PDA

View Full Version : is this a bad thing...?


Bodacious DVT
07-02-2007, 09:13 PM
I just ate something with 82% of your daily cholestoral...


...is that bad?:-(

noobplayer
07-02-2007, 09:47 PM
ooh wonder wat it was...chips? fried chicken? something thats fried?

noobplayer
07-02-2007, 09:48 PM
well it wont affect u in the short term but u may have a heart atk when u get older due to clogged arteries from too much cholestoral

Bodacious DVT
07-03-2007, 05:30 AM
ooh wonder wat it was...chips? fried chicken? something thats fried?

no, it was a jimmy dean omelette. i think im gunna puke.

rbowser
07-03-2007, 05:34 AM
Lol. I ate those things once. I ate more cholesterol than you when I went to Denny's, but I didn't know it. Just drink water and eat lots of vegetables and fruits for the rest of the day... =P

Geezer Guy
07-03-2007, 05:52 AM
You're OK. Just watch your cholestoral intake for the rest of the day. You've got 18% to work with, so make it good.

xtremerunnerars
07-03-2007, 09:02 AM
You're OK. Just watch your cholestoral intake for the rest of the day. You've got 18% to work with, so make it good.

More, actually. That 82 percent is based on 2000 calories, and since you're young the numbers are skewed a little. Depending on how active you are, you may need 3000 calories or so.

RDA is way outdated....

Geezer Guy
07-03-2007, 09:38 AM
More, actually. That 82 percent is based on 2000 calories, and since you're young the numbers are skewed a little. Depending on how active you are, you may need 3000 calories or so.

RDA is way outdated....

He said he ate 82%. That means he's got 18% left to work with. You don't know that he assumed the 82% was based on 2,000 calories. He may have been basing it on 3,000 - just as you suggested. Or, he might be on a low-calory diet - sucking in only 1,500 per day. No matter what, if he had 82% for breakfast he has 18% left for the rest of the day.

zebano
07-03-2007, 12:01 PM
He said he ate 82%. That means he's got 18% left to work with. You don't know that he assumed the 82% was based on 2,000 calories. He may have been basing it on 3,000 - just as you suggested. Or, he might be on a low-calory diet - sucking in only 1,500 per day. No matter what, if he had 82% for breakfast he has 18% left for the rest of the day.

The fact that he said 'your' in the original post implies that he was using the Recommended Daily Allowance found on most packaged foods in the US. RDA is based off of a 2000 calorie diet which (as stated) is probably low for an active person. However, your understanding of math is correct.

Bodacious DVT
07-04-2007, 04:54 AM
More, actually. That 82 percent is based on 2000 calories, and since you're young the numbers are skewed a little. Depending on how active you are, you may need 3000 calories or so.

RDA is way outdated....



oooo you're right. how does that thing go? weight x (16-20, 16 being less active 20 being more) = 171x20= 3420 calories.

so its not really 82%:grin:

xtremerunnerars
07-04-2007, 06:31 AM
He said he ate 82%. That means he's got 18% left to work with. You don't know that he assumed the 82% was based on 2,000 calories. He may have been basing it on 3,000 - just as you suggested. Or, he might be on a low-calory diet - sucking in only 1,500 per day. No matter what, if he had 82% for breakfast he has 18% left for the rest of the day.

I was assuming that Bodacious did not do the math based on the mg of cholesterol recommended for him on the location where he ate the thing. I guess I doubted that he had a calculator?

IDK if this is true everywhere, but in the US we have the percents of everything recommended for our diets. There is an asterisk somewhere on that label and it says something to the effect of, "Recommended dietary values are based on a 2000 calorie daily intake."


And Bodacious, you're welcome :) don't feel so bad about it!

Bodacious DVT
07-04-2007, 06:54 AM
And Bodacious, you're welcome :) don't feel so bad about it!

so can i have another one:p


second thought no.:(

dave333
07-04-2007, 07:32 AM
^^^ lol yeah, I would not suggest it.

Probably tempting though...damn jimmy dean!