Talk:Basal metabolic rate

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

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

<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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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 collaboration" of the week would be great. I 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 - 17.5/3500 (w)

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 perosn 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

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

External link

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks for making that clear to your eager readers! Joe 18:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[[15]] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

You can't indict me without indicting yourself in this matter regardless of what's explicitly allowed. Joe 18:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [[16]] valuable as a supplement to any article, if not BMR? Thanks for your objective thoughts-Joe 19:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Responses to RFC

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)[reply]

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 [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)[reply]