Cold; links; lackofbrain

[juliet]

Illustrated BMI Categories - set of photos of lots of people with their BMI category attached. V interesting. (from http://kateharding.net)

My office is cold. Or, rather, I am cold. The thermometer says 21deg but I do not believe it; my feet are freezing. Mind you, I have crap circulation. I am going to bring a blanket it, & poss fluffy slippers. (Must visit Primark.)

Currently seeking switch which turns brain on. It must be there somewhere, right?

Comments

[babysimon]

I usually find it's behind the tea / coffee...

[juliet]

Aha! I shall investigate. (Dammit, I still do not have a tea icon.)

I am not allowed to drink coffee at work, because I wish to save it for special occasions (notably: audaxes, festivals, and other instances where I may need to stay up late).

Hmm. Possibly I should also check behind the chocolate.

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

Illustrated BMI is fascinating!

[burnyourbones.livejournal.com]

those bmi pictures are amazing. I'm really suprised at who is in which catogory. "normal" seems a pretty narrow range.

[lnr]

The trouble I have with normal is I always thought 20-25 was supposed to be normal, under 20 a bit underweight and under 18 or so very underweight, but 18.5 seems to be considered the bottom end of normal. And it's not just there, it's everywhere I look now, so where did my idea of 20 being the bottom limit come from.

I am sadly 1 stone and 1.5 bmi points heavier than my photo in that gallery.

It's a great project, and I love Kate's blog, but I am beginning to wonder if I should stop reading it. I was in tears about my weight again last night. Not good. I should write about it really.

[juliet]

I thought that. Maybe it changed at the same time as 27->25 happened?

Sorry to hear that you're feeling bad about your weight :-(

[lnr]

It feels like a more recent change than that. But then I keep forgetting that even the late 90s are now 10 years ago.

I guess the trouble is I want to get thinner and stay thinner without having to count calories or points for the rest of my life. And the problem is I'm not sure that's possible. Which is kinda depressing and demotivating.

Thanks though, I'm sure I'll get over it somehow.

[juliet]

My understanding is that it's a question of changing eating habits permanently. And I suspect that the issue is that different people a) have different abilities to change their habits (or something about the way in practice that they tackle this is different); b) have different reactions to smallish steps away from the habits.

So some people may be able to teach themselves the habits that are represented by the calorie-counting/points, and some people may not, and a variety in-between. (And that's explicitly not a judgement on anyone at any point on that line.) It may well depend in part on a bunch of other stuff e.g. how far you're moving from your original habits, and physiological (& mental) stuff about the way you respond to certain foods.

But also, there has been at least one study showing that some people will respond to a small increase in intake by upping their unconscious activity; and some won't. So the former are less reactive to small changes in eating habits.

Um. Sorry, I'm not entirely sure what my point was there :-)

[half-of-monty.livejournal.com]

Yes, I am surprised too by how narrow `normal' is. And am especially worried by what `overweight' people look like. Erm. No dessert for me today.

[lnr]

Note that in 1996 the overweight boundary was moved from 27 to 25.

[burnyourbones.livejournal.com]

Bastards.

[burnyourbones.livejournal.com]

To me, "normal" just means I look at someone and don't think "christ you're huge" or "ew, I can see your ribs".
I don't think it's very fair to call like a medical catagory something that's also a word for what is usual, it gives an idea that everyone who doesn't fit it is a freak, when actually being a bit fat or a bit thin is normal too, like you wouldn'y say someone with bit of a belly or who was a bit skinny was "abnormal".

[half-of-monty.livejournal.com]

Oh quite. Actually I have a bit of a rant about people taking words from standard English and giving them a precise scientific meaning which is then contrary to the original meaning. Eg there was a bit on the radio recently about scientists discussing whether the moon was `a moon'. (Even happens within mathematics - just discovered that `genus' is not `a genus', ffs).

But, I'm assuming the point of the bands is that if you're not in normal then you might be damaging your health long-term? I would rather not. Though having said that, look at all the healthy long-lived people around us who have a little bit of a belly. Maybe I will forget all about it now.

[juliet]

Um. It's rather more complicated than that. See the links from here:
http://rosefox.livejournal.com/1239672.html

The evidence is not really all that conclusive. It's fairly clear, though, that dieting (particularly yo-yo dieting) is not good for you.

[lnr]

And even being intelligent (even if I do say so myself) and fairly active isn't enough to stop you gaining weight back again after dieting. Which like 95% of other dieters I did.

[burnyourbones.livejournal.com]

I vastly concur! And in this instance I've heard people use that definition to be mean to other people ("you're not NORMAL weight, you need to go on a diet!") which just seems like it gives stupid/mean people amunition.

Some of the people who were under/over weight in the pictures just looked totally what I would call normal, I wouldn't even begin to think they might need to lose/put on weight for their health.

I think health is a bit of a stick used for beating people with really, I mean, it's just numbers, it's not like the minute you tip the scales over "normal" you're going to die an early death. I understand that the average person would live longer at an average weight of blahblahblah, but in real life there's always other factors. I say if a person's happy with themselves and can tackle the stairs without fainting or wheezing for breath then they probably don;t need to worry too much about BMI.

[juliet]

Further: BMI is known to be a dodgy measure for any individual; in particular there's the "muscle weighs more than fat" issue. Being physically active is more relevant to your health than weight per se.

[damerell.livejournal.com]

Also it neglects the square-cube law.

[barakta]

My student GP reckoned BMI was 'only' even slightly useful as one of many measures of 'weight' for people with anorexia. I.e it was only useful below about 18 and did not scale well above that. She didn't use BMI ever, and expressed frustration at young students coming to her about weight when she felt they were at a stable and healthy weight that did not need changing.

[mrs-leroy-brown.livejournal.com]

Headwind this morning was v nippy!
ION, I passed a guy on the Wellington St hill who was 2 gears lower than me! :)

I need a bike icon, obv.

[juliet]

One of these do you? (your actual bike!)

[juliet]

Also: hurrah for passing people! Go you :-) If you find that that gear is getting to be too low, let me know - I can move the chain around, although it might require a new chain (couple of quid from Asda, apparently).

It is getting damn chilly out there. Brrr.

I have found solution to grump: Tom Lehrer!

(BTW, are you still thinking of getting newbike?)

[marnameow.livejournal.com]

I was not allowed to cycle to work today. :(

(actually, I wasn't going to, anyway, bcz no sleep)

[juliet]

Not allowed?

No sleep bad :-( Sympathy!

[marnameow.livejournal.com]

No sleep good! Hi dere, I am high on sleep-dep!

Once I had all the work stuff sorted out last night, I would have only gotten a snooze of sleep if I was to be in early (which I wanted to be), so I just didn't bother with the sleeping thing at all.

[mrs-leroy-brown.livejournal.com]

Thanks for iconage - I shall sort this out anon :)

I will see how I feel about gears towards the end of the year, I'm doing alright atm, sometimes I feel when I get up to speed on a particulalry flat part (e.g. just before going on the OKR overpass) my little legs want to go faster but I cannae dae it, captain! But for the most part I'm okay in this gear.

Actually was going to email you re: winterising current bike. Am sticking with current bike till work sorts itself out, as it is Just Fine for my needs.

[juliet]

Mudguards! I'd need to have a look at your bike to find out what attachments you have & how much clearance there is. At the least you could get a crud-catcher type thing
http://www.wiggle.co.uk/ProductDetail.aspx?Cat=cycle&ProdID=5360013200&n=SKS%20SKS%20Beavertail%20Mudguard%20Set
or
http://www.wiggle.co.uk/ProductDetail.aspx?Cat=cycle&ProdID=5300004946&N=Crud%20Race%20Pac%20Mudguard%20Set

Full guards are better, e.g.
http://www.wiggle.co.uk/ProductDetail.aspx?Cat=cycle&ProdID=5360022693&n=SKS%20SKS%20Blumels%20Mudguard%20Set
but those wouldn't fit your wheels & I suspect that ones that do might be more expensive.

You also need to buy a bottle of chain oil - chains suffer more in the wet! Though you should oil the chain every few weeks anyway.

I was going to email but with work this busy I'll forget..

[mrs-leroy-brown.livejournal.com]

..so will ask here instead. Thanks for links - tbh, not even sure I need / want mud guards, not that the expense or hassle is putting me off, rather my bike is pretty heavy as it is, would this add sig. weight overall?

Re: I was going to email but with work this busy I'll forget..

[juliet]

Not much. One of those crud-catcher links says it's light & therefore suitable for racers (who care about weight).

Mudguards are very very useful when it's raining. Otherwise you get a big line of muck all up your back, & wet feet.

Re: I was going to email but with work this busy I'll forget..

[mrs-leroy-brown.livejournal.com]

aha. will make a note for payday to do a wiggle order, ta!

[dogrando.livejournal.com]

Today's weight obsessed celebrity culture gripe! On the radio this morning, they were discussing an article in Heat magazine which declared whether certain skinny 'celebs' were 'looking good' or 'going too far'. Of the examples they gave, those who were 'looking good' were all people who would otherwise be considered 'hot' (as in Heat magazine hot), and those who were 'going too far' were all people would would, er, not. Example: guess who got which verdict out of Lily Allen and Geri Halliwell? Boo!, I say, ineffectually and predictably.

[catsgomiaow.livejournal.com]

Hehe yes, the brain-switch is the same switch as the one that turns the kettle on :)

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

"What's the first thing you do when you wake up?"

"Put the coffee cup down."

-- Justin B Rye

[kjersti.livejournal.com]

Thanks, that's a very interesting link. I always knew BMI was very flawed but this illustrates it very well - wtf about all the 'overweight' people?

It could possibly be useful at the extremes (underweight and to a lesser degree morbidly obese didn't seem as far out) but in the middle categories where most people fall it seems utterly pointless.

[martling.livejournal.com]

BMI in being bollocks shocker.

Currently seeking switch which turns brain on. It must be there somewhere, right?

If you find it, please let me know. Mine has definitely been off thus far this week.