User talk:BRileyPTA

I am a new contributor to Wikipedia, but I think it is a great opportunity to bring science and research to the Internet on a real time basis and have it ranked highly on the web cralwers. Great concept.

Welcome!

Hello, BRileyPTA, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Capitalistroadster 06:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilinks[edit]

BRileyPTA, I hope you got the message I left before at User talk:BRiley. I wasn't sure which account I should send the message to.

I have one suggestion if you're interested. It helps provide context if you make links in the text you add to articles. In case you don't know already, you can make a link to any article by putting it in brackets. For example, if you write:

[[Basal metabolic rate]]

it shows up in the article as:

Basal metabolic rate

Thanks again for your contributions, Wmahan . 22:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wmahan: I was just speaking to one of my coworkers at the facility where I do Physical Therapy and we were speculating how I could add some links.

I have a very extensive collection of articles and ideas for the basal site. I believe there are over 80 different pathologies that could be addressed by Basal Metabolic identification and management. Take Alzheimer's disease. Its a vascular syndrome that affects 100% of the Trisomy 21 pathology that live to age 30. I believe that this is proof that lack of muscle tone, build up of excess triglycerides, formation of plaques and tangles could be diagnosed and alleviated, possibly relieved with accurate BMR assessment. I am trying to make sure I understand how Wikipedia wants things to look to be in conformance with the other articles. Thank you very much for your feedback!

Sincerely,

Bill

Reliable sources[edit]

You idea of conducting a scientific experiment for the sake of a Wikipedia article is laudable in intself. However, this is not a good way to go.

As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia should only contain information that is verifiable. Regulation of body mass of mammals (such as humans) is the subject of scientific research, in this instance, physiology. Therefore, you will have to understand how scientific knowledge is achieved.

The individual researcher cannot investigate a complex phenomenon such as body mass regulation without taking into account the experimental results and the ideas of other researchers. If you type "body mass" into the search engine of Pubmed, you will get about 65,000 entries. This means, there have been 65,000 studies in this area, but, alas, the topic is still controversial. If you publish your proposed study, there will be 65,001 studies. This will not change anything in the whole picture, unless your contribution is really revolutionary (and you will be eligible for the Nobel prize). Moreover, no other scientist will take your contribution for serious if you publish it in the Washington Post or syndicate it. If your findings revolutionize the field, your fellow researchers will be very suspicious if you did not publish them in a reputable scientific journal.

You might say that there are plenty of scientific theories that were rejected by the scientific community for a long time before they became finally accepted. See continental drift (discovered by Alfred Wegener) or transposons (discovered by Barbara McClintock). These theories took decades to be generally accepted, nevertheless, they were first published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, and not in the Washington Post.

So, instead of trying to abuse a daily paper, try to go through the 65,000 studies summarized in PubMed, and find those who corroborate your ideas.

With kind regards, Andreas ^(T) 21:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BMR[edit]

Hi Bill. I wasn't critiquing the content at all, I was just remarking on the lack of citations and refs for that section. Context for the questions and outside sources who have discussed them, specifically. For example, the question "Why does metabolism go up when we drink coffee which has no appreciable effect on muscle gain?" - who is asking this? The "who" should be sourced if possible along with the other open ended interrogatories.

You seem to be very well versed in the subject matter, and I wasn't impinging your work in the slightest. I just think the section should probably have a more encyclopaedic tone and less of a dialectic or instructional tone. The more inline references for statements the better, as per WP:MOS. The proper citation templates are here, and I think that using them and footnotes would go a long way to strengthening the entry. Thanks for doing such good work! I was pleasantly surprised to come across such a well put together article on the subject. - WeniWidiWiki 20:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Weniwidiwiki:

Since this is my first effort I obviously have a lot to learn about the encyclopedic side of the equation! There are so many references to the topic that I have been troubled by which direction to turn so that the referecnes don't become problematic. For example there are some articles which are old that support the notion that women have a lower BMR because they are women! In fact women are closing the gap on men in every sport so I think in time that will be considered anachronistic. The woman who I work for in my day job used to be the Deputy Surgeon General of the U.S. Navy and she is quite extraordinary for her intellectual acumen but also for her considerable ability to knock out sit ups (50 a day at least!) During her rise as a Navy Nurse to the rank of Rear Admrial she was in charge of the facilities that house NIH at Bethesda Naval Medical Center. She agrees with me that we need to improve the understanding of the scientific process on the Internet since so many people turn here for information. I think the controversy section, although in need of clean up, is a good effort toward that ideal. I was at the Jefferson Memorial on Friday looking at some of his ideas and the quote that our country is founded on the principles of energy, light and liberty seems to hold application for this situation. Yes there is darkness associated with a misconception such as slavery. Yes it took many individuals to become educated on basic principles and an adherence to a body of knowledge that was secured through trial and error. And yes finally in due time with much discourse in an academically acceptable way, the changes did occur which could have ripped our country in two, but actually made us a better more ethical country. So the energy of discourse eventually led to the light that a grievous misconception had brought incredible misfortune and misery to millions, and then the knowledge and action that brought a greater fulfillment of the very freedom we profess to offer to all. That is what I hope will happen with the controversy section. Knowledge should never be so dry and apathetic that it leaves us with eye lids that are heavy with fatigue. Rather knowledge should be filled with energy, light, and finally liberty from misconceptions! But I'll look into a spirited foundation for the points that are contended so that the main thrust of the information is not overshadowed! Thanks for your help! References will be forthcoming!

Sincerely,

Bill

Copyvio[edit]

Hey, Bill, just so you know Lt. Gen. William E. Riley was identified as copyright violation by Wherebot, and has been tagged for deletion. --Haemo 03:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basal metabolic rate[edit]

Thanks for your note. I've updated my note about the spam link on the Basal metabolic rate page.

In terms of upgrading the article's ratings: There's nothing that you can do directly about the importance rating, except convince someone else that it really fits the guidelines better as a Mid rating than as a Low. This will be a hard sell, since "detailed physiological information" is specifically listed as Low. Keep in mind that the rating here is primarily about what the WPMED project thinks they should improve first, not about the overall importance of the subject to the whole encyclopedia.

In terms upgrading its class: The next step up from B is GA. You get there by first comparing the article to the Good Article Criteria, and fixing anything that might be needed, and then nominating it at WP:GAN. Based on the couple of GA reviews I've witnessed recently, you might want to assume in advance that a GA reviewer will apply much more stringent standards than actually required.

Also, I'd appreciate it if you would look at Abnormal basal metabolic rate, which is basically a single sentence, and see whether it could be usefully merged into BMR. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and I'll look into that today!User:BRileyPTA

Basal Metabolic Rate References[edit]

I have been gathering notes that I have accumulated over the years regarding this topic, and I have over 100 references that address the basic themes of the article. There are many controversies and I do wonder about the rationale behind placing so many references into the article given the fact that there are legitimate point of view differences even with something simple like how much physical activity people get everyday. There are many websites that report people are exercising like crazy, modifying their diets, and being more healthy. But according to a study by Troiano RP, Berrigan D, Dodd KW, Masse LC, Tilert T, McDowell M. "Physical Activity in the United States as Measured by Accelerometer," in Medicine & Science in Sports and Exercise, 2008; 40(1): 181-188 at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18091006, researchers using tools to be more accurate than self reports, in those studies, 3% meet the recommended guidelines, and for 65 and above its 2.5%.

According to the Statistical Abstract on Table 1209 (2009) there are 87,469,000 who claim on surveys to participate in Exercise Walking and in later editions of the Abstract that number is higher. There are 32,878,000 who claim to lift weights. Swimming is 56,463,000. Exercising with Equipment is 52,392,000 (treadmills, eliptical trainers, etc.)

Health clubs famously sell large numbers of memberships, which have strongly worded legal ramifications for collection policies if the person responsible does not faithfully "pay" for the membership as specified, because in actuality only a low percentage actually follow through on coming regularly.

The Basal Metabolic Rate article is problematic because there are several points of view. My point of view is that it is an important concept for health purposes because it is obvious from the research being done at NIH, people need to be more aware of what is happening to their bodies with respect to energy consumption and utilization. Weight lifting to reduce adipose tissue is a lower ranked idea, because according to many studies, it can cause as many problems in terms of injuries, as it solves with respect to changes to metabolism ( a very low probability of success given the need for sustained effort, with long periods of plateaus, injury, Type 1 or Type 2 fiber concentrations, levels of testosterone, etc).

Metabolism is carried out principally through resting capacity as the body regulates its internal needs for repair, digestion, and maintenance. If the body stores adipose tissue excessively, because of factors that are subtle and not easily recognized or noticed, it is very difficult to reduce that storage and health consequences can result. That is why I think the article is important.

I quoted a New York Times article explaining why the Mayor of New York has made it a law to post the caloric values of food and drink. Most recently, the Mayor wants to limit the size of the drinks that people consume, because there is a disconnect between what we want to consume and what we can expend. That is the subject of this article on Wikipedia. I have several hundred references and I have followed the article and the changes to the article since 2005 and looked at other articles to see how they are changed over the years and it seems that the talk pages are the place where point of view is discussed with consideration given to other view points. But given the fact that the article has been lowered from a B status to a C status, I would like to know more about that process. BRileyPTA (talk) 19:18, 30 March 2013 (UTC)BRileyPTABRileyPTA (talk) 19:18, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting for information from Slakr[edit]

Not sure why the SineBot is blocking my edit on the talk page regarding a vox web page regarding the figure that it costs America for weight loss? Sincerely, BRileyPTA BRileyPTA (talk) 04:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)BRileyPTABRileyPTA (talk) 04:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 And I did address the edit from DaffyDavid.  I was trying to add references.  He took exception.  Its tricky because I wrote this a long time ago and I have new information so my resources keep changing.  I have 300 references now compared to when and what I wrote way back in 2005.  BRileyPTA (talk) 04:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)BRileyPTABRileyPTA (talk) 04:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]