Talk:Basal metabolic rate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Medicine (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that this article follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Biology (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon Basal metabolic rate is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia.
Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Contents

Cunningham Reference[edit]

A reanalysis of the factors influencing basal metabolic rate in normal adults. J J Cunningham The Americal Journal of Clinical Nutrition November 1980 vol. 33 no. 11 2372-2374 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.163.188 (talk) 00:38, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Spennewyn Reference[edit]

Research by Mr. Spennewyn is mentioned in the first paragraph of the article, and there is a reference at the end of the article:

 Spennewyn, K (1990). "An analysis of metabolic function". Journal of Body Fat Analysis (Minneapolis, MN: NIHS).

However, I can find no reference to the article or the journal. If this is not a published, peer reviewed article, perhaps the paragraph and the reference don't belong in this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgamberg (talkcontribs) 02:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Well spotted. A bit of research uncovers Keith Spennewyn as highly self promoting. The "journal" cited appears to be an internal publication of the authoritative sounding "National Institute of Health Sciences", which turns out to be an organisation founded by Spennewyn himself, of which he is "President" and it seems, the only member. The source edit occurred at 08:21, 7 April 2009, by an IP with no other edits. Both the reference and all the text mentioning Spennewyn were added at that time. Seems to be a clear case of WP:NOR at best and self promotion at worst. I've removed the offending text. LightYear (talk) 01:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Copypaste[edit]

The tone of the text sounded odd for a wikipedia article so I pasted it into google and found it on several other sites. It is possible they copied wikipedia rather than the other way around but the introduction does sound like it is lifted directly from someone's original research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.253.59 (talk) 06:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

At this time, this article looked like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Basal_metabolic_rate&oldid=139560104
There are lots of google hits matching it, but I don't see any reason to believe they didn't all copy this article. One interesting hit is http://www.articleslounge.com/medical/basal-resting-metabolic-rate-bmr-rmr-free-calculator/ which matches the current version of this article, but does not match the version on June 29th (addition of RMR to first sentence). —Darxus (talk) 21:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Removed Copypaste tag, since I believe I've shown evidence that some of these pages did copy this article, and we have no evidence this article copied anything else. —Darxus (talk) 21:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I[edit]

I am working on my first article for wikipedia and I have received some great feedback today from a wikipedian nmaed Joe. I read his biography thanks to the hyperlinks he left for me and he is quite impressive for his many contributions to the wikiworld of cyclopedic info! BR3

Issues for improvement[edit]

I need to learn more editing basics like how to import hyperlinks, add pictures, contact media links who want to be on the page. BR3

Edit help from User:Jahiegel[edit]

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jahiegel> or this <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jahiegel> For example how would I take this link and imbed it in the text? BR3

Also the page was ranked 5th on Google which is the highest since I have seen the page. Usually its 8th to 30th. The links ahead of the page on the Google search engine are good but they miss the major point of thinking in regard to why we need to know an accurate BMR or RMR. <http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/obesity/trend/maps/> With $100 Billion poured into the obesity prevention market, the statistics show futility with currently accepted strategies. Therefore a new approach that focuses onan accurate RQ measurement without a default is needed.

Overall thoughts[edit]

I found this article thanks to a recommendation from SuggestBot, which was picking up on the {{wikify}} tag. I just took a quick look through it and tried to wikify a little bit -- even got a table in there.

At this point, though, I think we should step back a little bit and focus on the overall article. I have a few thoughts:

  • The structure could use a little thought (and possibly reordering of the various sections). I notice that the actual Harris-Benedict equation is not included in the article -- I wonder if it would make sense to try to reorganize around the equation itself (so, start off with background, then give the equation, and then let the equation lead into sections on RQ, limitations of the equation, etc).
  • We definitely need references. I think the original author must be working from some, so perhaps s/he can supply them?
    • There are some statements that probably cannot be substantiated, and these should be removed.
  • Maybe we should make this a Medical Collaboration of the Week?

 — JVinocur (talk • contribs) 00:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes I had some difficulties with making an entry but the issues were resolved by an adminstrator or I just figured out how to go around the block!

Thank you for your ideas. I have the origninal thought processes on how the formulas were derived. I think that is a key idea for the article to be refocused on! By understanding how the formulas are being rederived with recent research that might answer some of the controversies. For example at what point does an anomalie such as eating two meals a day instead of three or eating six meals a day instead of one alter the formulas for BMR? Or when does BMR and RMR coiincide and when is one value different statistically for medical consideration? Thank you for your ideas and I hope you enjoy your travels!

The Harris Benedict formula is great and I would like to add some background on how these formulas are being upgraded by the WHO, and The National Science Academy!

Superman[edit]

As for that edit just recently about superman, certainly it doesn't belong in the middle of the post. But the editor is right that 3200 km in 15 minutes doesn't make much sense. Perhaps it should be m instead of km?  — JVinocur (talk • contribs) 10:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


I was trying to show that the Balke formula and the Harris Benedict formula both fall short on many of the Internet sites concerning BMR and RMR because they are just slightly inaccurate and they are inaccurate enough to mask the slight changes in BMR and RMR with the usual prescription to "drop 500 Kcals a day" to lose one pound a week! But I do agree with the sentiment. I need to be more concise about how these formulas are being misused by the industry and causing confusion. Not add to the confusion!~~BRileyPTA~~

There are interesting people who are providing editing help and I am very grateful for this collaboration! Thank you to those who are in "the know" concerning the meta tag for Basal Metabolic Rate. The article is now listed as number three (July 6, 2006 12:08 AM) on the Google search engine. I seem to be harnessed to some sort of "global block" on the AOL IP address that I am randomly assigned by the provider so I am not able currently to thank individuals for making contributions but please be assured of my gratitude!

The idea of making a "medical pagal ahao tu ra have library privileges at NIH and visit there regularly when I am not working.

The topic BMR or RMR is very well covered in the Index Medicus and there are literally thousands of articles that are absolutely current and of world wide interest to support each of the assertions as they are currently presented on the Wikipedia website this morning. One article that I think might offer a unifying concept for the BMR article was printed in the "College of Mathematics Journal" concerning "A Linear Diet Model" by Arthur C. Seagal, January 1987.

The idea goes this way:

A person's weight depends on both the amount of calories consumed and the energy used by the body to internally process substrate units as either BMR or RMR based on stringency of measurement. Moreover, the amount of energy used depends on a person's weight---the amount of energy used by a person is 17.5 calories per pound per day (according to the author but gas analysis could provide an individualized value to incorporate into the formula to standardize the BMR value as well as the activity level value.) Thus, the more weight a person loses, the less energy the person uses (assuming the person maintains a constant level of activity, which could be measured by a pedometer or journal). An equation that can be used to model weight loss is

(dw/dt) = C/3500 - 17.5/w (3500)

where w is the peron's weight (in pounds), t is the time in days, and C is the constant daily caloric consumption, 3500 is the caloric value of one pound of body weight.

From this formula you can ascertain a general solution of the differential equation given for weight loss.

You can determine a rough estimate of how quickly a person can lose weight.

A graphing utility could be used to find the "limiting weight" of a person.

But this formula is based on a premise, namely that BMR is constant and fixed regardless of weight loss and caloric restriction. BMR is what governs the notion that each pound of body weight is 3,500 Kcals.

Therefore the calculation needs to reflect the anomalies that can impact BMR such as age, disease processes, individual contributions of organs affected by weight loss efforts, and cyclicity, environmental changes, lifestyle changes, menopause, vericocity, blood pressure changes, heart rate at rest and in exertion, ultradian, infradian, circadian rhythms as all these factors affect weight loss or gain. Would it be possible to then utilize gas analysis for the baseline BMR measurement, and then use bioelectric measurement, tape measure, caliper, and then derive a four compartment model which demonstrates the body's ability to adapt to weight loss strategies so that we could understand how the titration occurs which shifts BMR either upwards or downwards during periods of caloric change and activity level change? I think this would be important to understanding and defining BMR because BMR is key to understanding why 95% of the weight loss programs fail according to the January 2005 issue of the Annals of Internal Medicine's critique of the major commercial programs for weight management. I believe this explains why there is so much scientific curiosity currently focused on BMR and RMR measurement and formula derivation.

The challenge is to make this premise succinct and understandable: namely that BMR shifts subtly throughout the day, it is affected by the hypothalamus and that a new learning process must occur that facilitates a proper understanding of how the hypothalamus works specifically within each person sometimes in accordance with formulas, but often in response to other factors.

~~BRileyPTA 12:53 AM EDST Alexandria VA July 6, 2006BRileyPTA

Cleanup tag[edit]

Per the cleanup tag, the misplaced periods v/v citations were (hopefully) all fixed.--Anchoress 03:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

External link[edit]

I've removed a link from the article because it was originally added by the site's owner [1]. Wikipedia is not a link directory, so the three other links to BMR calculators in the article are plenty.

Indeed, based on [2][3] [4][5][6][7] [8][9][10][11][12] [13] etc., it's clear that one or more individuals in the vicinity of San Diego, CA--including the owner of the site--think Wikipedia should link to the site. I wonder how others see it. Wmahan. 03:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I like the link and it meets all the criteria. I think it should stay-thanks! Gerty :)
Gerty, I noticed that this was your first edit to Wikipedia. I would like to thank you for creating an account, and I hope you decide to stay and contribute. I appreciate you adding your opinion. Please understand that because the site's owner has admitted being behind at least two of the accounts adding links to his site[14], I am interested in a consensus that also includes experienced, clearly neutral editors. Wmahan. 17:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
This above statment by Wmahan is incorrect. I've not admitted to any such thing. Of course, simply his saying that will alter other's opinions. His tactics are sneaky and he likes to beg the question.Joe 17:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
To clarify, he admitted making edits with 66.27.121.200 ("I did that, I just didn't log in"), which previously added several links to his site. Wmahan. 18:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for making that clear to your eager readers! Joe 18:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
www code-interactive com /evolution-diet/healthprofile.html is a valuable link, despite whoever added it. If Wmahan wants to talk about the merits of the link, that's another story, but he just wants to talk about who added it. For those who are interested in the merit of the link, please have a look here User:Jsmorse47#Testimonials_for_BMR_link. To our health! Joe 15:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
In point of fact, you added the link. Respectfully, the fact that you own the site--which also promotes your book--is relevant according to Wikipedia consensus. As far as the merits of the link, I have already explained why I think the three other links to BMR calculators are sufficient. Wmahan. 17:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Should you disclose that you are promoting your website on your user page and should that fact disallow you from contributing to this site?Joe 17:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
The site is on my user page as opposed to an article, which is explicitly allowed. Further, it is clearly described as my own website. Wmahan. 18:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
You can't indict me without indicting yourself in this matter regardless of what's explicitly allowed. Joe 18:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Joe, userpages are very different from mainspace pages. He or She can indict you without indicting themself. Sorry, eh, but that's the way she blows. WilyD 18:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the input-- of course the two pages are different. My point is that Wmahan is drawing people to his site through his activity on this site and his userpage link. If he thinks it's wrong for me to do that, it's equally wrong for him to do that. The EL are more direct, but he's still being hypocritical. Cheers Joe 19:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
You can include almost any link you like on your userpage. It's very different from an article. Just like you can express all sorts of point of view sentiments on your userpage, but not on the mainspace. The mainspace is the encyclopaedia, so it's held to high standards. Your userspace is just for expedation of making the encyclopaedia, so it's held to much lower standards. There's a difference in the standard of behaviour expected, basically. WilyD 19:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
It appears that we are discussing two different ideas, so I will sidestep that and ask you directly: should the link in question remain on the BMR page keeping in mind all factors?
Well, as a general guideline, one should never link to their own website, just as one should never start an article about themselves, their company, et cetera. If it's worthwhile, someone else will do it. WilyD 20:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
That's understood, though I'm not a fan of blanket rules like that. The problem is, no matter who adds the link now, Wmahan will take it off, despite its evident value.Joe 20:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Have you tried taking it to RfC or a similar place? Everyone's gut reaction is to reject links to your own site, but if you make a good case and get a concensus, it should work out. WilyD 20:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


Thank[edit]

Thank you both for your discussion. Who orginally created the page? I am in the process of contributing how protein balances carbohydrates and fats and is measured with gas analysis. ~~BRileyPTA~~

BRiley/BRileyPTA, no one person is responsible for the page. As you probably know, Wikipedia articles are written by many different people, and this one is no exception; lots of editors have contributed. Your additions are welcome and appreciated, and I look forward to learning more as you continue to work on the article. Wmahan. 17:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm here to contest the notion that just becuase I posted the link and I own the linked site that the link is not valid or valuable. User:wmahan is on a quest to eradicate every link I've posted and while his claim that it is self-promotion is valid to some extent (I did create the online health profile), the links I provide are valuable as documented User:Jsmorse47#Testimonials_for_BMR_link. Other people have added the link on their own, but User:wmahan continues to revert their addition. Is the www code-interactive com evolution-diet/healthprofile.html|link valuable as a supplement to any article, if not BMR? Thanks for your objective thoughts-Joe 19:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Responses to RFC[edit]

The link in questison is not notable. It does not give any information how BMR is calculated. There is no indication as to the reliablility of the information provided. Therefore, it is not suitable for an encyclopedia. Moreover, it is promotional material for the book. (I am not commenting on the book because it does not belong to this article, anyway).   Andreas   (T) 20:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you please compare the link to the others on the BMR page that Wmahan and you seem to have no problem with? It appears there is a double standand here and that makes me question your motives. The www code-interactive com evolution-diet/healthprofile.html Get BMR link provides as much information on BMR as the other links, though it does not give the equations used (which would be redundant because the WP article has these). The other links are promotion for their services/ advertisements. Please account for these similarities and the difference in notability. Thanks Joe 17:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I would suggest to remove all these links. The calculation of a linear equations is so straight-forward that it does not need any website to direct the user how to obtain her BMR. Moreover, these liks
At least, the other sites explain the equation: no such explanation is given for the www code-interactive com /evolution-diet/healthprofile.html Get BMR link; instead, such irrelevant questions are asked as: "[Do you eat] deep-fried chimichanga burrito with guacamole?" These questions might be relevant for determining the healthiness of the life-style, but are highly irrelevant for this article.   Andreas   (T) 19:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Some comments[edit]

I'm not an expert, but here are a few comments from looking through the article:

  • The intro could be cleaned up to not get muddled in details--for example I think just saying "vital organs" without listing heart, lungs, etc. would be sufficient.
  • I take it that all animals have a BMR, but it isn't clear from the intro whether it only applies to humans.
  • There are several technical terms that aren't clearly defined, although the meaning can be guessed from the context or by finding the relevant articles. Examples are neutrally temperate environment, energy substrate, trophic changes, and anaerobic threshold. I realize that it's not possible to explain all the details in one article, but I think some parts could be more accessible.
  • The discussion of the nutritional content of a hamburger could be trimmed or removed. It doesn't seem directly relevant to the article, and besides, using fast food for the only example seems a little ironic in an article about health and nutrition.
  • I don't have the knowledge to back it up, but my impression is that the article overstates the case for using BMR. The article claims that BMR and RMR "are becoming essential tools for maintaining a healthy body weight". But supposing a person goes to the trouble of getting a BMR calculation and counting the calories in everything he or she eats, even that fails to take into account thermogenesis, physical activity, etc. So I'm not convinced of how useful BMR is for the typical person. -- Wmahan. 21:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Response[edit]

The reason I included the specific organs is that I am trying to build up a case that answers some of the controversies which explain(s) why so many attempt to lose weight and then are unsuccesful. In the article from JAMA about the survey of major Commercial Weight Loss programs, the underlying assumption is that people are overconsuming. However, when people reduce by 500 Kcals, the BMR shifts to reflect the restriction because each of these organs that are listed (not just fat free mass which seems to imply muscle) have an interest in maintaining the energy supply which is predominantly from adipose tissue.

For short periods of time, some success is achieved with this approach, but the JAMA article concludes that long term (six months to a year) success with that strategy is not evident in peer reviewed literature.

I'm not sure who keeps making the reference to animals but the early studies did group the BMR measures to livestock and then finally humans because it was probably easier to get the animals to agree to be studied! BMR was applicable to animals because it formed the basis of understanding how much feed was needed by farmers and agriculturalists to maintain the size and health of their investment. The Douglas Bag technique [[15]] was used on both animals and humans to measure gas exchange. It was a large bag that the animals could easily fill and it was easy for young humans to fill this bag as well. In the movie about the 4 minute mile they show Roger Bannister [[16]] using one before he breaks the barrier in 1954.

Now the technology is improving so that breath by breath analysis is available at a very low cost to humans.

I'll work on being more specific with the explanations of the technical terms.

According to surveys (and I can link this as well if its helpful) the hamburger [[17]] is the favorite menu item of Americans so it is the most common food to be studied and also to be available for a low cost for BMR purposes. Therefore, although it is not the most healthy food to be offered to the population, by default the public is eating this food more than any other, inspite of the very excellent advice from dieticians, to their displeasure no doubt! I have found that when I use my body as a calorimeter, I can gauge my BMR from consumption of one double quarter pounder along with the peripheral items that are sold to billions and billions. (The McDonalds next to where I work in Fairfax, Va, serves 6,000 customers every day, 7 days a week, 24 hours per day, and they have quite a large percentage of customers who are obese, but that is the population who needs to learn about BMR in my view!) I could balance the information by showing that the salads now offered at McDonalds-- without mentioning McDonalds of course-- offer approximately the same number of calories, at approximately the same price, with much better health consequences.

BMR and RMR are still foreign terms to most Internet users, and the general public. There are roughly 2.5 million sites that address the topic according to Google. Right now this Saturday evening, Septmeber 9, 2006, the Wikipedia entry comes up 3rd behind two other sites that I see often concerning this topic. In my view the sites that rank ahead of the wiki site are simplifications that actually make the problem of BMR assessment for weightloss more difficult and perseverate the problem. Take the links that were debated last week by you and the others who want to show a simplified view of how to estimate BMR with formulas. Sometimes the attempt to make it easy for people to get a number, although well meaning and of sincere concern, can be misinterpreted, and cause disappointment. BMR actually shifts because of the "multi-system" contributions made throughout the day by all the organs. Two interesing works that addresses this issue are written by four notable contributors who are familiar to Physical Therapists and Physical Therapist Assistants throughout the world: John E. Upledger, D.O., F.A.A.O., Jon D. Vredevoogd, M.F.A. Jean-Pierre Barral, and Pierre Mercier. They have written and researched extensively on the role that the viscera, and the craniosacral rhythms play on the BMR on a daily basis for helping people with myriad health complaints. Furthermore, Medline and its precursors have been studying how obesity can be understood with accurate and specific BMR assessment with gas analysis since the late 1800s. While the concept is still inscrutable to the lay public, it is established in the medical and pharmaceutical research community and I can add 100 articles tonight on the reference list to make the point! (But I need to clean my apartment!) (Craniosacral Therapy, Visceral Manipulation.)

The eighth ranked site "Basal Metabolic Measurement in Man" [[18]] I think has some interesting things to say on the issue of how BMR should be defined and what the consequences are when you over simplify. This article was published in 1981 by the United Nations and was authored by J.V.G.A. Durnin. At that time there weren't any easily transported systems capable of accurate V0 2 VCO 2 measurement for purposes of understanding BMR and Exercise Metabolic Measurement. As of the last 10 years, systems are now being made available in first and second tier markets across the country. 15 years ago only Hospitals had the capability. So the premise of the article has changed. Its now possible to account for individual variation in predicted values from tables with individualized gas analysis to determine efficacy of assessment and reassessment for caloric restriction (substrate utilization) and BMR shift rates.

Your feedback is very insightful and helpful!

Sincerely,

BRileyPTA 01:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)BRileyPTABRileyPTA 01:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for the detailed reply. As you say, the formulas for calculating BMR only give estimates based on simplifications. I think the introduction makes that clear, although perhaps the descriptions of the external links could be modified to note that the calculators do not give exact values.

In general, I don't think Wikipedia editors worry much about the search engine rankings of articles, since the goal is to provide useful, unbiased information rather than to make money or maximize the number of visitors. However, a high-quality article sometimes has a good ranking as a side-effect.

I appreciate the other information and I look forward to further improvements in the article. Wmahan. 03:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


Its been interesting to see how the rank moves up and down. At times it was in the low thirties over the last several months, and now lately ahead of the entry from Cornell University which is very informative and looks great from a web construction point of view. Its been fun contributing. Does the name "Wikipedia" have something to do with "web sites"? The way that I can see bringing value to all these various formulas, and there are a vast number being demonstrated on the Index Medicus, is to compare actual to predicted. And that is what I perceive happens with gas analysis and computer formulas. I think the Harris Benedict formula is a very close approximation to my BMR based on gas analysis done on me with the Bruce treadmill protocol and equipment from the Mayo Clinic. There are scales on the market that use bioelectrics to give an estimation of the four compartments: Body Water, Muscle Mass, Bone Mass, Fat Mass (including Visceral Fat.) I have found that by measuring what I eat on a food scale, measuring how far I walk with a pedometer, weighing myself to within two tenths of a pound, using a tape measure, I am getting some good data on how sensitive my body is to caloric restriction, the setting of a balanced weight parameter, the gait characteristics that tend to cause a fall off of fat tissue expenditure (and although the muscle cell atrophies and is significantly diminished through disuse in a few days, the fat cell somehow can survive up to and 7 minutes after death apparently) with my own scrupulous and low cost methods! So the BMR process has been a very interesting hobby in addition to what I do for a living!

I appreciate your feedback and I think the whole Wiki-system is extraordinary. BRileyPTA 03:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)BRBRileyPTA 03:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

BMR versus Basal Metabolic Rate[edit]

How does the metatag entry process occur so that Wikipedia is represented in multiple fashions on the web? BRileyPTA 07:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)BRileyPTABRileyPTA 07:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Assuming you're talking about the meta tag in the article (<meta name="keywords" ...>), it's very ad hoc. The MediaWiki software that runs Wikipedia simply takes the first 10 wikilinks in the article (sorted alphabetically) and uses them as keywords.
This may change in the future, but as I mentioned before, we tend not to spend a lot of time worrying about search engine rankings. Wmahan. 07:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the information! I'll add on a glossary section tonight. The apartment is cleaned up which I think will translate to a "cleaned up" wikidistillation of BMR. I understand "wiki" is the Hawaiian word for quick which also typifies your responses...much appreciated! It helps the thinking processes! BRileyPTA 22:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)BRileyPTABRileyPTA 22:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

BMR versus Macedonia[edit]

I am learning by looking at other sites of distinction on Wikipedia. The Macedonia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonia_%28terminology%29 site is particularly appealing with all the graphics, the research, the succinct presentation. Also several of the lifeguards who I interact with at my facility are from this region. BRileyPTA 22:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)BRileyPTABRileyPTA 22:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

BMR and Wikistandards[edit]

I have been reading the suggestions on the top of the page for cleanup. I went to the Library of Congress this past weekend and spoke to my friend Jennifer Harbster about what I can do to get the article up to snuff. I am going to see if I can take some time off at work and get over to the Library of Congress as well as the U.S. Library of Medicine and "gear up" to "gear down" the language. BMR is by its nature very technical and also somewhat inscrutable (the paradoxes etc). However, there should be some fun ways to make it seem less enigmatic. The way most of the websites seem to accomplish this is to start with a calculator. This is definitely fun although it doesn't really relate to the actual loss of body fat since body fat is protected by numerous back up systems for its value to prevent starvation. (You would think Weight Watchers is responsible for BMR oversight wouldn't you?)

The reason the majority of commercial weightloss programs are unsuccessful is that they ramp up the body's starvation response inadvertantly and unintentionally.

Even the " PWLP" makes this mistake according to the article in JAMA that I have posted in the reference section.

So an encyclopedia article needs to be simple but accurate, accessible but scholarly, helpful but not condescending. What if I organized the article in the following manner:

1) Examine what is available in the Library of Congress in their collections of encyclopedias to make sure that all the bases are covered.

2) Put together a history of how BMR as a concept originated along the lines of "why do we need this", "who uses this," "how are the standards measured" and "who sets the standards", "are there professions that oversee this term?"

3) Put a reference to each assertion.

4) Put together a Glossary that is combined from numerous sources so that I don't infringe copyright by relying on a single source.

5) See if it passes the easy test by taking this to some classrooms in Fairfax County to find out if it is comprehensible and to what age group level, that is do 6th graders get it?

6) Find out if some Professional Associations endorse the ideas in the article? (I believe Alexandria VA is the Association Capital of the United States! I live next to the American Diabetes Association!)

7) Find out who is the ultimate source of approval for Wikipedia Articles.

8) Learn how to upload diagrams, graphs, and pictures on Wikipedia.

9) Put together a simple experiment using a heart rate monitor with a memory chip and programmable graphing function, pedometer, a triathalon scale that measures body weight, body fat, body muscle, body water, body bone mass, BMR, and visceral fat to see how a 35 mile walk changes the composition of these constituents and explain how this is related to BMR (i.e. the difference between BMR, RMR, and Exercise Metabolic Measurement.)

10) Solidify and compare how the Internet articles are addressing this topic, find out if there is a standard, make sure that what is included meets the standard.

Sincerely,

BRileyPTA 08:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)BRileyPTABRileyPTA 08:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)Rookie Contributor to Wikipedia

Regarding points 7, 8, and 9: The ultimate accolade for a Wikipedia article is featured article status. That's a lofty goal, so becoming a good article might be more attainable. Wikipedia:Uploading images explains how to upload images; let me know if you have any questions. Your idea for an experiment sounds interesting, but it would have to be published elsewhere before being included in an article; see Wikipedia:No original research. ―Wmahan. 17:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Once again your critques are succinct, thought provoking, and stimulating to my creative synergies...I'll work on putting up another 7,8,9! As far as publishing the experiment goes I think I can get the Washington Post to publish. Thanks again! BRileyPTA 23:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)BRileyPTABRileyPTA 23:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Capital letters[edit]

"When showing the source of an acronym, initialism, or syllabic abbreviation, it is neither necessary nor desirable, to emphasize the letters that make up the acronym:

Incorrect: FOREX (FOReign EXchange)
Incorrect: FOREX (foreign exchange)
Correct: FOREX (foreign exchange)"

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Acronyms and initialisms   Andreas   (T) 14:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Point noted! Thank you! BRileyPTA 18:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)BRileyPTABRileyPTA 18:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Also congratulations on the success of your institiution:>] [[19]] BRileyPTA 15:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)BRileyPTABRileyPTA 15:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. We try to do our best in spite of the fact that we have to rely on provincial funding.   Andreas   (T) 15:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Basal vs basic[edit]

Basal in medicine means the value of a parameter at rest or before an intervention. Not the same as basic.  Andreas  (T) 03:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

400 Newspapers to get the basic message thanks to United Press Syndicate[edit]

Recently an editor challenged the notion that the anaerobic/lactate threshold always corresponds to fat oxidation. This is the fundametal thesis of the article. So the editor is completely attuned to what I am trying to present and the answer to this counter claim is my challenge. According to various estimates there are 3 trillion cells in the body, and others contend 10 trillion cells, 50 trillion cells, or 100 trillion cells. One author claims and names his reference in the Washington Post that there are 24 Billion Fat cells. Another claims that there are 25% muscle cells present at birth in males and females which then change to 50% in males at age 16 to age 25, and 40% muscle in females aged 12 to 18. If what I contend is true, then that means if you substract the blood cells (since they are the only cells in the body without mitochondria) from the total cell count whatever that may be, then you would have an equation that would utilize the Weir formula to analyze breath by breath assessment of the mitochondria's oxygen carbon dioxide exchange.[[20]] This should prove that fat oxidation does occur in a predictable fashion through gas analysis. However, the Internet has four major search engines and two of them advocate for a defaulted VCO2, which actually under reports the information necessary to track the physiological changes that lead to successful weight management strategies (Ask.com and Looking Smart.com.) Google.com and Yahoo.com give the more nuanced and accurate perspective which explains why more Internet users turn to their listings. If I can show through experimentation, and confirmation by literature search, then I would like to present my experiment to the author/editor of a syndicated column that appears in 400 newspapers every Sunday. I am in the process of obtaining permission from this author. Then I would like to have permission from the editors of Wikipedia to present this as proof that oxidation of adipose tissue is predictable! Thank you to the editor who posed and correctly identified the basic thesis and questioned the underlying scope of my ability to substantiate the thesis. This argument proves the validity of the Wikipedia concept of persistently relevant accurate intellectually stimulating writing proposed by the multitudes who want to inform and update the content of the Internet with reliable information. BRileyPTA 19:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)BRileyPTABRileyPTA 19:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

You will have to publish your experiment in a peer-reviewed scientific journal in order to be acceptable as a source for Wikipedia. See: Wikipedia:Reliable sources.  Andreas  (T) 21:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


That has always been my ultimate goal! If I can gather the 65,000, that would be something to ponder as well. Fredda and I were able to collect 200 artilces in one day when we did our most organized search at the National Library of Medicine and Building 10. So we will need a good bit more in the way of assistance in order to get after the 65,001! ````BRileyBRileyPTA 23:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Effects of caloric restriction with or without exercise on body composition and fat distribution[edit]

According to Eric Ravussin of the Pennington Biomedical Research Center "[[21]]" writing in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, J Clin Endocrin Metab January 2, 2007, as doi:10.1210/jc.2006-2184 "individuals are genetically programmed for fat storage in a particular pattern which can be measured through blood testing, hydrostatic weighing, dual x-ray absorptiometry, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imagery to determine efficacy of a pre-determined energy expenditure and its effect on basal metabolic rate, body composition, and fat distribution." Although this is only one citation there are many that confirm this line of reasoning which is inherent in the BMR article. [[BRileyPTA 21:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)BRileyPTA BRileyPTA 21:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)]]

Fat Oxidation, Thermic Effect Response to Food and the Weir analysis for correlation of BMR influences[edit]

[[22]] This article talks about the facultative and obligatory response of the body to food and it implies the connection between BMR, Body composition, Exercise Metabolic Measurement from the perspective of increased substrate utilization of fat corresponding to higher RMR. However more longitudinal studies are needed.BRileyPTA 04:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)BRileyPTABRileyPTA 04:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

"Controversies" controversy[edit]

Is this current "controversies" section really necessary? Granted, the BMR system isn't flawless, but all it does is confuse people with nonsensical questions. I'm all for neutrality, but half of the questions are just plain stupid. Not to mention they form a nasty little "In 2007, Humpty Dumpty had a great fall from this spot" paragraph.

Below are some examples of questions I consider needless. I'm not removing them because there's probably some backwards law that makes me an outlaw if I edit it without discussing first.

  • If muscle is the principle determinant of resting metabolism, why does metabolic rate go up when we gain weight, including fat, and become weaker physically due to loss of muscle mass from caloric restriction?

Because the fat puts strain on the muscles, causing them to work harder, burning more calories. Not to mention principle does not translate to "only".

  • Why does metabolism go up when we drink coffee which has no appreciable effect on muscle gain?

Again, there are other parts to the human body besides muscles.


  • Why is metabolism perceived to be different between cultures, requiring different formulas to be devised by scientists with equipment that measures the rate with extreme precision?

Because not everybody uses the exact same systems of measurement, have the exact same level of health care, and eat the exact same foods.

  • Do the formulas of Harris and Benedict apply to seniors, when the subjects of the original work done at the Carnegie Institute of Washington D.C. in 1914 were college-age students?

Yes or no questions are not controversy.

  • At what exact point does the basal metabolic rate change with aging processes, caloric restriction, menopause, vericose vein anomalies, exercise and is it discernible?

No scale can factor in every single anomaly that can happen to any given person. If that was the level of detail required to make a relative measuring system, nobody would ever be able to measure anything.

  • Why is the standard fasting time limit 24 hours when we know that certain foods take longer than 24 hours to digest?

There is no such thing as a "standard fasting time limit". There are hundreds of diets, each with their own views on fasting. Furthermore, the day-long fasts found in some religions is not meant to modify your BMR, since they were set in place several thousand years before BMR was created.

I'd go on but I don't want to spam up the page. Tell me what you think, and we can all come to a happy little conclusion. Bainemo 09:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the controversies section is not appropriately written for a Wikipedia article. It looks like the contributor had questions that they did not understand and decided to write them into the article. There are no citations and as stated, is not in the right tone for wikipedia. I am removing that section considering no one has responded to Bainemo in a way supporting the section. Nitack 1010, 10 Sept 2007 (EST)

Response[edit]

I have many articles which support the controversy section. I disagree with your postulations.

If you peruse the other Internet sites listed on the various search engines they are presenting false claims. Beginning with the site from the Ivy league school which was posted and hasn't changed in the five years I have looked at the topic on the Internet, namely that, "when one gains muscle one's BMR goes up when one gains fat one's BMR goes down." [[23]] That is not factual and therefore it is a controversy and stipulating this hopefully adds to the understanding of the principle inherent in the topic, namely that individualized measurement is becoming affordable and should be used instead of formulas which predict but are not actual. [[24]] The references that I have posted such as the article explaining why weight loss programs are 95% unsuccessful supports the statement, but I have more and am in the process of organizing them to make the point more obvious to interested individuals such as yourself.

Coffee is studied extensively and research articles are purporting that coffee and the caffeine inherent are actually good for our bodies. An article widely published that came out recently and is linked below which stipulates that "6 cups of coffee a day for consumption is associated with increased longevity and decreased comorbidity." [25][26] I think the aspect of what and why this affects BMR has not been studied and would benefit from an independent look [[27]]. Thus it is a controversy, and subsequently would stir discussion which is currently happening, a good thing.

There are over 10,000 studies coming to different conclusions about the differences between cultures regarding BMR. We don't know exactly why the Asian cultures have lower BMRs in hundreds of studies, so since we haven't explained that anomalie and other artifacts associated with the scientific method as it applies to a very basic controversy that involves the understanding of BMR as a world wide topic of interest, it remains a controversy. Again I have the studies and the substudies which are quite extensive in scope, thus it truly is a controversy and therefore invites further inquiry and discussion.

I work in the field of geriatric medicine and I know that the Harris and Benedict studies are used to decide how many calories geriatric patients should be presented as nutrition even though studies are accumulating which offer variations to the formulas which were conceived and apply to a specific population. The Nursing Home or Continuing Care communities are considered to be the most extensively regulated industry/industries in the United States because we have over 1.4 million citizens who are growing more dependent and are in greater need of assistance as they become more vulnerable through the aging processes, with the 85 and above being the fastest growing segment of the population. State and Federal Governement regulations use the Harris and Benedict formulas to determine how much food each resident should have at each meal. There is a considerable amount of waste and possibly some "caloric density related obesity" associated with this policy. Thus it is a controversy and invites further study.

One size fits all is the reason why the commercialized weight loss programs are regarded as unsuccessful by the peer reviewed studies that appear each year documenting the futility of the industry that inundates with one or two photos of a statistically insignificant population who lose weight temporarily and then regain what was lost in part because an individualized program that accurately uses the principles of the Krebs cycle as explained in the references is not being applied extensively. A very obvious controversy that invites study and further understanding of the reasons why we continue to allow the weight loss industry to be unregulated inspite of all the fraud and abuse that continue each year unnoticed by the FDA. A definite controversy.

Harris and Benedict recommend 12 hours of fasting. However the impact on the diet and the recalibration of the BMR itself change with caloric restriction so a process of calculus needs to be used to factor the changes that occur as they affect the time used to fast for purposes of data collection for the BMR. An area of further study using mathematics and advanced calculus. A controversy because it questions the way a century old mathematical concept is still used with results that are questionable as they apply to human changes, psychology, and cerebral enigma. Therefore this is a controversy and many articles and peer reviewed journals discuss this aspect of the subject. I have listed one mathematical journal but there are others.

The fact that you are thinking and discussing the controversy section is proof that the section has value and should remain in the article. BRileyPTA 04:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)BRileyPTABRileyPTA 04:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion with Weniwidiwiki[edit]

Dear WeniWidiWiki:

I am one of the contributors to the BMR article. It appears that you are now contesting the usefulness of the Controversies section and I would like to know what section of the section needs a reference. I have included ample references for the entire article and with each dispute I have been able to answer from the reference section.

What specifically are you questioning? I believe McArdle answers the section and his work is prominently included at the National Library of Medicine in the reference section. The controversy section was added when the BMR article was ranked number 30 on Google. Since the section was added the BMR article has risen to the number two ranking on Google and Yahoo. The other search engines include it after Cornell's explanation which I think is temporary.

I turned to the Cornell site five years ago when I wanted to understand BMR in regard to my work with patients in the Long Term care setting and I just assumed since it was an Ivy league school that they knew what they were talking about.

However many trips to NIH and the Library of Congress have helped me to see that the topic is a little more complex than "If you gain muscle BMR goes up and if you gain fat BMR goes down." If I was an educator at Cornell I would use a red pen on that part of their website!

This topic is very strongly covered and explained by McArdle as listed in the Reference section. For just one aspect of the issue here and now and I can do this through McArdle on each controversy. If you have access to a library where Exercise Physiologists attend lectures I am quite sure you can get a hold of this text to verify that Cornell is wrong and that McArdle is right.

As a very clear example take Chapter 25 from McArdle: Exercise and Thermal Stress- Mechanisms of Thermoregulation. During vigorous exercise, the metabolic rate increases to 20 or 25 times the basal level which theoretically can elevate core temperature about 1 degree C every five minutes. Yet if you do a simple experiment and ride a bike with a thermometer in your mouth as I have done you'll observe a very interesting phenomenon. You body temperature will balance throughout the ride!

Another experiment is to go into a pool of water. One would think that body tmeperature would go down. It stays the same because the hypothalamus contains a coordinating center for the various processes of temperature regulation which balance the temperature by plus or minus 1 degree Celsius from 37 degrees Celsius.

A third experiment suggested by McArdle is to put your hand in a pan of water at room temperature. Using the simplistic reasoning from the Cornell website you would think that because the two temperatures are the same it will feel just the same. But the water feels colder. Why? [[28]] Because (according to McArdle) water can absorb several thousand times more heat than air and conduct it away from the warm body. And McArdle sites Craig, A.B., Jr. and Dvorak, M.: Thermal Regulation of man exercising during water immersion. Journal of Applied Physiology, 25:28, 1968.

So how does this apply to the controversy Weniwidiwiki? It applies becauses fat has a metabolically significant role in thermal regulation and when fat is gained, more thermal regualtion can occur therefore more metabolic activity is available not less.

I can apply the same analysis for each section of the controversy section Weniwidiwiki from each of the articles and sources already sited. So what else is of concern to you?

Sincerely,

Bill

Performance Tips and BMR[edit]

[[29]] Here is another example of the fallacy which I have listed as one of the principle misconceptions of BMR. It stipulates that women have a 5 to 10% lower BMR than men because they have more body fat and the author cites two sources for this contention. Again I can provide an abundance and will do so if it is helpful to contend the opposite. In Geriatric care the BMR of women and men defies this easy rationale and I believe that world wide consideration of the literature would also find many exceptions. So my contention is that the more simplistic people try to make BMR out to be the more confusing are the results. The inherent error in this approach to classifying fat as metabolically inactive and inert is that it fails to address the simple fact that ten years ago scientists discovered that fat is an important neurotransmitter (named by another contributor to the BMR article,) controls the sexual reproduction cycles and in longevity gives women an advantage over men as the end of the lifespan approaches. But during weight gain that is mainly adipocyte tissue, it is completely secured knowledge that BMR goes up. BMR and muscle are not in opposition but work in concert for fueling the bodies energy needs and I believe that women can take pride and ownership for their good fortune that fat does cause a positive increase in BMR for the energy reserve that they genetically are favored with through evolution. BMR differences can not be simplified into the characterization made by Cornell or this latest addition to the Internet errors that confound and obfuscate a true and proper understanding of BMR. 141.156.195.41 21:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)BRileyPTA141.156.195.41 21:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

American College of Sports Medicine versus International Technology Assessments concerning the issue of metabolic value of Adipose tissue[edit]

It is proposed by the expert Gene D. Godbold, PhD., Senior Research Scientist, International Technology Assessments in Charlottesville, Va., at the Battelle Memorial Institute that "Muscle uses 20 to 50 calories per pound (Kcals) per day to sustain itself, a pound of fat in contrast, uses only a half calorie per day to maintain itself." (Reported in the Washington Post, Health Section, May 1, 2007, pg. F2.) This statement of course would seem to confirm the thinking on the Cornell website mentioned above. However the American College of Sports Medicine disagrees with this thinking and stipulates that this assessment which is widely accepted in scientific circles, is incorrect and exaggerates the value of muscle metabolism. According to the American College of Sports Medicine a pound of fat is distributed into many compartments of the body and fuels the rise in metabolism used for resting metabolic rate, thermogenesis, and at most muscle tissue might account for only five to 10 calories per day, much less than is commonly believed." [30]1: NMR Biomed. 2006 Nov;19(7):968-88. Links Role of proton MR for the study of muscle lipid metabolism.Boesch C, Machann J, Vermathen P, Schick F. Department of Clinical Research (AMSM), University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. chris.boesch@insel.ch

1H-MR spectroscopy (MRS) of intramyocellular lipids (IMCL) became particularly important when it was recognized that IMCL levels are related to insulin sensitivity. While this relation is rather complex and depends on the training status of the subjects, various other influences such as exercise and diet also influence IMCL concentrations. This may open insight into many metabolic interactions; however, it also requires careful planning of studies in order to control all these confounding influences. This review summarizes various historical, methodological, and practical aspects of 1H-MR spectroscopy (MRS) of muscular lipids. That includes a differentiation of bulk magnetic susceptibility effects and residual dipolar coupling that can both be observed in MRS of skeletal muscle, yet affecting different metabolites in a specific way. Fitting of the intra- (IMCL) and extramyocellular (EMCL) signals with complex line shapes and the transformation into absolute concentrations is discussed. Since the determination of IMCL in muscle groups with oblique fiber orientation or in obese subjects is still difficult, potential improvement with high-resolution spectroscopic imaging or at higher field strength is considered. Fat selective imaging is presented as a possible alternative to MRS and the potential of multinuclear MRS is discussed. 1H-MRS of muscle lipids allows non-invasive and repeated studies of muscle metabolism that lead to highly relevant findings in clinics and patho-physiology. Copyright 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

PMID: 17075965 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE

Secondly, the quality of the fat digested (such as digestible starch versus resistant starch) is also a critical element in the discussion as demonstrated by the following author. [31]

long-term weight changes[edit]

The technical contents of this article are potentially quite interesting. However, the article is misleading in saying that a person would need to understand these matters to succeed at controlling their weight. Understanding these matters would help understand what is happening to other people and can help explain why a person's base energy consumption might change. But the only thing a person needs to understand to succeed at controlling their weight is that their base energy consumption might change. The key concept people need is that weight changes are a result of the balance between calories ingested and energy expended (base plus exercise). Successful long-term weight changes are a result of long-term life changes. One only needs to slowly reduce calories ingested, slowly increase energy expended, until one's weight starts to slowly drop. When the target weight is achieved, one needs to continue such life changes permanently. The dynamics of the balance are what matters, as a practical matter, not the details of the formulas that make up the parts of the balance. The key issues are not complex or intellectual, and require no measurements beyond a bathroom scale. The key is to have a basic understanding and apply it. The psychology of change is what is extremely difficult.-69.87.204.67 23:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Diabetes and Long Term weight changes[edit]

I was recently diagnosed by a Physician and Nurse Practitioner as being Diabetic or perhaps also "a person who has diabetes." Since I am interested in Basal Metabolic Rate and the measurement of the changes that occur and the rate of change as this might be illuminated by Calculus, I was intrigued by the latest critique of the thesis statement of the article. According to my preliminary research on the topic of diabetes, my discussions with staff at the facility where I am employed, and the nutrition classes at Kaiser Permanente Falls Church, I have come to the hypothesis that my blood glucose level (mg/dl) can rise even without consumption of additional calories and macronutrients because my liver can be apprised of changes to the blood glucose level perhaps via the hypothalamus, and then can secrete additional glycogen to the blood stream. This is recorded by the glucose meter so of course perhaps there might be an error with the accuracy but according to the Pharmacist D, the Nurse Practioner, the Nurse Educator, the Nutritionist and three text books that I will cite when I add a section on Diabetes this month, it is possible to raise blood glucose levels without consuming additonal carbohydrates, fats, or protein. The body can break it down internally from stored nutrients. I believe that this response that the body makes to stress, or caloric restriction, or energy adjustment, is indicative of the need to be made aware of the complexity of the task of weight management and I believe that the previous submission from user 69.87.204.67 is conventional, and readily reinforced by the media, but I believe it is not scientifically supported and I would like to address the critique with references and complete all the other areas on the article that lack sufficient references as requested by Wikipedia. I do thank the editors at Wikipedia for allowing time to accumulate more citations while others deliberate the validity of the thesis statement namely: weight loss management is confounded by misunderstanding the Basal Metabolic Rate, the dynamic of how the rate is affected by external and internal factors, and how exercise metabolic measurement and resting metabolic measurement can provide necessary information for addressing the factors that frustrate weight management attempts. While it is true that matter can neither be created nor destroyed, if the body can alter the basal consumption index, then the caloric value of ingested macronutrients and substrates would be altered and thus if a linear reduction of caloric intake were made, the body could adjust its utilization patterns, and thereby gain weight while being delivered less than normal levels of nutrition. Thus it is imperative to discard the failed assumption which is propagated throughout the weight loss literature, that a fixed caloric ratio can solve the obesity epidemic, secondly, it is equally important to recognize that the increasing prevalence of obesity is not primarily a failure of the will, and finally, that obesity is truly a pathology that requires skilled clinical practice and cooperation from a multidisciplinary synergy of specialists.BRileyPTA 03:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)BRileyPTABRileyPTA 03:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Spam[edit]

A link that was included on this talk page has been blacklisted by the spam people. I have edited this page to make the (multiple copies of the) link non-clickable but human interpretable. The blacklisting process won't let anyone edit this page (any of it) until this link is no longer clickable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to explain, the blacklisted link is on the talk page, not in the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Introductory Paragraph[edit]

The introductory paragraph doesn't read very well. There are several typographical errors, as well. To my untrained eye this paragraph needs some editorial attention. Peetiemd (talk) 19:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

To whoever wrote the majority of this article...[edit]

To whoever wrote the majority of this article (which I really like) ... could you please recommend me a book from which I can learn the basics of digestion, energy break down/distribution in the body and related topics? I ask this because I want to be knowledgeable of the things that surround food and health without falling into the popsci fad about them (I don't believe that exercise is really necessary .. but what is most important for the body is less-stress and not overeating). Thank you and apologies for using the Talk page for this request .. I don't know where else to post. - MexicanFish (talk) 15:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

PBS and McArdle[edit]

I started contributing Christmas 2005 and I think that Dr. Ronald M. Evans is doing some great work on the mechanisms that control basal metabolic rate at the molecular level particularly the PPAR Delta nuclear receptor. Dr. Evans discovered a family of nuclear receptors that control sugar and fat metabolism. He also identified the molecular trigger governing fat cell formation. Dr. Jeffrey M. Friedman, M.D., studies the molecular mechanisms that control food intake and body weight. He discovered leptin, a key regulatory hormone made by fat tissue. Exercise Physiology by McArdle is the classic text for integration of all the biological, physiological, and chemical factors that play a role in the bodies response to exercise and diet. Wasserman is considered one of the best experts on gas testing to determine accurate basal and resting metabolic rate with respect to exercise physiology.User:BRileyPTABRileyPTA (talk) 07:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Red links in the See also section are based on the following...[edit]

--222.64.222.67 (talk) 06:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

About "Cardiovascular implications"[edit]

Hi! I find this section not precise enough.

  1. 2nd sentence "Heart rate [...] drives the blood supply, stimulating the Krebs cycle." Between blood supply and intracellular biochemistry there must be some link that's not elaborated here, I think more details should be added. I studied some physiology, but even so I have only guesses about the possible mechanisms. If however the mechanism is unknown, a specific citation is needed that proves the relationship. "Blood supply" is not a precise term, you can think about blood flow, oxygenisation, rbc concentration etc.
  2. "During exercise that achieves the anaerobic threshold, it is possible to deliver substrates that are desired for optimal energy utilization." Deliver what substrates? From where? To where? In what sense optimal? Why not possible otherwise?
  3. "With four to six weeks of targeted training the body systems can adapt to a higher perfusion of mitochondrial density for increased oxygen availability for the Krebs cycle, or tricarboxylic cycle, or the glycolitic cycle." Do we need three different names for the same thing in one sentence? Four to six weeks - citation needed. Targeted training - targeted for what? "higher perfusion of mitochondrial density" - what is that? How is higher perfusion achieved? What happens to mitochondrial density?
  4. "This in turn leads to a lower resting heart rate, lower blood pressure, and increased resting or basal metabolic rate." Exactly what leads to these? All of these mechanisms? Or the "targeted training"?
  5. "Knowing what the body burns at rest or through exercise yields (via heart rate monitoring)" I can't imagine any heart rate monitoring method that could tell "what" the body burns - heart rate is heart rate, not a biochemical indicator.
  6. "The resting heart rate is correlated to the resting metabolic rate because of the singular contribution made by the heart to survival." I believe the first half of the sentence. However, what does the second half mean? What does the "singular contribution" refer to? And concerning the connection of the first and second half of the sentence, how can any kind of contribution to survival explain a correlation between heart rate and metabolic rate?
  7. "substrate utilization" - this expression is used multiple times. However what substrates? Usually enzymes have substrates, enzymes are not mentioned here. So why not nutrients? Or biochemical compounds? Which ones?
  8. "The measures of basal metabolic rate and resting metabolic rate are becoming essential tools for maintaining a healthy body weight." Why essential? Why can't you maintain a healthy body weight without measuring these? Why measure anything? If so, citation needed.

--86.172.112.41 (talk) 22:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Response to Cardiovascular Implications[edit]

Thank you for your input. I have been one of many contributors so at this point I feel that there are many who could respond but I did provide substantial thought content on the cardio portion of the Basal Metabolic Rate article. Your questions are excellent and I will have to look over my sources again in some cases. But I believe I can address the basic thought that cardio assessment and evaluation are critical to Basal Metabolic Rate because even though there are approximately 100 trillion cells in the human body according to research being done at NIH, and I can provide sources and names of the researchers if that would be helpful. The majority of body cells are blood cells, the next most populous division of cell content are the bacteria cells.

Blood cells are critical to cardio vascular function for obvious reasons. Bacteria play important rolls in the digestion of food for energy, which gets into the idea of enzymes and substrates. The use of "substrate" is consistent in the Exercise Physiology texts that I used when consolidating the content.

I started making contributions to the "stub" back in 2005. At that time the stub was ranked 30th on Google. The primary source of content information concerning Basal Metabolic Rate at that time (2005) was from Cornell University, and Cornell is considered still to be one of the finest insitutions for information on Weight Management. Their scientists produce abundant material on the Index Medicus on everything from Genetic markers for Obesity and Metabolism, to Exercise Physiology and proper dynamics for evaluation of Metabolic Indirect and Direct calorimetry as this would pertain to heart monitoring. The idea that heart rate monitors are useful for metabolic assessment has been established since 1970 as a cost effective indicator of substrate utilization. I work in many Hospitals and they all have telemetry units that help Nurses and Physical Therapists to monitor critical care patient's for their heart rates and this is vital for purposes of rehabilitation. So I am not sure why you are struglling with that concept. I have hundreds of citations on this but it is established and is not original research.

I think what made the Basal Metabolic Rate article successful was taking on Cornell on the issue of Body Composition. In the original Cornell web page on Basal Metabolic Rate, which is still around, they made the mistake of simplying BMR by stating that "when you gain muscle mass, BMR goes up, and when you gain fat mass BMR goes down." That is a mistake.

BMR is substantially determined by Mass, it is the predominant factor in all the formulas used to calculate and there are many.

The work by Dr. Evans whom I have mentioned earlier on the discussion pages, which is on the PBS website, does a nice job of explaining and answering the questions you raise. I actually got to meet with Dr. Evans at a function for scientists at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute in Loudoun County, Virginia, last year. He has done extensive research for over 30 years on the topics that you raise in your post on this discussion page. It is very exciting what they are learning and it confirms what I am consolidating, namely, that exercise (particularly aerobic exercise) is critical for manageing the BMR, that there are pharmaceutical drugs such as Metformin that make glucose and other substrates easier for the heart muscle to utilize, along with the voluntary muscles so they work more efficientlywith the heart at managing the "substrates" that are the building blocks of metablism. The connecting concept here is what is called the PPAR agonists.

PPAR stands for Peroxisome Proliferator Activator Receptor and there are three delinations designated by alpha, delta and gamma. Along with AMPK, these new agonists are forming a new class of pharmaceuticals called "exercise mimetics." "The benefits from these drugs enhance general health by delivering an oral agent that would mimic or potentiate the effects of exericse to treat metabolic diseases." HTTP://WWW.NCBI.NLM.NIH.GOV/PMC/ARTICLES/pmc2706130/, AUTHORS: Vihang A. Narkar, from the Gene Expression Laboratory, Salk Institute, La Jolla, California, and of course Dr. Ronald Evans, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, La Jolla, California, evans@salk.edu, phone: 858-453-4100 x 1302, fax 858-535-1979

So the questions you raise are good. I have answers but the answers that I would give are certainly not in the same category as the answers that are being found and established in peer reviewed articles by Dr. Evans and his colleagues at research institutes across the globe.

It is my contention that if there is indeed a principle expert and authority in the World who has mastered this topic (cardiovascular assessment and management of BMR), it is probably Dr. Evans. He has received many awards for his painstaking research, spoken with/to Scientists from the American College of Sports Medicine about Aicar and the anti-blood doping tests he has developed in the laboratory, and he is an extraordinary talent in the lecture hall, while writing in ways that laypersons who turn to Wikipedia for a substantial understanding of an esoteric topic can come away with trustworthy information that is "relatively" easy to digest. (There is no article on Dr. Evans on Wikipedia!?!)

Thanks for your contributions they are noteworthy. Sincerely, BRileyPTA (talk) 17:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)BRileyPTABRileyPTA (talk) 17:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

AMP-activated protein kinase is an enzyme that helps the substrates energize[edit]

I believe the Wikipedia article that addresses the 5' AMP-activated protein kinase or AMPK does a nice job of explaining why and how exercise training helps to cause the biochemical adaptations of skeletal muscle that will be sustained in 4 to 6 weeks of training to increase mitochondrial biogenesis and capacity. It also answers the earlier debate about Resistance Exercise as means of influencing Basal Metabolic Rate. I use resistance exercises as a way of making a living so of course I appreciate the benefits of this form of therapy, but it is a temporary fix in my view, and the aerobic processes so nicely explained in AMP-activated protein kinase how AMPK and other signals will facilitate contracting muscle adaptations by escorting muscle cell activity to a metabolic transition resulting in an oxidative dependent approach to energy metabolism.

I need more education to explain how PPAR D finishes this introductory thesis to describe how the new drug AICAR perfects this long standing objective of Exercise Physiology so that persons with debilitating metabolic disorders such as diabetes will be able to exercise vigorously inspite of barriers that havce been difficult to erase. BRileyPTA (talk) 03:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)BRileyPTABRileyPTA (talk) 03:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

<ref> HTTP://WWW.NCBI.NLM.NIH.GOV/PMC/ARTICLES/pmc2706130/, AMPK and PPARd agonists are exercise mimetics. AUTHORS: Vihang A. Narkar, from the Gene Expression Laboratory, Salk Institute, La Jolla, California, and of course, Dr. Ronald Evans, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, La Jolla, California, evans@salk.edu, phone: 858-453-4100 x 1302, fax 858-535-1979.<ref/>

AMP-activated protein kinase is an enzyme that helps the substrates energize[edit]

I believe the Wikipedia article that addresses the 5' AMP-activated protein kinase or AMPK does a nice job of explaining why and how exercise training helps to cause the biochemical adaptations of skeletal muscle that will be sustained in 4 to 6 weeks of training to increase mitochondrial biogenesis and capacity. It also answers the earlier debate about Resistance Exercise as means of influencing Basal Metabolic Rate. I use resistance exercises as a way of making a living so of course I appreciate the benefits of this form of therapy, but it is a temporary fix in my view, and the aerobic processes so nicely explained in ""AMP-activated protein kinase"" how AMPK and other signals will facilitate contracting muscle adaptations by escorting muscle cell activity to a metabolic transition resulting in an oxidative dependent approach to energy metabolism.

I need more education to explain how PPAR D finishes this introductory thesis to describe how the new drug ""AICAR"" perfects this long standing objective of Exercise Physiology so that persons with debilitating metabolic disorders such as diabetes will be able to exercise vigorously inspite of barriers that havce been difficult to erase.

Information on Dr. Ronald Evans the American Investigator who knows the Science of Fat[edit]

[[32]] At the Howard Hughes Medical Institute there is a CD called "The Science of Fat" with a two disc set that includes Four Full Length presentations, detailed chapter search by scientific topic, direct access to animations, English subtitles, interviews with the speakers, special features on molecular structures of fat, fat metabolism, and measuring obesity. Dr. Evans discovered a family of nuclear receptors that controls sugar and fat metabolism. He also identified the molecular trigger governing fat cell formation. HHMI Howard Hughes Medical Institute 4000 Jones Bridge Road; Chevy Chase, Maryland 20815-6789 BRileyPTA

Horrible English[edit]

Reading through this page, and the discussion, I wondered if you people were reading the same garbage I was. Looks like you weren't, because it's recent changes, at least some of which were by Alpha30, including several of the spaces before commas: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Basal_metabolic_rate&diff=388131713&oldid=388118506Darxus (talk) 20:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

All of Alpha30's changes: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Basal_metabolic_rate&action=historysubmit&diff=388268945&oldid=386781319

Changed:

"Aerobic fitness level, a product of cardiovascular exercise, while previously thought to have effect on BMR...."

To:

"with aerobic fitness you have a product of cardiovascular exercise. While it was thought to have effect on BMR"

Changed:

"BMR is measured under very restrictive circumstances when a person is awake. An accurate BMR measurement requires that the person's sympathetic nervous system not be stimulated, such a condition whose prerequisite is that of complete rest. A more common and closely related measurement, used under less strict conditions, is resting metabolic rate (RMR)."

To:

"Its measurement is very restrictive in extenuating circumstances and always when the person is awake. The accurate measurement of BMR requires no stimulation of the sympathetic nervous system and a necessary condition of complete rest . In close contact, the most widely used measure in non-restrictive, is a measure of basal metabolic rate or RMR"

It goes on. —Darxus (talk) 20:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I reverted the entire article to before Alpha30's changes. All changes since have been minor corrections to his damage. —Darxus (talk) 21:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Alpha30 also changed:

"New research[citation needed] has however come to light which suggests anaerobic exercise does increase resting energy consumption (see "Aerobic vs. anaerobic exercise")."

To:

"The research, however, suggests that the 'anaerobic exercise does not increase energy consumption at rest <ref> quote from "Aerobic vs. anaerobic exercise </ref>."

"Aerobic vs. anaerobic exercise" being the title of another section of this article. Showing massive misunderstanding of the entire concept of references. —Darxus (talk) 21:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


I just noticed that Alpha30 was banned from the Italian wikipedia before coming here and causing trouble elsewhere: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=387141135&oldid=387140932Darxus (talk) 01:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Escaped <ref>s on this discussion page[edit]

BRileyPTA's <ref> tags on this discussion page broke it, so that nothing in or after the ref tags could be seen. Also, BRileyPTA's: tilde characters have a special meaning here, they're used to automatically include your name and a timestamp. —Darxus (talk) 20:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Organism longevity and basal metabolic rate - OR?[edit]

The whole section was added in a single edit by a user with dubious contribution history. It has no citations, looks very much like an original research and needs to be deleted altogether. Dart evader (talk) 18:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The 'MR = W^ (4ME-1)/4ME' equation especially looks very suspicious. Aside from the strangeness of a decrease of ME causing a decrease in MR for a large weight and an increase in MR for a small weight, with this equation the MR is 1 Watt for a one-gram organism no matter the ME, that being the one point that the ME doesn't make a difference. However, if the equation used a different set of units--kilograms, for instance--then the mass at which ME didn't make a difference looks as though it would be completely different. In short, without some sort of convincing explanation it looks significantly untrustworthy. 180.43.16.157 (talk) 05:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Plants[edit]

Why does this article deal only with animal life? Is there a similar article dealing with plants? Androstachys (talk) 06:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Katch-McArdle formula[edit]

Can someone fix the display of the Katch-McArdle formula? It currently shows up as:

P = 370 + \left( {21.6 \cdot LBM} \right), where LBM is the lean body mass in kg.

I am not sure what that means. (21.6 × LBM) ?
75.15.136.199 (talk) 11:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Carbohydrate Ratio[edit]

The section describing the ratio of hydrogen to oxygen as 2:1 in all carbohydrates is overstated. Indeed, throughout the human body, carbohydrates are metabolized in this ratio, however carboydrates exist elsewhere in various ratios, not just 2:1.

Also, the comparison to water isn't quite relevant at all, and should probably be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.137.219.113 (talk) 05:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Reading of Formulae[edit]

The formulae are presented in a way unfamiliar to me and which do not seem to be mentioned in the style guides. For example the Mifflin formula has elements with 1 kg, 1 cm, and 1 year in their denominators. Assuming that this is a way of specifying the units to be used and using the example in the article P = 10x59 + 6.25x168 + 5x55 -161 = 1745 not 1204 as stated in the article. Something seems wrong - possibly my education :) but not being familiar with the subject I do not know what. Help would be appreciated.

Bob Wikicont (talk) 22:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Certainly agree that the style is non-standard and rather confusing. The denominator appears to be there just to specify the units for the variables. It would be more familiar to define the units in the variable descriptions. Perhaps the style reflects the original publication? On the other hand, the calculation in the article is correct - you have to subtract the 5x55 term, not add it. LightYear (talk) 00:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
It might appear confusing, but after working through some stuff personally on VO2Max and other metabolism and exercise metrics, I've got to say, the units they end up working with are a nightmare of complexity. Anything in a formula that forces the quantity and units to "true" is a good thing in this field, even if it does look funny to write (x / 1kg). Rwwff (talk) 16:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Odd sentence[edit]

What does "Since lean body mass is metabolically active vs. fat cells which need very few calories to be sustained ..." mean? I think it needs rewriting. Myrvin (talk) 10:53, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Makes sense to me, though it's not the prettiest of statements. Just means that lean body mass takes significant energy to sustain, while fat cells take negligible energy to sustain. Could you suggest a rephrase? LightYear (talk) 07:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks LightYear. The use of 'vs' is not very encyclopedic and it confused me. Perhaps it could be replaced by 'while' as you suggest. Myrvin (talk) 13:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Statistically, the researchers calculated that 62.3 % of this variation was explained by differences in fat free mass.[edit]

The sentence, "Statistically, the researchers calculated that 62.3 % of this variation was explained by differences in fat free mass." is vague. Can it be expounded more to tell which way, positive or negative, the variation swings based on differences in fat free mass? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldeowl (talkcontribs) 01:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

It has precise meaning in the field of statistics. And it's obvious that BMR goes in the same direction as fat free mass, isn't it? LightYear (talk) 02:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

References[edit]

I would like to know how the editorial comment about needing more citations is being made since I have added references in the past and past editors have removed the citations I have added. Obviously there are parts of the article that I have not contributed so I am not going to dig up references for something I am not familiar with, but it is frustrating to see that the article is consistently number two on Google and other Search Engines, we have an obesity epidemic that is now world wide, and some editor has determined that the article should be down graded to "low importance." That needs to be explained in my opinion and the persons who removed references that were included when the article went from 30th rank as a stub to second rank needs to be identified. Is that possible? I have the references for the sections I contributed but it seems pointless to spend the time including references when someone can remove them without explanation in the talk pages. BRileyPTA (talk) 13:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)BRileyPTABRileyPTA (talk) 13:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC) http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/07/chris-christie-on-his-weight-if-it-were-easy-id-already-have-it-fixed/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by BRileyPTA (talkcontribs) 04:57, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

According to the page history you haven't made an edit in over a year. Whether there is an epidemic or not doesn't have an impact on the standard for the article. The ranking of importance is just to do with a particular WikiProject and says very little about societal important - it's not even included in the article, just the talk page. And I can't see what the newspaper article you've linked has to do with the topic. Is it safe to assume this comment is now defunct? LightYear (talk) 07:06, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I haven't added because I was waiting to find out who the main editor is for the article since it changes as you can see from the talk pages. If you can not understand the relevance of the newspaper article how about something from the CDC? Only 3% of Americans are exercising sufficiently to maintain a healthy Body Mass Index. The parts of the article that I did not write are the claims to stipulate that weight training is the only proven way to increase BMR. Aerobic activity is what clears and increases oxidation rates of adipose tissue. Because there is a steady loss of muscle tissue and not of fat tissue through the life span, there are two strategies, one is to lift weights, which very people do according to the Statistical Abstract of the United States, the other is to walk, bike, run, swim, which substatial and measurable numbers of people do, whihc is recognized by the CDC. There are a very small percentage of people who lift weights. According to the Statistical abstract there are 93 million people who walk for their main physical activity, but of that group according to the CDC, only 3% walk enough to oxidize adipose tissue. But according to the CDC that effort is starting to show signs of effect for persons who have a BMI between 25 and 29. The people with a BMI between 30 and 39 are increasing, and above 40 BMI are increasing.

I have been consistently writing and answering on the talk pages because I have substantially added what was needed to the main article. At this point I add material in the talk pages. If I could find out who wants more info regarding references and citations, I would be happy to respond. But if the work is erased by someone with a different point of view, then it is a Sisyphusian task. As I stated, I still don't understand why the article was down graded for importance when the BMI categories are increasing and the CDC is calling for more encouragement of aerobic activity. I understand that the American College of Sports Medicine recommends weight training. But if only 3% of the Country is getting enough aerobic exercise, and that is the majority of Physcial Activity that Americans will do, then I do not understand why the weight training edits were approved and some of the more relevant aspects of BMR with regard to aerobic activity have been edited out. I must admit that I do not know much about the European recommendations regarding aerobic activity versus weight training, but I would surmise that what is being discovered by the CDC is probably also being discovered in other countries where obesity is becoming a concern.

I thought the purpose of the talk page was where I could present my reference suggestions to an editor, so that if I spent the time looking up references, I wouldn't waste the time to see someone with a different point of view erase the work product?BRileyPTA (talk) 05:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)BRileyPTABRileyPTA (talk) 05:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Resting metabolic rate of trained muscle[edit]

Hi,

The current version of the text says: Various studies[16][17] suggest that the resting metabolic rate of trained muscle is around 55kJ per kilogram, per day. Even a substantial increase in muscle mass, say 5 kg, would make only a minor impact on BMR.

Yeah 55kJ is about 13 kcal. So if you put on 10kgs(20+ lbs) of new muscle(!!), you can eat 550kJ more, which is 131kcal which is about 1.5 apples.

One cited study mentions that "the mean energy intake required for body weight maintenance increased by approximately 15%".

For me, these numbers don't add up. Unfortunately I don't have access to the full text of the papers. Can someone double check this please?

-- nyenyec  15:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I can only assume the quote is taking about total body mass, not muscle mass. But unless you've got a specific criticism it's hard to comment. I'm not sure anyone's going to be motivated to do your research for you. LightYear (talk) 07:06, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I would agree with the substance of Nyenyec, muscle mass efforts are good if you can devote yourself to 3 plus hours in the gym every day of the week, switching body parts to allow for healing of the micro tears, and the BMR differences even with that unusual amount of commitment are sparse. That is why the CDC, the NIH, and NHANES are recommending pedometers and aerobic activity because that is when substantial amounts of oxidation occur. So Light Year are you the main editor?BRileyPTA (talk) 05:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)BRileyPTABRileyPTA (talk) 05:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

If there are questions about the veracity of the statistics regarding how many are effectively active, the National Institute for the study of Diabetes and Kidney Disease put out a statement at the following site <http://win.niddk.nih.gov/statistics/> BRileyPTA (talk) 18:25, 30 March 2013 (UTC)BRileyPTABRileyPTA (talk) 18:25, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Effects of aerobic and/or resistance training on body mass and fat mass in overweight or obese adults[edit]

A recent article in the Journal of Applied Physiology, 2012, Dec 15; 113(12): 1831-7 (does not provide free full text but I have private access to this Journal) makes the conclusion which is strongly supported in the references that the main contribution to management of fat accumulation in the body composition is through Aerobic exercise for the reasons I have provided above. Again I have many articles to document this conclusion. According to the article, even when the scientists doubled the Resistance training, there was no significant difference in the BMR, or the fat accumulation compared to Aerobic Exercise training. There is a study comparing moderate aerobic exercise training with high intensity aerobic training from the University of Copenhagen (American Journal of Physiology: Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology (2012; 303 [6], R571-79), that concludes, "Although the exercise induced energy expenditure in the high group was twice that of the moderate group, the resulting accumulated energy balance, calculated from changes in body composition, was not different."

This is not say that BMR is not important. A test to measure BMR was developed by the German Physiologist Adolf Magnus-Levy in 1893 which lead to confirmation by US physiologists at the Harvard Fatigue Laboratory by LJ Henderson in 1927 and with D.B. Hill. (Physiology of Sport and Exercise, 3rd Edition.) There work has lead to many studies and protocols that we are still using in thousands of articles in hundreds of Journals that assess diet, exercise strategies, and pathological impact from disease on BMR across every culture in the world today.

Resistance training is important, but difficult to sustain. BMR is principally determined by weight, and the body can be viewed in systemic analysis and regional analysis, but we are only recently learning that Fat tissues are an endocrine organ, and do have metabolic significance. Thus when someone gains weight, although primarily fat, their BMR rises. This is explained comprehensively in "Microbiology Principles and Explorations" 7th Edition, by J. G. Black.

There is a report issued by the CDC that states that finally there is now a significant trend shift in certain aspects of obesity thanks to Policy changes with regard to childhood obesity statistics. In places where Government Officials such as the Mayor of New York are taking steps to make citizens aware of the Caloric effects of Soft Drinks, and Calorically Dense but Nutritionally Deprived snacks, that healthy changes to Body composition are occurring. ("Reducing Childhood Obesity Through Policy Change: Acting Now to Prevent Obesity" by Thomas R. Frieden, Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, Georgia.)

According to the handbook "Obesity" the success rate for dieting is 3 to 5 percent (NHLBI 1998.) According to Bessen in 2008, there is no diet plan that works better than others ( this is contrary to Weight Watcher Commercials.) Americans eat more food than ever before- an average increase of more than 300 calories per day compared with what was consumed in 1985, Putnam, Allhouse, and Kantor, 2002.)

So again why is this article rated lower by the Editor at Large from Wikipedia? BRileyPTA (talk) 16:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)BRileyPTABRileyPTA (talk) 16:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC) <Obesity. Judith Stern and Alexadra Kazaks. Santa Barbara, California. 2009.>

Sex[edit]

Everywhere the sex is mentioned as an influence. I just wonder why it makes such an enormous difference? The size and weight are allready calculated in, it can not really be about the different physiology of men and women. --Murata (talk) 12:35, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Factors Influencing Basal Metabolic Rate[edit]

The answer to sex differences in regard to changes in the rate of metabolism, in respect to characterisitcs such as age groups, predominantly obese or anorexic, predominantly Type 1 muscle tissue, or type 2, cultures, races, and genotype, is what makes the study of BMR so important. The websites that offer formulas, fail to expalin how individual differences factor into the estimation. The body is very accurate with respect to how much appetite is needed to maintain energy levels for survival. Close study of BMR reveals that the body maintains a 25 Kilocalorie balance of accuracy. So Calculus provides tools to mathematically demonstrate the ratio changes from the various formulas to determine if the estimation is accurate, particularly if there is a characterisitic that changes the metabolic function of the body such as diabetes, an amputation, bed rest, sepsis, infections that cause a fever, amount of sleep, what types of food groups are being eaten. For example a McDonald's Quarter Pounder will affect a man or a woman differently, a person of a different race, culture, age, or sedentary activity level, or athletic activity level. This is explained thoroughly in McArdles Exercise Physiology Text, Second Edition, pages 131-134. It is said in those pages that the muscles and the brain consume the same amount of oxygen at rest, even though the brain makes up 3.5 pounds or less than 2% of body mass and the muscle mass can constitute 50% of the body weight for males, and proportionately less for females. During exercise between the sexes, the effect on bmr is very different. There are graphs in many Exercise Physiology Texts that do point out the discrepancy between males and females, sizes of organs that oxidize glucose such as in Passmore and Draper looking at the chemical anatomy of the human body.BRileyPTA (talk) 05:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)BRileyPTABRileyPTA (talk) 05:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC) http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/43/8/3649 — Preceding unsigned comment added by BRileyPTA (talkcontribs) 05:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC) http://pen.sagepub.com/content/15/4/421.abstractBRileyPTA (talk) 05:29, 2 September 2013 (UTC)BRileyPTABRileyPTA (talk) 05:29, 2 September 2013 (UTC) http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/69/6/1066.full.pdf+htmlBRileyPTA (talk) 05:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)BRileyPTABRileyPTA (talk) 05:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC) http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/82/5/941.fullBRileyPTA (talk) 05:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)BRileyPTABRileyPTA (talk) 05:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Formula Consolidation[edit]

Should all the different formulas be written out with the values explicitly, particularity the later ones. Would it be better to write out general forms for the types of equations and have tables of parameters? H-B and Mifflin are the same, only the constants vary, same with Katch-McArdle vs Cunningham.

Also, Katch-McArdle cites a very not scholarly book. Timetraveler3.14 (talk) 08:07, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Response to formula considerations[edit]

I would direct you to the link http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/82/5/941.fullCite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).

One ref that has information but was improperly placed[edit]

Johnstone, Alexandra M. " Factors influencing variation in basal metabolic rate include fat-free mass, fat mass, age, and circulating thyroxine but not sex, circulating leptin, or triiodothyronine 1',2'3'." The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. November 2005. Vol 82 no. 5 941-948. http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/82/5/941.full. Accessed April 8, 2015.

I believe the above could be used in the article but I just don't have the time to examine it's placement and possible editing of content to make placement appropriate. Feel free to add it in if you have time. Thanks. --Daffydavid (talk) 06:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


One of the problems with the intermittent editing of the article is the lack of proper expertise. You claim in your edit that creatine is not a fuel source. According to Wikipedia it is a fuel source. So who are you and why are you editing?BRileyPTA (talk) 02:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)BRileyPTA@aol.comBRileyPTA (talk) 02:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=Is+creatine+a+fuel+source&title=Special%3ASearch&go=Go

Have you considered that the reason you may be having difficulty here at Wikipedia is that you are not adhering to the rules, BRileyPTA? I am not the one who mentioned creatine and even if I did asking who I am and why am I editing is also a violation of the rules. Claiming expertise in the subject area is not enough. Guidelines have been established so that everyone is able to contribute. To date, your edits while I will give you the benefit of doubt and presume they were meant in good faith have not been very helpful. Material added must be supported directly by the references. If editors are coming to the page with questions about the material then clearly the refs are insufficient. Please read WP:OR and do sign your comments, at the end with four tildes(~~~~). This is your signature that will be generated by Wikipedia. Leave the rest of the tildes out. Thanks. --Daffydavid (talk) 08:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Equations?[edit]

(This is not my area, but I have a general comment about the format of the equations.) I'm not sure why the BMR equations are not closer to the ones used in the cited journal articles. Also, I am probably missing something super obvious, but why are the terms in all of the equations divided by 1? I understand if keeping a consistent format makes it more readable, but it seems to be more confusing than what is in Mifflin et al. 1990 or Harris and Benedict 1918. Page 373 of Harris and Benedict's paper shows a simpler way to calculate heat production than how their equation is represented in the current article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmbryonAtma (talkcontribs) 03:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


Yes I believe you are missing something "super obvious" if you have taken any Chemistry courses. One example, and there are many, is from Zumdahl,Stephen S. 2nd edition which explains very clearly how stoichiometric calculations are made in order to predict amounts of reactants and products which answers the last two posts, yours and another editor regarding creatine. In the Exercise Physiology Textbook by McArdle, William D., it clearly answers both of the last posts on Basal Metabolic Rate on page 84 and 85: it starts off by explaining how ATP yields the energy seen in the Krebs Cycle then it explains the Energy Reservoir, creatine phosphate. Only a small amount of ATP is stored within the cell. This situation provides a sensitive mechanism for regulating energy metabolism in the cell. Because only a very small amount of ATP is stored, we need to have a backup which is creatine phosphate a high energy "reservoir" that comes as fuel from the diet or from supplements.

When I try to find assistance at the University level for this type of corruption of the article, they always say that Wikipedia is not properly following scientific discourse rules.

What I originally posted was accepted science, such as the fact that a pound of fat takes 3,500 Kilocalories of energy to be converted and reduced from the human body. Typical weight loss programs that advertise the amount of weight that can be released in a week, fail to cite that statistic because it makes weight control, regulation of of substrates in the diet, and profit more problematic for Corporations that need to explain to stockholders how fast they are turning investments into profits. Currently, the weight loss tools offered by Apple, and the other Androids are not calculating properly. So even though others may come later and edit the article and remove the assertions I have been making as one of the primary contributors, clearly something is not right with the commercial weightloss programs in the U.S. because the amounts being allowed to this commercial venture of $250 Billion each year, are statistically not producing successful weight management results, unless we go to a Surgeon for a Gastric Bypass procedure, which significantly reduces dietary intake and makes the choices more critical since a smaller amount is needed with the reductions made by Surgeons to the intestinal capacity. So it is important to know that Creatine as a supplement is a critical nutrient when only a small amount of nutrients can be tolerated.[1]— Preceding unsigned comment added by BRileyPTA (talkcontribs) 03:14, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

21 maps and charts that explain the obesity epidemic by Julia Belluz on November 17, 2014[edit]

Originally when I first wrote my portion of the article, I included a controversy section because many of the other Wikipedia contributors use that writing tool for their articles, but an anonymous editor took it out and then promptly stopped editing. But there are plenty of examples of controversy here in the talk pages and I have tried to answer any editorial objections to the article here. I did try earlier in the month to add supporting articles, but then as is usually the case, someone finds fault with the citation that I add or claims it is misplaced, should go somewhere else etc. When I was fact checking the $250 Billion claim I made, I did find a source that puts the number at $147 Billion in 2008 and it compares what we spend fighting obesity with what other countries are spending. The government spends $250 Billion Dollars at NIH on Dementia and Cognitive Decline research. I believe that $250 Billion is a conservative estimate. The website that has an interesting take on this matter is at <re>http://www.vox.com/2014/11/17/7230641/maps-charts-obesity-weightloss</ref>.— Preceding unsigned comment added by BRileyPTA (talkcontribs) 04:00, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.webmd.com/men/creatine?page=3