Re: Body Fat Calculation

"Blair P. Houghton" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

GaryG said:

"Blair P. Houghton" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

GaryG <[email hidden]> wrote:
>"Blair P. Houghton" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
>news:[email hidden]...
>> The BFP number itself is nearly meaningless, even if you
>> can determine it to perfect accuracy. The monotonic change
>> in the number over time is meaningful, as is the monotonic
>> change in its converse, the lean-body-mass estimate.
>> Keep the BFP going down and the LBM flat or rising, and
>> you're making progress without causing harm.
>
>Are you intentionally obfuscatory, or are you a lawyer by profession?

I use words. They mean things when I do that.

>FWIW,
>your paragraph would have the same meaning if you simply referred to
>"change" rather than "monotonic change".

I'm telling you that keeping it headed down is good.

Agreed...but, "monotonic" has a specific meaning, and changes in body
measurements are rarely, if ever, monotonic. For the interested reader,
here's the definition of "monotonic":

"Designating sequences, the successive members of which either

consistently

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

increase or decrease but do not oscillate in relative value. Each member

of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

a monotone increasing sequence is greater than or equal to the preceding
member; each member of a monotone decreasing sequence is less than or

equal

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

to the preceding member."

Right. I used "monotonic" because "change" can go both ways.

Did you read the definition of the word? "Monotonic change" means that
every subsequent measurement in the series moves in the same direction.
But, that rarely happens with body measurements. Even if one were in the
midst of a successful weight loss program, some measurements would be higher
than the previous measurements...thus, the change would not be "monotonic"
even though the overall trend was favorable. With the inherent margin of
error in body fat measurements, it's highly unlikely that one would ever
find a series of measurements that were monotonic.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The absolute number isn't significant to goalsetting. The
trend of the change is.

Well, if I know my current "absolute" BFP is around 15%, and I want to be
competitive at something like running or cycling, then I know I should

try

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

to get it down to around 10% or below.

You should get your speed up at least to that of the worst competitor.
If you lose fat in the process, then you look good, too.

Thanks for clearing that up...your statements clearly illustrate that you
don't know [censored] about cycling or running. In both sports, power to weight
ratio is of paramount importance. Reducing body fat is an important
component of any training program, as it improves one's power to weight
ratio, and thus one's speed.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But, if I'm already at 10%, it tells
me that I need to be careful, because getting it much lower can be risky

to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

my health (unless you believe that you can't be too thin). In both

cases,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

knowing my current BFP helps to set an appropriate goal.

Your numbers are arbitrary. Many people live their lives
normally at 5% or less BFP. The only risk to your health
from being thin is if you get stuck on a desert island
for a month with nothing to eat.

Wow...are you that clueless, or are you just trolling?

Assuming you're just clueless, you should be aware that there are
significant health problems associated with too low body fat percentages,
including osteoporosis, amenorrhea, etc. Most authorities recommend 5% as
the minimum safe level for males, and 12% as the minimum safe level for
females.

Here's a sports medicine reference that addresses the issue:
http://www.physsportsmed.com/issues/1998/10Oct/roberts.htm

GG

Quoted message said:

But it isn't easy. If your body naturally tends to
fatness, staying thin is like treading water. You have
to put energy into it just to stay where you are.

--Blair
"Ice ages are tough, too."

GaryG said:

Did you read the definition of the word? "Monotonic change" means that
every subsequent measurement in the series moves in the same direction.

The problem is that you didn't read what I wrote.

You're interested in monotonic change.

If you measure fluctuations due to noise instead of change,
you're not going to see the monotonic change.

--Blair
"I don't expect exercise heads to get
math, but chee-rist."

"Blair P. Houghton" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

GaryG said:

Did you read the definition of the word? "Monotonic change" means that
every subsequent measurement in the series moves in the same direction.

The problem is that you didn't read what I wrote.

Here's what you said:

Quoted message said:

The BFP number itself is nearly meaningless, even if you
can determine it to perfect accuracy. The monotonic change
in the number over time is meaningful, as is the monotonic
change in its converse, the lean-body-mass estimate.

I pointed out that your use of the word "monotonic" was unnecessary and
inapproriate in this context, because changes in bodily measurements, even
when they are favorable in terms of averages, rarely (if ever) are
"monotonic".

Quoted message said:

You're interested in monotonic change.

No, you are...you used the word in your reply to me...I'm just trying to
point out the error in your usage.

Quoted message said:

If you measure fluctuations due to noise instead of change,
you're not going to see the monotonic change.

Of course you can...one filters out those fluctuations using statistical
techniques (e.g., linear regression). But, just because there's a trend
shown by linear regression does not make the series of measurements
"monotonic". By definition, "monotonic" does not refer to overall direction
or trend. It specifically relates to the differences between each
individual measurement in a series.

So, can we agree that your original sentence would have been more correct if
you had simply left out the word "monotonic"?

FWIW - the root of the word monotonic is also the root for the word
"monotonous", which seems appropriate given where this thread has gone. Of
course, if you could just admit you used a word incorrectly, all this back
and forth could have been avoided.

GG

Quoted message said:

--Blair
"I don't expect exercise heads to get
math, but chee-rist."

GaryG said:

"Blair P. Houghton" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

GaryG said:

Did you read the definition of the word? "Monotonic change" means that
every subsequent measurement in the series moves in the same direction.

The problem is that you didn't read what I wrote.

Here's what you said:

Quoted message said:

The BFP number itself is nearly meaningless, even if you
can determine it to perfect accuracy. The monotonic change
in the number over time is meaningful, as is the monotonic
change in its converse, the lean-body-mass estimate.

I pointed out that your use of the word "monotonic" was unnecessary and
inapproriate in this context, because changes in bodily measurements, even
when they are favorable in terms of averages, rarely (if ever) are
"monotonic".

A reversing change over time is called NOISE.

A monotonic change over time is called PROGRESS.

NOISE is MEANINGLESS.

PROGRESS is MEANINGFUL.

I'm just going to stop trying to explain it to you.

Other people get it, and now they get that trying
to explain it to you is getting pointless.

--Blair
"Lose weight; don't fluctuate."