Talk:Basal metabolic rate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

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

Contents

[edit] 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] 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.

[edit] 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)

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!

[edit] 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)


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/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

[edit] Cleanup tag

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

[edit] 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)

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

[edit] 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)

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)
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 [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)

[edit] Some comments

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)

[edit] Response

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 [[17]] 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 [[18]] 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 [[19]] 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" [[20]] 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)

[edit] BMR versus Basal Metabolic Rate

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)

[edit] BMR versus Macedonia

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)

[edit] BMR and Wikistandards

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)

[edit] Capital letters

"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:>] [[21]] 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)

[edit] Basal vs basic

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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/a/s/Talk%7EBasal_metabolic_rate_97c9.html"