Off-Topic

DazMarz

mango salsa wrote: »

Say "ICE", "BANK", "MICE", "ELF" outloud...

Ash885

Loving the new Paramore tracks debuting every night. Frotting at the mouth at some of them, they're that good!

baby and crumble

Ash885 wrote: »

Loving the new Paramore tracks debuting every night. Frotting at the mouth at some of them, they're that good!

I think you mean frothing, yes? Otherwise...

frotting

Rubbing one's crotch against unexpecting people, furniture or walls. A favourite of sex-starved Japanese businessmen on the sub-way.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=frotting

Ash885

Bahaha, obviously I meant frotting. Who doesn't like an aul rub?

I'm actually crying with laughter here...never knew spelling could be so important! :P Lesson learned!

wonderfulname

baby and crumble wrote: »

I think you mean frothing, yes? Otherwise...



http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=frotting

It also covers rubbing against expecting people

Annasopra

You'd miss Garret Fitzgeralds analysis of Maggie T

I think Peter Tatchell gets it about right

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/peter-g-tatchell/margaret-thatcher-extraordinary-but-heartless_b_3042345.html

Soldering_Iorn

Human brains are estimated to be 70 – 75% H2O.

DazMarz

Soldering_Iorn wrote: »

Human brains are estimated to be 70 – 75% H2O.

I'd have said most brains of most people are 70-75% sawdust and/or bullsh*t, tbh.

Cosmic Maybe

Soldering_Iorn wrote: »

Human brains are estimated to be 70 – 75% H2O.

Random! You learn something new everyday I suppose. Like today I was watching old episodes of the IT Crowd and learned that a soldering iron is actually a real thing! :eek: I always thought it was just some random made up words

Obviously I never did metalwork or the like.:D

Annasopra

Well done Glenda Jackson MP

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDtClJYJBj8&feature=youtube_gdata_player

1ZRed

Cosmic Maybe wrote: »

Random! You learn something new everyday I suppose. Like today I was watching old episodes of the IT Crowd and learned that a soldering iron is actually a real thing! :eek: I always thought it was just some random made up words

Obviously I never did metalwork or the like.:D

Jaysus, next thing you'll be letting us you don't know what a CNC lathe is :rolleyes:

Cosmic Maybe

1ZRed wrote: »

Jaysus, next thing you'll be letting us you don't know what a CNC lathe is :rolleyes:

Duh!:rolleyes: Sure obviously everyone knows what those yokes are! .

Irish Aris

the new song/video by Lara Fabian

Annasopra

This makes me laugh and smile so much. I love it as I have really found MDH do inspiring and had a massive hug from him once

http://thedailyedge.thejournal.ie/michael-d-higgins-birthday-874888-Apr2013/?utm_source=shortlink

DazMarz

They got him... :cool:

Annasopra

http://thehairpin.com/2011/01/women-laughing-alone-with-salad

DazMarz

Bloody football. I love it and hate it in equal measures... But unless you're a Liverpool fan, you will always hate HIM:



Filth bucket... :mad:

baby and crumble

God lads the stress is getting to me! I hand in my thesis NEXT WEEK and OF COURSE the sun comes out and with it so does all the tousled hair and sundresses. God the library is a distracting place these days!

BanzaiBk

baby and crumble wrote: »

God lads the stress is getting to me! I hand in my thesis NEXT WEEK and OF COURSE the sun comes out and with it so does all the tousled hair and sundresses. God the library is a distracting place these days!

Spent most of the day dealing with the most amazing upper arms I have ever encountered. Of course the arms were attached to the body of some doctor and by dealing with I mean gaze ninjaly from afar More mild weather please!

Cosmic Maybe

:eek:

NASA rovers accidentally draw penis on Mars - picture

The image, which was shared on Reddit earlier this morning (April 24), proved so popular that it caused the NASA website to crash.

Tainor

Soldering_Iorn wrote: »

Human brains are estimated to be 70 – 75% H2O.

Well Mr. Soldering_Iorn, since you brought it up as H2O, rather than pure water content to weight ratio, I am due to tell you that molecule wise the human brain is ≈99% H2O, the rest 1% is DNA molecules. Granted DNA molecules are huge in volume compared to water molecules, hence the weight to water ratio 75%

wonderfulname

Tainor wrote: »

Well Mr. Soldering_Iorn, since you brought it up as H2O, rather than pure water content to weight ratio, I am due to tell you that molecule wise the human brain is ≈99% H2O, the rest 1% is DNA molecules. Granted DNA molecules are huge in volume compared to water molecules, hence the weight to water ratio 75%

Does not compute.

1ZRed

Tainor wrote: »

Well Mr. Soldering_Iorn, since you brought it up as H2O, rather than pure water content to weight ratio, I am due to tell you that molecule wise the human brain is ≈99% H2O, the rest 1% is DNA molecules. Granted DNA molecules are huge in volume compared to water molecules, hence the weight to water ratio 75%

But what about your nerves? Electrical impulses can't travel on water and DNA, they need set connections of neurons made of proteins and many other molecules -DNA being only found within their nucleus. DNA is a blueprint or construction guide for the cell, but not a building material to make it.
That's why I find it hard to believe your brain is 99% water and the remaining part is just DNA.

corked

5 years ago I saw a discusting picture of myself - over weight and in poor fitness. So took things serious and lost almost 4 stone. Did 2 marathons and have a huge collection of medals from races.

Over the past 18 months I have managed to put on 1.5stone and saw a not so nice picture of myself with a double chin!

So the focus is now back on with a 5km race tomorrow. And will post here weekly on how it's going.... Just to keep me on track. The goal is to loose 1 stone by October but would be delighted to loose the other .5 with it.

Current weight: 93kg
Current Bmi:29 (normal is 25)

L1011

BMI is absolute and utter bollox, seeing as its a two dimensional calculation applied to a 3D figure, and also the "normal" range (20-25) was determined during an era of what is now accepted to be mass malnutrition.

It only came back to popularity due to thrashy womens magazines in the last decade.

I really, really wouldn't focus on it.

Annasopra

I have redspots all over my body. I think I might have measles or chickenpox

jaffacakesyum

corked wrote: »

5 years ago I saw a discusting picture of myself - over weight and in poor fitness. So took things serious and lost almost 4 stone. Did 2 marathons and have a huge collection of medals from races.

Over the past 18 months I have managed to put on 1.5stone and saw a not so nice picture of myself with a double chin!

So the focus is now back on with a 5km race tomorrow. And will post here weekly on how it's going.... Just to keep me on track. The goal is to loose 1 stone by October but would be delighted to loose the other .5 with it.

Current weight: 93kg
Current Bmi:29 (normal is 25)

Best of luck with it!! The fact you did 2 marathons before is a huge achievement. I wouldn't be able to do one! And I'm really into fitness, work out quite a lot.

MYOB wrote: »

BMI is absolute and utter bollox, seeing as its a two dimensional calculation applied to a 3D figure, and also the "normal" range (20-25) was determined during an era of what is now accepted to be mass malnutrition.

It only came back to popularity due to thrashy womens magazines in the last decade.

I really, really wouldn't focus on it.

Um no, BMI is the gold standard in terms of measuring weight. The vast majority of the time it is an accurate determinent of healthy and unhealthy weights. It's used in all the scientific papers. Of course, it doesn't distinguish between fat and muscle, so if you're a big huge bodybuilder you're going to have an abnormal BMI even though you're not fat. In those cases, other measurements can be used.

Also to say that a BMI of 20-25 is malnutrition is shocking :eek:

L1011

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

Um no, BMI is the gold standard in terms of measuring weight. The vast majority of the time it is an accurate determinent of healthy and unhealthy weights. It's used in all the scientific papers. Of course, it doesn't distinguish between fat and muscle, so if you're a big huge bodybuilder you're going to have an abnormal BMI even though you're not fat. In those cases, other measurements can be used.

No, really, its not the gold standard nor is it commonly used in actual scientific papers. It was completely discredited until it got latched on to a few years ago by the dieting industry. If you find it being used in scientific papers, take a look at who's making them. Roche seem to love sponsoring research on it, for instance - take a look at their product list.

The fat/muscle issue is only a sideshow to a major problem that it assumes that everyone is exactly the same structural (skeletal) width and depth. There's also issues with the way the calculation works which mean its unreliable for taller people regardless of everything else.

Its not even reliable as a good guess, let alone people being tricked in to thinking it means something concrete. Wouldn't be as easy to scare people without it now would it.

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

Also to say that a BMI of 20-25 is malnutrition is shocking :eek:

I didn't say that, I said that the scale was determined in era of mass malnutrition. We're also told to apply the same scale to effectively the entire Western world (there are different allegedly 'normal' bands for some ethnicities, but that's about it).

A body fat calculation is the actual gold standard - pity the kit isn't cheap.

jaffacakesyum

MYOB wrote: »

No, really, its not the gold standard nor is it commonly used in actual scientific papers. It was completely discredited until it got latched on to a few years ago by the dieting industry. If you find it being used in scientific papers, take a look at who's making them. Roche seem to love sponsoring research on it, for instance - take a look at their product list.

The fat/muscle issue is only a sideshow to a major problem that it assumes that everyone is exactly the same structural (skeletal) width and depth. There's also issues with the way the calculation works which mean its unreliable for taller people regardless of everything else.

Its not even reliable as a good guess, let alone people being tricked in to thinking it means something concrete. Wouldn't be as easy to scare people without it now would it.

BMI is in no way a concrete measure, as I already said about muscle mass and indeed I take your point on about skeletal structure. However, skeletal width and depth is unlikely in my personal opinion to offshoot BMI scores significantly although I'm unaware of any studies. In fact, BMI is likely to underdiagnose rather than overdiagnose fat mass http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2877506/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20125098

One of the problems is BMI cannot measure visceral fat. Another issue is that it does not distinguish between where the fat is distributed. So while, a person with high BMI is still going to be unhealthy, they may have fat distributed in the upper limbs, trunk and lower limbs rather than their waist, which isn't as bad as abdominal obesity is more correlated with cardiovascular risks.

Anywway, I digress. BMI has been shown to be an accurate measurement tool in many studies. It's highly, but not perfectly correlated with body fat %. The fact you question which scientific journals would use BMI is odd. I'm talking peer-reviewed medical journals here, not Cosmo.

In addition, look up any clinical guidelines and they will say BMI is the recommended tool. It has its limitations, but it's the most accurate and practical tool available. American College of Physicians, American College of Preventative Measurement, National Institute for Clinical Excellence, NHS guidelines etc.

I didn't say that, I said that the scale was determined in era of mass malnutrition. We're also told to apply the same scale to effectively the entire Western world (there are different allegedly 'normal' bands for some ethnicities, but that's about it).

A body fat calculation is the actual gold standard - pity the kit isn't cheap.

Apologies, I misread you. And yes, of course there are many studies out there which give you different bands for different ethnicities and of course for children there's going to be different percentiles but they're out there if you'd like to research them.

Actually, cadaver studies are the only gold standard for measuring body composition. I referred to BMI as the gold standard purely because we're obviously not talking cadavers here :pac: Technically there is no universal agreed gold standard but, as I mentioned above the most recommended tool is BMI and then in specific populations there'll be add ons to that.

L1011

There isn't a reckoning tool with as many exceptions, clarifications and "this isn't particularly accurate for..." clauses that is in such common use or with as much emphasis placed on it for anything else in medicine, though. People have zero reason to get obsessed over BMI.