Income Tax: how does it work?

At least I've read it...which seems to be more than you have.

It then goes on to quote two formulae, which both have weight as a significant factor.

The first one shows for men, that every extra kg of weight results in 13.751 extra kcals per day. The second one, which is supposed to be more accurate more modern lifestyles, every extra kg of weight results in an increase of 9.99 kcals.

Use the formula in the wiki article I quoted (and which you said was right). Or one of the online calculators which have been referenced.

Exactly. And the formulae quoted for basal metabolism, in the article I quoted and you agreed was right, shows weight makes a big difference to basal metabolism.

Er, you obvously didn't get to bit with the formulae, or didn't understand them.

It also references an online calculator for BMR. Try using that and coming back and telling weight doesn't make a significant difference.

A 15 stone 40 year old 5'10" man uses 28% more energy at rest than a 10 stone one.

The amount of "work" most people do these days is simply walking around, going up and down stairs etc. Fat and thin people would probably do around around the same. Of course you could be confusing cause and effect - someone who does less work is likely to become fatter.

Many of your organs will enlarge as you become fatter, and so need more energy.

Now use the formula quote in the wiki article (which you said was right) to account for weight.

Snap. But even O-level physics should tell you it takes more energy to heat a larger mass, it takes more energy to move a larger mass, it takes more energy to pump blood around a larger body, etc.

No. I'm not going to do that because it's totally irrelevant. We were talking about the UK producing only 60% of the amount of food it currently consumes and what that would mean in the event that there were world food shortages and importation of food into the UK ceased.

You said that 18% of food is wasted. OK, let's assume the unlikely, and say every last scrap of that is saved and actually eaten, however unpalatable. That means Britain produces 60/(100-18) ie 73% of the amount of food it then consumes.

You said Britons consume more food than is necessary anyway, which is what is leading to an 'obesity epidemic'. I reckoned people on average ate no more than 1 or 2 per cent more than they required. Taking that into account, Britain produces at best just about 75% of what it actually needs.

If that is the case then, when imports cease, the government will have no alternative but to introduce rationing. And they will ration food so that everyone receives a fair and equal share of what is available. That means that everyone will receive 75% of the average person's needs. There is no precedent to suggest that the government will measure people and give the fat ones more, and I'm sure they wouldn't. Everyone will therefore receive about 2100 calories a day as opposed to the 2800 or so he requires. The fat ones who need 28% or so more as you calculated to maintain body weight (ie about 3500 calories) will still only receive 2100, and will therefore be on a ration of 60%.

I think you'll find, whatever calculation you do, that all will lose weight, and the fattest will lose weight fastest.

Do please do the math using any of the formulae you rely on, and tell us at what weight you think everyone will stabilise.

Then tell us just how many people will die.

OK.

And that's bullshit. Most British people are overweight, some substantially so. Practially everyone could reduce their food intake by 10% and survive. Most could reduce it by much more.

And what would we be *capable* of producing, if we really had to? I could grow potatoes and vegetables in my garden, if I had to.

If it was rationed it would sensible to ration by height, sex and age. Weight will look after itself. A tall young man will need more than a short old woman.

Yes, and? Of course people will lose weight. But they won't die - in fact many could be saved from the diseases associated with obesity.

OK!

Let's see, 2100 kcal average you say we'll receive. I'll use the MD Mifflin and ST St Jeor formula (as quoted in the wiki article), and I'll assume an average activity level of about 1.5 times the BMR, an average height of 170cm, average age of 40, equal numbers of men and women.

So 2100 = 1.5 * ( 9.99m + 6.25*170 - 4.92*40 + (5-161)/2 )

So

1400 = 9.99m + 1062.5 - 196.8 -78

Giving m = (1400 - 1062.5 + 196.8 + 78)/9.99

m = 61.3kg. Or about 10 stone, as an average weight.

None. Next.

That's not the point I was making. I was just trying to establish just how much extra was being consumed overall than is required to maintain overall body weight, not just survive, over the whole of Britain.

That's a different question.

It never has been, and it never will. If scarce vital resources are not equally shared you get riots. It's an old but true adage that the government is never more than three meals away from revolution.

OK. Next, do it with more realistic figures. I have to apologise that I gave you figures that were way too high. According to NHS Direct:

26 "The recommended daily calorie intake varies depending on how old you are. For the average adult this is about 2,000 per day (women) and 2,500 per day (men)."

So, the figures I used previously (2700 and latterly, just for ease of the maths, 2800) were far too high even for men alone, which is whom I meant to take as being your best case scenario. The figure you should be using in your calculation based on the NHS numbers, and your use of the average for men and women, is in fact 75% of the average of the mens' and womens' recommended daily calorie intake, ie 75% of 2250, or just 1688, not 2100. Applying that figure, based on your calculation, the weight at which people would stabilise (men and women) is 61.3 x 1688 / 2100 = 49.3kg or about 7st

8lb for a person of average height.

I think many would die at that level.

The above conclusion moreover assumes (a) that there is no increase in population, (b) that every scrap of food currently thrown away is used, and (c) that body weight does actually stabilise rather than continuously reduce, none of which I believe will be the case.

Yeah right - is that why you keep asking how many will die?

And it's one which needs answering before coming out with far fetched scare stories about us starving because we won't be able to produce enough food.

Rubbish. It'll be shared within families as required even if everyone gets the same.

Oh really? I do the maths using your figures and the result doesn't suit you, so you're changing them...

Yes, that's the recommended, not actual. Most people eat too much. Hence most people are overweight.

Er, why? Your figures are all based on the difference between what we *do* consume and what we produce. Not between what we *should* consume and what we produce.

Yeah, but you also think that if a 10 stone person ups their calorie intake by

20%, they'll reach a weight of several tons before their weight stabilises!

And that no extra land is used for food production, and that land currently used for food production is not used in a more efficient way by switching to foods which maximise the food per acre.

I'm asking because I want to know the answer.

It could perhaps produce 5% more.

And everyone will go short. And everyone will be murderous. Same problem , same result.

No, I gave the figures I thought were right for half the population, ie men, in an effort to make your best possible case. My figures were too high even for men.

If people do eat too much, it is by 1 or 2% only, otherwise everyone would be increasing in weight, which is not the case.

The difference is just 1 or 2%, and is essentially insignificant.

Good. I'm glad you agree at last.

If you don't think land is already utilised in the most efficient way, then you have no respect for the people who are the professionals in this area and whose lives depend on doing just that, ie the farmers. The extra land that could be used for food production is really very small in comparison with the area of arable farms in this country, and the productivity of such land is likely to be much less as it will be in the hnds of rank amateurs..

Really? Where's your analysis for that? I reckon it's 24.3% more.

Yeah, yeah.

You need to borrow one of Tim's fiddle factors...

You persist with this bullshit, despite the formula shown by the referenced wiki article which you said was "right", showing that BMR increases significantly with weight.

Come on, where is the formula that *you* are using to correlate weight with energy requirement?

The "yeah" wasn't an agreement. I was taking the piss out your belief that

7st8lb would be a fatally low weight by comparing it to your even more riduculous belief quoted below...

Er, the point was that the land is being used to produce food which people currently want. If, say, potatoes could be produced using much less land per kilo of final product than wheat, then production could switch from wheat to potatoes.

You seem to think that humans are incapable of adapting in a crisis.