Letter on Corpulance

em said:

The first known book (?) advocating a low-carb diet, published in 1864. Its
a 30 minute read. Well worth your time.

It certainly is. Pay particular attention to the passage where Banting
admits that he is still heavy according to a statistically-derived
height-weight table used by an insurance company, based on a sample of
more than 2600 men.

Kaz Kylheku wrote:
:: On Aug 28, 12:11 pm, "em" <[email hidden]> wrote:
::: The first known book (?) advocating a low-carb diet, published in
::: 1864. Its a 30 minute read. Well worth your time.
::
:: It certainly is. Pay particular attention to the passage where
:: Banting admits that he is still heavy according to a
:: statistically-derived height-weight table used by an insurance
:: company, based on a sample of more than 2600 men.

page 10.

"I am now nearly 66 years of age, about 5 feet 5 inches in stature, and, in
August last (1862), weighed 202 lbs, which I think it right to name, because
the article in the Cornhill Magazine presume that a certain stature and age
should bear ordinarily a certain weight, and I am quite of that opinion. I
now weigh 167 lbs, showing a diminution of something like 1 lb. per week
since August, and having now very nearly attained a happy medium, I have
perfect confidence that a few more weeks will fully accomplish the object
for which I have laboured for the last thirty years, in vain, until it
pleased Almighty Providence to direct me into the right and proper channel--
the "tram-way," so to speak--of happy, comfortable existence."

Dumbass.

Roger Zoul said:

Dumbass.

Your point seems to be that I must be ``dumb'' not to recognize that
Banting made progress from gross overweight to mere overweight, which
improved his quality of life and undoubtedly prolonged his life.

However, fact is, his progress stalled before he was anywhere near
finished.

That does deserve to be noted by those who want to go all the way, and
not merely reproduce someone else's mediocre results by emulating his
methods.

Kaz Kylheku wrote:
:: On Aug 28, 1:39 pm, "Roger Zoul" <[email hidden]> wrote:
::: Dumbass.
::
:: Your point seems to be that I must be ``dumb'' not to recognize that
:: Banting made progress from gross overweight to mere overweight, which
:: improved his quality of life and undoubtedly prolonged his life.
::
:: However, fact is, his progress stalled before he was anywhere near
:: finished.

How do you know his progress stalled?

::
:: That does deserve to be noted by those who want to go all the way,
:: and not merely reproduce someone else's mediocre results by
:: emulating his methods.

And what makes you think that others cannot use a similar diet to go all the
way, even if he didn't do it? Do all people have the same goals regarding
weight? Should they regardless of age?
What makes you think you or anyone else knows what will allow any given
individual to "go all the way"? Why don't you come down of your high horse
for a minute and tell us what outstanding progress you've made in your
weight loss journey?

You're dumb simply because you are.

Kaz Kylheku said:

Roger Zoul said:

Dumbass.

Your point seems to be that I must be ``dumb'' not to recognize that
Banting made progress from gross overweight to mere overweight, which
improved his quality of life and undoubtedly prolonged his life.

I wouldn't call you dumb, just opinionated around assumptions that
probably
aren't true. But, if you want to take a late 1800's insurance
company's actuarial
table for height/weight, male, age 55, over an individual's
experience, fine.

Quoted message said:

However, fact is, his progress stalled before he was anywhere near
finished.

No. This is not correct. The FACT, as presented, is that he was
actively losing
at the time of writing his pamphlet, was not yet at goal, but was sure
he would be
there shortly, having averaged about a pound a week of loss. At no
point does he
mention that his progress has slowed, much less stopped. He notes that
he toiled
to lose for years before the Lord brought him to his Low Carb method
of eating. Where's
Chung when you need to needle him.

Your interpretation of his writing as a stall displays one of two
things:
1- Poor reading comprehension.
2- Preformed opinion.

So, is it that you can't read or don't care to?

Quoted message said:

That does deserve to be noted by those who want to go all the way, and
not merely reproduce someone else's mediocre results by emulating his
methods.

Uhm, since everything else you've said is based on a flawed reading,
we should
just ignore this piece, right?

Kaz Kylheku said:

Roger Zoul said:

Dumbass.

Your point seems to be that I must be ``dumb'' not to recognize that
Banting made progress from gross overweight to mere overweight, which
improved his quality of life and undoubtedly prolonged his life.

However, fact is, his progress stalled before he was anywhere near
finished.

Er, ah, one more thing:
At the 4th edition of Banting's Letters (he self published the first
few, and went
through several editions as he was wildly successful in the endeavor),
he writes,

"I have not felt better in health than now for the last twenty-six
years.
Have suffered no inconvenience whatever in the probational remedy or
since.
Am reduced nearly 13 inches in bulk, and 50 lbs. in weight.
Can perform every necessary office for myself.
The umbilical rupture is cured.
My sight and hearing are suprising at my age.
My other bodily ailments have become mere matters of history."

This is six years beyond starting the diet. At that weight, he would
be 152.

By the old MetLife insurance ideal weight table, at 5'5", his ideal
weight would be
between 134-160, depending on his frame size. 152 would be on the high
side of the
median, but definitely within the ideal weight, according to insurers.
Perhaps the old
Met Life table post-dates Banting by several dozen years, but I think
it's a reasonable
approximation for back of the envelope.

He does not say how long it took him to lose his 50 lbs, but, at this
writing, he is six
years into his program.

For the full text of the 4th edition,
http://www.lowcarb.ca/corpulence/
For the passage above, page 12.

And before you suggest that he should have had ripped abs, the guy was
66 when he
started and 72 at this writing. I dunno that that would be an
appropriate goal for a life
long obese man.

Hollywood wrote:
:: On Aug 28, 5:40 pm, Kaz Kylheku <[email hidden]> wrote:
::: On Aug 28, 1:39 pm, "Roger Zoul" <[email hidden]> wrote:
:::
:::: Dumbass.
:::
::: Your point seems to be that I must be ``dumb'' not to recognize that
::: Banting made progress from gross overweight to mere overweight,
::: which improved his quality of life and undoubtedly prolonged his
::: life.
::
:: I wouldn't call you dumb,

For the record, referring to someone as "dumbass" isn't really calling them
dumb in the general sense o that word, but is more an insult directed at
someone who is displaying the attributes (by posting something "dumb" of
someone who is dumb, at least IMO. 🙂

just opinionated around assumptions that
:: probably
:: aren't true. But, if you want to take a late 1800's insurance
:: company's actuarial
:: table for height/weight, male, age 55, over an individual's
:: experience, fine.
::
::: However, fact is, his progress stalled before he was anywhere near
::: finished.
::
:: No. This is not correct. The FACT, as presented, is that he was
:: actively losing
:: at the time of writing his pamphlet, was not yet at goal, but was
:: sure he would be
:: there shortly, having averaged about a pound a week of loss. At no
:: point does he
:: mention that his progress has slowed, much less stopped. He notes
:: that he toiled
:: to lose for years before the Lord brought him to his Low Carb method
:: of eating. Where's
:: Chung when you need to needle him.
::
:: Your interpretation of his writing as a stall displays one of two
:: things:
:: 1- Poor reading comprehension.
:: 2- Preformed opinion.
::
:: So, is it that you can't read or don't care to?
::
::: That does deserve to be noted by those who want to go all the way,
::: and not merely reproduce someone else's mediocre results by
::: emulating his methods.
::
:: Uhm, since everything else you've said is based on a flawed reading,
:: we should
:: just ignore this piece, right?

Kaz is a troll on this newsgroup.

On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 12:42:31 -0000, Hollywood <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

And before you suggest that he should have had ripped abs, the guy was
66 when he
started and 72 at this writing. I dunno that that would be an
appropriate goal for a life
long obese man.

Why are you feeding the troll?

--
BlueBrooke
254/225/135

BlueBrooke .@. said:

On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 12:42:31 -0000, Hollywood <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

And before you suggest that he should have had ripped abs, the guy was
66 when he
started and 72 at this writing. I dunno that that would be an
appropriate goal for a life
long obese man.

Why are you feeding the troll?

Fatten him for slaughter?

On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 18:24:13 -0000, Hollywood <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

BlueBrooke .@. said:

On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 12:42:31 -0000, Hollywood <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

And before you suggest that he should have had ripped abs, the guy was
66 when he
started and 72 at this writing. I dunno that that would be an
appropriate goal for a life
long obese man.

Why are you feeding the troll?

Fatten him for slaughter?

Whole grains, then?

--
BlueBrooke
254/225/135

BlueBrooke .@. said:

Hollywood said:

And before you suggest that he should have had ripped abs, the guy was
66 when he
started and 72 at this writing. I dunno that that would be an
appropriate goal for a life long obese man.

Why are you feeding the troll?

Banting's "Letter on Corpulance" is a major classic in the low carb
field. Discussing bits of it is a good idea irrespective of who it's
in
response to.

Hollywood said:

By the old MetLife insurance ideal weight table, at 5'5", his ideal
weight would be
between 134-160, depending on his frame size. 152 would be on the high
side of the
median, but definitely within the ideal weight, according to insurers.

Assuming avoirdupois pounds (what pounds would Banting have used?),
152 at 5'5" is a BMI of 25.8. Ouchie!

For many people, reaching this figure from below would be a signal to
make some lifestyle adjustments.

The _Letter_ is so well-written, and so overflowing with enthusiasm,
that it's easy to get excited, and consequently skim over the numbers.

Kaz Kylheku said:

Hollywood said:

By the old MetLife insurance ideal weight table, at 5'5", his ideal
weight would be
between 134-160, depending on his frame size. 152 would be on the high
side of the
median, but definitely within the ideal weight, according to insurers.

Assuming avoirdupois pounds (what pounds would Banting have used?),
152 at 5'5" is a BMI of 25.8. Ouchie!

For many people, reaching this figure from below would be a signal to
make some lifestyle adjustments.

The _Letter_ is so well-written, and so overflowing with enthusiasm,
that it's easy to get excited, and consequently skim over the numbers.

Uhm, but he was coming down from 202 pounds, a 33.6 BMI (assuming
modern
pounds, worse if you go ADPs).

Repeat after me, he went from morbidly obese to simply overweight.

After a lifetime of struggling, to no avail, with his weight.
I want to reiterate that the man was 66 when he started, and 72 at the
point where
he was 152. I'm not going to suggest that he was the healthiest
creature in the
land. But you cannot suggest that he was any worse off for dumping
nearly 25% of
his bodyweight. With what we know about LC now, we can also suggest
that
most of what he dumped would have been fat, as opposed to lean body
mass.

Lastly, I know you, of all people, will not be using BMI as anything
but the loosest
of guidelines, Kaz. You must be joking. Based on my calculations (and
those of
both my Tanita and the impedence device at the gym), my target BMI is
~25. And
that's for 10% bodyfat. You cannot judge his success or failure
because you are
willfully ignorant of his goals. His goal, according to the third
edition, was to get to
where his insurance company suggested he should be. By all
estimations, by the
fourth edition, he was there.

Here's what's left to you: You can sulk and suggest that Banting
wasn't setting his goal
low enough, and maybe he should have taken up some HIIT or circuit
lifting to get to a
BMI you think he should have been at, knowing nothing of him but his
writing on his
dietary approach. Or you can continue to look silly by suggesting he
never made his
goal based on a version written in the midst of his transformation and
ignoring further
evidence. Lastly, you can maybe come to terms with the fact that you
are just plain
incorrect in your conclusions on this matter. I'm sure you can pick up
the pieces and
start again.

Been fun. Ta.

See, I told you Kaz was a dumbass. Now you've proved it! 🙂

Hollywood wrote:
:: On Aug 29, 6:35 pm, Kaz Kylheku <[email hidden]> wrote:
::: Assuming avoirdupois pounds (what pounds would Banting have used?),
::: 152 at 5'5" is a BMI of 25.8. Ouchie!
:::
::: For many people, reaching this figure from below would be a signal
::: to make some lifestyle adjustments.
:::
::: The _Letter_ is so well-written, and so overflowing with enthusiasm,
::: that it's easy to get excited, and consequently skim over the
::: numbers.
::
:: Uhm, but he was coming down from 202 pounds, a 33.6 BMI (assuming
:: modern
:: pounds, worse if you go ADPs).
::
:: Repeat after me, he went from morbidly obese to simply overweight.
::
:: After a lifetime of struggling, to no avail, with his weight.
:: I want to reiterate that the man was 66 when he started, and 72 at
:: the point where
:: he was 152. I'm not going to suggest that he was the healthiest
:: creature in the
:: land. But you cannot suggest that he was any worse off for dumping
:: nearly 25% of
:: his bodyweight. With what we know about LC now, we can also suggest
:: that
:: most of what he dumped would have been fat, as opposed to lean body
:: mass.
::
:: Lastly, I know you, of all people, will not be using BMI as anything
:: but the loosest
:: of guidelines, Kaz. You must be joking. Based on my calculations (and
:: those of
:: both my Tanita and the impedence device at the gym), my target BMI is
:: ~25. And
:: that's for 10% bodyfat. You cannot judge his success or failure
:: because you are
:: willfully ignorant of his goals. His goal, according to the third
:: edition, was to get to
:: where his insurance company suggested he should be. By all
:: estimations, by the
:: fourth edition, he was there.
::
:: Here's what's left to you: You can sulk and suggest that Banting
:: wasn't setting his goal
:: low enough, and maybe he should have taken up some HIIT or circuit
:: lifting to get to a
:: BMI you think he should have been at, knowing nothing of him but his
:: writing on his
:: dietary approach. Or you can continue to look silly by suggesting he
:: never made his
:: goal based on a version written in the midst of his transformation
:: and ignoring further
:: evidence. Lastly, you can maybe come to terms with the fact that you
:: are just plain
:: incorrect in your conclusions on this matter. I'm sure you can pick
:: up the pieces and
:: start again.
::
:: Been fun. Ta.

See, I told you Kaz was a dumbass. Now you've proved it! 🙂

Hollywood said:

After a lifetime of struggling, to no avail, with his weight. I
want to reiterate that the man was 66 when he started, and 72 at the
point where he was 152.

That's simply amazing. And he did that while continuing to take in a
lot of calories from alcohol, and managed it all on his own research
and self-testing. Remarkable.

--
Aaron -- 285/254/200 -- aaron.baugher.biz