to is
>>>>80% genetic according to my cardiac docs - I'm fat and
>>>>recently had a couple of stents, but various older relatives
>>>>on one side who are skinny non-smoking beanpoles have had much
>>>>worse. I took their heart attacks as warnings and got myself
>>>>cleaned out before having any of my own.
>>>
>>> When I was in the Army, I knew an NCO like that -- so thin you
>>> couldn't see him if you looked at him from the side.
>>>
>>> The Army was revving up its War on Fat People, so he was just
>>> fine.
>>
>>A friend of mine was driven out of the Marine Corps for being
>>overweight in their reduction of numbers after Vietnam. They had
>>him running PT twice a day, plus other excercise programs,
>>because his body weight was too high according to their
>>actuarial charts for his height.
>>
>>His body fat was measured by Corps docts at less than 5%, and
>>his file said it would be medically dangerous for him to take it
>>lower.
>
> I take it the body builders had not successfully won their
> normal exemption. Excessive weight from muscle is no problem,
> that is their theory.

That is medical fact. Someone who is mildly overweight can *raise*
their BMI by excercising, losing fat and building muscle. An edge
case can go from overweight to obese *because* they lost fat.
>
>>(And he looked like a recruiting poster in his uniform. Other
>>than not beinc Caucasian. It was the 70s, after all.)
>>
>>The War in Fat People has been going on a long, long time.
>
> It did indeed start in the 70s.
>
> When it finally caught up to me in the early 80s (it took a
> while to fully penetrate the Army), % body fat was /the/
> criterion. It was measured by a PA (Physician's Assistant) using
> calipers.

Another flawed standard, but at least one that requires some degree
of human judgement. It's *possible* for the PA (or the doctor) to
not be an idiot. (Though in the military, that might be a tad
optomistic.)
>
>>> He went on leave and got into a medicine ball game. One hit
>>> his chest and his heart exploded. Turned out he was /far/ from
>>> "just fine" -- was, in fact, quite sick in the sense of having
>>> an enlarged, weakened heart.
>>>
>>> And /that/ is the cost perverting a medical system to focuse
>>> on Fat People while paying no attention to anybody else.
>>
>>That's what happens any time science is driven by politics.
>
> Well, more like medical ideology as opposed to reality: the
> drivers appeared to be high-rankers in the Medical Corps itself.

The higher the rank, the more they are bureaucrats and politicians,
and the less they are doctors.
>
> But I agree it comes to the same thing as politics-driven
> science.

It's the same effect across all of science, and it's obscenely
common these days.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 11:52:26 AM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Sep 2021 04:28:00 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 1:40:03 AM UTC-6, Alan Baker wrote:
> >> I can still see that those who
> >> really are carrying a lot of actual fat are putting their health at
> >> risk. There really is no serious dispute about that fact.
> >
> >But that in no way contradicts his point, that while being too fat
> >is a bad thing, there is a serious systemic problem in the health
> >care system where doctors have a tendency to ignore real health
> >problems in overweight people, falsely assuming that if they just
> >lost weight, it would go away.
> Sorry.
>
> The point was that the Army, by focusing on Fat People, completely
> ignored everyone else and did not make even the most minimal attempt
> to ensure that the super-thin were actually healthy and not deathly
> ill.
>
> Note that the Army, up to this point, had (and, since it has been in
> combat the last 20 years or so, has probably regained) a medical
> system that felt obligated to handle /all/ of it's members medical
> problems, not just pursue the Fat.
>
> BTW, this is a stupid policy: you a lot of kids cannot be recruited
> unless you relax your standards to get them in (so you can then
> persecute them for not conforming to them), the draft (if needed)
> would not work if the standards were kept because all you would need
> to do to be rejected is to gain weight, and it leaves an Army of Thin
> People in a country which is /run by Fat People/.
>
> Of course, stupid policies do come along from time to time. Consider
> the Rat Out Your Buddy line in the days of Dont Ask-Don't Tell. I
> wonder how many 1st Sgts were "outed" by disgruntled PFCs? Could
> anything be more corrosive to unit cohesion? Or more expensive, as
> discharging those outed forfeits the money used to train them, which,
> in some cases, is considerable.

I'm reminded of the story of Johnnie Phelps
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnnie_Phelps#Military_career

pt

On Tue, 14 Sep 2021 09:49:50 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
<taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:

>Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>news:cff1kg5t5enetnn1otbuemveup9tnh28ea@4ax.com:
>
>> On Mon, 13 Sep 2021 09:12:04 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
>> Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>>>news:2mrujgplgtgqi17ig0kg1a8rq7ccjdo3ms@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On 13 Sep 2021 12:11:33 GMT, Jaimie Vandenbergh
>>>> <jaimie@usually.sessile.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snippo>
>>>>
>>>>>Even then, the coronary artery disease I am susceptible to is
>>>>>80% genetic according to my cardiac docs - I'm fat and
>>>>>recently had a couple of stents, but various older relatives
>>>>>on one side who are skinny non-smoking beanpoles have had much
>>>>>worse. I took their heart attacks as warnings and got myself
>>>>>cleaned out before having any of my own.
>>>>
>>>> When I was in the Army, I knew an NCO like that -- so thin you
>>>> couldn't see him if you looked at him from the side.
>>>>
>>>> The Army was revving up its War on Fat People, so he was just
>>>> fine.
>>>
>>>A friend of mine was driven out of the Marine Corps for being
>>>overweight in their reduction of numbers after Vietnam. They had
>>>him running PT twice a day, plus other excercise programs,
>>>because his body weight was too high according to their
>>>actuarial charts for his height.
>>>
>>>His body fat was measured by Corps docts at less than 5%, and
>>>his file said it would be medically dangerous for him to take it
>>>lower.
>>
>> I take it the body builders had not successfully won their
>> normal exemption. Excessive weight from muscle is no problem,
>> that is their theory.
>
>That is medical fact. Someone who is mildly overweight can *raise*
>their BMI by excercising, losing fat and building muscle. An edge
>case can go from overweight to obese *because* they lost fat.

Ah, but does that mean that excess weight from muscle will not, for
example, cause joints to decay faster while the same excess weight for
fat will? Does it reduce the amount of oxygen (and so blood pumping)
needed to keep the excessive bulk alive if it is muscle rather than
fat?

This isn't about /density/. This is about /actual health effects/.
>>>(And he looked like a recruiting poster in his uniform. Other
>>>than not beinc Caucasian. It was the 70s, after all.)
>>>
>>>The War in Fat People has been going on a long, long time.
>>
>> It did indeed start in the 70s.
>>
>> When it finally caught up to me in the early 80s (it took a
>> while to fully penetrate the Army), % body fat was /the/
>> criterion. It was measured by a PA (Physician's Assistant) using
>> calipers.
>
>Another flawed standard, but at least one that requires some degree
>of human judgement. It's *possible* for the PA (or the doctor) to
>not be an idiot. (Though in the military, that might be a tad
>optomistic.)

In theory, certainly.

But I saw no form of "human judgement", just application of calipers
to flesh. And reading the results from a table.

The system was not limitied to military medicine. The annual
evaluations for Fat People were /required/ to be the minimum,
regardless of performance. This, of course, eventually allowed studies
to show that Fat People were all lazy, shiftless bums who weren't
doing their jobs anyway, thus supporting the effort.

Note that this was the /peacetime/ Army, which is known (historically)
to do some pretty strange stuff from time to time. Once we invaded
Afghanistan and then Iraq, things would have gotten a lot more real.

It is one thing to deny an Army Achievement Medal to someone because
she is a Fat Person (thus cheapening the AAM by making "has an
acceptable percentage of body fat" on of its criteria). It is
something else entirely to do the same with a Purple Heart or an award
for valor.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Tue, 14 Sep 2021 09:46:38 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
<taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:

>Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
>news:d66a3c69-bb30-4444-a047-cf4bf22eb42fn@googlegroups.com:
>
>> So it doesn't say the BMI indexes are wrong, the problem is more
>> with the studies as tools for finding out what weight is the
>> most healthy.
>>
>BMI is pretty much useless. The categories do not take into account
>age, build, or even sex. Men and women who are the same height are
>supposed to be the same weight. That gets into the reange of
>"medical dagnerous quackery."

Which, of course, means that, as I age and my height (one 6'1", then
6' even, which I still think of it as, although it's pretty clearly
less than that) decreases, my BMI will just get higher and higher even
if my weight is the same.

>The ex-Marine friend I mentioned, when he was in the Corp, was 5'
>6" and about 200 lbs. That's a BMI of 32.3, which is well into the
>"Obese" range. His *measured* body fat was less than 5%.
>
>For a graphic desmonstration, take a look at this:
>
>https://flickr.com/photos/77367764
>@N00/sets/72157602199008819/detail/?form=MY01SV&OCID=MY01SV
>
>https://tinyurl.com/2kkyurx2
>
>It is a seris of photos of women (and one cat, for reasons best not
>explroed) showing their BMI classification. Note, in particular,
>the ones listed as "normal," many - many - of whom look scrawny.
>The ones listed as "underweight" look *unhealthy*.
>
>
>BMI was never *intended* as a medical standard. It was devised by a
>mathematician (with no medical training) as a tool to help
>governments plan the allocation of resources.
>
>https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106268439
>
>Amd relly, it's surprising that the woke Left isn't out for blood
>from anyone who defends BMI, given it's racist history (and
>present):
>
>https://elemental.medium.com/the-bizarre-and-racist-history-of-the-
>bmi-7d8dc2aa33bb
>
>https://tinyurl.com/8vxbea7b
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
news:tc44kg9bclc50fm8kkg9v5qjr410mirprs@4ax.com:

> On Tue, 14 Sep 2021 09:49:50 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
> Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>>news:cff1kg5t5enetnn1otbuemveup9tnh28ea@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Mon, 13 Sep 2021 09:12:04 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
>>> Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>>>>news:2mrujgplgtgqi17ig0kg1a8rq7ccjdo3ms@4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>>> On 13 Sep 2021 12:11:33 GMT, Jaimie Vandenbergh
>>>>> <jaimie@usually.sessile.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <snippo>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Even then, the coronary artery disease I am susceptible to
>>>>>>is 80% genetic according to my cardiac docs - I'm fat and
>>>>>>recently had a couple of stents, but various older relatives
>>>>>>on one side who are skinny non-smoking beanpoles have had
>>>>>>much worse. I took their heart attacks as warnings and got
>>>>>>myself cleaned out before having any of my own.
>>>>>
>>>>> When I was in the Army, I knew an NCO like that -- so thin
>>>>> you couldn't see him if you looked at him from the side.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Army was revving up its War on Fat People, so he was
>>>>> just fine.
>>>>
>>>>A friend of mine was driven out of the Marine Corps for being
>>>>overweight in their reduction of numbers after Vietnam. They
>>>>had him running PT twice a day, plus other excercise programs,
>>>>because his body weight was too high according to their
>>>>actuarial charts for his height.
>>>>
>>>>His body fat was measured by Corps docts at less than 5%, and
>>>>his file said it would be medically dangerous for him to take
>>>>it lower.
>>>
>>> I take it the body builders had not successfully won their
>>> normal exemption. Excessive weight from muscle is no problem,
>>> that is their theory.
>>
>>That is medical fact. Someone who is mildly overweight can
>>*raise* their BMI by excercising, losing fat and building
>>muscle. An edge case can go from overweight to obese *because*
>>they lost fat.
>
> Ah, but does that mean that excess weight from muscle will not,
> for example, cause joints to decay faster while the same excess
> weight for fat will?

More or less, yes. Well toned muscles provide a good deal more
support for joints than fat.

> Does it reduce the amount of oxygen (and so
> blood pumping) needed to keep the excessive bulk alive if it is
> muscle rather than fat?
>
> This isn't about /density/. This is about /actual health
> effects/.

No, this is about BMI, and how useless it is as a medical standard.
About the fact that someone who is somewhat overweight can
excercise, lose fat, put on muscle, and have their BMI go *up*,
with an edge case going form "overweight" to "obsese" _while
clearly improving their health_.
>
>>>>(And he looked like a recruiting poster in his uniform. Other
>>>>than not beinc Caucasian. It was the 70s, after all.)
>>>>
>>>>The War in Fat People has been going on a long, long time.
>>>
>>> It did indeed start in the 70s.
>>>
>>> When it finally caught up to me in the early 80s (it took a
>>> while to fully penetrate the Army), % body fat was /the/
>>> criterion. It was measured by a PA (Physician's Assistant)
>>> using calipers.
>>
>>Another flawed standard, but at least one that requires some
>>degree of human judgement. It's *possible* for the PA (or the
>>doctor) to not be an idiot. (Though in the military, that might
>>be a tad optomistic.)
>
> In theory, certainly.
>
> But I saw no form of "human judgement", just application of
> calipers to flesh. And reading the results from a table.

That's more about the people than the standard, though.
>
> The system was not limitied to military medicine. The annual
> evaluations for Fat People were /required/ to be the minimum,
> regardless of performance. This, of course, eventually allowed
> studies to show that Fat People were all lazy, shiftless bums
> who weren't doing their jobs anyway, thus supporting the effort.
>
> Note that this was the /peacetime/ Army, which is known
> (historically) to do some pretty strange stuff from time to
> time. Once we invaded Afghanistan and then Iraq, things would
> have gotten a lot more real.

Militaries transitioning from war time to peace time generally need
to dump a lot of people, and often are not very smart about how
they do so.
>
> It is one thing to deny an Army Achievement Medal to someone
> because she is a Fat Person (thus cheapening the AAM by making
> "has an acceptable percentage of body fat" on of its criteria).
> It is something else entirely to do the same with a Purple Heart
> or an award for valor.

The higher the rank, the more political the position. And fat
shaming has been poltiically popular for a long, long time. It's
one of hte few socially acceptable forms of bigotry left for those
who *need* to be bigots.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
news:4254kgt658erto5sj9sihofgbi3i9o6ump@4ax.com:

> On Tue, 14 Sep 2021 09:46:38 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
> Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
>>news:d66a3c69-bb30-4444-a047-cf4bf22eb42fn@googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> So it doesn't say the BMI indexes are wrong, the problem is
>>> more with the studies as tools for finding out what weight is
>>> the most healthy.
>>>
>>BMI is pretty much useless. The categories do not take into
>>account age, build, or even sex. Men and women who are the same
>>height are supposed to be the same weight. That gets into the
>>reange of "medical dagnerous quackery."
>
> Which, of course, means that, as I age and my height (one 6'1",
> then 6' even, which I still think of it as, although it's pretty
> clearly less than that) decreases, my BMI will just get higher
> and higher even if my weight is the same.

And unless you're some kind of freak of nature, you weight will
almost certainly go up.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

On Wed, 15 Sep 2021 09:40:58 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
<taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:

>Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>news:4254kgt658erto5sj9sihofgbi3i9o6ump@4ax.com:
>
>> On Tue, 14 Sep 2021 09:46:38 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
>> Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
>>>news:d66a3c69-bb30-4444-a047-cf4bf22eb42fn@googlegroups.com:
>>>
>>>> So it doesn't say the BMI indexes are wrong, the problem is
>>>> more with the studies as tools for finding out what weight is
>>>> the most healthy.
>>>>
>>>BMI is pretty much useless. The categories do not take into
>>>account age, build, or even sex. Men and women who are the same
>>>height are supposed to be the same weight. That gets into the
>>>reange of "medical dagnerous quackery."
>>
>> Which, of course, means that, as I age and my height (one 6'1",
>> then 6' even, which I still think of it as, although it's pretty
>> clearly less than that) decreases, my BMI will just get higher
>> and higher even if my weight is the same.
>
>And unless you're some kind of freak of nature, you weight will
>almost certainly go up.

It's actually trending down, but that is because I actually downloaded
an effective diet plan, planned my diet, and revised what I was doing
whenever it got /too/ far out of hand.

Oh, and trained my eye to be much better at seeing what a good,
filling-but-not-excessive meal looks like.

That probably sounds more perfect than the reality. The reality is
that I have "conforming days" and "other days" every week. The "other
days" are when traininng my eye has paid off, by reducing the quantity
of food I decide to buy for one meal.

This is ultimately based on the Basic Principal of All Diets:

-- if it isn't something you are /willing/ to follow, you will not do
it

The trick is to find something that more-or-less conforms to the plan
that you are actually willing to do.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
news:vno6kgdgepe99ki4euh3dnaq2mcqd36u8v@4ax.com:

> On Wed, 15 Sep 2021 09:40:58 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
> Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>>news:4254kgt658erto5sj9sihofgbi3i9o6ump@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Tue, 14 Sep 2021 09:46:38 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
>>> Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
>>>>news:d66a3c69-bb30-4444-a047-cf4bf22eb42fn@googlegroups.com:
>>>>
>>>>> So it doesn't say the BMI indexes are wrong, the problem is
>>>>> more with the studies as tools for finding out what weight
>>>>> is the most healthy.
>>>>>
>>>>BMI is pretty much useless. The categories do not take into
>>>>account age, build, or even sex. Men and women who are the
>>>>same height are supposed to be the same weight. That gets into
>>>>the reange of "medical dagnerous quackery."
>>>
>>> Which, of course, means that, as I age and my height (one
>>> 6'1", then 6' even, which I still think of it as, although
>>> it's pretty clearly less than that) decreases, my BMI will
>>> just get higher and higher even if my weight is the same.
>>
>>And unless you're some kind of freak of nature, you weight will
>>almost certainly go up.
>
> It's actually trending down, but that is because I actually
> downloaded an effective diet plan, planned my diet, and revised
> what I was doing whenever it got /too/ far out of hand.
>
> Oh, and trained my eye to be much better at seeing what a good,
> filling-but-not-excessive meal looks like.
>
> That probably sounds more perfect than the reality. The reality
> is that I have "conforming days" and "other days" every week.
> The "other days" are when traininng my eye has paid off, by
> reducing the quantity of food I decide to buy for one meal.
>
> This is ultimately based on the Basic Principal of All Diets:
>
> -- if it isn't something you are /willing/ to follow, you will
> not do it
>
> The trick is to find something that more-or-less conforms to the
> plan that you are actually willing to do.

Or Trulicity, which is a very effective appetite supressent (and
has recetnly been approved as a weight loss drug, after being used
for A1C control for diabetics for some time).

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

On Thu, 16 Sep 2021 12:22:59 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
<taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:

>Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>news:vno6kgdgepe99ki4euh3dnaq2mcqd36u8v@4ax.com:
>
>> On Wed, 15 Sep 2021 09:40:58 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
>> Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>>>news:4254kgt658erto5sj9sihofgbi3i9o6ump@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 14 Sep 2021 09:46:38 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
>>>> Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
>>>>>news:d66a3c69-bb30-4444-a047-cf4bf22eb42fn@googlegroups.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> So it doesn't say the BMI indexes are wrong, the problem is
>>>>>> more with the studies as tools for finding out what weight
>>>>>> is the most healthy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>BMI is pretty much useless. The categories do not take into
>>>>>account age, build, or even sex. Men and women who are the
>>>>>same height are supposed to be the same weight. That gets into
>>>>>the reange of "medical dagnerous quackery."
>>>>
>>>> Which, of course, means that, as I age and my height (one
>>>> 6'1", then 6' even, which I still think of it as, although
>>>> it's pretty clearly less than that) decreases, my BMI will
>>>> just get higher and higher even if my weight is the same.
>>>
>>>And unless you're some kind of freak of nature, you weight will
>>>almost certainly go up.
>>
>> It's actually trending down, but that is because I actually
>> downloaded an effective diet plan, planned my diet, and revised
>> what I was doing whenever it got /too/ far out of hand.
>>
>> Oh, and trained my eye to be much better at seeing what a good,
>> filling-but-not-excessive meal looks like.
>>
>> That probably sounds more perfect than the reality. The reality
>> is that I have "conforming days" and "other days" every week.
>> The "other days" are when traininng my eye has paid off, by
>> reducing the quantity of food I decide to buy for one meal.
>>
>> This is ultimately based on the Basic Principal of All Diets:
>>
>> -- if it isn't something you are /willing/ to follow, you will
>> not do it
>>
>> The trick is to find something that more-or-less conforms to the
>> plan that you are actually willing to do.
>
>Or Trulicity, which is a very effective appetite supressent (and
>has recetnly been approved as a weight loss drug, after being used
>for A1C control for diabetics for some time).

Sorry, my policy is still

Just Say No

to such suggestions.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
news:dcc9kg9jh1i4jmv8ljd4bvsk4rtstl5pa9@4ax.com:

> On Thu, 16 Sep 2021 12:22:59 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
> Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>>news:vno6kgdgepe99ki4euh3dnaq2mcqd36u8v@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Wed, 15 Sep 2021 09:40:58 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
>>> Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>>>>news:4254kgt658erto5sj9sihofgbi3i9o6ump@4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 14 Sep 2021 09:46:38 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
>>>>> Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
>>>>>>news:d66a3c69-bb30-4444-a047-cf4bf22eb42fn@googlegroups.com:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So it doesn't say the BMI indexes are wrong, the problem
>>>>>>> is more with the studies as tools for finding out what
>>>>>>> weight is the most healthy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>BMI is pretty much useless. The categories do not take into
>>>>>>account age, build, or even sex. Men and women who are the
>>>>>>same height are supposed to be the same weight. That gets
>>>>>>into the reange of "medical dagnerous quackery."
>>>>>
>>>>> Which, of course, means that, as I age and my height (one
>>>>> 6'1", then 6' even, which I still think of it as, although
>>>>> it's pretty clearly less than that) decreases, my BMI will
>>>>> just get higher and higher even if my weight is the same.
>>>>
>>>>And unless you're some kind of freak of nature, you weight
>>>>will almost certainly go up.
>>>
>>> It's actually trending down, but that is because I actually
>>> downloaded an effective diet plan, planned my diet, and
>>> revised what I was doing whenever it got /too/ far out of
>>> hand.
>>>
>>> Oh, and trained my eye to be much better at seeing what a
>>> good, filling-but-not-excessive meal looks like.
>>>
>>> That probably sounds more perfect than the reality. The
>>> reality is that I have "conforming days" and "other days"
>>> every week. The "other days" are when traininng my eye has
>>> paid off, by reducing the quantity of food I decide to buy for
>>> one meal.
>>>
>>> This is ultimately based on the Basic Principal of All Diets:
>>>
>>> -- if it isn't something you are /willing/ to follow, you will
>>> not do it
>>>
>>> The trick is to find something that more-or-less conforms to
>>> the plan that you are actually willing to do.
>>
>>Or Trulicity, which is a very effective appetite supressent (and
>>has recetnly been approved as a weight loss drug, after being
>>used for A1C control for diabetics for some time).
>
> Sorry, my policy is still
>
> Just Say No
>
> to such suggestions.

But then, you've made it clear many times that you do not believe
in science.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

On 2021-09-17 10:39 a.m., Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
> news:dcc9kg9jh1i4jmv8ljd4bvsk4rtstl5pa9@4ax.com:
>
>> On Thu, 16 Sep 2021 12:22:59 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
>> Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>>> news:vno6kgdgepe99ki4euh3dnaq2mcqd36u8v@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 15 Sep 2021 09:40:58 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
>>>> Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>>>>> news:4254kgt658erto5sj9sihofgbi3i9o6ump@4ax.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 14 Sep 2021 09:46:38 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
>>>>>> Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
>>>>>>> news:d66a3c69-bb30-4444-a047-cf4bf22eb42fn@googlegroups.com:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So it doesn't say the BMI indexes are wrong, the problem
>>>>>>>> is more with the studies as tools for finding out what
>>>>>>>> weight is the most healthy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> BMI is pretty much useless. The categories do not take into
>>>>>>> account age, build, or even sex. Men and women who are the
>>>>>>> same height are supposed to be the same weight. That gets
>>>>>>> into the reange of "medical dagnerous quackery."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which, of course, means that, as I age and my height (one
>>>>>> 6'1", then 6' even, which I still think of it as, although
>>>>>> it's pretty clearly less than that) decreases, my BMI will
>>>>>> just get higher and higher even if my weight is the same.
>>>>>
>>>>> And unless you're some kind of freak of nature, you weight
>>>>> will almost certainly go up.
>>>>
>>>> It's actually trending down, but that is because I actually
>>>> downloaded an effective diet plan, planned my diet, and
>>>> revised what I was doing whenever it got /too/ far out of
>>>> hand.
>>>>
>>>> Oh, and trained my eye to be much better at seeing what a
>>>> good, filling-but-not-excessive meal looks like.
>>>>
>>>> That probably sounds more perfect than the reality. The
>>>> reality is that I have "conforming days" and "other days"
>>>> every week. The "other days" are when traininng my eye has
>>>> paid off, by reducing the quantity of food I decide to buy for
>>>> one meal.
>>>>
>>>> This is ultimately based on the Basic Principal of All Diets:
>>>>
>>>> -- if it isn't something you are /willing/ to follow, you will
>>>> not do it
>>>>
>>>> The trick is to find something that more-or-less conforms to
>>>> the plan that you are actually willing to do.
>>>
>>> Or Trulicity, which is a very effective appetite supressent (and
>>> has recetnly been approved as a weight loss drug, after being
>>> used for A1C control for diabetics for some time).
>>
>> Sorry, my policy is still
>>
>> Just Say No
>>
>> to such suggestions.
>
> But then, you've made it clear many times that you do not believe
> in science.
>

Sort of you don't believe in irony.

:-)

On Thursday, September 16, 2021 at 1:23:03 PM UTC-6, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:

> Or Trulicity, which is a very effective appetite supressent (and
> has recetnly been approved as a weight loss drug, after being used
> for A1C control for diabetics for some time).

Amazing. I only recently had read an article claiming that an
effective diet pill was basically something unlikely to ever
be achieved.

John Savard

On Fri, 17 Sep 2021 17:10:29 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Thursday, September 16, 2021 at 1:23:03 PM UTC-6, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>
>> Or Trulicity, which is a very effective appetite supressent (and
>> has recetnly been approved as a weight loss drug, after being used
>> for A1C control for diabetics for some time).
>
>Amazing. I only recently had read an article claiming that an
>effective diet pill was basically something unlikely to ever
>be achieved.

If you scroll down
<https://www.bing.com/search?q=trulicity+side+effects&cvid=52b3b6d4187f499e92bd85542050d8e1&aqs=edge.3.69i57j0l8.7788j0j1&pglt=675&FORM=ANSPA1&PC=U531>
far enough, you can see a list of Trulicity's (or Dulaglide's) side
effects.

Of course, another five or six drugs will probably keep those under
control

And another four or five will probably keep those drugs side effects
under control.

And ... well, to me, the moral is plain:

the only way to win is not to play

and I don't.

(I have made exceptions for short-term use for a specific purpose,
such as eye drops to help the eye heal after cataract surgery. The key
here is that /usage stops/.)
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."