 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers WeightAdviser.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Weight Loss Forum / Low Carb / August 2007Letter on Corpulance
The first known book (?) advocating a low-carb diet, published in 1864. Its a 30 minute read. Well worth your time. _Letter on Corpulence_ by William Banting Scanned & published courtesy of Eades (Protein Power) http://www.proteinpower.com/banting/index.php > The first known book (?) advocating a low-carb diet, published in 1864. Its > a 30 minute read. Well worth your time. It certainly is. Pay particular attention to the passage where Banting admits that he is still heavy according to a statistically-derived height-weight table used by an insurance company, based on a sample of more than 2600 men. :: On Aug 28, 12:11 pm, "em" <i...@dun.no> wrote: ::: The first known book (?) advocating a low-carb diet, published in [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] :: statistically-derived height-weight table used by an insurance :: company, based on a sample of more than 2600 men. page 10. "I am now nearly 66 years of age, about 5 feet 5 inches in stature, and, in August last (1862), weighed 202 lbs, which I think it right to name, because the article in the Cornhill Magazine presume that a certain stature and age should bear ordinarily a certain weight, and I am quite of that opinion. I now weigh 167 lbs, showing a diminution of something like 1 lb. per week since August, and having now very nearly attained a happy medium, I have perfect confidence that a few more weeks will fully accomplish the object for which I have laboured for the last thirty years, in vain, until it pleased Almighty Providence to direct me into the right and proper channel-- the "tram-way," so to speak--of happy, comfortable existence." Dumbass. > Dumbass. Your point seems to be that I must be ``dumb'' not to recognize that Banting made progress from gross overweight to mere overweight, which improved his quality of life and undoubtedly prolonged his life. However, fact is, his progress stalled before he was anywhere near finished. That does deserve to be noted by those who want to go all the way, and not merely reproduce someone else's mediocre results by emulating his methods. :: On Aug 28, 1:39 pm, "Roger Zoul" <rogerzo...@hotmail.com> wrote: ::: Dumbass. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] :: However, fact is, his progress stalled before he was anywhere near :: finished. How do you know his progress stalled? :: That does deserve to be noted by those who want to go all the way, :: and not merely reproduce someone else's mediocre results by :: emulating his methods. And what makes you think that others cannot use a similar diet to go all the way, even if he didn't do it? Do all people have the same goals regarding weight? Should they regardless of age? What makes you think you or anyone else knows what will allow any given individual to "go all the way"? Why don't you come down of your high horse for a minute and tell us what outstanding progress you've made in your weight loss journey? You're dumb simply because you are. > > Dumbass. > > Your point seems to be that I must be ``dumb'' not to recognize that > Banting made progress from gross overweight to mere overweight, which > improved his quality of life and undoubtedly prolonged his life. I wouldn't call you dumb, just opinionated around assumptions that probably aren't true. But, if you want to take a late 1800's insurance company's actuarial table for height/weight, male, age 55, over an individual's experience, fine. > However, fact is, his progress stalled before he was anywhere near > finished. No. This is not correct. The FACT, as presented, is that he was actively losing at the time of writing his pamphlet, was not yet at goal, but was sure he would be there shortly, having averaged about a pound a week of loss. At no point does he mention that his progress has slowed, much less stopped. He notes that he toiled to lose for years before the Lord brought him to his Low Carb method of eating. Where's Chung when you need to needle him. Your interpretation of his writing as a stall displays one of two things: 1- Poor reading comprehension. 2- Preformed opinion. So, is it that you can't read or don't care to? > That does deserve to be noted by those who want to go all the way, and > not merely reproduce someone else's mediocre results by emulating his > methods. Uhm, since everything else you've said is based on a flawed reading, we should just ignore this piece, right? :: On Aug 28, 5:40 pm, Kaz Kylheku <kkylh...@gmail.com> wrote: ::: On Aug 28, 1:39 pm, "Roger Zoul" <rogerzo...@hotmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] :: :: I wouldn't call you dumb, For the record, referring to someone as "dumbass" isn't really calling them dumb in the general sense o that word, but is more an insult directed at someone who is displaying the attributes (by posting something "dumb" of someone who is dumb, at least IMO. :) just opinionated around assumptions that :: probably :: aren't true. But, if you want to take a late 1800's insurance [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] :: we should :: just ignore this piece, right? Kaz is a troll on this newsgroup. > > Dumbass. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > However, fact is, his progress stalled before he was anywhere near > finished. Er, ah, one more thing: At the 4th edition of Banting's Letters (he self published the first few, and went through several editions as he was wildly successful in the endeavor), he writes, "I have not felt better in health than now for the last twenty-six years. Have suffered no inconvenience whatever in the probational remedy or since. Am reduced nearly 13 inches in bulk, and 50 lbs. in weight. Can perform every necessary office for myself. The umbilical rupture is cured. My sight and hearing are suprising at my age. My other bodily ailments have become mere matters of history." This is six years beyond starting the diet. At that weight, he would be 152. By the old MetLife insurance ideal weight table, at 5'5", his ideal weight would be between 134-160, depending on his frame size. 152 would be on the high side of the median, but definitely within the ideal weight, according to insurers. Perhaps the old Met Life table post-dates Banting by several dozen years, but I think it's a reasonable approximation for back of the envelope. He does not say how long it took him to lose his 50 lbs, but, at this writing, he is six years into his program. For the full text of the 4th edition, http://www.lowcarb.ca/corpulence/ For the passage above, page 12. And before you suggest that he should have had ripped abs, the guy was 66 when he started and 72 at this writing. I dunno that that would be an appropriate goal for a life long obese man. >And before you suggest that he should have had ripped abs, the guy was >66 when he >started and 72 at this writing. I dunno that that would be an >appropriate goal for a life >long obese man. Why are you feeding the troll?  SignatureBlueBrooke 254/225/135 > >And before you suggest that he should have had ripped abs, the guy was > >66 when he [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Why are you feeding the troll? Fatten him for slaughter? >> >And before you suggest that he should have had ripped abs, the guy was >> >66 when he [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Fatten him for slaughter? Whole grains, then? SignatureBlueBrooke 254/225/135 > >And before you suggest that he should have had ripped abs, the guy was > >66 when he > >started and 72 at this writing. I dunno that that would be an > >appropriate goal for a life long obese man. > > Why are you feeding the troll? Banting's "Letter on Corpulance" is a major classic in the low carb field. Discussing bits of it is a good idea irrespective of who it's in response to. > By the old MetLife insurance ideal weight table, at 5'5", his ideal > weight would be > between 134-160, depending on his frame size. 152 would be on the high > side of the > median, but definitely within the ideal weight, according to insurers. Assuming avoirdupois pounds (what pounds would Banting have used?), 152 at 5'5" is a BMI of 25.8. Ouchie! For many people, reaching this figure from below would be a signal to make some lifestyle adjustments. The _Letter_ is so well-written, and so overflowing with enthusiasm, that it's easy to get excited, and consequently skim over the numbers. > > By the old MetLife insurance ideal weight table, at 5'5", his ideal > > weight would be [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > The _Letter_ is so well-written, and so overflowing with enthusiasm, > that it's easy to get excited, and consequently skim over the numbers. Uhm, but he was coming down from 202 pounds, a 33.6 BMI (assuming modern pounds, worse if you go ADPs). Repeat after me, he went from morbidly obese to simply overweight. After a lifetime of struggling, to no avail, with his weight. I want to reiterate that the man was 66 when he started, and 72 at the point where he was 152. I'm not going to suggest that he was the healthiest creature in the land. But you cannot suggest that he was any worse off for dumping nearly 25% of his bodyweight. With what we know about LC now, we can also suggest that most of what he dumped would have been fat, as opposed to lean body mass. Lastly, I know you, of all people, will not be using BMI as anything but the loosest of guidelines, Kaz. You must be joking. Based on my calculations (and those of both my Tanita and the impedence device at the gym), my target BMI is ~25. And that's for 10% bodyfat. You cannot judge his success or failure because you are willfully ignorant of his goals. His goal, according to the third edition, was to get to where his insurance company suggested he should be. By all estimations, by the fourth edition, he was there. Here's what's left to you: You can sulk and suggest that Banting wasn't setting his goal low enough, and maybe he should have taken up some HIIT or circuit lifting to get to a BMI you think he should have been at, knowing nothing of him but his writing on his dietary approach. Or you can continue to look silly by suggesting he never made his goal based on a version written in the midst of his transformation and ignoring further evidence. Lastly, you can maybe come to terms with the fact that you are just plain incorrect in your conclusions on this matter. I'm sure you can pick up the pieces and start again. Been fun. Ta. See, I told you Kaz was a dumbass. Now you've proved it! :) :: On Aug 29, 6:35 pm, Kaz Kylheku <kkylh...@gmail.com> wrote: ::: Assuming avoirdupois pounds (what pounds would Banting have used?), [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] :: :: Been fun. Ta. See, I told you Kaz was a dumbass. Now you've proved it! :) > After a lifetime of struggling, to no avail, with his weight. I > want to reiterate that the man was 66 when he started, and 72 at the > point where he was 152. That's simply amazing. And he did that while continuing to take in a lot of calories from alcohol, and managed it all on his own research and self-testing. Remarkable. SignatureAaron -- 285/254/200 -- aaron.baugher.biz |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.