<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><title>Of Dreams and Reality</title><link>http://incidentals.blog.co.uk/</link><atom:link xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="self" href="http://incidentals.blog.co.uk/feed/rss2/posts/"/><description></description><language>en-UK</language><generator>MokoFeed</generator><ttl>10</ttl><item><title>BODILY AMBIGUITIES: (4) Obesity I (Energy Expenditure)</title><link>http://incidentals.blog.co.uk/2009/09/05/bodily-ambiguities-4-obesity-i-energy-expenditure-6899139/</link><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:incidentals.blog.co.uk,2009-09-05:/2009/09/05/bodily-ambiguities-4-obesity-i-energy-expenditure-6899139/</guid><pubDate>Sat, 05 Sep 2009 19:13:05 +0200</pubDate><description>	&lt;p&gt;ENERGY EXPENDITURE (EE) &amp; BODY WEIGHT&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;The ability to store unused energy (surplus to immediate requirements) is an obvious asset when food availability is erratic (irregular) and more especially when scarce.&lt;br&gt;
 However a continuous (regular) surplus can in time result in overweight and ultimately obesity.&lt;br&gt;
Thus to correct (or prevent) obesity both EE (energy expenditure) and EI (energy intake) need to be quantified as clearly (unambiguously) as possible. &lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;QUANTIFYING THE INCREASE IN EE LINKED TO A SPECIFIC PHYSICAL ACTIVITY &lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;The EE linked to a specific physical activity (walking for example) only replaces the EE linked to the activity (TV watching, resting, sleeping, etc.) it has displaced.&lt;br&gt;
Failure to realise this can lead to incorrect daily EE totals. &lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;The following example is used to illustrate this.&lt;br&gt;
[To calculate the increase in EE for an adult (weighing 79 kilograms) when 55 minutes of TV watching is replaced by a 3.5 mph (miles per hour) walk.&lt;br&gt;
The following quantities (see: Obesity Simplex in Google Search page 1) are taken into account:&lt;br&gt;
(a) EE per kilogram per minute walked at 3.5 mph = 0.06292 Calories&lt;br&gt;
     {EE per pound per minute walked at 3.5 mph}  = 0.0286 Calories}&lt;br&gt;
(b) EE per kilogram per minute of TV watching = 0.0165 Calories]&lt;br&gt;
     {EE per pound per minute of TV watching}   = 0.0075 Calories}] &lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Calculation:&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;EE during walk = 79 (weight) x 0.06292 (Calories per minute) x 55 (minutes)&lt;br&gt;
                          = 273.40 Calories&lt;br&gt;
EE during TV watching = 79 x 0.0165 x 55&lt;br&gt;
                          = 71.70 Calories&lt;br&gt;
Therefore the increase in EE = 273.40 – 71.70 Calories&lt;br&gt;
                                              = 201.70 Calories &lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;[Note:&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;1) Calculations which do not take into account body weight are misleading (ambiguous).&lt;br&gt;
2) A heavier person’s EE linked to a specific physical activity is greater than that of someone who is lighter (for that very same activity if carried out for the same length of time).&lt;br&gt;
3) Consequently a heavier person needs to spend less time on a specific physical activity to achieve the same EE as a lighter person. This fact may be regarded as the sole advantage that a heavier body weight can bring.&lt;br&gt;
4) Calculations in pounds of body weight should be based on appropriate {figures} above.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;small&gt; &lt;a href="http://incidentals.blog.co.uk/2009/09/05/bodily-ambiguities-4-obesity-i-energy-expenditure-6899139/#comments"&gt;Comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/small&gt; &lt;/p&gt;</description><category>energy-expenditure</category><category>method-of-calculation</category><category>significance-of-body-weight</category><comments>http://incidentals.blog.co.uk/2009/09/05/bodily-ambiguities-4-obesity-i-energy-expenditure-6899139/#comments</comments></item><item><title>BODILY AMBIGUITIES: (3) Alcohol II (Understanding Addiction)</title><link>http://incidentals.blog.co.uk/2009/08/25/bodily-ambiguities-3-alcohol-ii-understanding-addiction-6816947/</link><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:incidentals.blog.co.uk,2009-08-25:/2009/08/25/bodily-ambiguities-3-alcohol-ii-understanding-addiction-6816947/</guid><pubDate>Tue, 25 Aug 2009 10:13:58 +0200</pubDate><description>	&lt;p&gt;“BIOLOGICAL MODEL OF ADDICTION"&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Introduction&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;The results of excessive drinking are well known.&lt;br&gt;
What makes the individuals who constantly drink too much ignore them is to a great extent a mystery.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;In “Invitation to Psychology” the two co-authors C. Wade and C. Tavris (1999) (Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers) discuss the two dominant approaches to understanding addiction which they refer to as “Biological Model” and “Learning Model” respectively.&lt;br&gt;
They also attempt to integrate the contributions of both “models”.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Here in Alcohol II are listed the key points of the “Biological Model of Addiction” (as stated by Wade and Tavris).&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;[Note: It is for you to decide how ambiguous (if at all) they are!!!!]&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Biological Model of Addiction (key points)&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;A. Genetic Involvement&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;1) It is possible that several genes in combination affect:&lt;br&gt;
a) The response to alcohol (including the metabolism of alcohol by the liver)&lt;br&gt;
b) The compulsive use of alcohol&lt;br&gt;
c) The progression of alcohol-related diseases (including cirrhosis)&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;2) It is possible that genes contribute to temperament or traits that predispose some people to become alcoholics (alcohol dependent).&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;3) It is also possible that:&lt;br&gt;
a) “…genes have little to do with alcoholism…” and&lt;br&gt;
b) “…alcoholism results, basically from alcohol!”&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="/img/smilies/icon_cool.gif" alt="B)" class="middle" border="0"&gt; Alcohol Involvement&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;1) Heavy drinking:&lt;br&gt;
a) Alters brain function&lt;br&gt;
b) Reduces the level of pain-killing endorphins&lt;br&gt;
c) Produces nerve damage&lt;br&gt;
d) Shrinks the cerebral cortex&lt;br&gt;
e) Damages the liver &lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;2) “In the view of some researchers, these changes then “create”:&lt;br&gt;
a) “… biological dependence ..”&lt;br&gt;
b)  “... inability to metabolize alcohol..”&lt;br&gt;
c) “…psychological problems …”&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;I WONDER IF ‘ANY OF THE ABOVE’ HAS CAUSED YOU TO STOP*, PAUSE AND THINK (IF BUT FOR A BRIEF MOMENT)!!!!!!!! &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;small&gt; &lt;a href="http://incidentals.blog.co.uk/2009/08/25/bodily-ambiguities-3-alcohol-ii-understanding-addiction-6816947/#comments"&gt;Comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/small&gt; &lt;/p&gt;</description><category>psychological-problemsl</category><category>genetic-involvement</category><category>alcohol-addiction</category><category>altered-biological-functons</category><category>alcohol-involvement</category><comments>http://incidentals.blog.co.uk/2009/08/25/bodily-ambiguities-3-alcohol-ii-understanding-addiction-6816947/#comments</comments></item><item><title>BODILY AMBIGUITIES: (3) Alcohol I ("... not a true drug of addiction....")</title><link>http://incidentals.blog.co.uk/2009/08/16/bodily-ambiguities-3-alcohol-i-not-a-true-drug-of-addiction-6735308/</link><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:incidentals.blog.co.uk,2009-08-16:/2009/08/16/bodily-ambiguities-3-alcohol-i-not-a-true-drug-of-addiction-6735308/</guid><pubDate>Sun, 16 Aug 2009 11:55:33 +0200</pubDate><description>	&lt;p&gt;Many ambiguities surround alcohol and the drinking of it. One of the most interesting ones is whether or not it is a drug of true addiction.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;This brief introduction to alcohol related ambiguities leans heavily (if not solely) on the following statements made by Robert Kemp, T.D., M.D., F.R.C.P. (circa 1972) in ‘Drinking And Alcoholism’ (A Family Doctor booklet published by the British Medical Association):&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;1) Alcohol is “not a true drug of addiction as are morphia, heroin or cocaine.”&lt;br&gt;
[Note: R. Kemp refers to morphia (morphine), heroin and cocaine as “hard drugs”.] &lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;2) “Anyone who systematically takes any of these “hard” drugs will quickly become a true addict. The tissues develop a real craving with serious withdrawal symptoms if the drug is not forthcoming so that a drugless life is almost impossible and recovery rare.”&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;3) The drinker “can live perfectly normally without alcohol though naturally he misses its effects and prefers life with it to life without.”&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;4) Dependence on alcohol is “on an emotional basis rather than on a physical level. This means that those who drink excessively do not do so because their tissues are craving drink and they themselves have become physically dependent on this substance.”&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;5) “The fact that there is no true addiction makes treatment possible and recovery likely.”&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;I WONDER WHAT YOUR VIEWS ARE ON THE ABOVE STATEMENTS.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;small&gt; &lt;a href="http://incidentals.blog.co.uk/2009/08/16/bodily-ambiguities-3-alcohol-i-not-a-true-drug-of-addiction-6735308/#comments"&gt;Comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/small&gt; &lt;/p&gt;</description><category>treatment</category><category>craving</category><category>hard-drugs</category><category>physical</category><category>alcohol</category><category>addiction</category><category>emotional</category><category>recovery</category><category>dependence</category><comments>http://incidentals.blog.co.uk/2009/08/16/bodily-ambiguities-3-alcohol-i-not-a-true-drug-of-addiction-6735308/#comments</comments></item><item><title>BODILY AMBIGUITIES: (2) Skin Surface I (To Exfoliate or Not).</title><link>http://incidentals.blog.co.uk/2009/08/09/bodily-ambiguities-2-skin-surface-i-to-exfoliate-or-not-6684173/</link><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:incidentals.blog.co.uk,2009-08-09:/2009/08/09/bodily-ambiguities-2-skin-surface-i-to-exfoliate-or-not-6684173/</guid><pubDate>Sun, 09 Aug 2009 11:39:11 +0200</pubDate><description>	&lt;p&gt;Exfoliation (known biologically as desquamation) is a normal feature (activity) of the skin surface (superficial dead and keratinised cells of the outermost horny layer).&lt;br&gt;
It is the process of shedding worn out horny cells in the form of invisible scales (collections of small numbers of cells). &lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Products (e.g. creams) and treatments associated with it, together with its abnormalities (due to disease) can be said to constitute another set of bodily ambiguities. &lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;[Note:&lt;br&gt;
Disease aspects will only be mentioned in passing].&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;The skin (as a whole) is the ultimate barrier and connection between the body and the environment. &lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Its ability to protect against the entry by many harmful environmental agents (including microbes) depends to a great deal on the chemical composition and physical construction (nature) of its very surface (made of the outermost cells of the horny layer of the epidermis).&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;[Note:&lt;br&gt;
Various substances (produced mostly by the epidermis itself) help the cells of the horny (outermost and dead) layer of the epidermis to carry out some of their barrier functions].&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;The skin surface is best described as transient because the cells of which it is made are continuously being shed (desquamated or exfoliated) and replaced. Such a constantly ‘renewed’ surface offers the best possible protection to the rest of the skin (including the deeper living layers of the epidermis) and the body as a whole.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;[Note:&lt;br&gt;
1) There are limitations to the protection a thin layer of biological materials which constitutes the skin surface (outermost rows of the horny layer) can offer.&lt;br&gt;
2) Nevertheless it has kept human kind in existence for a long time!].&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Cells migrate from the layers immediately below to take the place of those (‘worn out’ ones) that are desquamated (exfoliated in everyday language). &lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;The cells that move upwards (or outwards) from row to row until they are exfoliated all originate from the deepest layer of the epidermis which is called the basal layer. &lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;[Note:&lt;br&gt;
1) During the migration from the basal layer to the horny layer each epidermal cell undergoes differentiation (over about 14 days) which changes it from a soft and living structure to a dead and toughened (keratinised) one.&lt;br&gt;
2) Horny cells spend about another 14 days in their 'dedicated' layer and then are desquamated (exfoliated)].&lt;br&gt;
3) Skin scales make up most of ordinary household dust.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Shedding of visible scales (collections of larger numbers of horny cells) is abnormal. This can occur in infectious conditions (e.g. ring worm) and non-infectious conditions (e.g. sunburn, eczema, psoriasis, etc.)].&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Additional to the normal desquamation that follows epidermal cell differentiation (and migration) is the desquamation that is facilitated (accelerated) by routine skin-centred   activities. These include washing, shaving, make-up application and removal, etc. Friction against clothing, bedding, etc. has the same effect. &lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Thus for the normal (healthy) skin, treatments and products designed or aimed specifically to bring it about (exfoliation) could be said to be unnecessary and perhaps in some cases excessive.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Note of Caution:&lt;br&gt;
Excessive exfoliation can have detrimental effects in the long run, especially if epidermal differentiation and replacement cannot keep pace with it.&lt;br&gt;
A good example of ‘swings and roundabouts’, I would be inclined to say!&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;small&gt; &lt;a href="http://incidentals.blog.co.uk/2009/08/09/bodily-ambiguities-2-skin-surface-i-to-exfoliate-or-not-6684173/#comments"&gt;Comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/small&gt; &lt;/p&gt;</description><category>exfoliating-preparations</category><category>shaving</category><category>skin-biology</category><category>exfoliation</category><category>washing</category><category>epidermal-differentiation</category><category>desquamation</category><category>make-up</category><comments>http://incidentals.blog.co.uk/2009/08/09/bodily-ambiguities-2-skin-surface-i-to-exfoliate-or-not-6684173/#comments</comments></item><item><title>BODILY AMBIGUITIES: (1) Cellulite I (Introduction)</title><link>http://incidentals.blog.co.uk/2009/08/03/bodily-ambiguities-1-cellulite-i-introduction-6639028/</link><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:incidentals.blog.co.uk,2009-08-02:/2009/08/03/bodily-ambiguities-1-cellulite-i-introduction-6639028/</guid><pubDate>Mon, 03 Aug 2009 00:02:43 +0200</pubDate><description>	&lt;p&gt;Cellulite I (Introduction).&lt;br&gt;
Cellulite (also referred to as “so-called cellulite”) is a very good example of bodily ambiguities.&lt;br&gt;
[Note:&lt;br&gt;
a) It should not be confused for cellulitis (a bacterial infection of the skin and subcutaneous tissues by Streptococcus pyogenes).&lt;br&gt;
b) However both cellulite and cellulitis can affect (although differently) the same tissues]. &lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;In this introductory part (for cellulite), mainly quotations {with my notes in ( ) and [ ]} from the Journal of Dermatologic Surgery and Oncology (March 1978) will be used to illustrate this.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;1) From Morris Leider.&lt;br&gt;
The French word cellulite was suddenly thrust upon the lay public in the country (US) some years ago in commercial advertisements of “beauty” parlors and other agencies that offered treatment for a certain dimpled appearance of the ordinarily well –covered skin of mature women.&lt;br&gt;
[Note:&lt;br&gt;
a) The dimpled appearance of the skin (referred to above) has been described in much earlier French publications as resembling the skin of an orange or the surface of a mattress.&lt;br&gt;
b) Reasons for the two different appearances will be discussed at some other time].&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;2) From Earle W. Brauer.&lt;br&gt;
(A) Cellulite is a cosmetic “defect that consumes and tortures millions of European women.&lt;br&gt;
[Note:&lt;br&gt;
a) The term cellulite made its entry in French medical literature in 1816. However it is not certain that it was applied precisely to same condition that we discuss here].&lt;br&gt;
b) It was not until 1978 that two papers about so-called cellulite (or cellulite for short) were published in English (in the journal mentioned above)].&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;(&lt;img src="/img/smilies/icon_cool.gif" alt="B)" class="middle" border="0"&gt; It is a normal “abnormality” that has spawned a billion-dollar industry of futile treatment both within the legitimate medical/surgical collegium and in that fringe of lay persons who call themselves “estheticians”.&lt;br&gt;
[Note:&lt;br&gt;
a) “Estheticians” as referred to above is a direct translation from the French “estheticiennes”.&lt;br&gt;
b) In modern terms they would be referred to in the US as cosmetologists and in the UK as beauty therapists.]&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;3) From F. Nurnberger and G. Muller&lt;br&gt;
A) It has been claimed but never proven that so-called cellulite is attributable to internal illnesses, birth-control pills, environmental pollutants and miniskirts.&lt;br&gt;
[Note:&lt;br&gt;
The more likely causes will be discussed at some other time]&lt;br&gt;
&lt;img src="/img/smilies/icon_cool.gif" alt="B)" class="middle" border="0"&gt; It is an important obligation of physicians to teach the fact that so-called cellulite is not a disease but is the result of the sex-typical structure of the skin of women and a natural sequence of ageing.&lt;br&gt;
[Note: Involvement of the sex hormones in skin structure will be discussed at some later time]. &lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;4) From C. Scherwitz and O. Braun-Falco&lt;br&gt;
A) Since so-called cellulite is not a real illness, there is no meaningful or effective therapy by medications&lt;br&gt;
[Note: Therapy proposed by the above authors will be discussed at some later time]. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;small&gt; &lt;a href="http://incidentals.blog.co.uk/2009/08/03/bodily-ambiguities-1-cellulite-i-introduction-6639028/#comments"&gt;Comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/small&gt; &lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cellulite</category><category>ineffectiveness-of-medications</category><category>obligations-of-physicians</category><category>associated-ambiguities</category><comments>http://incidentals.blog.co.uk/2009/08/03/bodily-ambiguities-1-cellulite-i-introduction-6639028/#comments</comments></item><item><title>Obesity simplex: Childhood Obesity Management Without Food Intake Reduction</title><link>http://incidentals.blog.co.uk/2009/05/22/obesity-simplex-childhood-obesity-management-without-food-intake-reduction-6159769/</link><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:incidentals.blog.co.uk,2009-05-22:/2009/05/22/obesity-simplex-childhood-obesity-management-without-food-intake-reduction-6159769/</guid><pubDate>Fri, 22 May 2009 21:48:44 +0200</pubDate><description>	&lt;p&gt;Obesity simplex: Childhood Obesity Management Without Food Intake Reduction.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;The management of childhood obesity (once established) should not involve a reduction of food intake (as a means for reducing the body weight).&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Children (obese or not) require a balanced diet which can support the growth and maturation processes.&lt;br&gt;
Restricting the food intake can introduce the risk of a lack of one or more essential nutrients.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Instead the aim should be to maintain the weight constant whilst the child grows in height. By so doing the weight and height should ultimately be compatible with each other.  &lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Thus the RELIED 500 Cal Plan (in its entirety) is not recommended for the management of Obesity simplex in children.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;However, introducing in the child’s daily routine, one or more activities aimed at producing a raised expenditure (RE) of energy is to be encouraged. &lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;It is worth noting that in 1994, E. Obarzanek and his associates showed that both obesity and blood cholesterol levels correlate with hours of television viewing (Volume 60 of American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, pages 15 to 22).&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;[Note: Children also spend a lot of time working at computers and playing video games]. &lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;TV viewing may have the added effect of fostering snacking, often on foods that are rich in calories (chocolates, sweets, peanuts, potato crisps/chips, etc.). &lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;[Note: TV advertising of the above foods can play a significant part in this]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;small&gt; &lt;a href="http://incidentals.blog.co.uk/2009/05/22/obesity-simplex-childhood-obesity-management-without-food-intake-reduction-6159769/#comments"&gt;Comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/small&gt; &lt;/p&gt;</description><category>tv</category><category>childhood-obesity-management</category><category>computer-games</category><category>increased-height</category><category>snacking</category><category>constant-weight</category><category>calorie-rich-foods</category><comments>http://incidentals.blog.co.uk/2009/05/22/obesity-simplex-childhood-obesity-management-without-food-intake-reduction-6159769/#comments</comments></item><item><title>Obesity simplex: RELIED 500 Cal Plan (Recommended) vs. 500 Cal Plan (Not Recommended)</title><link>http://incidentals.blog.co.uk/2009/04/10/obesity-simplex-relied-500-cal-plan-recommended-vs-500-cal-plan-not-recommended-5920717/</link><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:incidentals.blog.co.uk,2009-04-10:/2009/04/10/obesity-simplex-relied-500-cal-plan-recommended-vs-500-cal-plan-not-recommended-5920717/</guid><pubDate>Fri, 10 Apr 2009 11:19:04 +0200</pubDate><description>	&lt;p&gt;Someone unfamiliar with the RELIED 500 Cal Plan may mistakenly believe that it recommends a daily intake of 500 Calories (which a 500 Cal plan, if it existed, would recommend).&lt;br&gt;
In fact:&lt;br&gt;
1) The RELIED 500 Cal is based on the production of a deficit of 500 Calories per day as suggested by Mark Bricklin (1979) in his book “Lose Weight Naturally” published by Rodale Press, Emmaus, Pennsylvania.&lt;br&gt;
2) The deficit should be arrived at by the production of:&lt;br&gt;
a) A Raised expenditure (RE) of energy of 200 Calories and&lt;br&gt;
b) A Lowered intake of energy (LI) of 300 Calories&lt;br&gt;
[Note: This quantity of energy represents the 300 in Mark Bricklin’s “Natural 300 Plan”] &lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Mark Bricklin’s quantities (figures) are a good reference/starting point.&lt;br&gt;
However, as stated in earlier entries of the present series, the RELIED 500 Cal Plan allows for flexibility with regards to actual quantities concerning raised energy expenditure (RE) and lowered energy intake (LI).&lt;br&gt;
[Please see previous entries, more especially “Obesity simplex (primary obesity): Facing up to its reality” and “Practical aspects of the RELIED 500 Cal Plan (A concise user’s manual)”].   &lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Moreover, as the body weight changes more adjustments can and need be made but it is recommended that the RE (raised expenditure) remains a permanent feature.&lt;br&gt;
This is essential for general health reasons, and more especially, if one wanted to maintain the newly acquired ‘desired’ weight over a significant (meaningful) period of time (if not on a permanent basis).&lt;br&gt;
[Note: The RE should be quantified on an individual (personalised) basis (please read previous entries, more especially: “Walking as a means of producing a net expenditure of 200 Calories].&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Thus one difference between the RELIED 500 Cal Plan and the ‘Natural 300 Plan’ relates to methodology (and also, possibly emphasis).&lt;br&gt;
Everyone can quantify their lowered energy intake (LI) by simply referring to the energy contents of foods left out (not taken in).&lt;br&gt;
However, to quantify raised energy expenditure (RE) one needs to take a personalised (individual) approach.&lt;br&gt;
[Note: RE is deemed to be more important than LI, although both are required].&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Ultimately and ideally the activity or activities producing the RE (raised expenditure) should be geared (adapted) to:&lt;br&gt;
3) Improving physical fitness (cardio-respiratory endurance, muscle strength and endurance, and flexibility)&lt;br&gt;
4) Maintaining lean body tissue (skeletal muscle).&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;500 Cal Plan&lt;br&gt;
Either the plan does not exist or no one should be on it.  &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;small&gt; &lt;a href="http://incidentals.blog.co.uk/2009/04/10/obesity-simplex-relied-500-cal-plan-recommended-vs-500-cal-plan-not-recommended-5920717/#comments"&gt;Comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/small&gt; &lt;/p&gt;</description><category>sports</category><category>health</category><category>physical-fitness</category><category>lean-tissue-maintainance</category><comments>http://incidentals.blog.co.uk/2009/04/10/obesity-simplex-relied-500-cal-plan-recommended-vs-500-cal-plan-not-recommended-5920717/#comments</comments></item><item><title>Obesity simplex: Infant Obesity (6)</title><link>http://incidentals.blog.co.uk/2009/03/23/obesity-simplex-infant-obesity-5813273/</link><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:incidentals.blog.co.uk,2009-03-23:/2009/03/23/obesity-simplex-infant-obesity-5813273/</guid><pubDate>Mon, 23 Mar 2009 12:18:12 +0100</pubDate><description>	&lt;p&gt;Satiety and Criteria for Nutritional Adequacy in Infants&lt;br&gt;
A. Satiety&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Looking for signs of satiety in infants (defined in ‘Nutrition in Health &amp; Disease’ in 1968 by H. Mitchell and her colleagues as “the mechanism by which the infant is made aware that he has had enough”) is important because overfeeding in infancy may establish an undesirable feeding pattern in later life.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately satiety (‘its expression’) varies widely among infants.&lt;br&gt;
For example:&lt;br&gt;
1) In some, it is sharp and is accompanied by an active resistance to further feeding attempts.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;2) In some, it is less sharply defined and interest in feeding wanes gradually (after a period of playfulness).&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;3) Others appear not to know they have had enough and will vomit the ‘excess’. &lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;[Note:&lt;br&gt;
a) Parents, nurses, carers, etc. should be able to assess after a period of observation which category the infant they are responsible for falls under and take appropriate action.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;b) In all cases feeding which includes some degree of force (compulsion, 'persuasion') should be avoided. &lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;c) It is better to rely on the Criteria of Nutritional Adequacy (B, below) to assess that the infant is being properly fed].&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;B. Criteria for Nutritional Adequacy in Infants&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;In the publication mentioned above the following criteria for assessing adequate nutrition are mentioned:&lt;br&gt;
1) A steady gain in weight&lt;br&gt;
2) A moderate increase in subcutaneous (‘under the skin’) fat&lt;br&gt;
3) Development of firm muscles&lt;br&gt;
4) Good elimination&lt;br&gt;
5) A happy infant&lt;br&gt;
6) Sleeps well&lt;br&gt;
7) Shows normal curiosity about surroundings &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;small&gt; &lt;a href="http://incidentals.blog.co.uk/2009/03/23/obesity-simplex-infant-obesity-5813273/#comments"&gt;Comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/small&gt; &lt;/p&gt;</description><category>overfeeding</category><category>criteria-for-nutritional-adequacy</category><category>satiety</category><comments>http://incidentals.blog.co.uk/2009/03/23/obesity-simplex-infant-obesity-5813273/#comments</comments></item><item><title>Obesity simplex: Infant Obesity (4)</title><link>http://incidentals.blog.co.uk/2009/02/08/obesity-simplex-infant-obesity-5532482/</link><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:incidentals.blog.co.uk,2009-02-08:/2009/02/08/obesity-simplex-infant-obesity-5532482/</guid><pubDate>Sun, 08 Feb 2009 21:25:01 +0100</pubDate><description>	&lt;p&gt;Infant Feeding (1)&lt;br&gt;
Milk-related data (quantitative)&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;1) Human milk&lt;br&gt;
a) 100 millilitres (ml) = 64 Calories (kcal) or 268 kilojoules (kJ)&lt;br&gt;
b) 1 fluid ounce (28.4 millilitres) = 18.2 Calories (kcal) or 76.1 kilojoules &lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;2) Infant formula (normal dilution)&lt;br&gt;
a) 100 ml = 67 Calories (kcal) or 280 kJ&lt;br&gt;
b) 1 fluid ounce = 19 Calories (kcal) or 79.5 kJ&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;3) Cow’s milk&lt;br&gt;
a) 100 ml = 66 Calories (kcal) or 276 kJ&lt;br&gt;
b) 1 fluid ounce = 18.7 Calories (kcal) or 78.2 kJ&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;4) Working average for (1), (2) and (3)&lt;br&gt;
a) 100 millilitres = 65 Calories (kcal) or 272 kilojoules (kJ)&lt;br&gt;
b) 1 fluid ounce = 18 Calories or 75 kilojoules (kJ)&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;5) Consumption of human milk [per pound] and {per kilogram} of body weight&lt;br&gt;
   respectively =&lt;br&gt;
a) [2.5 ounces]-----{5.5 ounces}&lt;br&gt;
b) [70 millilitres]-----{154 millilitres}&lt;br&gt;
c) [45 Calories or kcal]-----{99 Calories or kcal}&lt;br&gt;
d) [188 kilojoules or kJ ]-----{413 kJ}&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;6) Human milk production per day is about =&lt;br&gt;
a) 25 ounces per day&lt;br&gt;
b) 700 millilitres&lt;br&gt;
c) 455 Calories (kcal)&lt;br&gt;
d) 1904 kilojoules (kJ)&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;[Note:&lt;br&gt;
a) There is considerable variation among women&lt;br&gt;
b) Variation occurs also in the same woman from time to time depending primarily on the infant’s feeding rate].&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;7) 1 litre =&lt;br&gt;
a) 1000 millilitres&lt;br&gt;
b) 1.76 pints (pt) [roughly 1 and three quarter pint]&lt;br&gt;
c) 35.2 fluid ounces&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;8. 1 pint=&lt;br&gt;
a) 20 fluid ounces&lt;br&gt;
b) 568 millilitres&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;9) 1 fluid ounce =&lt;br&gt;
a) 28.4 millilitres&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;small&gt; &lt;a href="http://incidentals.blog.co.uk/2009/02/08/obesity-simplex-infant-obesity-5532482/#comments"&gt;Comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/small&gt; &lt;/p&gt;</description><category>human-mik</category><category>infant-formula</category><category>cows-milk</category><category>energy-contents</category><category>fluid-measures</category><comments>http://incidentals.blog.co.uk/2009/02/08/obesity-simplex-infant-obesity-5532482/#comments</comments></item><item><title>Obesity simplex: Infant Obesity (3)</title><link>http://incidentals.blog.co.uk/2008/12/14/obesity-simplex-infant-obesity-5222297/</link><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:incidentals.blog.co.uk,2008-12-14:/2008/12/14/obesity-simplex-infant-obesity-5222297/</guid><pubDate>Sun, 14 Dec 2008 23:13:04 +0100</pubDate><description>	&lt;p&gt;Recommended energy allowance (REA).&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;INTRODUCTION&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;In infancy, Obesity simplex [see definition and introduction in: “Obesity simplex (primary obesity)” posted on 7/11/ 2007] is (as it is in all other age groups) linked to a surplus of energy (unused energy that is).&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;It is difficult if not impossible for the carer/minder (parents, nurses, etc) to get the balance right (i.e. between energy taken in and energy expended) in the early days of an infant’s life because many factors (rapid rate of growth, activity, sleep pattern, hunger, satiety, etc.) are involved.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;[Note:&lt;br&gt;
1) An obese infant may be either overfed or under-active or both.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;2) Overfeeding can occur because the carer (‘feeder’) cannot distinguish between a hunger cry from other crying].&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;3) Appropriate levels of stimulation of the infant that results in energy expenditure should be explored and encouraged].&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;RECOMMENDED ENERGY ALLOWANCE (REA) for INFANTS&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;In the 1989 publication of the National Academy of Sciences ‘Recommended Dietary Allowances’ the following figures are quoted:&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;a) First 6 months = 108 Calories (kcal) per kilogram (2.2 pounds) of body weight      &lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;b) Second 6 months = 98 Calories (kcal) per kilogram (2.2 pounds) of body weight&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;[Note:&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;1) A healthy infant’s birth weight:&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;a) Doubles after around 4 months&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;b) Triples   after around 12 months]&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Wherever and whenever possible the REA should be followed because it is linked to the body weight and therefore ‘mirrors’ or ‘shadows’ the development/growth of the infant.   &lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;EXAMPLE:&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;REA for James (aged 3 months and weighing 12 pounds)&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Weight in kilograms = 12 pounds divided by 2.2 = 5.4545 &lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;REA = 5.4545 x 108 = 589 Calories (kcal)
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;small&gt; &lt;a href="http://incidentals.blog.co.uk/2008/12/14/obesity-simplex-infant-obesity-5222297/#comments"&gt;Comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/small&gt; &lt;/p&gt;</description><category>infant-obesity</category><category>recommended-energy-allowance-for-infants</category><comments>http://incidentals.blog.co.uk/2008/12/14/obesity-simplex-infant-obesity-5222297/#comments</comments></item><item><title>Obesity simplex: Infant obesity (2)</title><link>http://incidentals.blog.co.uk/2008/11/16/obesity-simplex-infant-obesity-5048111/</link><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:incidentals.blog.co.uk,2008-11-16:/2008/11/16/obesity-simplex-infant-obesity-5048111/</guid><pubDate>Sun, 16 Nov 2008 23:17:00 +0100</pubDate><description>	&lt;p&gt;Spotting the obese infant&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;1. To date there is no generally accepted ‘means for the quantitative characterisation’ (for want of a better expression) for an obese infant.  &lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;A gain in weight by a six months old infant that exceeds 5.34 kilograms (11.748 pounds) was proposed by P.B.Crawford and his associates (Am.J.Clin.Nutr.27:706, 1974) to be the best index for obesity at that age. &lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;[Note: The limitations of such an index in the context of obesity prevention {see Obesity simplex: Infant obesity (1)} are obvious].&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;2. Perhaps a significant discrepancy between length (height) and weight (as compared with established growth charts) is of more practical use.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;The following figures for boys read from one such chart (Am.J.Clin.Nutr. 32: 607-629, 1979) will be used to illustrate this:&lt;br&gt;
a) Age: 3 months&lt;br&gt;
b) Length (height) range: 57 to 65 centimetres (22.44 to 25.59 inches).&lt;br&gt;
c) Weight range: 4.318 to 7.27 kilograms (9.5 to 16 pounds)&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Example1.&lt;br&gt;
Assessing weight status for a 3 months old boy (George)&lt;br&gt;
d) Age: 3 months&lt;br&gt;
e) Length (height) = 58 centimetres&lt;br&gt;
[Note: This is near the bottom of the range]&lt;br&gt;
f) Weight = 7 kilograms&lt;br&gt;
[Note: This is near the top of the range]&lt;br&gt;
Conclusion:&lt;br&gt;
George may be considered obese.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Example2.&lt;br&gt;
Assessing weight status for a 3 months old boy (James)&lt;br&gt;
g) Age: 3 months&lt;br&gt;
h) Length (height) = 64 centimetres&lt;br&gt;
[Note: This is near the top of the range]&lt;br&gt;
i) Weight = 7.25 kilograms&lt;br&gt;
[Note: This is near the top of the range]&lt;br&gt;
Conclusion:&lt;br&gt;
James may be considered not to be obese. &lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;[Note:&lt;br&gt;
a) There are many growth charts and there are slight differences here and there.&lt;br&gt;
b) When used as illustrated in the examples above they are just as good as each other].&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;small&gt; &lt;a href="http://incidentals.blog.co.uk/2008/11/16/obesity-simplex-infant-obesity-5048111/#comments"&gt;Comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/small&gt; &lt;/p&gt;</description><category>infant-obesity-spotting</category><category>length-to-weight-growth-discrepancy</category><comments>http://incidentals.blog.co.uk/2008/11/16/obesity-simplex-infant-obesity-5048111/#comments</comments></item><item><title>Obesity simplex: 'Infant obesity' (1)</title><link>http://incidentals.blog.co.uk/2008/11/04/obesity-simplex-infant-obesity-4984852/</link><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:incidentals.blog.co.uk,2008-11-04:/2008/11/04/obesity-simplex-infant-obesity-4984852/</guid><pubDate>Tue, 04 Nov 2008 22:13:34 +0100</pubDate><description>	&lt;p&gt;Obesity simplex: ‘Infant obesity’ (1).&lt;br&gt;
Early infancy: When the foundation of obesity is laid down.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Introductory remarks&lt;br&gt;
Much adult obesity has its origins in infancy, childhood and adolescence. Therefore the prevention of obesity begins in infancy. &lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;A. In two papers published independently in 1970 by:&lt;br&gt;
(1) J.Hirsch and J.L.Knittle (Fed.Proc.29:1516) and&lt;br&gt;
(2) E.E.Eid (Brit.Med.J.2:74)&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;(a) It was concluded that: &lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Infants who are over-nourished (i.e. their rate of growth is higher than usual) at the stage when adipose tissue (‘body fat’) cells are rapidly increasing accumulate more fat cells than infants whose rate of growth is more carefully controlled.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;[Note:&lt;br&gt;
1) The rate of growth generally is highest in the first few months of life.&lt;br&gt;
2) It would not be unreasonable to suggest that the rapid formation of adipose tissue cells could occur at that time]. &lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;(b) It was suggested that:&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;This surplus of adipose tissue cells persists throughout life carrying with it persistent problems (‘potential for the problem’) of obesity (overweight). &lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;B. Science Daily (Nov. 14, 2001) has reported that a research team (N.Settler, B.Zemel, S. Kumanyika and V. Stallings) at The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia have suggested that:&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;(a) The first four to six months may be a period for the establishment of weight regulation.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;(b) Rapid weight gains during infancy could lead to childhood obesity, more specifically:&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;(c) Rapid weight gain during the first 4 months of life is linked to an increased risk of being overweight at age 7 (regardless of birth weight and weight at 1 year) and:&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;(d) An increase in weight gain of 100 extra grams per month increases the risk of being overweight at age 7 by more than 25%.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;[Note:&lt;br&gt;
The first 4 to 6 months are thus critical both:&lt;br&gt;
1) In the context of rapid formation of adipose (fat) cells and&lt;br&gt;
2) Establishment of weight regulation].  &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;small&gt; &lt;a href="http://incidentals.blog.co.uk/2008/11/04/obesity-simplex-infant-obesity-4984852/#comments"&gt;Comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/small&gt; &lt;/p&gt;</description><category>adolescence</category><category>obesity</category><category>infancy</category><category>adult</category><category>childhood</category><category>establishment-of-weight-regulation</category><category>rapid-fat-cells-formation</category><comments>http://incidentals.blog.co.uk/2008/11/04/obesity-simplex-infant-obesity-4984852/#comments</comments></item><item><title>Obesity simplex: Passive Exercise (PE) and Spot Reduction (SR)??</title><link>http://incidentals.blog.co.uk/2008/10/01/obesity-simplex-passive-exercise-pe-and-spot-reduction-sr-4805571/</link><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:incidentals.blog.co.uk,2008-10-01:/2008/10/01/obesity-simplex-passive-exercise-pe-and-spot-reduction-sr-4805571/</guid><pubDate>Wed, 01 Oct 2008 11:45:40 +0200</pubDate><description>	&lt;p&gt;OPENING REMARKS&lt;br&gt;
Getting the body weight to its health promoting weight range or HPWR (see Archives of Obesity simplex series) is hard for many. It is harder still to keep it there over a meaningful length of time.&lt;br&gt;
However to slim down (by reducing fat depot size of) specific parts is impossible.&lt;br&gt;
The following two topics are introduced here to illustrate that fact.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;PASSIVE EXERCISE (PE)&lt;br&gt;
The term PE is in itself problematic. It refers to the body’s activity (mostly in the form of localised muscular contractions) induced by an electric stimulator (generator of short bursts / ‘pulses’ of electric current).&lt;br&gt;
The passive (‘involuntary’) aspect of PE refers to the fact that the command (stimulus) for the contraction comes not from the brain of the individual connected to the stimulator but from the latter (in the form of an electric current).&lt;br&gt;
However, of greater significance (and more especially in the context of weight management) is the amount of energy expended during PE.&lt;br&gt;
In the Wellness Encyclopedia (University of California, Berkley) it is quoted that a research team at Northeastern University (Boston) recorded an expenditure of no more than six Calories during 35 minutes of PE of such areas as the abdomen, buttocks and thighs (popular sites for such treatment among women).&lt;br&gt;
[Note: The 6 Calories are additional to the amount of energy the body expends whilst in the resting state].&lt;br&gt;
It can only be concluded PE cannot make any serious contribution in the fight against obesity simplex.&lt;br&gt;
Perhaps if pushed one could make a case for PE as a reward (or a form of pampering) after a proper bout of active / normal (true) exercise.&lt;br&gt;
However, a massage would serve that purpose much better (but would obviously require more work from the masseur or masseuse).&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;SPOT REDUCTION (SR)&lt;br&gt;
SR is a problematic aim (more of a dream than reality). It refers to (which is impossible) a reduction in fat depot size by exercising specifically (by natural or artificial means) the muscles that are located nearby (the abdominals for example).&lt;br&gt;
Moreover it should be noted that in women certain fat depots (those on the thighs and buttocks) are ear marked for milk production.&lt;br&gt;
Consequently they may remain (largely untouched) whilst other depots are used up (to varying degrees depending on the extent of the energy deficit produced and its duration) through a combination of raised energy expenditure and lowered energy intake (to be recommended) or by dieting alone (not to be recommended).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;small&gt; &lt;a href="http://incidentals.blog.co.uk/2008/10/01/obesity-simplex-passive-exercise-pe-and-spot-reduction-sr-4805571/#comments"&gt;Comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/small&gt; &lt;/p&gt;</description><category>electric-muscle-stimulator</category><category>spot-reduction</category><category>health</category><category>leisure</category><category>science</category><comments>http://incidentals.blog.co.uk/2008/10/01/obesity-simplex-passive-exercise-pe-and-spot-reduction-sr-4805571/#comments</comments></item><item><title>Obesity simplex: Rapid weight loss, weight cycling and the "yo-yo" effect</title><link>http://incidentals.blog.co.uk/2008/09/04/obesity-simplexrapid-weight-loss3d0cdef322a007f5e5e785affdc86277-and-the-yo-yo-effect-4680701/</link><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:incidentals.blog.co.uk,2008-09-04:/2008/09/04/obesity-simplexrapid-weight-loss3d0cdef322a007f5e5e785affdc86277-and-the-yo-yo-effect-4680701/</guid><pubDate>Thu, 04 Sep 2008 12:07:54 +0200</pubDate><description>	&lt;p&gt;RAPID WEIGHT LOSS (RWL)&lt;br&gt;
A weekly loss achieved purely from dieting (i.e. by reducing energy/food intake) of more than 1.5 to 2 pounds is regarded as excessive (here to be referred to as rapid weight loss i.e. RWL).&lt;br&gt;
Adverse reactions of RWL range from dizziness, headaches, nausea (and their complications). They become more problematic when the energy intake is less than 1200 Calories and the diet/s nutritionally unbalanced (i.e. deficient in essential constituents).&lt;br&gt;
In addition (and possibly more relevant to the management of body weight on a long-term basis) RWL is invariably linked to the so-called yo-yo effect of dieting.&lt;br&gt;
[Note:&lt;br&gt;
1) The RELIED 500 Cal Plan aims for a weekly loss of 1 pound through a combination of lowered intake (LI) and raised expenditure (RE) of energy (calories).&lt;br&gt;
2) As explained in earlier parts of the Obesity simplex series (to access these, see Archives at the bottom right of this page) this approach is more likely to avoid the yo-yo effect than most].&lt;br&gt;
RESPONSES TO RWL PRODUCED BY CRASH DIETING&lt;br&gt;
1) The body adapts/adjusts to the lowered food intake by lowering its metabolic rate (rate at which the chemical reactions that underpin all life processes take place) thereby lowering its fat usage (“burning”).&lt;br&gt;
[Note: Fat is one source of energy for the body’s activities].&lt;br&gt;
2) This adjustment / adaptation can have disastrous effects best outlined as follows:&lt;br&gt;
a) Imagine someone losing 10 pounds in a relatively short time by going on a diet of quite low energy content (“crash” diet).&lt;br&gt;
[Note: RWL recorded in the early stages of a calorie-restricted diet is to a large extent due to water loss].&lt;br&gt;
b) If food intake is now increased (providing more energy than is required because of the lowered metabolic rate) but is less than before the start of the diet, the body will store the unused (surplus) energy as fat and the weight goes up (“rebound effect”).&lt;br&gt;
[Note: After achieving the initial loss of 10 pounds (achieved by crash dieting for instance) the dieter can now justify increasing their food intake (by what seems to them a reasonable amount)].&lt;br&gt;
The “rebound effect” explains why many dieters try one diet after another and lose weight only to regain it (usually with interest) thereby becoming trapped in weight cycling (the yo-yo effect of dieting).&lt;br&gt;
Perhaps the hardest aspect of the yo-yo effect to ‘swallow’ is that it takes the dieter progressively longer each time to lose weight and progressively faster to regain it (and usually more of it).&lt;br&gt;
From a health point of view there is evidence to suggest (K. van der Kooy and co-workers, 1993) that weight cycling (repeated loss and gain of weight) can increase the risks of diabetes, hypertension, high blood lipids and death.&lt;br&gt;
[Note: The increased risks are no deterrent to genuine attempts at lowering one’s body weight at a sensible rate as mentioned above and throughout the Obesity simplex series].  &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;small&gt; &lt;a href="http://incidentals.blog.co.uk/2008/09/04/obesity-simplexrapid-weight-loss3d0cdef322a007f5e5e785affdc86277-and-the-yo-yo-effect-4680701/#comments"&gt;Comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/small&gt; &lt;/p&gt;</description><category>sensible-rate-of-weight-loss</category><category>yo-yo-effect</category><category>crash-diets</category><category>health-risks</category><category>weight-cycling</category><category>rapid-weight-loss</category><comments>http://incidentals.blog.co.uk/2008/09/04/obesity-simplexrapid-weight-loss3d0cdef322a007f5e5e785affdc86277-and-the-yo-yo-effect-4680701/#comments</comments></item><item><title>Homo sapiens sapiens revisited</title><link>http://incidentals.blog.co.uk/2008/08/08/homo-sapiens-sapiens-revisited-4559208/</link><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:incidentals.blog.co.uk,2008-08-08:/2008/08/08/homo-sapiens-sapiens-revisited-4559208/</guid><pubDate>Fri, 08 Aug 2008 11:26:21 +0200</pubDate><description>	&lt;p&gt;&lt;u&gt;Homo sapiens sapiens vs “Homo sapiens tabellarius”.&lt;/u&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Modern humans are classified within the animal kingdom as Homo sapiens sapiens.&lt;br&gt;
Bearing in mind that in Latin (Homo = human) and (sapiens = wise/knowing) cynics may wonder how many of us truly qualify as members of the human race.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Perhaps a better term (albeit marginally) that covers all of us could be Homo sapiens tabellarius (tabellarius = letter carrier or messenger).&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;There are two main reasons for this:&lt;br&gt;
(1)  Like the rest of the living things we are carriers of genetic information (genes) obtained from our ancestors which is to be imparted to our offspring/s.&lt;br&gt;
Whether (as individuals) we succeed or not in this (by design or otherwise) depends on many factors (chance or luck included) which we need not go into. &lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;(2) Through communication (spoken, written, pictorial, etc.) we pass on information&lt;br&gt;
(knowledge, ‘wisdom’) we have gathered by countless means (including legends, myths, education, training, personal experiences, etc.).&lt;br&gt;
Many factors (which we need not go into) determine the extent to which we do this appropriately (wisely: possible sapiens connection)) or otherwise.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Moreover, it would appear that the continued existence (see note below) of the human species (as we know it to-day and irrespective of classification) may well depend (and increasingly so as pollution and climate change really bite in and inter-national/racial/religious conflict/ tension mounts up) on the:&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;(a) ‘Matter’ (information, knowledge, ‘wisdom’) men will have accumulated that he may choose to communicate (or perhaps in some cases not communicate) and &lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;(b) ‘Manner’ (advertising, bargaining, blackmail, bribery, coercion, indoctrination, and the likes not necessarily excluded) in which this will be done.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;[Note: E. Mayr (1995) has estimated that the life expectancy of a species is about 100,000 years (Biastronomy News 7, no.3]. &lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;As for the genes they will do mostly as they please (within the confines of the modern human species) unless we start engineering them beyond recognition or we modify the environment (theirs and ours) recklessly and drastically.  &lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;[Note: Genes hitherto ‘silent/dormant’ can express themselves when the conditions are right for them to do so. Those expressions might not all (if any) be what we (as we are to-day) would/might like!].  &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;small&gt; &lt;a href="http://incidentals.blog.co.uk/2008/08/08/homo-sapiens-sapiens-revisited-4559208/#comments"&gt;Comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/small&gt; &lt;/p&gt;</description><category>science</category><category>pollution</category><category>continuation-of-human-species</category><category>messengers</category><category>genes</category><category>politcs</category><comments>http://incidentals.blog.co.uk/2008/08/08/homo-sapiens-sapiens-revisited-4559208/#comments</comments></item><item><title>Obesity simplex: Minimal calorie counting/estimating requirements of the RELIED 500 Cal Plan</title><link>http://incidentals.blog.co.uk/2008/06/27/obesity-simplex-minimal-calorie-counting-4370998/</link><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:incidentals.blog.co.uk,2008-06-27:/2008/06/27/obesity-simplex-minimal-calorie-counting-4370998/</guid><pubDate>Fri, 27 Jun 2008 10:56:04 +0200</pubDate><description>	&lt;p&gt;&lt;u&gt;The RELIED 500 Cal Plan: designed to run on minimal calorie counting.&lt;/u&gt;&lt;br&gt;
The RELIED 500 Cal Plan and its underpinning principles and calculations (estimates) have been discussed over a series of instalments (see: ‘Archives’ by scrolling down whilst looking towards the bottom right of the screen).&lt;br&gt;
To put the plan into operation simply carry out (W), (R) and (L) as instructed below.&lt;br&gt;
[Note: Ignore/omit initially (R) (c) (the estimate of the raised energy expenditure) until you’ve read through the relevant instalments].&lt;br&gt;
(W) RECORD YOUR WEIGHT AT THE START (and each week subsequently).&lt;br&gt;
If you follow (R) and (L) you should note a reduction of 1 pound per week (52 pounds in a year!).&lt;br&gt;
[Note:&lt;br&gt;
(1) Expected weight loss may not be apparent in women around menstrual period time because of fluid retention. Oral contraceptives may have the same effect. This does not mean the plan is not working!&lt;br&gt;
(2) A change in your normal routine (personal and familial circumstances) or change in your health status (a cold, a migraine attack, etc.) may all interfere (albeit temporarily)].&lt;br&gt;
(R) RAISE YOUR DAILY ENERGY EXPENDITURE BY 200 CALORIES.&lt;br&gt;
Whilst deciding which new activity you wish to introduce in your daily routine to achieve that raised energy expenditure, you could very simply:&lt;br&gt;
(R) (a) Take a walk over part of your lunch break and&lt;br&gt;
(R) (b) Get off the bus one stop before your usual stop on your way to and back from work, school, shop, etc.&lt;br&gt;
[Note: A good pair of walking shoes should make this more of an ‘exercise’ by enabling you to walk faster and to get fitter].&lt;br&gt;
(R) (c) Estimate the amount of energy spent on (a) and (b) (see: ‘Walking as a means of producing a net expenditure of 200 Calories’).&lt;br&gt;
[Note:&lt;br&gt;
The energy expended during (a) and (b) should contribute significantly (if not totally) to the recommended raised expenditure of 200 Calories].&lt;br&gt;
(R) (d) Make good the deficit (if any) to the targeted 200Calories either by:&lt;br&gt;
(i) Carrying out for the appropriate length of time an activity such as conditioning exercise, swimming, housework, gardening, etc.&lt;br&gt;
Or simply by:&lt;br&gt;
(ii) Increasing (appropriately) the length of time you spend on (R) (a) and/or (R) (b).&lt;br&gt;
[Note:&lt;br&gt;
For many individuals, more especially those who have little time to spare, (to attend gyms, or take part in organised sporting and similar activities, etc.) appropriate amounts of&lt;br&gt;
(R) (a) and (R) (b) are the ideal solution].&lt;br&gt;
(L) LOWER YOUR DAILY ENERGY INTAKE BY 300 CALORIES.&lt;br&gt;
Take away (or reduce appropriately) from your average daily diet items that together add up to 300 Calories [see: ‘Kick-starting the RELIED 500 Cal Plan with sensible eating (SE)’].&lt;br&gt;
The easiest way is to target food items that have their energy contents on their wrappers more especially nuts, biscuits, chocolate bars, crisps (chips), snack bars, etc.&lt;br&gt;
Reducing your intake of sugar (1 level teaspoonful = about 20 Calories) or using a sugar substitute (where appropriate) can help.&lt;br&gt;
[Note: In general, artificial sweeteners should be avoided during pregnancy] &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;small&gt; &lt;a href="http://incidentals.blog.co.uk/2008/06/27/obesity-simplex-minimal-calorie-counting-4370998/#comments"&gt;Comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/small&gt; &lt;/p&gt;</description><category>conditioning</category><category>walking</category><category>gyms</category><category>fitness</category><category>gardening</category><category>sports</category><category>housework</category><comments>http://incidentals.blog.co.uk/2008/06/27/obesity-simplex-minimal-calorie-counting-4370998/#comments</comments></item><item><title>Obesity simplex: Kick-starting the RELIED 500 Cal Plan with sensible eating (SE)</title><link>http://incidentals.blog.co.uk/2008/06/13/obesity-simplex-kick-starting-the-relied-4312839/</link><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:incidentals.blog.co.uk,2008-06-13:/2008/06/13/obesity-simplex-kick-starting-the-relied-4312839/</guid><pubDate>Fri, 13 Jun 2008 22:30:43 +0200</pubDate><description>	&lt;p&gt;&lt;u&gt;SE (sensible eating): Smoothly and efficiently lowering the intake of calories (energy).  &lt;/u&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Listed below are some examples of SE that can contribute towards the production of a lowered intake (LI) of 300 Calories as recommended by RELIED 500 Cal Plan.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Just switching to the {What to have}* from the [What not to have] may be all that is required in many cases.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;{Note: You will only need to reduce your intake if you have been already ‘eating sensibly’. Do so by adjusting portion sizes or leaving out certain items. DO NOT SKIP MEALS*}.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;(1) Breakfast&lt;br&gt;
{Whole-grain cereals e.g. shredded wheat, oatmeal, etc.}*{Toast with jam or low fat cottage cheese}*&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;[Cereals with a high fat or sugar content] [Eggs, bacon, sausage, ham, butter, margarine, cream/whole milk cheese, muffins, doughnuts, croissants, hash browns, Danish pastries]&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;(2) Salads&lt;br&gt;
{Salads containing fresh vegetables, peas and/or beans}* {Have oil/vinegar dressing on the side so it can be used sparingly}*&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt; [Croutons (fried), egg, cheese, meats, avocado, coleslaw, mayonnaise, creamy salad dressings, etc.] &lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;(3) Appetizers (hors d’oeuvres)&lt;br&gt;
{Raw vegetables, steamed or grilled (broiled) sea food}*&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;[Cheese, pastes (liver, etc.), nuts, corn/potato crisps (chips), cream dips].&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;(4) Main courses&lt;br&gt;
{Steamed/grilled (broiled)/roasted sea food, poultry (without skin) and lean red meat}*&lt;br&gt;
{Pasta or rice with vegetables and peas/beans without cream sauce or butter, flavoured with herbs and spices}*.&lt;br&gt;
{Lean cold cuts of turkey, chicken breast}*&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;[Duck, goose, chicken with skin, liver, processed meats][Fried and crispy food items]&lt;br&gt;
[Food in gravy or a sauce (cheese, butter, cream, hollandaise, etc.) and casseroles]&lt;br&gt;
[Meat pies, sausage rolls, quiches, fatty cold cuts, sausages (salami, bologna, etc.)] &lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;(5) Side dishes&lt;br&gt;
{Vegetables (raw, steamed, boiled, or baked)}* {Use low fat yoghurt (spiced to taste) as a topping for baked potato}*&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;[Vegetables cooked in or prepared with fat/oil, butter, mayonnaise, cream, or cheese]&lt;br&gt;
[Potato or pasta salad, coleslaw] &lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;(6) Desserts&lt;br&gt;
{Fresh fruit, sorbet, skimmed milk in coffee (tea)}*&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;[Canned fruit in syrup, cakes, cookies, pastries, pies, custards, ice cream, whole milk cheese]&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;{{*Note: Wherever possible use artificial sweeteners or reduce sugar intake.*}}  &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;small&gt; &lt;a href="http://incidentals.blog.co.uk/2008/06/13/obesity-simplex-kick-starting-the-relied-4312839/#comments"&gt;Comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/small&gt; &lt;/p&gt;</description><category>preferred-methods-of-food-preparation</category><category>recommended-food-items</category><category>lowering-energy-intake</category><category>sensible-eating</category><comments>http://incidentals.blog.co.uk/2008/06/13/obesity-simplex-kick-starting-the-relied-4312839/#comments</comments></item><item><title>Obesity simplex: Kick-starting the RELIED 500 Cal Plan</title><link>http://incidentals.blog.co.uk/2008/05/29/obesity-simplex-kick-starting-the-relied-4244477/</link><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:incidentals.blog.co.uk,2008-05-29:/2008/05/29/obesity-simplex-kick-starting-the-relied-4244477/</guid><pubDate>Thu, 29 May 2008 21:36:45 +0200</pubDate><description>	&lt;p&gt;STEP 1: Producing a raised expenditure (RE) of 200 Calories by walking instead of TV watching (or some similar activity).&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Listed below are the &lt;u&gt;(time in minutes)&lt;/u&gt; a &lt;u&gt;{person weighing in pounds}&lt;/u&gt; is required to walk at &lt;u&gt;[different speeds in miles per hour]&lt;/u&gt; to produce a RE of 200 Calories.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Walking at 2mph will be used to illustrate how the figures listed below are arrived at and also to correct one error (for which apologies are presented here!).&lt;br&gt;
Since:&lt;br&gt;
(a) Walking at 2 mph uses 0.0188 Cal per minute per pound (*Not 0.0151 Cal as stated previously*) and&lt;br&gt;
(b) Watching TV uses 0.0075 Cal per minute per pound&lt;br&gt;
Therefore:&lt;br&gt;
REPM (raised expenditure per minute) = (0.0188 minus 0.0075) = 0.0113 Calories&lt;br&gt;
Using the formula: [Time (minutes) = 200 divided by (REPM x weight in pounds)]:&lt;br&gt;
For a person weighing 400 pounds:&lt;br&gt;
Time = 200 divided by 4.52 [that is 0.0113 (REPM) x 400 {pounds}] = 44 minutes&lt;br&gt;
You may calculate your own time (for activities of your own choice) by following the method demonstrated above.&lt;br&gt;
----------[2.0] - - [2.5] - - [3.0] - - [3.5] - - [4.0] - - [4.5] - - [5.0]&lt;br&gt;
{400} = (44) - - (33) - - (29) - - - (24) - - - (17) - - (12) - - (9.5)&lt;br&gt;
{380} = (46) - - (35) - - (30) - - - (25) - - - (18) - - (13) - - (10)&lt;br&gt;
{360} = (49) - - (37) - - (32) - - - (27) - - - (19) - - (13.5) - (10.5)&lt;br&gt;
{340} = (52) - - (39) - - (34) - - - (28) - - - (20) - - (14) - - (11)&lt;br&gt;
{320} = (55) - - (41) - - (36) - - - (30) - - - (21) - - (15) - - (12)&lt;br&gt;
{300} = (59) - - (44) - - (38) - - - (32) - - - (23) - - (16) - - (13)&lt;br&gt;
{280} = (63) - - (47) - - (41) - - - (34) - - - (24) - - (17) - - (13.6)&lt;br&gt;
{260} = (67) - - (50) - - (44) - - - (37) - - - (26) - - (18) - - (14.6)&lt;br&gt;
{240} = (73) - - (55) - - (48) - - - (40) - - - (28) - - (20) - - (15.8)&lt;br&gt;
{220} = (80) - - (60) - - (52) - - - (43) - - - (31) - - (22) - - (17)&lt;br&gt;
{200} = (88) - - (66) - - (58) - - - (48) - - - (34) - - (24) - - (19)&lt;br&gt;
{190} = (92) - - (69) - - (61) - - - (50) - - - (36) - - (25) - - (20)&lt;br&gt;
{180} = (98) - - (73) - - (64) - - - (53) - - - (38) - - (26.6) - - (21)&lt;br&gt;
{170} = (103)- - (77) - - (68) - - - (56) - - - (40) - - (28) - - (22.3)&lt;br&gt;
{160} = (110)- - (82) - - (72) - - - (60) - - - (42) - - (30) - - (23.7)&lt;br&gt;
{150} = (117)- - (88) - - (77) - - - (64) - - - (45) - - (32) - - (25)&lt;br&gt;
{140} = (125)- - (94) - - (83) - - - (68) - - - (48) - - (34) - - (27)&lt;br&gt;
{130} = (135)- – (101)- – (89) - - - (74) - - - (53) - - (37) - - (29)&lt;br&gt;
{120} = (146)- – (110)- – (96) - - - (80) - - - (56) - - (40) - - (31)&lt;br&gt;
{110} = (160)- – (120)- – (105)- - - (87) - - - (62) - - (43) - - (34.5)&lt;br&gt;
{100} = (176)- – (132)- – (116)- - - (96) - - - (68) - - (48) - - (38)&lt;br&gt;
{90}  = (195)- – (146)- – (129)- - - (106)- - - (75) - - (53) - - (42)&lt;br&gt;
{80}  = (220)- – (165)- – (145)- - - (120)- - - (85) - - (60) - - (47.5)&lt;br&gt;
{75}  = (234)- – (176)- – (154)- - - (128)- - - (90) - - (64) - - (50.6) &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;small&gt; &lt;a href="http://incidentals.blog.co.uk/2008/05/29/obesity-simplex-kick-starting-the-relied-4244477/#comments"&gt;Comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/small&gt; &lt;/p&gt;</description><category>calories</category><category>walking-at-different-speeds</category><category>tv-watching</category><comments>http://incidentals.blog.co.uk/2008/05/29/obesity-simplex-kick-starting-the-relied-4244477/#comments</comments></item><item><title>Obesity simplex: Gardening to produce a raised expenditure (RE) of 200 Calories</title><link>http://incidentals.blog.co.uk/2008/05/20/obesity-simplex-gardening-to-produce-a-r-4197283/</link><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:incidentals.blog.co.uk,2008-05-20:/2008/05/20/obesity-simplex-gardening-to-produce-a-r-4197283/</guid><pubDate>Tue, 20 May 2008 11:00:25 +0200</pubDate><description>	&lt;p&gt;&lt;u&gt;Obesity simplex: Gardening to produce a Raised Expenditure of 200 Calories.&lt;/u&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;As explained previously, the RELIED 500 Cal Plan recommends on a daily basis:&lt;br&gt;
a raised expenditure (RE) of 200 Calories and a lowered intake (LI) of 300 Calories.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;The following figures relating to energy expenditure [number of Calories per minute per pound of body weight] per activity can be used to calculate how the first target can be achieved through gardening activities.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;(1) Sleeping [0.0067] -- (2) Quietly standing [0.009]&lt;br&gt;
(3) Sitting (in a bus, reading, talking, writing, watching TV, etc.) [0.0075]&lt;br&gt;
(4) Driving (a car) [0.0151] -- (5) Riding motor cycle/scooter [0.0188]&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;(5)* Light gardening (picking flowers, vegetables, fruit) [0.0226]&lt;br&gt;
(6)* Trimming shrubs/trees (manual cutters) [0.034] (power cutters) [0.0264]&lt;br&gt;
(7)* Planting [0.034] -- (8)* Weeding [0.034] – (9)* Digging [0.037]&lt;br&gt;
(10)* Lawn mowing (power mower) [0.0415] – (11)*Lawn raking [0.0324]&lt;br&gt;
(12)*General gardening (mixed activities) [0.0302]&lt;br&gt;
(13)*Watering [0.0113]&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Example:&lt;br&gt;
Calculating for a person weighing 140 pounds (10 stones) the length of time spent trimming plants with manual cutters (instead of watching TV) to achieve a raised (increased) expenditure of 200 Calories.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;For a person weighing 140 pounds, from the above figures:&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;In 1 minute, energy spent watching TV = 140 (pounds) x 0.0075 = 1.05 Calories&lt;br&gt;
In 1 minute, energy spent trimming plants = 140 x 0.034 = 4.76 Calories&lt;br&gt;
In 1 minute, the raised expenditure (RE) = (4.76 - 1.05) = 3.71 Calories&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;The length of time required to achieve the RE of 200 Calories is obtained by dividing 200 by 3.71 = 53.9 minutes (rounded off to 54 minutes).&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;[Note:&lt;br&gt;
(1) Multiplying the figures listed above by 2.20 gives their values per kilogram of body weight which can be used for calculating in terms of kilograms of body weight. &lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;(2) 1 Calorie = 1 kcal = 4.184 kilojoules (kJ)]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;small&gt; &lt;a href="http://incidentals.blog.co.uk/2008/05/20/obesity-simplex-gardening-to-produce-a-r-4197283/#comments"&gt;Comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/small&gt; &lt;/p&gt;</description><category>body-weight</category><category>calculating-energy-expenditure</category><category>gardening</category><comments>http://incidentals.blog.co.uk/2008/05/20/obesity-simplex-gardening-to-produce-a-r-4197283/#comments</comments></item><item><title>Dreams</title><link>http://incidentals.blog.co.uk/2008/05/12/dreams-4162906/</link><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:incidentals.blog.co.uk,2008-05-12:/2008/05/12/dreams-4162906/</guid><pubDate>Mon, 12 May 2008 10:28:05 +0200</pubDate><description>	&lt;p&gt;&lt;u&gt;Dreams: ‘Last bastions of our sanity’.&lt;/u&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Dreams can have positive, negative (and possibly neutral) influences.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;I have put down in the words of a song how I view one positive (and probably the most important) contribution that dreams make to our lives, by acting as ‘guardians/defenders/protectors’ (last bastions) of our sanity.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;[Note: Dreams cease to be dreams once they have been realised in full!]&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;u&gt;Dreams&lt;/u&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Like drowning men clutching at straws&lt;br&gt;
So we cling to our dearest dreams&lt;br&gt;
We hold on to cost nothing dreams&lt;br&gt;
Driving us on when life gets rough&lt;br&gt;
We could not do without our dreams&lt;br&gt;
They help us face harsh verities&lt;br&gt;
Life brings daily&lt;br&gt;
We could not be without our dreams&lt;br&gt;
They are the last bastions of&lt;br&gt;
Our sanity&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;small&gt; &lt;a href="http://incidentals.blog.co.uk/2008/05/12/dreams-4162906/#comments"&gt;Comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/small&gt; &lt;/p&gt;</description><category>music</category><category>love</category><category>life</category><comments>http://incidentals.blog.co.uk/2008/05/12/dreams-4162906/#comments</comments></item><item><title>Obesity simplex: Why carbohydrates are less 'fattening'.</title><link>http://incidentals.blog.co.uk/2008/03/22/obesity-simplex-why-carbohydrates-are-le-3920107/</link><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:incidentals.blog.co.uk,2008-03-22:/2008/03/22/obesity-simplex-why-carbohydrates-are-le-3920107/</guid><pubDate>Sat, 22 Mar 2008 11:56:33 +0100</pubDate><description>	&lt;p&gt;&lt;u&gt;The storage of Calories obtained from carbohydrate and fat respectively.&lt;/u&gt;&lt;br&gt;
   A Calorie obtained from carbohydrate (starches and sugars) represents the same amount of energy as a Calorie obtained from fat/oil.&lt;br&gt;
   However researchers at the Medical School of the University of Massachusetts have reported an interesting observation concerning the amount of energy the body expends when it converts dietary carbohydrates and fats respectively into body fat (see next paragraph). This could be of especial significance to those who struggle to reach and stay within their health promoting weight range [see ‘Obesity simplex: Introducing the health promoting weight range (HPWR)’ of 9/11/07].&lt;br&gt;
   The body expends 23 Calories when it converts 77 Calories obtained from dietary carbohydrate into fat which it stores in its adipocytes (fat cells).&lt;br&gt;
   However it expends only 3 Calories when it stores 97 Calories obtained from dietary fats/oils.&lt;br&gt;
   What the above tells us is that the percentage (%) of unused Calories available for storage as fat (body fat) is 77 for carbohydrate and 97 for fat.&lt;br&gt;
   That is one good reason (there are others) for keeping a close eye on one’s fat intake (see: Obesity simplex: Lowering your intake of ‘fat’ Calories’ of 29/11/07).&lt;br&gt;
   However, it must be emphasised that under normal circumstances no one should aim for a totally fat-free diet.&lt;br&gt;
   Indeed it is generally recommended that 30% of one’s energy intake should come from fat (of which only 10% should be of the saturated type).&lt;br&gt;
   [A reminder:&lt;br&gt;
a) 1 gram of fat/oil = 9 Calories (compared to 4 Calories for carbohydrate)&lt;br&gt;
b) For a total intake of 2000 Calories:&lt;br&gt;
c) Recommended 30% of fat = (2000 x 30) divided by 100&lt;br&gt;
                                           = 60000 divided by 100&lt;br&gt;
                                           = 600 Calories&lt;br&gt;
     In terms of grams of fat, 600 Calories = 600 divided by 9&lt;br&gt;
                                            = 67 grams (rounded off from 66.666)]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;small&gt; &lt;a href="http://incidentals.blog.co.uk/2008/03/22/obesity-simplex-why-carbohydrates-are-le-3920107/#comments"&gt;Comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/small&gt; &lt;/p&gt;</description><category>body-fat</category><category>fatsoils</category><category>carbohydrates</category><category>calories</category><comments>http://incidentals.blog.co.uk/2008/03/22/obesity-simplex-why-carbohydrates-are-le-3920107/#comments</comments></item><item><title>Obesity simplex: Energy content of common alcoholic drinks</title><link>http://incidentals.blog.co.uk/2008/03/05/obesity-simplex-energy-content-of-common-3819578/</link><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:incidentals.blog.co.uk,2008-03-05:/2008/03/05/obesity-simplex-energy-content-of-common-3819578/</guid><pubDate>Wed, 05 Mar 2008 11:47:16 +0100</pubDate><description>	&lt;p&gt; &lt;u&gt;Obesity simplex: Energy content of alcoholic drinks.&lt;/u&gt;&lt;br&gt;
The figures below can be used to quantify a person’s intake of Calories obtained from alcohol and substances commonly taken in with it (more commonly carbohydrate in the form of sugar).&lt;br&gt;
Note the contribution of mixers (coke, tonic, etc.)  also needs to be taken into account.&lt;br&gt;
[1 unit of alcohol = 8 grams = 10 ml = 56 Calories (Cal)(kcal)&lt;br&gt;
1 gram of alcohol = 7 Calories (Cal) = 29 kilo Joules (kJ)]  &lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;u&gt;Per 100 millilitres (ml) of alcoholic drink:&lt;/u&gt;&lt;br&gt;
The (Total number of Calories),&lt;br&gt;
[Calories obtained from alcohol] and&lt;br&gt;
{Calories obtained from carbohydrate/sugar} are listed respectively &lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Brown ale: ------------------ (28) --- [16.7] --- {11.3}&lt;br&gt;
Bitter beer: ------------------ (32) --- [23.4] --- {8.6}&lt;br&gt;
Mild beer: ------------------- (25) --- [19.0] --- {6}&lt;br&gt;
Lager beer: ------------------ (29) --- [23.4] --- {5.6}&lt;br&gt;
Pale ale: --------------------- (32) --- [24.3] --- {7.7}&lt;br&gt;
Dry cider: ------------------- (36) --- [26.3] --- {9.7}&lt;br&gt;
Sweet cider: ---------------- (42) --- [25.9] --- {16.1}&lt;br&gt;
Wine (red) ------------------ (68) --- [66.9] --- {1.1}&lt;br&gt;
Wine (rose) ----------------- (71) --- [61.6] --- {9.4}&lt;br&gt;
Wine (white dry) ---------- (66) --- [63.7] --- {2.3}&lt;br&gt;
Wine (white medium) ----- (75) --- [62.3] --- {12.7}&lt;br&gt;
Wine (white sweet) ------- (94) ---- [72] --- {22}&lt;br&gt;
Wine (white sparkling) --- (76) --- [70.7] --- {5.3}&lt;br&gt;
Port wine ------------------- (157) --- [112] --- {45}&lt;br&gt;
Sherry (dry) ---------------- (116) --- [110] --- {6}&lt;br&gt;
Sherry (medium) ---------- (118) --- [104.5] --- {13.5}&lt;br&gt;
Sherry (sweet) --- ---------- (136) --- [110] --- {26}&lt;br&gt;
Vermouth (dry) ------------ (118) --- [97] --- {21}&lt;br&gt;
Vermouth (sweet) --------- (151) --- [91] --- {60}&lt;br&gt;
Cherry Brandy ------------- (255) --- [133] --- {122}&lt;br&gt;
Spirit (40% by volume) --- (222) --- [222] --- {0}&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;u&gt;Average common alcohol measures (in millilitres):&lt;/u&gt;&lt;br&gt;
1 pint (568)&lt;br&gt;
1 wine glass (120)&lt;br&gt;
1 fortified wine [e.g. port, sherry] glass (50)&lt;br&gt;
1 measure of liqueur [e.g. Cherry brandy] or spirit (25)&lt;br&gt;
1 bottle of wine (750)   &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;small&gt; &lt;a href="http://incidentals.blog.co.uk/2008/03/05/obesity-simplex-energy-content-of-common-3819578/#comments"&gt;Comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/small&gt; &lt;/p&gt;</description><category>energy</category><category>sugar</category><category>alcohol</category><category>calories</category><category>mixers</category><comments>http://incidentals.blog.co.uk/2008/03/05/obesity-simplex-energy-content-of-common-3819578/#comments</comments></item><item><title>Obesity simplex: Energy expenditure associated with various activities.</title><link>http://incidentals.blog.co.uk/2008/02/15/obesity_simplex_energy_expenditure_assoc~3731474/</link><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:incidentals.blog.co.uk,2008-02-15:/2008/02/15/obesity_simplex_energy_expenditure_assoc~3731474/</guid><pubDate>Fri, 15 Feb 2008 14:02:02 +0100</pubDate><description>	&lt;p&gt;&lt;u&gt;(2) Swimming &amp; Co.&lt;/u&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;The figures below can be used to calculate how one can achieve the net raised energy expenditure of 200 Calories per day (as recommended by the RELIED 500 Cal Plan).&lt;br&gt;
[Note: Scroll down and through Archives read other parts in this series more especially the following:&lt;br&gt;
a) Walking as exercise and otherwise&lt;br&gt;
b) Walking as a means of producing a net expenditure of 200 Calories&lt;br&gt;
c) Practical aspects of the RELIED 500 Cal Plan]&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Per pound of body weight the energy in terms of Calories (Cal) expended per minute of activity is as follows:&lt;br&gt;
1. Swimming [general, leisurely] (0.045)&lt;br&gt;
2. Swimming [butterfly] (0.083)&lt;br&gt;
3. Swimming [breaststroke] (0.075)&lt;br&gt;
4. Swimming [backstroke] (0.053)&lt;br&gt;
5. Swimming [sidestroke] (0.060)&lt;br&gt;
6. Swimming [crawl at 50 yards per minute] (0.060)&lt;br&gt;
7. Swimming [crawl at 75 yards per minute] (0.083)&lt;br&gt;
8. Swimming laps (a) [free style, slow] (0.053) (b) [free style, fast] (0.075)&lt;br&gt;
9. Treading water (a) [moderate] (0.030) (b) [vigorous] (0.075)&lt;br&gt;
10. Water callisthenics (0.030)&lt;br&gt;
11. Water polo (0.075)&lt;br&gt;
12. Water volleyball (0.022)&lt;br&gt;
13. Diving (a) [platform/springboard] (0.022) (b) [scuba] (0.053)&lt;br&gt;
14. Snorkelling (0.037)&lt;br&gt;
15. Water skiing (0.045)  &lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Formula to be used:&lt;br&gt;
Energy expended = weight (pounds) x Calories per minute x time (minutes).&lt;br&gt;
Example:&lt;br&gt;
1) Energy expended by a person weighing 180 pounds during 45 minutes of moderate water treading = 180 x 0.030 x 45 minutes = 243 Calories.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;small&gt; &lt;a href="http://incidentals.blog.co.uk/2008/02/15/obesity_simplex_energy_expenditure_assoc~3731474/#comments"&gt;Comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/small&gt; &lt;/p&gt;</description><category>snorkelling</category><category>water-sports</category><category>diving</category><category>swimming</category><comments>http://incidentals.blog.co.uk/2008/02/15/obesity_simplex_energy_expenditure_assoc~3731474/#comments</comments></item><item><title>Obesity simplex: The energy expenditure of various activities</title><link>http://incidentals.blog.co.uk/2008/02/13/obesity_simplex_the_energy_expenditure_o~3723716/</link><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:incidentals.blog.co.uk,2008-02-13:/2008/02/13/obesity_simplex_the_energy_expenditure_o~3723716/</guid><pubDate>Wed, 13 Feb 2008 21:23:30 +0100</pubDate><description>	&lt;p&gt;(1) Conditioning exercises.&lt;br&gt;
The figures below can be used to calculate how one can achieve the net raised energy expenditure of 200 Calories per day (as recommended by the RELIED 500 Cal Plan). If you are new to the Obesity simplex series, click on (http://incidentals.blog.co.uk) to access the entries (parts) that relate directly to the plan more especially:&lt;br&gt;
a) Walking as exercise and otherwise and&lt;br&gt;
b) Walking as a means of producing a net expenditure of 200 Calories&lt;br&gt;
c) Practical aspects of the RELIED 500 Cal Plan&lt;br&gt;
Per pound of body weight the energy in terms of Calories (Cal) expended per minute of activity is as follows:&lt;br&gt;
1. Aerobics&lt;br&gt;
a) Low impact (0.037) ---------------------- (b) High impact (0.0528)&lt;br&gt;
c) Steps [6-8 inch step] (0.0642) ---------- (d) Steps [10-12 inch step] (0.075)&lt;br&gt;
2. Callisthenics&lt;br&gt;
a) Light to moderate home exercise [e.g. back exercises] (0.0264)&lt;br&gt;
b) Heavy [e.g. push ups, pull ups, sit ups] (0.060)&lt;br&gt;
3. Circuit training (0.060)&lt;br&gt;
4. Health club exercise routine (0.0416)&lt;br&gt;
5. Stretching (0.018)&lt;br&gt;
6. Stretching [Hatha yoga] (0.018)&lt;br&gt;
7. Weightlifting [light workout] (0.0226)&lt;br&gt;
8. Weightlifting [power lifting, body building] (0.045)&lt;br&gt;
Formula to be used:&lt;br&gt;
Energy expended = weight (pounds) x Calories per minute x time (minutes).&lt;br&gt;
Examples:&lt;br&gt;
1) Energy expended by a person weighing 180 pounds during 30 minutes of circuit training = 180 x 0.060 x 30 minutes = 324 Calories.&lt;br&gt;
2) Energy expended by a person weighing 90 pounds during 30 minutes of circuit training = 90 x 0.060 x 30 = 162 Calories&lt;br&gt;
[Note: The heavier of two individuals spends more energy during the performance of the same activity over the same period of time.&lt;br&gt;
A piece of good news for many of us! Would you not agree?]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;small&gt; &lt;a href="http://incidentals.blog.co.uk/2008/02/13/obesity_simplex_the_energy_expenditure_o~3723716/#comments"&gt;Comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/small&gt; &lt;/p&gt;</description><category>health-clubs</category><category>callistenics</category><category>steps</category><category>aerobics</category><category>weightlifting</category><category>yoga</category><category>circuit-training</category><comments>http://incidentals.blog.co.uk/2008/02/13/obesity_simplex_the_energy_expenditure_o~3723716/#comments</comments></item><item><title>Pollution: the Unversal Enemy</title><link>http://incidentals.blog.co.uk/2008/01/22/pollution_the_unversal_enemy~3614331/</link><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:incidentals.blog.co.uk,2008-01-22:/2008/01/22/pollution_the_unversal_enemy~3614331/</guid><pubDate>Tue, 22 Jan 2008 11:42:44 +0100</pubDate><description>	&lt;p&gt;&lt;u&gt;Pollution: the Universal Enemy.&lt;/u&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;This is an attempt (slightly modified from the version posted on the 3rd July of 2007) to put within the words of one song how the biologist in me views pollution.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;It is so very clear for all who care to see&lt;br&gt;
Side products of our routine activity&lt;br&gt;
Are eroding Earth’s life-supporting ability&lt;br&gt;
Jeopardising the future of Humanity&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Pollution is the Universal Enemy&lt;br&gt;
Global warming and climate change happen to be&lt;br&gt;
The major effects of it that we can clearly see&lt;br&gt;
There are others if we care to look more closely&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;If we turn a blind eye we’ll all be found guilty&lt;br&gt;
Of changing the Green Planet irreversibly&lt;br&gt;
Thereby depriving unborn children of the future&lt;br&gt;
Of Earth’s uniquely hospitable nature&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Pollution truly is of our own making&lt;br&gt;
Given time it will lead to Mankind’s undoing&lt;br&gt;
So we’ll all have to make a genuine commitment&lt;br&gt;
To preserve our unique environment&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;small&gt; &lt;a href="http://incidentals.blog.co.uk/2008/01/22/pollution_the_unversal_enemy~3614331/#comments"&gt;Comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/small&gt; &lt;/p&gt;</description><category>global-warming</category><category>pollution</category><category>future-of-humanity</category><comments>http://incidentals.blog.co.uk/2008/01/22/pollution_the_unversal_enemy~3614331/#comments</comments></item><item><title>Obesity simplex: Weight Status before, during and after Pregnancy</title><link>http://incidentals.blog.co.uk/2007/12/23/obesity_simplex_weight_status_before_dur~3482849/</link><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:incidentals.blog.co.uk,2007-12-23:/2007/12/23/obesity_simplex_weight_status_before_dur~3482849/</guid><pubDate>Sun, 23 Dec 2007 16:51:52 +0100</pubDate><description>	&lt;p&gt;&lt;u&gt;Pregnancy (1)&lt;/u&gt;&lt;br&gt;
Here we examine some data obtained mainly from ‘Nutrition during Pregnancy and Lactation’ produced by the Committee on Nutritional Status during Pregnancy (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1990).&lt;br&gt;
&lt;u&gt;A. Recommended range of weight gains&lt;/u&gt;&lt;br&gt;
&lt;u&gt;1) For women of normal weight (BMI 19.8 to 26) at beginning of pregnancy&lt;/u&gt;.&lt;br&gt;
The gain in weight ranges from 25 pounds (11.36 kg) to 35 pounds (15.9 kg) obtained thus:&lt;br&gt;
a) 5 pounds (2.27 kg) during the first three months&lt;br&gt;
b) 1 pound (0.45 kg) per week subsequently&lt;br&gt;
Variations over the range are as follows:&lt;br&gt;
c) Adolescents should be at the upper end of the range because they are still growing&lt;br&gt;
d) Women of height of 5 foot 2 inches (1.57 metres) or less should be at the lower end of the range.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;u&gt;2) For underweight women (BMI less than 19.8) [see &lt;a href="http://incidentals.blog.co.uk]"&gt;http://incidentals.blog.co.uk]&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/u&gt;&lt;br&gt;
The weight gains should range from 28 pounds (12.7 kg) to 40 pounds (18.2 kg)&lt;br&gt;
&lt;u&gt;3) For overweight women (BMI 26 to 29)&lt;/u&gt;&lt;br&gt;
The weight gains should range from 15 pounds (6.8 kg) to 25 pounds (11.4 kg)&lt;br&gt;
&lt;u&gt;&lt;u&gt;4) For obese women (BMI greater than 29)&lt;/u&gt;&lt;/u&gt;&lt;br&gt;
The weight gains should be at least 13 pounds (6 kg).&lt;br&gt;
&lt;u&gt;&lt;img src="/img/smilies/icon_cool.gif" alt="B)" class="middle" border="0"&gt; Weight of infant at birth&lt;/u&gt;&lt;br&gt;
For a total weight gain of 30 pounds (13.63 kg) this is about 7.5 pounds (3.4 kg).&lt;br&gt;
&lt;u&gt;C) Weight gain linked to increased fat stores&lt;/u&gt;&lt;br&gt;
For a total weight gain of 30 pounds (13.63 kg) there is an increase in fat reserves of about 7 pounds (3.18 kg) or 24500 Calories i.e. (7 x 3500).&lt;br&gt;
This is ear-marked mainly for labour and lactation.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;u&gt;&lt;u&gt;D) Remaining components of weight gain&lt;/u&gt;&lt;/u&gt;&lt;br&gt;
For a total weight gain of 30 pounds (13.63 kg), these may be listed as follows:&lt;br&gt;
a) Placenta = 1.5 pounds (0.68 kg)&lt;br&gt;
b) Increase in mother’s blood volume = 4 pounds (1.82 kg)&lt;br&gt;
c) Increase in mother’s fluid volume = 4 pounds (1.82 kg)&lt;br&gt;
d) Fluid to surround foetus = 2 pounds (1.82 kg)&lt;br&gt;
e) Increase in size of uterus and supporting muscles = 2 pounds (1.82 kg)&lt;br&gt;
f) Increase in size of breasts = 2 pounds (1.82 kg)&lt;br&gt;
&lt;u&gt;E) Weight loss after pregnancy&lt;/u&gt;&lt;br&gt;
D (a) and (d) are lost at delivery.&lt;br&gt;
In the weeks that follow more weight is lost as blood volume returns to normal and accumulated fluid is shed.&lt;br&gt;
However retention of a couple of pounds (or so) after each pregnancy is usual among women even though their weight gains fall within the normal range.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;u&gt;Note that the weight retained by women who experience greater than ‘normal’ weight gains through pregnancy is invariably greater.&lt;/u&gt;&lt;br&gt;
&lt;u&gt;F) For women carrying twins&lt;/u&gt;&lt;br&gt;
The gain in weight should range from 35 (15.9 kg) to 45 pounds (20.45 kg)&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;u&gt;[Note&lt;/u&gt;:&lt;br&gt;
a) If the weight gains in the earlier stages of pregnancy exceed the recommended quantities the energy intake should not be reduced in the later stages (in an attempt to achieve weight loss).&lt;br&gt;
b) Sudden large weight gains require urgent medical investigation and intervention.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;small&gt; &lt;a href="http://incidentals.blog.co.uk/2007/12/23/obesity_simplex_weight_status_before_dur~3482849/#comments"&gt;Comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/small&gt; &lt;/p&gt;</description><category>pregnancy</category><category>weight-status</category><category>obesity</category><comments>http://incidentals.blog.co.uk/2007/12/23/obesity_simplex_weight_status_before_dur~3482849/#comments</comments></item><item><title>Obesity simplex: Practical aspects of the RELIED 500 Cal. Plan</title><link>http://incidentals.blog.co.uk/2007/12/11/obesity_simplex_practical_aspects_of_the~3429802/</link><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:incidentals.blog.co.uk,2007-12-11:/2007/12/11/obesity_simplex_practical_aspects_of_the~3429802/</guid><pubDate>Tue, 11 Dec 2007 21:28:14 +0100</pubDate><description>	&lt;p&gt;&lt;u&gt;A concise user’s manual.&lt;/u&gt;&lt;br&gt;
By now your starting personal data bank should have been established  by following the examples used to illustrate the basic principles and requirements of the RELIED 500 Cal. Plan (visit &lt;a href="http://incidendals."&gt;http://incidendals.&lt;/a&gt; blog.co.uk &lt;u&gt;to see them all in one go&lt;/u&gt;).&lt;br&gt;
Remember most of them will need continuous revising as the plan begins to have an effect. For example as the weight goes down so will the BMR (basal metabolic rate) and the energy expended during the performance of physical activities. Consequently the time to be spent on the latter to achieve the original expenditure will have to be increased. So to maintain the daily energy deficit of 500 Calories one has to make fine adjustments.&lt;br&gt;
However the good news is that as you progress sensibly (at the rate of  loss of 1 pound per week)  towards the upper margin of your health promoting weight range (HPWR) you may be able to reduce occasionally the level of the energy deficit by giving yourself an occasional treat. The last point serves to illustrate the dynamic aspect (flexibility that is) of the RELIED 500 Cal. Plan. Remember however the importance of the input (preferably daily) of raised expenditure (RE) of energy throughout.&lt;br&gt;
So if you are considering putting the RELIED 500 Cal. Plan into operation you need to bear the following in mind:&lt;br&gt;
1)	If your current intake of energy (because you are already on some other ‘diet’ or regime that requires Calorie counting) is less than your BMR (use the Harris-Benedict formula for this as in “Basal metabolic rate (BMR) and daily energy expenditure”) this plan is absolutely not for you. However raising it to at least your BMR plus 15% (whilst avoiding ‘fat’ Calories) would be the first step.&lt;br&gt;
2)	If your weight has remained static after an initial loss (resulting presumably from Caloric reduction alone) the same applies to you as in (1) above.&lt;br&gt;
3)	For the ‘reformed’ (1) and (2) individuals (i.e. with an intake of BMR plus 15%) introduce in your daily routine a net extra expenditure of 200 Calories through a physical activity such as walking for example (see “Walking as a means of producing a net expenditure of 200 Calories”).&lt;br&gt;
      Monitor your weekly weight loss and ensure it does not exceed (by too&lt;br&gt;
      great a margin) the preferred 1 pound. If it does you could have some extra&lt;br&gt;
      fruit (or something similar). Reducing the level of your physical activity is a&lt;br&gt;
      poor second choice.&lt;br&gt;
      If you experience weight gain initially (a distant possibility) stick to the plan&lt;br&gt;
      and wait for your BMR to get back to something like its level before it was&lt;br&gt;
      lowered in response to too drastic a reduction in energy intake. Incorporating&lt;br&gt;
      some exercise for the upper body musculature can help in this. More&lt;br&gt;
      deliberate arm swinging whilst walking can be of assistance here.&lt;br&gt;
4)    For any one else, the plan involves:&lt;br&gt;
(a)     a reduction of 300 Calories from the diet (mainly in the form of fat) and&lt;br&gt;
(b)	a net expenditure of 200 Calories (in the form of extra physical activity, walking&lt;br&gt;
        for example)&lt;br&gt;
5)	Remember to conduct throughout a visual health check (see “Diet centred&lt;br&gt;
            visual health check).&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Note: Keep referring back to all that’s been written in this Obesity simplex series. There will be more to come on the subject and on other health and life related matters&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;small&gt; &lt;a href="http://incidentals.blog.co.uk/2007/12/11/obesity_simplex_practical_aspects_of_the~3429802/#comments"&gt;Comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/small&gt; &lt;/p&gt;</description><comments>http://incidentals.blog.co.uk/2007/12/11/obesity_simplex_practical_aspects_of_the~3429802/#comments</comments></item><item><title>Obesity simplex: "Walking as exercise and otherwise"</title><link>http://incidentals.blog.co.uk/2007/12/07/obesity_simplex_walking_as_exercise_and_~3410879/</link><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:incidentals.blog.co.uk,2007-12-07:/2007/12/07/obesity_simplex_walking_as_exercise_and_~3410879/</guid><pubDate>Fri, 07 Dec 2007 21:11:50 +0100</pubDate><description>	&lt;p&gt;&lt;u&gt;Energy expenditure linked to walking at different speeds and in different conditions.&lt;/u&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;The figures below relate to the energy expended when walking in different circumstances (personal and/or environmental) in one minute in terms of Calories per pound (Cal/pound).&lt;br&gt;
The equivalent in Calories per kilogram (Cal/kg) can be obtained by multiplying by 2.20.&lt;br&gt;
In conjunction with your walking speed [established as demonstrated in “Aspects of walking as a form of exercise (1)”] (see &lt;a href="http://incidentals.blog.co.uk)"&gt;http://incidentals.blog.co.uk)&lt;/a&gt; and your weight (in pounds or kilograms), the appropriate quantity below should enable you to estimate the amount of energy you expend during a particular walk or walk-related activity.&lt;br&gt;
The formula to be used is:&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Energy expenditure (Calories) = weight (pounds) x Cal/pound x time (minutes) or&lt;br&gt;
                              = weight (kilos) x Cal/kilo x time (minutes)&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Example: Energy expenditure for a 45 minute walk on a firm and level surface at 4 mph for a person who weighs 180 pounds.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Energy expenditure = 180 x 0.0377 [see 1(e) below] x 45&lt;br&gt;
                                = 305.37 Calories = 305 Calories (rounded off)   &lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;u&gt;Calories per pound (Cal/pound) per minute of a range of walking activities&lt;/u&gt;&lt;br&gt;
1. Walking on a firm and level surface&lt;br&gt;
a) 2 mph (30 minute mile) = 0.0151&lt;br&gt;
b) 2.5 mph (24 minute mile) = 0.0226&lt;br&gt;
c) 3 mph (20 minute mile) = 0.0248&lt;br&gt;
d) 3.5 mph (17.14 minute mile) = 0.0286&lt;br&gt;
e) 4 mph (15 minute mile) = 0.0377&lt;br&gt;
f) 4.5 mph (13.33 minute mile) = 0.0475&lt;br&gt;
g) 5 mph (12 minute mile) = 0.0604&lt;br&gt;
2. Walking to work or to class =0.0302&lt;br&gt;
3. Walking for pleasure, at lunch break, etc. = 0.0264&lt;br&gt;
4. Walking from car, bus, train to work, school, etc or back = 0.0188&lt;br&gt;
5. Walking with children = 0.0188&lt;br&gt;
6. Pushing/pulling pram or child carriage with child = 0.0188&lt;br&gt;
7. Pushing wheelchair = 0.0302&lt;br&gt;
8. Walking the dog = 0.0226&lt;br&gt;
9. Walking on grass track = 0.0377&lt;br&gt;
10. Walking uphill (3.5 mph) = 0.0453&lt;br&gt;
11. Walking downhill (2.5 mph) = 0.0211&lt;br&gt;
12. Walking upstairs = 0.0604&lt;br&gt;
13. Walking downstairs = 0. 0226&lt;br&gt;
14. Carrying infant (level) = 0.0264&lt;br&gt;
15. Hiking (cross country) = 0.0453&lt;br&gt;
16. Marching (rapid, military) = 0.0490&lt;br&gt;
17. Carrying 15 pound load (e.g. suitcase) = 0.0264&lt;br&gt;
18. Using crutches = 0.0377&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;small&gt; &lt;a href="http://incidentals.blog.co.uk/2007/12/07/obesity_simplex_walking_as_exercise_and_~3410879/#comments"&gt;Comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/small&gt; &lt;/p&gt;</description><category>walking-activities-energy-expenditure</category><comments>http://incidentals.blog.co.uk/2007/12/07/obesity_simplex_walking_as_exercise_and_~3410879/#comments</comments></item><item><title>Obesity simplex: Aspects of walking as a form of exercise (1)</title><link>http://incidentals.blog.co.uk/2007/12/05/obesity_simplex_aspects_of_walking_as_a_~3398527/</link><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:incidentals.blog.co.uk,2007-12-05:/2007/12/05/obesity_simplex_aspects_of_walking_as_a_~3398527/</guid><pubDate>Wed, 05 Dec 2007 12:44:31 +0100</pubDate><description>	&lt;p&gt;&lt;u&gt;1. Estimating walking speed&lt;/u&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Under normal circumstances walking is the cheapest, simplest and safest form of exercise.  &lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Essentially the work (requiring energy) the body performs during walking is shifting (moving) its own weight (usually but not necessarily always) in a forward direction. This is achieved by transferring the weight from one leg to the other (i.e. one step at a time).&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;The speed at which one walks is one factor that determines the work done and therefore the energy expenditure. In ‘Obesity simplex: Walking as a means of producing a net expenditure of 200Calories’ in &lt;a href="http://incidentals.blog.co.uk"&gt;http://incidentals.blog.co.uk&lt;/a&gt; we have established that how much one weighs is another. &lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Thus we shall now consider how to estimate the walking speed from the stride length and the number of steps taken in 30 seconds.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Example: Estimating Miss C. Green’s walking speed   &lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Stride length = 2 foot 6 inches (2.5 feet)&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Number of steps per 30 seconds = 60 &lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Number of steps per minute = 120&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Number of steps per hour = 60 x 120 = 7200&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;1 stride = 2.5 feet&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;7200 strides = 7200 x 2.5 = 18000 feet&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;5280 feet = 1 mile&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;18000 feet = 18000 divided by 5280 = 3.4 miles (rounded off to 3.5 miles)&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Thus Miss Green’s walking speed is about 3.5 miles per hour &lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Note:&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;How much energy a particular body expends during the performance of a physical activity depends on its weight and on such factors as level of fitness, proportion of muscle to fat, efficiency at performing that particular activity, air temperature and moisture content, etc. This explains at least in part the discrepancies one comes across when looking at figures quoted for similar activities by different authorities. In addition and perhaps more importantly no two bodies are exactly alike.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;small&gt; &lt;a href="http://incidentals.blog.co.uk/2007/12/05/obesity_simplex_aspects_of_walking_as_a_~3398527/#comments"&gt;Comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/small&gt; &lt;/p&gt;</description><comments>http://incidentals.blog.co.uk/2007/12/05/obesity_simplex_aspects_of_walking_as_a_~3398527/#comments</comments></item><item><title>Obesity simplex: Walking as a means of producing a net expenditure of 200 Calories</title><link>http://incidentals.blog.co.uk/2007/12/04/obesity_simplex_walking_as_a_means_of_pr~3395716/</link><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:incidentals.blog.co.uk,2007-12-04:/2007/12/04/obesity_simplex_walking_as_a_means_of_pr~3395716/</guid><pubDate>Tue, 04 Dec 2007 20:56:28 +0100</pubDate><description>	&lt;p&gt;&lt;u&gt;The production of a net expenditure of 200 Calories&lt;/u&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;The RELIED 500 Cal. Plan (see earlier parts of the Obesity simplex ‘series’) requires some means of estimating the daily raised energy expenditure (RE). In this spirit we shall consider walking (on a firm and level surface) at 3.5 miles per hour (17.14 minutes /mile) as the basis for achieving the RE of 200 Calories. You may of course choose any other activity.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Note that this RE can only be achieved when the expenditure (from walking) exceeds by 200 Calories the expenditure linked to the activity that walking has replaced (e.g. watching TV, generally relaxing, etc.).     &lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Example:&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Estimating the time required to produce a RE of 200 Calories (that is a net increase of 200 Calories) by substituting one activity (say watching TV) by another (say walking at 3.5 miles per hour) for Miss C. Green (weight = 79 kilograms)&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Energy used per kilogram per minute during walking at 3.5 mph = 0.06292 Calories&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Energy used per kilogram per minute during TV watching = 0.0165 Calories       &lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Increase in energy used per minute per kilogram = 0.06292 – 0.0165&lt;br&gt;
                                                = 0.04642 Calories&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Using the formula:&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Net expenditure = weight x increase in energy used per minute per kilogram x time  &lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;200 Calories = 79 x 0.04642 x time (in minutes)&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Time (in minutes) = 200 divided by (79 x 0.04642)&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;                              = 200 divided by 3.667&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;                              = 54.54 minutes (rounded off to 55 minutes)&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Thus Miss Green needs to walk (at 3.5 miles per hour) for 55 minutes to achieve a net expenditure of 200 Calories (that is a RE of 200 Calories)&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;[Note: To see all I have written about Obesity simplex this far and all the other parts to follow you could visit directly (http://incidentals.blog.co.uk )]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;small&gt; &lt;a href="http://incidentals.blog.co.uk/2007/12/04/obesity_simplex_walking_as_a_means_of_pr~3395716/#comments"&gt;Comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/small&gt; &lt;/p&gt;</description><category>raising-energy-expenditure</category><category>obesity</category><category>walking-for-exercise</category><comments>http://incidentals.blog.co.uk/2007/12/04/obesity_simplex_walking_as_a_means_of_pr~3395716/#comments</comments></item></channel></rss>
