Fat Tax

Really2

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

My darling OH was sent to various quacks when he got back from his gap year in India, because he'd got very skinny and was having trouble putting on weight again.

He was told that his normal calorific requirements were in the region of 5-6,000 a day, more when he's doing lots of exercise. He simply burns a lot of energy.

Has he got a digestive issue (Crohn's disease etc?)?
I was reasonably in to weight training / body building and was doing around 10hr's a week in the gym for around 9-10 years.
My intake to maintain around 15.5st was around a 3500cals per day. that is nearly 1.5X the daily intake for a active man, basically eating very large meals.
Serious body builders would be around the calorific intake of your other half so I would want a second opinion if he was not doing a serious amount of daily exercise and not maintaining weight.
Your body would not be processing the calories (EG digesting food) for calorific rate to be that high and not putting on bulk.
Arnold Schwarzenegger in his Mr universe days would only be looking at around 4,000Cals.

ninky_2

lostinrates wrote: »

I absolutely believe most people are fat because input is greater than output. I have a triple whammy of hypothalymus being impacted by my brain problems, hypothyroidism and PCOS (the later IMO is over hyped as a weight gain influence, but not totally imagined). I was very slim before I was ill (when I would also have had PCOS), and ate very little and was v. active. I am no very unslim . I have to watch my intake like a bloody hawk to try and rein in expansion.

The pills I was on last year were marvellous. My intake and output was monitored and it was concluded: yep the system is broken.

The answer is the same: you still have to do more than you eat to lose and roughly equal to maintain. The problem becomes when you can't eat the requirement of min/vit you need. I do not balance this v. well ATM...possibly why this year has been the winter of 8 colds/flus. And not have physical capabilty to increase what you do.

There is no doubt I feel the impact of medical ''things'' is smaller than many would like. (that said, I'm told by the endocrinologist that the range considered normal for thyroid function is wider here than in many third world countries)

exactly lir. simply it boils down to input / output. however to say a person has a 'choice' over this is a little like saying if you concentrated harder at school you could have come up with the theory of relativity.

ninky_2

Really2 wrote: »

Has he got a digestive issue (Crohn's disease etc?)?
I was reasonably in to weight training / body building and was doing around 10hr's a week in the gym for around 9-10 years.
My intake to maintain around 15.5st was around a 3500cals per day. that is nearly 1.5X the daily intake for a active man, basically eating very large meals.
Serious body builders would be around the calorific intake of your other half so I would want a second opinion if he was not doing a serious amount of daily exercise and not maintaining weight.
Your body would not be processing the calories (EG digesting food) for calorific rate to be that high and not putting on bulk.
Arnold Schwarzenegger in his Mr universe days would only be looking at 4,000Cals.

malabsorbtion was the first thing that sprung to my mind also. a little like putting petrol into a car with a fuel leak. mpg might come out as very high but you wouldn't actually be getting the energy output you might expect from the fuel.

Really2

ninky wrote: »

malabsorbtion was the first thing that sprung to my mind also. a little like putting petrol into a car with a fuel leak. mpg might come out as very high but you wouldn't actually be getting the energy output you might expect from the fuel.

PS, it was not to Worry NDG, but I would really go to see someone else. Eating the meals of three people and not sustaining the size of 3 people would mean something is going missing somewhere.

I would class that intake as far past normal ranges for a high metabolism, so a doctor/nutritionist should not shrug that off as required intake.

ninky_2

Really2 wrote: »

PS, it was not to Worry NDG, but I would really go to see someone else. Eating the meals of three people and not sustaining the size of 3 people would mean something is going missing somewhere.

I would class that intake as far past normal ranges for a high metabolism, so a doctor/nutritionist should not shrug that off as required intake.

quite. plenty of nasty bugs and conditions can create such a situation....the very reason a gap year in india can coincide with "inexplicable" weightloss.

Really2

ninky wrote: »

quite. plenty of nasty bugs and conditions can create such a situation....the very reason a gap year in india can coincide with "inexplicable" weightloss.

True, Delhi Belly and a toilet role in the fridge.

I hope he is still not eating that much though in all seriousness. Trying to get that much in without eating all kinds of high fat food would be a nightmare.

bendix

ninky wrote: »

sorry but you aren't thinking straight (not that that is your fault ). it's not so much that you can do what you want but that you are obliged to do what you want. you could change what you want but in order to do that you would have to want to do that in the first place.

how do you even formulate your thoughts? through language. language only exists due to a series of interactions between organisms that has developed over time. external factors that influence the very way you structure your thinking.

what went into creating bendix?...a series of prior events that created the phenomena now commonly known as bendix (in some circles).

a brainless sheep would be pretty useless. it wouldn't move much. humans clearly are not brainless. but seperating the mind from the brain is a bit like believing in horoscopes.

rather than mindless automatons i prefer to look at it a little more like a radio controlled car. for the car to move (have thoughts, behaviours etc) it required internal mechanisms (the genetic building blocks that have gone to create us) but it also need external signals (the environment and preceding events etc). what else are you suggesting a human can possibly consist of other than genetics and environment?

Fine

Let me rephrase. In the context of how my brain works, my genes and all that a**e, I can do whatever the hell I like. Ergo, within the confines of all those conditions, I have free will.

Happy now?

ninky_2

bendix wrote: »

Fine

Let me rephrase. In the context of how my brain works, my genes and all that a**e, I can do whatever the hell I like. Ergo, within the confines of all those conditions, I have free will.

Happy now?

no.:p

sounds a bit like you can have any colour as long as its black.

a choice which is governed by "my genes and all that a**e" is not actually a choice.

i used to believe in free will. i also used to believe in father christmas and jesus as the son of god.

btw what star sign are you?

ILW

We may not have totally free will to do what we want, but we we do have the freedom to make our own choices.

ninky_2

ILW wrote: »

We may not have totally free will to do what we want, but we we do have the freedom to make our own choices.

eh?????????