Quadriplegic acceptance into medical school: please help!

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Even though this thread has strayed from the OP's original post, there are still some usefull points of discussion if we can go at this a different way. Perhaps focusing on hypothetical scenarios and more general discussions of medical training/practice and disabilities would help? I know that I am interested in the topic. However, anytime a discussion starts to focus around one's personal situation the discussion can become hazardous. Then again, perhaps the topic has already burnt out, which makes it a moot point.

I think one issue with this is that is that people tend to be dismissive of physically disabled med students/doctors in general but supportive specifically... It's weird and quite confusing at times, honestly.

That being said, I think one issue people need to think about (though not specifically the OP, as he seems very sure of what speciality he wants to go into) is whether they are absolutely sure they''d be happy going into the residencies they could likely complete (which in the case of qudrapalegia seems to be mostly psych and pm&r)... MS talk a lot about changing what speciality they want to go into while in med school, and if you have only have two options, well, you better make damn sure (as much as you can) that you'd be happy in those specialities before hand... Just throwing that out there...

Also, thank you *so much* for your post, Ludicolo... Really, it was incredibly helpful!

Members don't see this ad.
 
MS talk a lot about changing what speciality they want to go into while in med school, and if you have only have two options, well, you better make damn sure (as much as you can) that you'd be happy in those specialities before hand... Just throwing that out there...

Well, I still think you have to consider the whole route, not just the end result specialty. The ones you mentioned require a one year preliminary year in medicine or surgery before you can specialize, so that year has to be doable for you or it is going to be awfully difficult to get there. Driving to Europe always seems easy if you ignore the ocean in the way.

But yes, I think it's very true that you have to be really really sure of what you are doing if you are going to have fewer choices at the other end. It is often stated and nearly always true that you will change your mind at least once in med school as to what specialty you want to go into. You see new things you like during your clerkship. You find out that other things you thought you'd like are not as cool as they sounded. Your scores and credentials may open or close some doors. And you probably change as a person a bit along the way, maybe learn things about yourself and what you see yourself doing as a career. It is the rare individual who shows up to med school saying I want to do XYZ and never wavers from this notion. You generally want to keep an open mind, because what you see from the outside isn't always the same as it looks on the inside.
 
Biogirl and others with deficits,

Check this out. Dr. Lieberman, C5 and his journal throughout his internship year.

http://www.thehealingfundforjesse.org/journal.htm

He truly embodies the human side to medicine. His compassion towards his patients and others blows me away over and over again.

Talk about strong-willed...
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Biogirl and others with deficits,

Check this out. Dr. Lieberman, C5 and his journal throughout his internship year.

http://www.thehealingfundforjesse.org/journal.htm

He truly embodies the human side to medicine. His compassion towards his patients and others blows me away over and over again.

Talk about strong-willed...

I have a feeling that your passion may be better suited to inspire and help more people rather than being a clincian and help one person at a time. maybe write a book?
 
Its very inspiring yes, but I have a question. It seems most of the examples I've seen are people that were either practicing or in medical school when they had their injury. Have you actually found anyone who has gained admission with a similar injury? Because I think that would be the most helpful for you Walderness. (as they could probably give you an actual answer to your original question) If you have and I somehow missed it in this thread, then I apologize for overlooking it.
 
Its very inspiring yes, but I have a question. It seems most of the examples I've seen are people that were either practicing or in medical school when they had their injury. Have you actually found anyone who has gained admission with a similar injury? Because I think that would be the most helpful for you Walderness. (as they could probably give you an actual answer to your original question) If you have and I somehow missed it in this thread, then I apologize for overlooking it.

i mentioned it only briefly but yes...dr. house, founder of disaboom.com. he had many good suggestions and i told him that i added him to my speed dial
 
I know I'm late to the party, but I wanted to add my thoughts.

The most important thing, Walderness, is that medicine is a conservative profession. People have a vested interest in protecting the status quo. But just because something has always been one way doesn't mean it can't, and shouldn't, change.

Not to be trite but thirty years ago women were discouraged from entering medicine. Everyone "knew" that q2 call was required, that there was no possibility for time off for pregnancy and maternity leave, and that women lacked the stamina and capacity to put themselves through the rigors of training-- especially surgical training. Now of course this is all thrown out the window like the rubbish it is.

The biggest force to reckon with in enacting that change was answering the question "why? Why should women become doctors? Why should we make these accommodations?" Putting aside questions of equality for a second, the main reason is that women brought something to the table as doctors that men didn't. And those things, tangible and intangible, were very valuable. The same would absolutely be true of you-- just like this Jesse mentor you've mentioned, your ability to connect with patients with disability would be outstanding. Your very existence would give them hope. You would be marvelously effective.

And it is because of that added utility that it's worth it to make accommodations for you. I'm not saying you should approach this at all from a "rights" perspective, but there is a reason for which it makes sense for the system to bend its rules.

So what everyone is emphasizing to you is that the current system makes it quite difficult to successfully complete the clinical years and internship of medical training. Fine. Get an assistant to help write in the charts (pay them yourself if you have to). Take the elevators on rounds. Get in earlier than everyone else and stay later to make sure your share of the work is done.

Frankly yes-- the current requirements of training state that we students are supposed to have seen a certain number of procedures and be competent at the physical exam to graduate. You don't have to perform anything to graduate-- not even drawing blood-- let alone insert lines and run a code. And the vast majority of physicians never do anything outside of their specialty ever again after med school... if you never personally deliver a baby with your own hands, you'll be all right. This is anathema to the medical establishment but honestly, you will.

Interestingly, the negative responders to your post who are upper-year med students and residents are all in procedure-rich fields like EM, Ob/gyn and surgery. They most likely find it difficult to conceive of practicing medicine without your hands. But I assure you many docs do just that.

And lastly, not to discourage you, but there are some astounding alternative paths you could take. I would think a PhD in clinical neuropsych, and a subsequent practice entirely of patients with physical disabilities, would be a wonderful way to use your smarts and your experience.

Best of luck to you.
 
You don't have to perform anything to graduate-- not even drawing blood-- let alone insert lines and run a code. And the vast majority of physicians never do anything outside of their specialty ever again after med school... if you never personally deliver a baby with your own hands, you'll be all right. This is anathema to the medical establishment but honestly, you will.

Many, many med schools would take issue with the above statement. There are absolutely med schools that will not let you get through a clerkship without doing (not seeing) various procedures. It is simply part of the requirements for completion of the clerkship. Sorry, while the above might be true at your school (although I kind of doubt it) it really can't be extrapolated to the rest. And certainly cannot be extrapolated to a prelim year.
 
Maybe try to do a search on Google if you haven't already. You have great stats! Never listen to people who say something is not possible. They are not in your position & have never tried to gain admission to a medical school with your injuries. So they have no experience to speak about. I think you are very right about being valuable to patients with similar injuries. Besides being knowledgeable, you would have the compassion and understanding that some doctors lack these days. At the end of this cycle, please come back to this thread & post where you got into medical school so you can give others in similar positions inspiration & insight. And... so you can throw one of these, :p, at the naysayers. :D I truly wish you the best of luck!
 
I think you are very right about being valuable to patients with similar injuries. Besides being knowledgeable, you would have the compassion and understanding that some doctors lack these days.

I think folks make too much of this argument, repeated many times in this thread, that someone with the same ailment as his patients tends to have a big advantage. Nobody suggests that the obese, chain-smoker with bad hygeine would make a better doctor, although in many practices (and all of med school at the average teaching hospital) he would be better able to identify with most of his patients. In medicine you need to be able to empathize, but not necessarily identify with your patients. In fact, there are good reasons you want to be professionally detached at times, both because it's easier to give hard advice to folks with whom you have maintained a professional arms length, you avoid things like countertransferrance, and in some situations you need to be able to recommend paths/remedies you yourself didn't take for various personal reasons you perhaps shouldn't be drawn into discussing with a patient. It's a nice concept that a patient should see a doctor as a similarly situated friend, but in a lot of cases you have to maintain a professional detachment for good reasons. So it probably goes too far to suggest that someone similarly situated would be better suited. They might have some insights to offer, but would it really outweigh some of the things they couldn't do? Food for thought.

(And again, I'm not addressing the OP's situation here, which I think we've exhausted, just trying to address some of the discussion).
 
Nobody suggests that the obese, chain-smoker with bad hygeine would make a better doctor, although in many practices (and all of med school at the average teaching hospital) he would be better able to identify with most of his patients.

With all due respect, no one suggests this because that is a bit ridiculous, don't you think? I think most people would not compare hygiene issues that can be fixed with a shower, to a life-altering spinal cord injury. I believe you are possibly unable to put yourself in the shoes of someone who is in the OP's position and see that perhaps it is of great comfort to someone who is newly injured to have a doctor who has overcome such an injury, and has gone on with his life. I don't feel it is productive to try to argue someone out of their dream when there is nothing wrong with it. Others have done it, he will too! :thumbup:
 
With all due respect, no one suggests this because that is a bit ridiculous, don't you think? I think most people would not compare hygiene issues that can be fixed with a shower, to a life-altering spinal cord injury. I believe you are possibly unable to put yourself in the shoes of someone who is in the OP's position and see that perhaps it is of great comfort to someone who is newly injured to have a doctor who has overcome such an injury, and has gone on with his life. I don't feel it is productive to try to argue someone out of their dream when there is nothing wrong with it. Others have done it, he will too! :thumbup:

Again, I and others have stopped talking about the OP's specific issues several posts ago (the topic has moved to a more general one), and only am talking about the concept at large. The OP has determined to push forward and we wish him the best of luck. But the discussion is a good one and can continue more generally.

Of course weight and hygiene are not the same thing as a debilitating injury. But I was trying to stress a point -- every patient has a different issue, and while there are good reasons that you should be able to empathize with a patient, you do not need, or even want, to directly identify with the patient; in fact there are good reasons to maintain a professional distance, to avoid countertransferrance issues as well as possible lack of objectivity in terms of treatments. Which is why we don't suggest that obese people make better doctors for obese patients, and schizophrenics don't make better doctors for their schizophrenic patients and so on. I get that folks like to turn lemons into lemonaid by suggesting that someone with an injury has more to offer similarly injured patients. I'm just not sure the benefits outweigh the detriments and loss of professional objectivity. (Assuming arguendo that they make it through the training). But it is certainly an interesting discussion.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I think folks make too much of this argument, repeated many times in this thread, that someone with the same ailment as his patients tends to have a big advantage. Nobody suggests that the obese, chain-smoker with bad hygeine would make a better doctor, although in many practices (and all of med school at the average teaching hospital) he would be better able to identify with most of his patients. In medicine you need to be able to empathize, but not necessarily identify with your patients.

I agree completely. That argument has never really held up with me.

If that were the case, then they should prevent all men and any woman who has not had children yet from going into OB/gyn.

And no one realistically thinks that the only good oncologists are cancer survivors, that all good pulmonologists have emphysema, or that the only good cardiologist is the person who has had a heart attack before (actually - in the case of the cardiologist, it's usually the opposite!).
 
Again I think people are arguing about two different things. The OP keeps bringing up that he can do enough to get through medical school and residency. If he can find a school and a residency that agree, awsome. And I think most of the people on here would agree with that. But what law2doc and others are asking is if someone who can't do any/most of the physical activity associated with medical school should still be able to become a doctor. They are asking this in the abstract sense, and others are jumping in and saying "the OP can do enough of this that it doesn't matter." But that doesn't get to their essential point. Can someone (not the OP, a hypothetical someone) who can't do these procedures be considered as well trained as other doctors? If you say yes, then it is hard to argue that these procedures should be requirements of those without disabilities. If not needed for being a doctor, then you shouldn't be able to fail people from rotations because they can't do these same procedures.

I support the OP in trying to become a doctor, but he is becoming defensive when others are saying "these physical skills are a crucial part of the training of a physician, and you are saying that they really aren't." I don't know what the answer is. I do think that there is some level of physical disability that should preclude someone from being a physician. Like someone said, if you are a Christopher Reeves and can't do anything physically then it doesn't make much sense to say that person is as well trained as fully functional physicians.

The friction in this discussion is coming from the idea that you really don't need to be able to do any specific procedure or number of activities. Those who are in the field are saying that "no, there is a minimal level of activity that you need to be able to do to get through training and pull your weight. Whether the OP has enough function to complete whatever the minimal activities that are needed to be a good student and doctor are something that he'll have to find out. I wish him luck but I disagree with the idea that all or most of the physical requirements of medical school/residency are arbitrary and easily eliminated.
 
I know I'm late to the party, but I wanted to add my thoughts.

The most important thing, Walderness, is that medicine is a conservative profession. People have a vested interest in protecting the status quo. But just because something has always been one way doesn't mean it can't, and shouldn't, change.

Not to be trite but thirty years ago women were discouraged from entering medicine. Everyone "knew" that q2 call was required, that there was no possibility for time off for pregnancy and maternity leave, and that women lacked the stamina and capacity to put themselves through the rigors of training-- especially surgical training. Now of course this is all thrown out the window like the rubbish it is.

The biggest force to reckon with in enacting that change was answering the question "why? Why should women become doctors? Why should we make these accommodations?" Putting aside questions of equality for a second, the main reason is that women brought something to the table as doctors that men didn't. And those things, tangible and intangible, were very valuable. The same would absolutely be true of you-- just like this Jesse mentor you've mentioned, your ability to connect with patients with disability would be outstanding. Your very existence would give them hope. You would be marvelously effective.

And it is because of that added utility that it's worth it to make accommodations for you. I'm not saying you should approach this at all from a "rights" perspective, but there is a reason for which it makes sense for the system to bend its rules.

So what everyone is emphasizing to you is that the current system makes it quite difficult to successfully complete the clinical years and internship of medical training. Fine. Get an assistant to help write in the charts (pay them yourself if you have to). Take the elevators on rounds. Get in earlier than everyone else and stay later to make sure your share of the work is done.

Frankly yes-- the current requirements of training state that we students are supposed to have seen a certain number of procedures and be competent at the physical exam to graduate. You don't have to perform anything to graduate-- not even drawing blood-- let alone insert lines and run a code. And the vast majority of physicians never do anything outside of their specialty ever again after med school... if you never personally deliver a baby with your own hands, you'll be all right. This is anathema to the medical establishment but honestly, you will.

Interestingly, the negative responders to your post who are upper-year med students and residents are all in procedure-rich fields like EM, Ob/gyn and surgery. They most likely find it difficult to conceive of practicing medicine without your hands. But I assure you many docs do just that.

And lastly, not to discourage you, but there are some astounding alternative paths you could take. I would think a PhD in clinical neuropsych, and a subsequent practice entirely of patients with physical disabilities, would be a wonderful way to use your smarts and your experience.

Best of luck to you.

1. Women in medicine is not at all an analogous concept here. Even with the nasty realities of sexism being what they were it would have been difficult to argue that women were on a completely different level of physical ability than men. Plus look at what happened when the wall came down: now we have all these bad-a$$ women doctors running around doing everything their male counterparts do. Does anyone seriously think that the severly disabled would be on that same playing field?

2. Where is this school where you don't have to perform any procedures to graduate? Hell when I was a third year they lined us up and marched us through a day of simulators because they were worried we weren't getting enough hands on experience. Proving that you could do an ABG, place an NG, drop a Foley, do an LP -- these were required for promotion to M4...

3. I actually think that your characterization of the "negative responders" as upper-level students and residents may say more than you intended it to. The converse could be said: many of the cheerleaders have been pre-meds...
 
I'm just not sure the benefits outweigh the detriments and loss of professional objectivity. (Assuming arguendo that they make it through the training). But it is certainly an interesting discussion.

So then we both agree. We both cannot be sure about what is best because we are not in the OP's position, and can't effectively see this issue from his (or someone similar's) perspective.
 


So then we both agree. We both cannot be sure about what is best because we are not in the OP's position, and can't effectively see this issue from his (or someone similar's) perspective.

I'm not sure we do agree, actually, unless you are backtracking from your prior post. I'm saying the OP's (or similar person's) perspective is irrelevant. I'm taking the external, objective route. And I'm saying that there are some very good reasons to NOT be similarly situated to your patients (objectivity with treatment advice, avoidance of countertransferrance), which PROBABLY outweigh an ability to identify with patients. So I'm attacking the argument that someone similarly situated is best suited to deal with these patients. It's a subject for discussion but my leaning is not in the same direction. So I think that conflicts with your view. But if you agree with me, then super.
 
So I'm attacking the argument that someone similarly situated is best suited to deal with these patients. It's a subject for discussion but my leaning is not in the same direction. So I think that conflicts with your view. But if you agree with me, then super.

I know. We have different views, and sorry, I don't agree with you, but that's funny that you thought there was a chance :laugh: :p. But seriously, I am just trying to say that there is no way to tell if it is helpful or not unless you are in that situation. The rest is just speculation. We can agree to disagree. Nice battling with you :thumbup: ...I am now retiring from this thread because I feel like we're:beat:
 
i didn't get to participate in the earlier talk about this subject, but am i the only person who thinks that a person would have to be incredibly selfish to demand that a medical school, residency program, hospital and all of their colleagues along the way make radical changes and sacrifices so that ONE PERSON, who got dealt a sh*ty hand, can still live THEIR dream of being a doctor?

i'm all for incorporating handicapped people into the societal affairs of every day life, but there is a point where pragmatism has to step in and keep things real and keep them fair. often, we bend over backwards to include handicapped people in something to be 'fair' to them, but, in the process, impose heavily on everyone else. is that not fair to everyone else?

point is that there has to be a balance between idealism and practicality, and i think changing so many rules so a quad can 'earn' a medical degree without doing the same things as everyone else earning their MD is poor decision making on the part of everyone involved.
 
i didn't get to participate in the earlier talk about this subject, but am i the only person who thinks that a person would have to be incredibly selfish to demand that a medical school, residency program, hospital and all of their colleagues along the way make radical changes and sacrifices so that ONE PERSON, who got dealt a sh*ty hand, can still live THEIR dream of being a doctor?

i'm all for incorporating handicapped people into the societal affairs of every day life, but there is a point where pragmatism has to step in and keep things real and keep them fair. often, we bend over backwards to include handicapped people in something to be 'fair' to them, but, in the process, impose heavily on everyone else. is that not fair to everyone else?

point is that there has to be a balance between idealism and practicality, and i think changing so many rules so a quad can 'earn' a medical degree without doing the same things as everyone else earning their MD is poor decision making on the part of everyone involved.

This highly valid point was brought up a long time ago (probably on the first page) and was essentially ignored by the OP and other similar-minded idealists by assuming that he wouldnt have to demonstrate any physical capabilities as a medical student in the 3rd and 4th years in the interest of "being fair" to his disability even though it is unfair to every other student.
 
I'm not sure if walderness is still reading this, but if you are, do you think that you could learn how to do the things everyone keeps on saying you can't? Codes and etc, since you haven't been injured for that long, maybe you might not have developed alternate methods of doing things. The med school technical standards that I read, said they were willing to consider people who were able to learn how to do the manual techniques required. Do you think you could? Since if you were able to that would allow you to apply more broadly.
 
I'm not going to take any sides, but I just want to say that I admire your drive to achieve your goals and I wish you the best of luck in whatever you want to do! :thumbup:
 
In the situation you described, it's questionable that an obese physician with a tobacco addiction could help a patient suffering from either of these common issues because it's clear they don't have what it takes (knowledge, will-power, motivation) to help themselves. The very presence of obesity and tobacco addiction in an individual proves they have failed this component of their life.

omg, i resemble that remark :rolleyes:
 
You cannot compare these two situations. Quadriplegia results from spinal cord or brain damage via a disease or traumatic injury. This can happen to anyone, even the most careful/aware/healthy individual. A doctor with quadriplegia would be able to better understand a disabled patient's situation, and provide insight for how to get through life (based on their own experiences getting through life with quadriplegia). In the situation you described, it's questionable that an obese physician with a tobacco addiction could help a patient suffering from either of these common issues because it's clear they don't have what it takes (knowledge, will-power, motivation) to help themselves (they cannot provide personal insight in how to treat these 2 issues because they clearly still suffer from them). The very presence of obesity and tobacco addiction in an individual proves they have failed this component of their life. However, quadriplegia can happen to anyone, regardless of lifestyle/personality/etc.

If you are obese, you cannot provide personal insight in how to resolve this issue (because you haven't resolved it personally). If you have quadriplegia, you can provide personal insight in how to get through it and live/function effectively (unless you gave up, although you probably wouldn't be a physician working with disabled patients if you did indeed give up).

A successful/adjusted quadriplegic working with disabled patients would be analogous to a successful/healthy athlete working with out of shape/obese patients, no?

Not really. For the analogy to work, either out of shape/obese physicians should work with out of shape/obese patients, or healthy physicians should work with the disabled.
 
although it may be possible, however incredibly difficult, for a trained doctor to continue to practice after he's become a quad, i think that becoming a quad BEFORE med school automatically restricts medical training to less than acceptable levels, and, in other words, automatically precludes medical training.

this is the only fair option for the rest of the medical community.

no one is saying that other medical research and a PhD education will be precluded - it certainly won't be easy. but imagine a quad being a dentist - it just doesn't work. if you're blind, you can't be a pilot, but that shouldn't piss off blind people. it's just that the very nature of being a medical doctor requires a certain level of physical ability, and i contend that quadriplegics don't meet that standard. i'm not trying to disparage quadriplegics, i have a great friend (who agrees with me) who is a c7 quad, but there is a point where reality must step in.

is that really so far fetched???
 
GJ ignoring all of the chemical changes that cause the feeling of starvation, exhaustion, and probably depression that accompanies that supposedly miraculous cure.

Not to mention B12 deficiency and the possibility of other nutrient deficiencies.

It is very flip to decree that obesity is easily cured, and that those who are obese are failures.
 
Not sure what you're talking about. I'm confused at why eating plants and participating in physical activity would result in a feeling of starvation, exhaustion, and depression?

Read "The Great Starvation Experiment" and get back to us. Of course, those guys weren't obese, and they were not limited to eating plants but they did feel starved.
 
Not sure what you're talking about. I'm confused at why eating plants and participating in physical activity would result in a feeling of starvation, exhaustion, and depression?

Have you ever even met an overweight person trying to lose weight? The sudden drop in calories is traumatic on them and makes them feel like they are starving. Going from a sedentary lifestyle to an active one causes a lot of exhaustion and muscle fatigue/damage. The lack of results for a long time is discouraging and often leads to feelings of ineffectiveness. Wake up and meet reality--not everyone has been living a fit lfiestyle since they were 4.
 
Alright you try that on your patients and see how effective it is. Meanwhile the rest of us will focus on more attainable lifestyle goals.
 
Sudden drop in calories!? The average total daily calories for an American is around 2500 or so. If you switch to a diet of just plants you are forced to eat more than just 2500 to maintain bodyweight. This is common sense, and simply just the mistake many people make when making the switch to eating just plants (they keep their same portions).


What?

I don't think you have any idea as to what you are talking about.
 
Eat: Plants
Do: Lift, run, play sports, etc

Easy enough? Not for the modern American.

Good lord I hope you never have any obese patients. Just because people are obese doesn't mean it's because they sit around eating junk food and doing nothing all day. What about the patients with some sort of debilitating injury that prevents them from easily getting up and moving around?...or patients who's medicine causes weight gain?...should they stop taking it so they're thin? There are many reasons for obesity and if you're really that insensitive or ignorant to this, than I really pity any obese patient that ends up with you as their doctor.

In general, I eat around 1500 calories a day...I also play hockey 4-5 times a week and do a whole range of other activities...according to the government, I am obese. I live a pretty healthy lifestyle, but I'm not willing to go into starvation mode and try to kill myself just to be thin.
 
If you are obese, there is something wrong with your lifestyle. You, like many people, choose to take the easy way out and blame your problem on "bad genetics" or other intangibles. Continue believing that it's not your fault, and you'll never resolve your problem. You don't need to go into "starvation mode" to become fit, I really don't know where you get that garbage. In fact, your estimate of 1500 calories a day is ridiculously low. Calories is just one factor though, don't believe just because you're "obese" while only eating 1500 cal/day it means that God has it in for you. There's many other lifestyle factors to consider, and someone would need much more information than you have provided to make any sort of assessment on your situation.

Damn that intangible genetics nonsense!
 
If you are obese, there is something wrong with your lifestyle.

Right. Unless you have Cushing's Syndrome. Or need to take long term corticosteroids. Hypothyroidism. PCOS.

I'm not disputing that there are many people who would be able to reduce their weight through better diet and exercise. But the above quoted statement is ignorant.
 
OP,

I personally know a doc in nuclear medicine at the University of Oklahoma who was quadriplegic when he went through medical school there. He has only been in practice for a few years now. You may try contacting the school.

Good Luck.
T
 
It's a simple in-and-out. If you expend more calories than you take in, you will not be able to maintain obesity. In truth, it requires an enormous amount of energy to keep your body in that unnatural state.

I would bet a lot of money that you are either understimating your caloric intake or over-estimating your activity level. Or both. Like most Americans.


I like to think that I'm just very efficient :)

I realize it's all simple math, which I'm actually quite good at...and as I'm fairly predicable in terms of both what I eat and what I do, I actually have quite a good estimate of both. People metabolize food at different rates, the calories burned per hour of working out is just an estimate, some people are higher and some are lower. I've got friends that could polish off an entire banquet and then sit and watch tv all day and not gain a pound, other people work out like crazy and eat plain lettuce and still manage to not lose. While the concept is simple, it's not always that simple in reality.
 
I like to think that I'm just very efficient :)

I realize it's all simple math, which I'm actually quite good at...and as I'm fairly predicable in terms of both what I eat and what I do, I actually have quite a good estimate of both. People metabolize food at different rates, the calories burned per hour of working out is just an estimate, some people are higher and some are lower. I've got friends that could polish off an entire banquet and then sit and watch tv all day and not gain a pound, other people work out like crazy and eat plain lettuce and still manage to not lose. While the concept is simple, it's not always that simple in reality.

No it is simple, if you are fat you have failed there is no other possible explanation.
 
Top