Re: cleaning the car

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."

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.

In alt.usage.english, Leslie Danks wrote:

I'd be interested to know that. And the relevance of the result.

[...]

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.

In alt.usage.english, Vinny Burgoo wrote:

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".

[...]

[...]

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!)

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.

[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.  

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.

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.

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.

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.

If you are as active as my two grandsons, you'll burn it off as fast
as you eat.  Perpetual motion.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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