 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / July 2009AmE: cleaning the car
Hello: In AmE: 1. The first thing I did yesterday was cleaning the car. 2. The first thing I did yesterday was to clean the car. 3. The first thing I did yesterday was clean the car. Do you feel that the first isn't correct? How about the other two? Thanks. Marius Hancu > In AmE: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Do you feel that the first isn't correct? How about the other two? The #1 form is clearly wrong. You will hear (and read) both of the other forms commonly, but I believe that the precisian will prefer the #3 form, inasmuch as after the auxiliary "do" the infinitive typically appears in its "simple" (no "to") form. (As a sidebar, the modern infinitive is an evolved form: originally the verbal was the object of the preposition "do".)  SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ > > In AmE: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > The #1 form is clearly wrong. Agreed. > You will hear (and read) both of the other > forms commonly, but I believe that the precisian will prefer the #3 form, > inasmuch as after the auxiliary "do" the infinitive typically appears in > its "simple" (no "to") form. This may be the AmE preferred form. I think that more BrE speakers probably like the #2 sentence more than AmE speakers do. I say that because most of the Taiwanese doctors and professors I edit for like that "to clean" structure, and they also use a lot of other structures that are decidedly BrE and not at all AmE. Using noun phrases such as "the precisian" turns perfectly sound commentary in something like a game: logos ludens. Besides, I'd say that it's misused here. I doubt that you mean "Puritan" or "overly precise person", unless, of course, you are being reflexive. On Jun 25, 6:32 pm, Eric Walker <em...@owlcroft.com> wrote: > On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 03:08:08 -0700, Marius Hancu wrote: > > In AmE: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > The #1 form is clearly wrong. Agreed. > You will hear (and read) both of the other > forms commonly, but I believe that the precisian will prefer the #3 form, > inasmuch as after the auxiliary "do" the infinitive typically appears in > its "simple" (no "to") form. This may be the AmE preferred form. I think that more BrE speakers probably like the #2 sentence more than AmE speakers do. I say that because most of the Taiwanese doctors and professors I edit for like that "to clean" structure, and they also use a lot of other structures that are decidedly BrE and not at all AmE. Using noun phrases such as "the precisian" turns perfectly sound commentary in something like a game: logos ludens. Besides, I'd say that it's misused here. I doubt that you mean "Puritan" or "overly precise person", unless, of course, you are being reflexive. ======================================================================= This American likes 2 and it is the common usage here{New England} > On Jun 25, 6:32 pm, Eric Walker <em...@owlcroft.com> wrote: >> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 03:08:08 -0700, Marius Hancu wrote: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > that "to clean" structure, and they also use a lot of other structures > that are decidedly BrE and not at all AmE. Ray O':> This American likes 2 and it is the common usage here{New England} Pat: This American likes #3 and find it much the more common usage here (Upper Midwest/Great Lakes region). (I am talking "spoken" usage. Writing things confuses a lot of people about what they really say.) >> On Jun 25, 6:32 pm, Eric Walker <em...@owlcroft.com> wrote: >>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 03:08:08 -0700, Marius Hancu wrote: [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > usage. Writing things confuses a lot of people about what they really > say.) This Brit also likes no.3 - so I don't think there's a Pondian difference here. Alan Jones >>>1. The first thing I did yesterday was cleaning the car. > > The #1 form is clearly wrong. > > Agreed. Are then these people using similar constructions in published books in the wrong or is there something else at work? ------ Innovations in youth job training: hearing before the Subcommittee on ... - Page 28 by United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Labor and Human Resources. Subcommittee on Employment and Training - Education - 1997 - 77 pages And one of the community service projects we did was cleaning up on a site that I wound up working on later on. ------- Power to change: family case studies in the treatment of alcoholism - Page 140 by Edward Kaufman - Psychology - 1984 - 316 pages Yet, the hardest thing we did was cleaning out her room. ------ The stress of combat: the combat of stress : caring strategies towards ex ... - Page 96 by Roy Brook - Psychology - 1999 - 318 pages ... Austin factory in Birmingham but all he ever did was cleaning cars before they left the works. ------- God Space: From All about Me to All about Thee - Page 79 by Tompaul Wheeler - Religion - 2007 - 378 pages No, the nastiest work l ever did was cleaning tables in the academy cafeteria when l was 16 years old. ------ -- Thank you all. Marius Hancu >>>>1. The first thing I did yesterday was cleaning the car. > >> > The #1 form is clearly wrong. >> >> Agreed. I agree that that one's wrong too, but with word order changed, "cleaning" would be required - "Cleaning the car was the first thing I did yesterday." >Are then these people using similar constructions in published books >in the wrong or is there something else at work? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >I wound up working on later on. >------- That one could go either way, to me. >Power to change: family case studies in the treatment of alcoholismý - >Page 140 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Yet, the hardest thing we did was cleaning out her room. >------ Here I would use "to clean", but I wouldn't call "cleaning" clearly wrong. >The stress of combat: the combat of stress : caring strategies towards >ex ...ý - Page 96 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >they left the works. >------- This one sounds wrong to me - it should be "to clean" or "clean". But with a different word order, "cleaning" is indicated - "Cleaning cars before they left the works was all he ever did." >God Space: From All about Me to All about Theeý - Page 79 > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >when l was 16 years old. >------ In this example, describing a continuing activity, "cleaning" is fine, at least to my ear. I don't know what general principles are in operation here, but that's how I hear 'em. SignatureJohn > The #1 form is clearly wrong. You will hear (and read) both of the other > forms commonly, but I believe that the precisian will prefer the #3 form, > inasmuch as after the auxiliary "do" the infinitive typically appears in > its "simple" (no "to") form. I'm not so sure the wrongness is clear (it sounds only slightly awkward to me) and I'd stick with the more recognized form "precisionist," but I do think you've put your finger on *why* it seems wrong. I wouldn't hesitate to use the gerund in these similar contexts: * The first thing I did yesterday was the annual cleaning of the car. * Cleaning the car was the first thing I did yesterday. * Of the things I did yesterday, the smartest was cleaning the car. * The first two things I did were laundry and cleaning the car. * The first thing I accomplished yesterday was cleaning the car. All of these are pretty close to the original in form, but each has some feature that clearly separates "did" from "cleaning" to make it clear that "cleaning" isn't part of a verb phrase. Also, I'd say the simple infinitive isn't always heard as such. It's nonstandard but not that unusual for the past tense to replace it, especially in answer to a question: * What was the first thing you did? * Cleaned the car. ¬R >> The #1 form is clearly wrong. You will hear (and read) both of the >> other forms commonly, but I believe that the precisian will prefer the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > to me) and I'd stick with the more recognized form "precisionist," but I > do think you've put your finger on *why* it seems wrong. Webster's new World Dictionary, 2nd College Edition: precisian: a person who is strict and precise in observing rules or customs, esp. of religion . . . I grant the "esp." use for a Puritan, but reckon the word has a more general use. Nor is it the same as precisionist, "a person who attaches great or too great importance to precision." The sense of excess is distinctly greater in precisionist: a precisian is strictly exacting, while a precisionist is excessively exacting. A shading, granted, but it is of shadings that English is built. [...] > Also, I'd say the simple infinitive isn't always heard as such. It's > nonstandard but not that unusual for the past tense to replace it, > especially in answer to a question: > > * What was the first thing you did? > * Cleaned the car. That is simply elliptical for "I cleaned the car." You would not say "The first thing I did yesterday was cleaned the car." =============== As to the OP's later specimen sentences (here slightly simplified by the eliding of irrelevant words): a. "[O]ne of the community service projects we did was cleaning up on a site that I wound up working on." [I reckon that "on" should be "of" or just omitted.] b. "[T]he hardest thing we did was cleaning out her room." c. "[A]ll he ever did was cleaning cars." d. "[T]the nastiest work I ever did was cleaning tables." And for comparison, the (also simplified) original query form was: e. "The first thing I did was cleaning the car." I'd say each is at least poor if not outright wrong (though b and d seem less exceptionable than the others), and wants an infinitive in the predicate. More generally, each of those has the form "[noun phrase] was [noun phrase]," where we are concerned with the correct form of the second noun phrase. As it involves a finite form of the verb "clean", it needs to use either a participle, an infinitive, or a gerund. The participle, to become a noun--it is adjectival by definition--takes the definite article: "The cleaning was tedious work." No such articles appear, hence none of the constructions involve a participle. The gerund stands alone: "Cleaning is tedious work." The infinitive can go with or without its particle, depending on the exact context: "To clean one's room is a tedious task"; "Yes, he did clean his room." Here I must admit I am at a loss. It is abundantly clear to my ear that in the general form cited, the subject phrase urgently wants--requires-- the gerund form, whereas the predicate-complement phrase requires the infinitive form: but I can't adduce the rule. Consider: "Cleaning the car was the first thing I did." "The first thing I did was [to] clean the car." Both are easy and natural in sound. But-- "[To] clean the car was the first thing I did." "The first thing I did was cleaning the car." --are each ghastly. (But note that a participle instead of a gerund can work: "The first chore I did was the cleaning of the car.") Not that infinitives can't readily be subjects: "To err is human"; "To triumph was his goal." Is it just arbitrary idiom, like the order of qualifying adjectives? Or have I missed some elementary rule? SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ Eric Walker filted: >> Also, I'd say the simple infinitive isn't always heard as such. It's >> nonstandard but not that unusual for the past tense to replace it, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >That is simply elliptical for "I cleaned the car." You would not say >"The first thing I did yesterday was cleaned the car." I wouldn't, but millions would.... I wouldn't even blink at "the first thing I did yesterday was I cleaned the car"....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? >That is simply elliptical for "I cleaned the car." You would not say >"The first thing I did yesterday was cleaned the car." I might, somewhat jocularly. Plenty of people I know would, without any special intention. That's why I said "especially" rather than "exclusively" in answering a question. >a. "[O]ne of the community service projects we did was cleaning up on a >site that I wound up working on." >b. "[T]he hardest thing we did was cleaning out her room." >d. "[T]the nastiest work I ever did was cleaning tables." All three of these sound normal and correct to me. "Clean" works just as well in b. but sounds entirely wrong to me in the other two. The key in those two, to my ear, is that the cleaning is something done over a period of time, an activity rather than an action. >The participle, to become a noun--it is adjectival by definition--takes >the definite article: "The cleaning was tedious work." Huh? That's a gerund. A participle describes its actor (present) or object (past), not the action: "The cleaning, by virtue of the solutions they spill on themselves, become the cleaned." >Is it just arbitrary idiom, like the order of qualifying adjectives? Or >have I missed some elementary rule? As I said, I think you put your finger on it the first time: The infinitive is needed where "did" is heard to be repeated in ellipsis. * What was the first thing you did? * [I did] Clean the car. * The first thing I did was [that I did] clean the car. There's no inferred repetition possible if "did" hasn't been said yet. ¬R >@< >@< >@< >@< >@< http://users.bestweb.net/~notr/emopvere.html "insulting me; that is one of alt.religion.kibology's purposes" --jwgh [...] >>The participle, to become a noun--it is adjectival by definition--takes >>the definite article: "The cleaning was tedious work." > > Huh? That's a gerund. A participle describes its actor (present) or > object (past), not the action: "The cleaning, by virtue of the > solutions they spill on themselves, become the cleaned." Not so. Curme, _English Grammar_, 122.A.3 _As a Noun._ "As an adjective the participle can be used as a noun: the _wounded_ and the _dying_." A more general discussion can be found at 108._Descriptive Adjectives Used as Nouns._ I frankly don't understand the sample sentence above: who are "the cleaning"? [...] > As I said, I think you put your finger on it the first time: The > infinitive is needed where "did" is heard to be repeated in ellipsis. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > * The first thing I did was [that I did] clean the car. The first is clear enough, but that second looks wooly. The operative verb in the sentence--by "operative" I mean the one that connects the subject to the predication--is the past of copulative "be"; it is linking one noun phrase, the subject ("The first thing I did") with a second noun phrase ("clean the car"), where "clean" is the simple infinitive. SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ >Not so. Curme, _English Grammar_, 122.A.3 _As a Noun._ "As an adjective >the participle can be used as a noun: the _wounded_ and the _dying_." And isn't it clear that in this example "the dying" means the people who are dying, not the process of dying? Look in the same reference under "gerund" and you should find examples like "the dying of the light" and "the dyeing of the wool." It may call these forms gerunds, or it may insist that they're verbal nouns that are distinct from gerunds. Either way, they ain't participles. ¬R "Carl Sagan is more educational than J.R.R. Tolkien even though they were both total stoners." K. http://users.bestweb.net/~notr/cosmic.html >>Not so. Curme, _English Grammar_, 122.A.3 _As a Noun._ "As an >>adjective the participle can be used as a noun: the _wounded_ and the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > these forms gerunds, or it may insist that they're verbal nouns that are > distinct from gerunds. Either way, they ain't participles. A participle is a word that to some extent participates in the qualities of both a verb and an adjective, but is considered adjectival. In "the dying men", "dying" is a participle. A gerund is a verbal form acting as a noun: "Dying can be a painful business." But an adjective--including a participle--can be treated as a noun (just as a noun can be used as an adjective). That is demonstrated in the sample sentence, as well as in such forms as "None but the brave deserve the fair." To further quote Curme: The identity of form in the present participle and the gerund makes it often difficult to distinguish them: the form -ing a gerund in dining- car (i.e. a car for dining), ironing-board (i.e. board for ironing), but a present participle with passive force in cooking apple (i.e. an apple that can be cooked), breech-loading gun (i.e. a gun that is loaded at the breech). The difference may be clearer if we try to complete the ellipses: He sought to comfort the wounded [men] and the dying [men]. None but the brave [men] deserve the fair [women]. "The dying [???] of the light was quite melancholy." "The dyeing [???] of the wool took unusually long." We can readily complete the ellipses for the participles because they are, as said, adjectives elliptically being used as nouns by the omission of the actual noun they modify in their participial function. We cannot readily complete any ellipsis for the gerunds because there isn't one to begin with. SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ >We can readily complete the ellipses for the participles because they >are, as said, adjectives elliptically being used as nouns by the omission >of the actual noun they modify in their participial function. We cannot >readily complete any ellipsis for the gerunds because there isn't one to >begin with. Right, so let's try your examples again: The first chore I did was the cleaning [???] of the car. The cleaning [???] of the car was tedious work. Still think they're participles? http://users.bestweb.net/~notr "The notion of objecting to a fake Web ¬R site on the grounds that it might possibly incite other people to do bad things is so dangerous to our constitutionally protected freedoms that it must never be mentioned, even in jest." --Matt McIrvin >>We can readily complete the ellipses for the participles because they >>are, as said, adjectives elliptically being used as nouns by the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Still think they're participles? I think we need to replay a little of the history here: It is abundantly clear to my ear that in the general form cited, the subject phrase urgently wants--requires--the gerund form, whereas the predicate-complement phrase requires the infinitive form: but I can't adduce the rule. Consider: "Cleaning the car was the first thing I did." "The first thing I did was [to] clean the car." Both are easy and natural in sound. But-- "[To] clean the car was the first thing I did." "The first thing I did was cleaning the car." As you see, I assigned those -ing forms as gerunds; I did not label them participles. Indeed, I also said: The participle, to become a noun--it is adjectival by definition-- takes the definite article: "The cleaning was tedious work." No such articles appear, hence none of the constructions involve a participle. That is the sentence for which you objected to my categorization of the -ing form as a participle. In it, the expansion is "the cleaning [process]" or something of that sort: pick your preferred noun. That is-- to repeat--just why I said that the forms in the original examples were _not_ participles but gerunds. SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ > a. "[O]ne of the community service projects we did was cleaning up on a > site that I wound up working on." [I reckon that "on" should be "of" or > just omitted.] I'm not sure which "on" you have a problem with, but neither bothers me. --Jeff SignatureThe comfort of the wealthy has always depended upon an abundant supply of the poor. --Voltaire >> a. "[O]ne of the community service projects we did was cleaning up on a >> site that I wound up working on." [I reckon that "on" should be "of" >> or just omitted.] > > I'm not sure which "on" you have a problem with, but neither bothers me. It was "cleaning up on a site"; that would be appropriate if it were intended as a description of the locale where some thing (or person) was being cleaned. "Rather than go home to wash, we cleaned up on the site." I reckon it ought to be omitted, but to feed the apparently insatiable modern appetite for prepositions[*] it should at least be altered to "of". [*] Once upon a time, long, long ago, one would check something that might be in doubt; then, the beast getting peckish, one would check on it; nowadays, with the beast ravening, we check up on it. SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ >>> a. "[O]ne of the community service projects we did was cleaning up on a >>> site that I wound up working on." [I reckon that "on" should be "of" [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > insatiable modern appetite for prepositions[*] it should at least be > altered to "of". I think you're misparsing it. It should be "...cleaning up - on a site that I wound up working on." But there's really no pause there. --Jeff SignatureThe comfort of the wealthy has always depended upon an abundant supply of the poor. --Voltaire >>>> a. "[O]ne of the community service projects we did was cleaning up on >>>> a site that I wound up working on." [I reckon that "on" should be [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > I think you're misparsing it. It should be "...cleaning up - on a site > that I wound up working on." But there's really no pause there. I don't see how that affects the needless "on" there; if anything, it reinforces the sense of cleaning something at a place, rather than (as I have been assuming was meant) cleaning up the place itself. SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ > In AmE: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Do you feel that the first isn't correct? > How about the other two? I see that other have given answers to your question. I'll go with number 3. I have a different point to address -- I don't think that Americans use the expression "clean the car" very often. They usually wash the car. Sure, there can also be some vacuuming involved, but it is still just washing the car. I notice that my wife, a Filipina, and her relatives /clean/ their cars. Me, I /wash/ mine. Vacuum it too. Is this, possibly, pondial? Or am I a bit peculiar. SignatureSkitt (AmE) >> In AmE: >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >Is this, possibly, pondial? Or am I a bit peculiar. If so, then I'm peculiar in a different way. I rarely wash the car. When it needs it, I take it to a drive-through car wash. I frequently clean the car. Florida's sandy, and I spend a lot of time out in the boonies looking for things photographable. I track sand and dirt into the car, and clean it when it gets too much. When I take the grandchildren out, I clean the car when I get home. They always have some sort of snack with them that leaves crumbs. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >>> In AmE: >>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > boonies looking for things photographable. I track sand and dirt into > the car, and clean it when it gets too much. I don't remember ever washing the cars when I was living on Florida's east coast. It rained often enough to ceep the cars clean. > When I take the grandchildren out, I clean the car when I get home. > They always have some sort of snack with them that leaves crumbs. Yeah, that happens. Fortunately, not often. I am against eating in the car, although I don't protest much when others do it in my car. Too often there are very messy or sticky mishaps. Why can't people wait until mealtime to eat, as I usually plan not to be driving at mealtimes. It is not necessary to be munching on something constantly, as many do. That can lead to obesity. SignatureSkitt (AmE) a bit heavy around the middle nevertheless ... >>>> In AmE: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] >I am against eating in the car, although I don't protest much when others do >it in my car. Too often there are very messy or sticky mishaps. A risk I gladly assume to have the grandchildren with me for the day. Someday, I'll trade in the car. Not the grandchildren, though. >Why can't >people wait until mealtime to eat, as I usually plan not to be driving at >mealtimes. It is not necessary to be munching on something constantly, as >many do. That can lead to obesity. If you are as active as my two grandsons, you'll burn it off as fast as you eat. Perpetual motion. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >>> When I take the grandchildren out, I clean the car when I get home. >>> They always have some sort of snack with them that leaves crumbs. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > If you are as active as my two grandsons, you'll burn it off as fast > as you eat. Perpetual motion. It may be part of my childhood experience that makes me the way I am. I was an active child, but the difference was that I simply had no time to waste on eating. Eating was a necessary evil to put up with, not something I enjoyed. Yes, I was thin as a rail then. In our family, mealtimes were mealtimes, and there were no snacks between them -- not that I still adhere to that regimen. SignatureSkitt (AmE) >In our family, mealtimes were >mealtimes, and there were no snacks between them -- not that I still adhere >to that regimen. When I was young, eating between meals was at least as sinful as omitting to clean one's teeth before bed. "Snack" still carries automatic overtones of "bad" for me, so that I have to re-calibrate every time someone innocently suggests I partake of one. SignatureKaty Jennison spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @ Wood Avens filted: >>In our family, mealtimes were >>mealtimes, and there were no snacks between them -- not that I still adhere [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >automatic overtones of "bad" for me, so that I have to re-calibrate >every time someone innocently suggests I partake of one. Does "nosh" have the same connotation?...I first learnt it in an episode of (oddly enough) "Gomer Pyle, USMC"....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? >Wood Avens filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Does "nosh" have the same connotation?...I first learnt it in an episode of >(oddly enough) "Gomer Pyle, USMC"....r In BrE "nosh" means food,n, or eat,v. Noshing between meals would be bad. http://www.peevish.co.uk/slang/n.htm nosh Noun. Food. [Orig. German/Yiddish. 1900s] Verb. 1. To eat. 2. To fellate. See 'nosh-off'. I didn't know the second meaning, although it is one of those things that might be inferred from context. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >>In our family, mealtimes were >>mealtimes, and there were no snacks between them -- not that I still adhere [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >automatic overtones of "bad" for me, so that I have to re-calibrate >every time someone innocently suggests I partake of one. My wife and I are of that generation, and snacks are something that we don't have. The early lessons stuck, and I am sometimes amazed at people pushing trolleys out of Sainsbury's filled with crisps, biscuits, tooth-rotting drinks and the like. No wonder there's an obesity problem. SignatureRobin (BrE) Herts, England >>>In our family, mealtimes were mealtimes, and there were no snacks >>>between them -- not that I still adhere to that regimen. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > at people pushing trolleys out of Sainsbury's filled with crisps, > biscuits, tooth-rotting drinks and the like. Out of curiosity, is there a lot more "tooth rotting" today than there was when you were a kid? It really seems to be *way* down in the US than it was in the '70s. My son is ten and has yet to have a cavity. I'm sure that I had about a dozen by the time I was his age. > No wonder there's an obesity problem. [somewhat tongue-in-cheek] Is there? I went looking for norms in an attempt to bolster my arguments to my son (just sliding into the body changes that accompany puberty and becoming unsure of his self image) that he is not, by any stretch of the imagination "fat", when I discovered that the Body-Mass Index (BMI) norms for kids are different from those of adults. For adults, they're absolute thresholds (<18.5 is "underweight", >25 is "overweight", >30 is "obese"), but for kids the "overweight" threshold is apparently the 85th percentile for that age and sex. So 15% of all kids are overweight, by definition, and it will always be the case that 15% of all kids are overweight. But seriously I thought that the current wisdom was that snacking (as long as it's healthy) when you're starting to get hungry is actually better than waiting and sitting down to big meals really hungry, because when you're really hungry you eat more than you need before your body tells you it's no longer hungry. When I was in kindergarten, in 1969, there was an official "snack" (juice and cookies) partway through the morning. That didn't happen in the other grades, but it was certainly standard for kids to get something when they got home from school "to tide them over until dinner". For my son, the school encouraged the kids to bring a snack at least through third grade (age 8), and he has something when he gets home from school. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |It is a popular delusion that the 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |government wastes vast amounts of Palo Alto, CA 94304 |money through inefficiency and sloth. |Enormous effort and elaborate kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |planning are required to waste this (650)857-7572 |much money | P.J. O'Rourke http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > Out of curiosity, is there a lot more "tooth rotting" today than there > was when you were a kid? It really seems to be *way* down in the US > than it was in the '70s. "Way down ... than"? > My son is ten and has yet to have a cavity. I'm sure that I had > about a dozen by the time I was his age. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |If to "man" a phone implies handing 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |it over to a person of the male Palo Alto, CA 94304 |gender, then to "monitor" it |suggests handing it over to a kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |lizard. (650)857-7572 | Rohan Oberoi http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >> Out of curiosity, is there a lot more "tooth rotting" today than >> there >> was when you were a kid? It really seems to be *way* down in the US >> than it was in the '70s. > > "Way down ... than"? "Way downer than", surely. "Wayer down(er)" would be childish. [...] > [somewhat tongue-in-cheek] Is there? I went looking for norms in an > attempt to bolster my arguments to my son (just sliding into the body [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > and sex. So 15% of all kids are overweight, by definition, and it will > always be the case that 15% of all kids are overweight. Of possible tangential interest: a study has appeared, only in the last week or so, indicating that folk classed (by BMI) as "overweight" live longer than those classed as being of proper (or average or normal or whatever the class under "overweight" is). Even after correction for various possible biases, the "overweight" live longest, followed by the "normal" (or whatever); I forget the order of the other two classes (obese and underweight). Ah, it's still up--here it is: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/26/health/26weight.html?partner=rss&emc=rss In germane part: "[P]eople who were overweight but not obese — defined as a body mass index of 25 to 29.9 — were actually less likely to die than people of normal weight, defined as a B.M.I. of 18.5 to 24.9. "By contrast, people who were underweight, with a B.M.I. under 18.5, were more likely to die than those of average weight. Their risk of dying was 73 percent higher than that of normal weight people, while the risk of dying for those who were overweight was 17 percent lower than for people of normal weight." SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ > Of possible tangential interest: a study has appeared, only in the > last week or so, indicating that folk classed (by BMI) as [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > the risk of dying for those who were overweight was 17 percent lower > than for people of normal weight." That's not a new finding. I described a 2005 study here last July: ] > My belly's circumference is merely a litmus test for how the rest ] > of the bod is doing, weight-wise. One report after another, and ] > I'm not going to cite any, for we've all seen them, warns that fat ] > people die sooner than slim ones. ] ] Except for the one[1] that distinguished the risk for "overweight" ] (BMI=[25,30)) from "obese" (BMI>=30). They found that relative to ] the "normal" range of [18.5,25), being obese was responsible for ] approximately 112,000 excess deaths in 2000 and being "underweight" ] (BMI<18.5) was responsible for approximately 34,000 excess deaths. ] Being overweight, on the other hand was responsible for ] approximately -86,000 excess deaths. (Most studies conflate ] "overweight" and "obese" into a single "overweight or obese" ] category, which would have been responsible for 26,000 excess ] deaths.) ] ] They calculated a "relative risk" over their data (which ran from ] 1971 to 1994) and found ] Age ] BMI 25-59 60-69 70- ] --------- ----- ----- ---- ] <18.5 138% 230% 169% ] 18.5-<25 100% 100% 100% ] 25-<30 83% 95% 91% ] 30-<35 120% 113% 103% ] 35- 183% 163% 117% ] ] For people who've never smoked, they found ] ] Age ] BMI 25-59 60-69 70- ] --------- ----- ----- ---- ] <18.5 125% 297% 150% ] 18.5-<25 100% 100% 100% ] 25-<30 66% 81% 90% ] 30-<35 77% 121% 113% ] 35- 125% 230% 112% ] ] Apparently, really fat people die sooner than slim ones, but sort of ] chubby people (and, for younger people who've never smoked, somewhat ] tubby ones) die later. ] ] [1] Flegal, et al., Excess Deaths Associated with Underweight, ] Overweight, and Obesity, _JAMA_, 4/20/2005 ] http://www.amptoons.com/blog/files/JAMA_flegal.pdf SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |The General Theorem of Usenet 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |Information: If you really want to Palo Alto, CA 94304 |know the definitive answer, post |the wrong information, and wait for kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |someone to come by and explain in (650)857-7572 |excruciating detail precisely how |wrong you are. http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ | Eric The Read [...] > That's not a new finding. I described a 2005 study here last July: [...] All of which is a relief. My ideal "aesthetic" weight, as best I judge it, is right in the middle of the "normal" category, while my current padding puts me right in the middle of the "lives longer" category. As Rassilon put it, "to win is to lose, and to lose is to win." SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > padding puts me right in the middle of the "lives longer" category. As > Rassilon put it, "to win is to lose, and to lose is to win." However there appears to be an increasing amount of evidence that it is the amount of fat on the belly (to be very technical in my terminology) that is more important than other places : BMI is a rather crude measure of this. See for example Paul T. Williams and Kathryn M. Hoffman, (2009) Optimal Body Weight for the Prevention of Coronary Heart Disease in Normal-weight Physically Active Men. Obesity Published online 19 February 2009 http://www.nature.com/oby/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/oby2008680a.html "A study of active, normal-weight men demonstrated that even within a normal-weight class, those who were leaner (with lower body weight and smaller waist circumference) had a significantly lower risk of heart disease." In alt.usage.english, John Kane wrote: >> [...] >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >smaller waist circumference) had a significantly lower risk of heart >disease." That's all very well if "risk of heart disease" is the only consideration. SignatureMike Barnes Cheshire, England Eric Walker wrote... > http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/26/health/26weight.html?partner=rss&emc=rss > "[P]eople who were overweight but not obese ... were actually less > likely to die than people of normal weight, ... et sim. My sense of logic just won't let me skate over statements like this without stumbling. Is it just me? SignatureNoel > Eric Walker wrote... >> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/26/health/26weight.html?partner=rss&emc=rss [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > My sense of logic just won't let me skate over statements like this > without stumbling. Is it just me? Oh, not just you. It is a misuse of the concept of immortality. >> Eric Walker wrote... >>> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/26/health/26weight.html?partner=rss&emc=rss [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Oh, not just you. It is a misuse of the concept of immortality. Only if you insist on reading it as "ever" rather than "within a given time period" (or, in other contexts, "as a result of a given stressor"). SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |He seems to be perceptive and 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |effective because he states the Palo Alto, CA 94304 |obvious to people that don't seem |to see the obvious. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | (650)857-7572 | Tony Cooper http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > Ah, it's still up--here it is: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > index of 25 to 29.9 — were actually less likely to die than people of > normal weight, defined as a B.M.I. of 18.5 to 24.9. Hmm. I decided I was getting a bit tight round the middle, and have got mine down to 32.4 Looks like my target of a bit under 30 (which feels liveable with) is where I'll stop rather than heading for the painfully thin 25. SignatureOnline waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk development version: http://canalplan.eu > > Ah, it's still up--here it is: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > liveable with) is where I'll stop rather than heading for the painfully > thin 25. Worry more about belt size as abdominal fat seems to the the killer . John Kane Kingston ON Canada > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Ah, it's still up--here it is: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/26/health/26weight.html?partner=rss&emc=rss > In germane part: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > risk of dying for those who were overweight was 17 percent lower than > for people of normal weight." OTOH, at a news conference on 2nd June, "CDC director Dr. Julie Gerberding said": [quote] "Studies have used different methods and sources and have come to different conclusions, so we have needed to get scientists in one room to straighten this out," Gerberding added. As for the contention that modestly overweight people had lower death rates than normal-weight people, Gerberding said "there are some statistical aspects to the study, and _the author herself would not claim that overweight was protective of ill health. "The study's author was Katherine Flegal, a senior research scientist for the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics." [endquote] <http://www.news-journal.com/health/content/shared-auto/healthnews/cdev/526099.html> <http://tinyurl.com/r27r6h> So you don't need to rush out and buy extra pies just yet. The study itself is published in the April 20 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). SignatureLes (BrE) > OTOH, at a news conference on 2nd June, "CDC director Dr. Julie Gerberding > said": [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > The study itself is published in the April 20 issue of the Journal of the > American Medical Association (JAMA). They didn't give Dr. Flegal's BMI by any chance, did they? At least a photo? --Jeff SignatureThe comfort of the wealthy has always depended upon an abundant supply of the poor. --Voltaire >> OTOH, at a news conference on 2nd June, "CDC director Dr. Julie >> Gerberding said": [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> National Center for Health Statistics." >> [endquote] <http://www.news-journal.com/health/content/shared-auto/healthnews/cdev/526099.html> >> <http://tinyurl.com/r27r6h> >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > They didn't give Dr. Flegal's BMI by any chance, did they? At least a > photo? Not that I know of, but you could always write to her and ask for one--sign yourself as "Modestly overweight admirer", or something. "I like plump ladies" would probably be a bit over the top. SignatureLes (BrE) >>>>In our family, mealtimes were mealtimes, and there were no snacks >>>>between them -- not that I still adhere to that regimen. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >than it was in the '70s. My son is ten and has yet to have a cavity. >I'm sure that I had about a dozen by the time I was his age. It's a good question, and the answer almost certainly depends on the time we're talking about and the stratum of society one belongs to. WIWAL in the 1940s and early 1950s, of the working classes, one only went to a dentist to get teeth extracted. in 1957 I had a summer job in a cigarette factory. They employed thousands of people in those days and had a full-time dentist/anaesthetist duo whose only job was to extract teeth from employees suffering from toothache. I didn't have a tooth filled (rather than extracted) until I was in my late teens, and I've only started noticing British youngsters with braces on their teeth for cosmetic reasons, rather than serious dental ones, during the past 20 or so years. Sugar was rationed until I was 13 so it was difficult to develop a craving for sugary drinks. At the current time in England (don't know about the other countries) a new government contract for NHS dentistry, introduced a year or two ago, makes doing NHS work unprofitable for dentists, so a large majority of them insist. This means that several million people cannot find a dentist who will perform NHS work. <q>If you normally pay for NHS dental treatment, there are three standard charges. The amount you pay will depend on the level of treatment that you need. NHS dental charges The three NHS charge bands are as follows: Band 1: £16.50. This charge includes an examination, diagnosis and preventive advice. If necessary, it also includes X-rays, scale and polish and planning for further treatment. Band 2: £45.60. This charge includes all the necessary treatment covered by the £16.50 charge, plus additional treatment, such as fillings, root canal treatment or extractions. Band 3: £198. This charge includes all the necessary treatment that is covered by the £16.50 and £45.60 charges, plus more complex procedures, such as crowns, dentures and bridges. </q> http://www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/1781.aspx?CategoryID=74&SubCategoryID=74 Even if one can find a dentist who does NHS work these charges annoy many people who expect the NHS to be free at the point of delivery, and the net result is that there are a lot of people who don't visit dentists unless they absolutely have to. >> No wonder there's an obesity problem. > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >because when you're really hungry you eat more than you need before >your body tells you it's no longer hungry. This may well be the case, but we (Jeanne and I) are probably well-conditioned by our upbringing to not snack. In my own case, the approximately 2.5 years I spent as an in-patient a decade ago robbed me of my appetite and I often have to force myself to eat an evening meal just to keep my BMI above 20. Being on such a rigid diet doesn't help even if I did want to snack. Nuts, chocolate, dairy products are verboten, as are processed meats and shellfish, and anything containing salt. A rusk with jam has long ago lost its appeal. >When I was in kindergarten, in 1969, there was an official "snack" >(juice and cookies) partway through the morning. That didn't happen [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >at least through third grade (age 8), and he has something when he >gets home from school. SignatureRobin (BrE) Herts, England [...] > > No wonder there's an obesity problem. > > [somewhat tongue-in-cheek] Is there? [...] Apparently. A study released yesterday* claims that 57% of Britons are overweight, 23% are obese and 8% 'could be considered for gastric-band weight-loss surgery'. It also predicts that 'the entire British population will be obese before the turn of the century'. The research was done by a professor of weight-loss surgery on behalf of his employer, a chain of private hospitals offering weight-loss surgery.** Not that the National Health Service is any more believable. When I weighed a bit less than I do now and had a BMI of about 22, I registered at the local NHS general medical practice. The nurse looked at a chart and told me I was perilously close to being obese. Somehow managing to ignore the disparity between my scrawny appearance and what she thought her chart said, she then gave me a lecture on sensible eating - cut out fatty foods and alcohol, don't snack etc. When, in an attempt to wake her up, I mentioned that I sometimes skipped entire meals, she gave me the standard spiel on excessive dieting. And on it went. She was a tick-box automaton incapable of independent thought. Not having been back, I still don't know whether she was natively stupid or had been in the NHS for too long. -- VB *<http://www.nuffieldhealth.com/Individuals/News-and- Information/ Press-Releases/Current-Affairs/Obesity-levels-double-within- 10-years/ **In fairness, the professor seems more angry than greedy: 'The increased acceptance of obesity is alarming. It beggars belief that in the last five years the emergency services have had respond to over 1,700 requests to help move obese patients stuck in their homes.' (Yikes!) > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > overweight, 23% are obese and 8% 'could be considered for gastric-band > weight-loss surgery'. Wonderful. Assuming that every Briton is assigned to just one classification band, that puts 88% of the population into the fat-to- disgusting range. > Not that the National Health Service is any more believable. When I > weighed a bit less than I do now and had a BMI of about 22, I [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > independent thought. Not having been back, I still don't know whether > she was natively stupid or had been in the NHS for too long. She had benchmarks to meet, probably impressed upon her bum from sitting too long with her clipboard on her knees. -- franzi >> [...] >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > classification band, that puts 88% of the population into the fat-to- > disgusting range. There are questions as to whether an 19th century statistical tool is a reliable indicator of actual fatness. It's interesting that the entire English World Cup winning rugby team of a couple of years ago are classed as "obese" by this system. I'm somewhat overweight, and losing some as I speak (and would greatly appreciate it if we could talk less about sausage sandwiches please!), but to get down to the "normal" range will leave me painfully thin. SignatureOnline waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk development version: http://canalplan.eu On Jul 1, 12:49 am, franzi <et.in.arcadia.fra...@googlemail.com> wrote: > She had benchmarks to meet, probably impressed upon her bum from > sitting too long with her clipboard on her knees. Excellent! I've spent ten minutes trying to come up with something to equal that: core planks ... NHS reform ... branding ... acute angina ... Nope. When you find yourself resorting to 'acute angina' it's time to stop. -- VB In alt.usage.english, Vinny Burgoo wrote: >[...] > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >*<http://www.nuffieldhealth.com/Individuals/News-and- Information/ >Press-Releases/Current-Affairs/Obesity-levels-double-within- 10-years/ Sounds pretty implausible to me, and as you imply, the weight-loss surgery link is highly suspicious. But the link you gave doesn't work for me, even if I remove the whitespace. Try again? Several GPs I know are of the opinion that the boundaries of categories - the BMI-based ones - are set too low. It's as much about where you draw the lines as it is about how heavy people are. Even as a skinny teenager I was in the upper half of what's now called "normal". SignatureMike Barnes Cheshire, England Quoth Mike Barnes <mikebarnes@bluebottle.com>, and I quote: >In alt.usage.english, Vinny Burgoo wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >draw the lines as it is about how heavy people are. Even as a skinny >teenager I was in the upper half of what's now called "normal". Try this: http://tinyurl.com/lbrghz SignatureJames In alt.usage.english, James Hogg wrote: >Quoth Mike Barnes <mikebarnes@bluebottle.com>, and I quote: > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >Try this: >http://tinyurl.com/lbrghz Thanks. Careful reading shows that those 8% of Britons could *not* all be considered for surgery. Only adults qualify. And there must be "other significant disease (for example, type 2 diabetes or high blood pressure)" or a much higher BMI (40 instead of 35 - I don't see a percentage for that). SignatureMike "happy with his BMI of 25-26" Barnes Cheshire, England > In alt.usage.english, James Hogg wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > Careful reading shows that those 8% of Britons could *not* all be > considered for surgery. Au contraire, in English usage. The info you summarise below was attached as a footnote to the 8% claim and was presumably intended as an explanation of 'could be considered for gastric-band, weight-loss surgery'. > Only adults qualify. And there must be "other > significant disease (for example, type 2 diabetes or high blood > pressure)" or a much higher BMI (40 instead of 35 - I don't see a > percentage for that). Given the poor quality of press releases and of science reporting in general, the research itself may well say what you say the press release says but the research isn't available online so we can either accept what the press release actually says or pooh-pooh the whole story. I think we should do the latter. There's too much bad science floating around out there. If Nuffield can't be arsed to back up its somewhat extreme claims with a PDF of the paper (or, better, the raw data), I don't see why we should treat the story as more than an attempt to grab headlines - which attempt, alas, has succeeded all too well: <http://www.newsbiscuit.com/2009/07/01/fat-people-%E2%80%98not- that-funny%E2%80%99-says-obesity-expert/>. See also: <http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/printable/7104/ -- VB In alt.usage.english, Vinny Burgoo wrote: >> In alt.usage.english, James Hogg wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] >an explanation of 'could be considered for gastric-band, weight-loss >surgery'. That's true if you equate "explanation" with "refutation". The footnote shows that an unspecified proportion of that 8% could *not* be considered for gastric-band weight-loss surgery. >> Only adults qualify. And there must be "other >> significant disease (for example, type 2 diabetes or high blood [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >data), I don't see why we should treat the story as more than an >attempt to grab headlines I agree 100%. My favourite part of the article was this: “The majority of people go to see a doctor within one week of noticing a cold, cough or ingrown toenail [...]". They fail to say which planet this applies to. SignatureMike Barnes Cheshire, England > In alt.usage.english, Vinny Burgoo wrote: > >> Careful reading shows that those 8% of Britons could *not* all be > >> considered for surgery. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > shows that an unspecified proportion of that 8% could *not* be > considered for gastric-band weight-loss surgery. No, I can't see that. It's a Nuffield footnote to a Nuffield claim in a Nuffield press release. It would be very odd if it cast doubt on the claim it's attached to. As I see it, it's saying who the 8% are. They have a 40+ BMI or a 35+ BMI and 'other significant disease'. Who do you think the 8% are? [...] > My favourite part of the article was this: > > “The majority of people go to see a doctor within one week of > noticing a cold, cough or ingrown toenail [...]". > > They fail to say which planet this applies to. The same planet where health experts can be startled to find that only 5% of the population would ever consider gastric-band surgery. (A very high number, I reckon, given that 'gastric bands ... provide an often much-needed kick-start to a new body shape'. Ouch! Shome elashtic! (The 'kick-start' cliché was clapped out twenty years ago, yet it's used now more than ever. Is it taught in Media Studies or something? (Hi, Ron!))) Here's a Nuffield Foundation (no relation) paper on the ethics of health education and research: <http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/fileLibrary/pdf/Public_health_- _ethical_issues.pdf> 'The minimum hurdle for [medical] evidence to be reported [in the press] (or to be considered in public health policy more generally) is that it should be published in the peer-reviewed literature, or have been subject to an equivalent scrutiny by expert peers.' Quite. -- VB In alt.usage.english, Vinny Burgoo wrote: >> In alt.usage.english, Vinny Burgoo wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >have a 40+ BMI or a 35+ BMI and 'other significant disease'. Who do >you think the 8% are? You forgot "adult". The NIHCE guidelines specified adults. I think 8% is the proportion of the population of the UK with a BMI over 35, and the footnote does refute the headline, and they're depending on people not reading or taking in the footnote. The fact that you interpret it differently prompted me to re-evaluate the piece and I came to the same conclusion as before, albeit with less certainty. As you said earlier, it's a figure from their own (apparently secret) survey, so we can't know for sure. But just look at that (sub)headline: "3.6 million Brits are overweight enough for weight-loss surgery". But what percentage is that? Well, lower down they refer to "2.4 million (5%) of people" so that means they're (strangely) working off a population figure of about 48 million, which is a bit odd considering there are actually 60 million of us. Anyway, they've provided us with a calibration, so their "3.6 million" and "8%" are clearly referring to the same people. It's clear to me from the wording of that headline - "overweight enough" - that BMI is the only criterion being applied when selecting those 8%. SignatureMike Barnes Cheshire, England [...] > But just look at that (sub)headline: "3.6 million Brits are overweight > enough for weight-loss surgery". But what percentage is that? Well, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the wording of that headline - "overweight enough" - that BMI is the > only criterion being applied when selecting those 8%. (My brain hurts.) I agree that the given percentages don't tally with the actual British population. But the only inference that can be reliably drawn from that is that the press release is crap. -- VB In alt.usage.english, Vinny Burgoo wrote: >[...] > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >population. But the only inference that can be reliably drawn from >that is that the press release is crap. You won't find me arguing against that. SignatureMike Barnes Cheshire, England [...] > Several GPs I know are of the opinion that the boundaries of categories > - the BMI-based ones - are set too low. It's as much about where you > draw the lines as it is about how heavy people are. Even as a skinny > teenager I was in the upper half of what's now called "normal". The BMI is no more than a rule of thumb used as a surrogate for measuring percentage body fat. It more or less applies to people of "normal build", but using it for basketball players and weight lifters is likely to produce daft results. That's why it should be used only in conjunction with common sense. The great advantage of the BMI is ease of use. Most people are capable of measuring height and weight and doing the necessary arithmetic. The invidious aspect of the BMI is that it produces a numerical value, believed by the innocent to be an accurate reflection of their fatness rather than a fairly crude indication. It is possible to buy bathroom scales that tell you your percentage body fat (and all sorts of other stuff you probably don't want to know), for example: <http://www.argos-sports.co.uk/mall/productpage.cfm/Argos/AS1554/25963/ Tanita%20BC-532%20Innerscan%20Total> < <http://tinyurl.com/nfq6zm I've no idea how accurate these are. You can also buy simple caliper devices that measure the thickness of a fold of skin and use the result to calculate percentage body fat, for example: <http://www.accumeasurefitness.com/> I read somewhere that weighing under water is the gold standard for body fat measurement. Presumably the underwater weight is compared with the weight in air and an appropriate calculation performed. Not many people will have access to the necessary facilities; and since fat is less dense than water, I can imagine that the sort of people who have to be lifted by crane through their bedroom window because they can no longer get down the stairs would have to be weighted down (lead, lumps of concrete?) to get them under water for weighing. [quote] For most women, the recommended body fat percentage ranges from 20-21%, and for men between 8 and 14% [endquote] <http://www.fat-diet.com/calculating_body_body_fat_content_bfc.html> Interesting factoid: even a highly trained endurance athlete (a.k.a. emaciated loony) weighing 64 kg and with 7% body fat is carrying roughly 4 1/2 kg (10 lb) of body fat. SignatureLes (BrE) In alt.usage.english, Leslie Danks wrote: >It is possible to buy bathroom scales that tell you your percentage body >fat (and all sorts of other stuff you probably don't want to know), for [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >I've no idea how accurate these are. I'd be interested to know that. And the relevance of the result. SignatureMike Barnes Cheshire, England > In alt.usage.english, Leslie Danks wrote: >>It is possible to buy bathroom scales that tell you your percentage body [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > I'd be interested to know that. Based on a quick Google, the answer seems to be "not very". I found an article from which I quote: "The problem with BMI is that it doesn?t work for everyone." (which we know already) "Measuring Your Body Fat [...] Calipers are widely used because they are inexpensive and easy to use, but they are less accurate than other methods. Some technologies include: * Underwater Weighing [...] is highly accurate, but it is expensive and time consuming, and requires special equipment. * The Bod Pod?This [...] is highly accurate, but it is still expensive and requires special equipment. * Dual X-ray Absorptiometry (DEXA) Scan?A DEXA scan uses low-level x-rays to calculate the amount of body fat, muscle, and bone in your body. The advantages of a DEXA scan are that it is quick and it takes bone into consideration when comparing body fat to muscle. * Bioelectrical Impedance [...] works by measuring the speed of an electrical current as it travels through your body. It is one of the least expensive methods of measuring body fat. It is less subject to human error than calipers, but its accuracy depends on a number of factors, including hydration, the fullness of the stomach, and how recently a person has exercised. If you are looking for a way to keep track of your body fat percentage at home, you can buy a bioelectrical impedance scale. They are more expensive than traditional bathroom scales, but are gradually becoming more affordable. Keep in mind though, that these scales are not always accurate, and are probably better for monitoring changes in your body fat than giving you precise numbers." > And the relevance of the result. The same article gives age-related recommended body fat percentages, which are less frightening than the solitary figures I quoted in my original post: "Body Fat Guidelines Age Healthy Body Fat % (W) Healthy Body Fat % (M) 20-39 21-32% 8-19% 40-59 23-33% 11-21% 60-79 24-35% 13-24%" The article is at: <http://healthlibrary.epnet.com/PamphletPrint.aspx?token=de6453e6-8aa2- 4e28-b56c-5e30699d7b3c&chunkiid=41373> <http://tinyurl.com/lxsw9k> Maybe things have moved on, but it seems as though there is no affordable accurate method of determining percentage body weight regularly. One solution might be to shell out for a one-time accurate measurement and then use calipers, which you have now effectively calibrated, to track changes thereafter. SignatureLes (BrE) >I have a different point to address -- I don't think that Americans use the >expression "clean the car" very often. They usually wash the car. Sure, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Is this, possibly, pondial? Or am I a bit peculiar. I've been saying to myself alternately "I'm going to clean the car" and "I'm going to wash the car", and neither of them now sounds at all natural, but that could simply be because I hardly ever undertake either activity. In theory I'm inclined to agree that, on this side of the pond too, "washing" means simply a bucket and a sponge, or possibly a hosepipe, whereas "cleaning" also suggests, without absolutely mandating, a hoover and maybe even a tin of polish. SignatureKaty Jennison spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @ > Hello: > > In AmE: > > 1. The first thing I did yesterday was cleaning the car. While this is wrong as written, if one conceived of cleaning the car as a set chore, one could say/write, "The first thing I did yesterday was 'cleaning the car.'" There are better examples. > 2. The first thing I did yesterday was to clean the car. > 3. The first thing I did yesterday was clean the car. > > Do you feel that the first isn't correct? > How about the other two? The other two are fine and interchangeable. --Jeff SignatureThe comfort of the wealthy has always depended upon an abundant supply of the poor. --Voltaire |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.