Identical copies of Bob Kramer straight carbon knives from Zwilling J.A. Henckels

Bob Kramer is to the knife what Antonio Stradivari is the violin. He's the best of the best of the best. How good is he? He can charge $300 per inch for his knives, and there is an 18 month waiting list to get one. A good solid 10 inch French Chef's knife will set you back $3,000, if you can wait 18 months for your investment to mature.

A Bob Kramer original 8 inch Damascus Steel Menji knife recently sold on eBay.com for $9,200. That was the price of just one knife folks... and it was used. Someday, there will be databases that keep track of the location and ownership of every Bob Kramer original knife just as there are with Antonio Stradivari violins. Rich people will compete fiercely at auctions to buy them. No bullshit folks.

What's so great about these blades? Watch the video folks. This video is still contains the most outrageous blade demo I've ever seen.

Believe me, I am a highly critical dude. I don't impress easy. You better be damn good if you want to impress me. Bob Kramer impresses the hell out of me. He's a big genius. These are the ultimate Ferrari blades on planet Earth.

So what is a guy like me supposed to do? If you are a big fan and non-millionaire, you could purchase one of the two close-copy series made by Shun of Japan. We're talking about a close-copy as in close but no cigar. The Shun blades are marvelous, and my 6 inch chef's knife is a joy to use, but it is no original.

Oh yeah? Well what's wrong with it?

Let me tell you about that. In the video above, you saw Kramer chop through a 2x4 plank of wood and then shave the hair off his arm. Chopping through wood did no appreciable damage to his edge. Folks, it didn't take me long to develop three little chips in the edge of my Shun Bob Kramer copy. I did not chop through a 2x4 either. I was cutting celery, carrots, onions, parsley, garlic, bell peppers, tomatoes, etc. I use a very nice rock-maple cutting board from Boos also.

That just doesn't sound right, now does it? What's the problem?

The problem is that the Shun copies are made from SG2 steel cores. Bob Kramer does not use SG2. Zwilling J.A. Henckels just revealed that Bob Kramer uses 52100 high carbon steel. These are not the same folks, not by a long shot.

SG2 is essentially a powder-pressure formed version of VG-10 steel. It is otherwise chemically identical to VG-10. Because of the pressure-forming, SG2 can increase in hardness from 59 to 64 on the Rockwell hardness scale. Rockwell hardness predicts both how much you can sharpen a blade, and how long it will hold that edge.

Unfortunately, Rockwell Hardness says nothing about longitudinal and transverse toughness. These two measurements of a steel predict how much a blade will resist denting and chipping. If you score high on these tests, you blade will resist chipping and denting extremely well. If you score low on these two tests, you blade is likely to chip and dent.

SG2 steel does not score well on longitudinal and transverse toughness tests. 52100 steel scores very high on longitudinal and transverse toughness tests.

The explanation is simple: my Kramer copy from Shun chips because it is made out of SG2 steel. The real thing does not chip because it is made out of 52100 high carbon steel. It's just as simple as that folks.

Because I happen to be a smart guy with some skills, I was able to fix my Bob Kramer copy. I broke out my belt-sander along with an 80-grit belt, and I ground out the chips. I went through a full sharpening process after that. My copy is now sharper than it was when it came fresh from the factory. I am very happy about this, but I know that further chipping awaits me in the future.

Well, I have good news for all you people who have not yet purchased a good set of knives. Zwilling J.A. Henckels has decided to rescue us all by providing identical copies of Bob Kramer's original high-carbon blades.

Just how identical are we talking about here anyhow? Bob Kramer was pretty emphatic that they have cloned every part of his process and they are using exactly the same materials. These are not close approximations inspired by the originals, as is the case with the Shun blades. These are identical copies that should perform exactly as the originals do.

You can hear it straight from the horse's mouth right here folks. We have it all on videotape.

I have to say, I am pretty excited about this development. A guy like me can finally afford something that performs just like the original. If you are insterested, you can buy these knives at Sur La Table.

Invasive Species?

Folks, I don't often make light of Scientific positions, especially those taken by zoologists. If I am going to take down somebody's position, I am usually going to take a reasonable amount of time to do it. Not this time.

One of the most perplexing, and puzzling series of programs I've seen lately have dealt with the concept of invasive species, particularly in Florida. Just what the hell is an invasive species? Any species living in an environment where it did not originally evolve.

Any species moving into a neighborhood is an invasive species. Folks, any half-decent philosopher would have a field-day sharp-shooting the piss-poor logic that under-girds this argument. I do not pretend to be the world's greatest logician, but I can throw plenty of zingers at advocates of "invasive species control".

Let's start with the clock-problem. Just where do you start the clock for original evolution of any given critter? You know you can't do that now can you? You can't find the clock setting for even one species, much less all of the species you claim are "native" and "non-native".

Let's move to the local of original evolution problem. Just where did any given critter evolve in the first place? I can tell you that we are still arguing about the original location of the evolution of our own species, much less every other species. The old East-Africa argument is breaking down as Milford Wolpoff's multi-regional evolutionary theory is gaining steam.

Let's move on to the fact that every successful species inevitably spreads out from it's original environment, displacing others. We may well have done the very same thing to Neanderthal man in Europe, although this is a contentious issue also. One thing is certain: Homo Sapiens did not originate in North or South America. We are an invasive species. In fact, many waves of invasive Homo Sapiens have invaded this territory we now occupy.

The law of nature is natural selection. Stronger and better critters in any environment survive longer and reproduce more successfully than the weaker critters. Their prey and competition must adapt to survive. The environmental community gets stronger as a result of the increase in pressure.

If a particularly environment is absolutely fantastic for a critter, who are you, o little man, to say that this critter should not live there?

Take the monitor lizard, for example. I watched an entire program devoted to the control of the monitor lizard outbreak in Florida. It would appear that they are catching hell in this effort, because the Florida swamp is just heaven for a monitor lizard. The monitor lizard can feed on snails to it's hearts content.

I don't know about you, but this news just breaks my heart. I am going to lay awake at night over thought of monitor lizards eating snails in a Florida swamp. To say that I am underwhelmed by this argument would be a massive understatement. I would rather know why you think you need to prevent the Monitor Lizard from feeding on snails in the swamp of Florida. I see no call to action here.

Take the case of the hybrid turtles. Zoologists seem positively alarmed by the fact that native Florida turtles are cross-breeding with non-native turtles in the swamps of Florida. I guess this is kinda like blacks and whites living together in sin.

Last time I checked my biological facts and figures, we had a thing called the rule of hybrid vigor. Cross-breeding of different strains of a species produces a stronger and a better strain of the species. You aught to be happy that the turtles are getting strong so they can take on the Monitor Lizards. It would seem that nature is taking care of itself, as always.

Then you have the case of the Burmese Python, now battling the native Florida gator for supremacy in the swamps of Flordia. They fight like hell, too. Sometimes they find gator bones inside a dead python. Sometimes they find python bones inside the gut of a gator. I don't see a big problem with this. Competition is a driving force. The Gators will get better, and so will the Pythons.

I'm going to be blunt with you: I think this is one of the biggest waste of tax dollars I've ever seen in an utterly pointless pursuit. You can't put the Djini back in the bottle. These critters are now loose in an environment that is fantastic for them. They are going to keep right on living there until something else comes along an displaces them.

Straight up: this all just another pathetic pretext for another stupid reality TV series.

The Last Gasp of a Dying Man

So Panthers actually went and did it… They drafted Cam Newton with the #1 pick overall in the entire draft. I ought to be happy for the kid, but I am not. I think they made this decision for all the wrong reasons. I think the plan going forward is wrong also. I think this is going to be a historic disaster for all concerned.

What were the reasons? Let catalog them for you.

• The failure to identify and fire the real source of their failures last season: the General Manager Marty Hurney.
• The spectacular error of fingering former Head Coach John Fox for the disaster of 2010.
• A very quick surrender on their 2^nd round pick last year, Jimmy Clausen… a dude I warned you about.
• The 48% owner Jerry Richardson got involved in the process deeply this year, insisting they settle their problems at the QB position, regardless of where that might take them.
• The popularity of SEC football in the North Carolina region almost assures the Panthers a few sell-outs in the beginning of 2011.
• The further error of hiring defensive coach Ron Rivera, a man with no particular plan offensively speaking.
• Having just been granted a temporary stay of execution, Hurney did his owner's bidding, and selected Cam Newton. This is the last gasp of a dying man.

First of all, let’s call a spade a spade. The wheels fell off the Panther machine last season because Marty Hurney is a wretched GM. The guy constantly mortgages his picks, converting 1^st rounders into 2^nd rounders, 2^nd rounders into 3^rd rounders. This is a magic trick any fool can perform, but why would you want to? Further, he allowed marquee players like Julius Peppers to get away in free agency without obtaining any real compensation for them. Given one bad move after another, the talent pool finally dwindled down. This is why they lost in 2010. They were empty of offensive talent, but the defense also lacked punch.

Surely, Marty Hurney should have been identified by owner Jerry Richardson as the source of the team’s difficulties. Surely, Marty Hurney should have been fired. Surely, John Fox was not the source of the bad moves identified above. Somehow Jerry Richardson identified John Fox as the problem, and fired him. Somehow, he decided Marty Hurney was not the problem, and should be allowed to continue.

I would call that a serious fuck-up. I would consider that evidence of straight-up incompetence. Nothing more, and nothing less.

If I didn’t have plenary evidence of incompetence before the draft, I sure do now. After finishing at the bottom of the league in offensive, the solution was to select a new (defense-oriented) head coach, and select Cam Newton in the draft.

So what is the plan going forward? Logically, I think we have to conclude that they are going to go with the Ryan-Cunningham offense this year. What is that offense? Once upon a time, a great defensive coach named Buddy Ryan slapped his new QB (Randal Cunningham) on the back and said “Go out there and make 2 or 3 big plays, kid, and my defense is going to make it stand up.” That was the entire offensive game-plan each week and every week in Philadelphia, once upon a time. We call that sandlot improv style the Ryan-Cunningham offense. The secret is that there is no secret. We’re just going to allow our athletic QB to run around and make some plays ad-hoc.

Will it work? It might work, and it might not. We’re going to see if Cam is a better prospect than Cunningham. I think they are comparable in many ways. Just remember, Cunningham never developed and blossomed as a true passer until he got together with Dennis Green. That was his first stay with an offensive coach who was interested in developing Cunningham’s ability to orchestrate a sophisticated offense. He could have been one of the greatest of all-time, but the Ryan-Cunningham offense was his ruination.

You may see Cam Newton run around a lot this coming season (if there is a season) and he may be able to get the Panthers 6 or 7 wins. Unfortunately, I think the Panthers will take a pass on developing Cam as a true pocket passer. I think the Ryan-Cunningham offense will be his ruination.

Once upon a time, the Titans hired a sophisticated offense coach named Norm Chow from USC. Norm wanted to select Matt Leinart from USC in the 2005 draft. The owner said “No” and insisted the team select Vince Young. Norm was fired after his first year because he couldn’t get Vince to learn and accept the discipline of a sophisticated pro-style offense. The owner chose Vince over Norm. It took a couple more years for the disaster to develop, but in the end owner Bud Adams lost his head coach Jeff Fisher, his quarterback Vince Young, and his former OC Norm Chow. Now all four men have careers in serious question in the year 2011. Leinart is also a casualty of this error.

Life might have been better for Bud Adams if he had not insisted on Vince Young, and if he had allowed Norm Chow to select Leinart. History could have been very different for all concerned. There may be a parallel universe where the Titans are a great team in 2011 with Leinart as their franchise QB.

In 5 years I think the Titans’ history will repeat itself in Carolina.

The Mighty Thor

If you keep track of the movies via such sites as trailers.apple.com, rottentomatoes.com, and imdb.com, you probably have heard that roaring thunder just over the horizon for some time now: Thor is going to be great. In fact, it's probably going to be the biggest single blockbuster of 2011.

RottenTomatoes weighed in earlier in the week with a massive 83% T-Meter, and an audience profile indicating that 92% of all Rottentomatoes readers wanted to see this movie. The score has fallen a bit, but this is still the highest-rated large-scale release on the board. By a vote of 148-37, the critics are saying this move is pretty fresh. 83% of audience members liked the movie.

I just got back from seeing Thor just a few moments ago. I loved it. There is a whole lot of entertainment and fun in this movie. This is good stuff, Maynard. This is probably my favorite movie of the year, with all due respect to The Adjustment Bureau. {Incidentally, Matt Damon was terrific in that flick. Obama was just trying to bust his balls.}

Yes, there are a few little quibbles here and there with this implementation of Thor. Thor was betrothed to the lady Sif, there was no Jane Foster hanging around. To be honest, they are running with a reboot origin that doesn't match the original comic book. Also, Loki was never a Frost Giant; neither in Norse Mythology nor the comic book

Frankly, none of this matters. Everything works well in the movie. Kenneth Branagh is to be congratulated for a stellar job directing. I can't believe this Shakespearian actor would ever have had an interest in directing a Marvel Comic book adaptation. (!!!) He must have been attracted the royal intrigue and grandeur of it all. Certainly, these themes are more than evident his past work like Henry V and Hamlet.

During the course of the movie, I wondered why it was all working so well. Largely, it was a bunch of well-cast actors making a good script shine. The effects and the 3d stuff are there in abundance, and give the movie a ton of visual appeal, but you like this story and these characters in the story. This is the thing that stayed with me.

Of course, you know I had to have a look at the cast list and their birthdays. I can tell you the Casting Directors made some very interesting choices Astrologically speaking. Oh yeah? Like what?

How about casting Anthony Hopkins (Capricorn) as Odin, the king of the universe? Capricorn is frequently called the greatest of the cardinal leadership signs. Consult Chuck Noll and Don Shula about that. We have no doubt that Anthony Hopkins is the king of the universe either. You're quite convinced that he's a great one, also. You know the archetype of Capricorn is "Father", right? This one is playing the "All-father".

The problem is that this king has a pair sons astrologically incompatible with himself. They are Chris Hemsworth (a Leo), and Tom Hiddleston (an Aquarius), and neither is a cardinal. Who shall he give the throne of the universe too when neither is the ideal type? One of these two will have to succeed him. It is interesting that the casting director chose to make a Thor a Leo, and his brother/enemy Loki an Aquarius.

Did you happen to know that the Archetype of Leo is the Hero/King? Did you happen to know that the Archetype of Aquarius is the Anti-Hero/Revolutionary rebel? Yep, check it out. Yet these are 180 degree opposites who have a strong complementarity, along with tremendous differences.

Reference Tom Brady and Randy Moss for an example of these differences and complementarity. For some, Brady would make a pretty good hero/king, and Moss would make a pretty good anti-hero/rebel. Yet the two of them came together for a time and had great dynamism.

Hemsworth is a pretty damn good example of what it is to be a Leo. He's a noble warrior, and seems like royalty. He even looks like a fucking lion. His leadership charisma is great, but his decision making is questionable. He is a hot head, and he wants battle and glory. He loves the spot light and loves to be the center of attention. He's loves it as all of Asgard shows up to cheer his proclamation as heir to the throne.

Hiddleston is a pretty damn good example of what it is to be an Aquarius. He's brainy. He's unconventional. He's more than a little bit bent. He's pretty otherworldly. He's not a particularly good looking leader from the Charisma standpoint, but you believe he has the brains for the job.

I don't know what you thought, but I thought these two guys had great acting chemistry together.

Naturally, you can understand why a Capricorn leader like Hopkins would have doubts about both of these boys. You can also understand why he had to chose the Leo son. Nevertheless, they have their conflicts. Firey Leo-Thor is a hot head. He wants to break out the chariots of victory and go to war. A stable, solid, realistic, feet-on-the-ground, down-to-earth, pragmatic, utilitarian, honest Capricorn King knows why that isn't a good idea. They have a pretty big wing-ding over it too.

It's all totally believable. Given the people you are looking at on screen, you just naturally believe this is what would happen.

This isn't the only bit of interesting astrological architecture going on in the flick. It's interesting that they give Thor two Sagittarius buddies, and Gemini for the Warrior-3. So you have two fire budies and an air sign for Leo-Thor's side-kicks. Perfect.

Sif is the non-conforming piece of data. She is a Pisces; incompatible with everybody. She must have been somebody's girlfriend.

Then we have the scientific trio of Natalie Portman, Stellan Skarsgard, and Kat Dennings. Guess what? All three scientists are Geminis. Gemini is a mental and mercurial sign, just fine for science. They are also nicely aspected towards a Leo like Hemsworth.

Incidentally, Portman and Hemsworth sure seem to have some sensational chemistry together. This would be typical. Gemini chicks frequently go after Leo boys. Interestingly enough, when you look at their numbers (using Sirus 1.1) they have some fantastic scores... in everything but romantic and sexual attraction. They aught to be in business together, and given this movie, I guess they are.

Natalie Portman and Chris Hemsworth

Data for Natalie Portman: Data for Chris Hemsworth:
June 9, 1981 August 11, 1983
12:00 PM 12:00 PM
Standard time observed Standard time observed
Jerusalem, Israel Melbourne, Australia
31 N 46 35 E 14 37 S 49 144 E 58
Tropical PLACIDUS Tropical PLACIDUS
Time Zone: 2 hours East Time Zone: 10 hours East

Sun 18 deg 28 min Gemini Sun 17 deg 51 min Leo
Moon 17 deg 44 min Virgo Moon 20 deg 14 min Virgo
Mercury 5 deg 13 min Cancer Mercury 13 deg 48 min Virgo
Venus 5 deg 04 min Cancer Venus 8 deg 28 min Virgo
Mars 2 deg 59 min Gemini Mars 28 deg 18 min Cancer
Jupiter 0 deg 41 min Libra Jupiter 1 deg 19 min Sagittarius
Saturn 3 deg 01 min Libra Saturn 29 deg 02 min Libra
Uranus 27 deg 15 min Scorpio Uranus 5 deg 04 min Sagittarius
Neptune 23 deg 37 min Sagittarius Neptune 26 deg 40 min Sagittarius
Pluto 21 deg 40 min Libra Pluto 27 deg 03 min Libra
Asc. 23 deg 55 min Virgo Asc. 3 deg 07 min Sagittarius
MC 23 deg 30 min Gemini MC 11 deg 29 min Leo


Category Totals
1. Romantic and Sexual Attraction: 32
2. Similarity of Interests and Temperament: 257
3. Mutual Success and High Achievement: 223
4. Problem Solving, Communication, and Mutual Understanding: 75
5. Mutual Kindness, Friendliness, Pleasantness, and Peace: 184
6. Aggressiveness, Competition, Power, Success, or Violence: 143
7. Adventurousness, Surprises, Disturbances: 131
8. Shared Creativity, Imagination, and Inspiration: 34

Given above are your compatibility scores in 8 different categories. A score of 100 is average. A score above 100 indicates that the trait is strong, and a score below 100 indicates that the trait is weak. More specifically, you can interpret the scores as follows:

Above 150 is very high. This trait is VERY strong!
125 to 150 is above average. The trait is strong.
115 to 125 is slightly above average. The trait is slightly strong.
85 to 115 is average.
75 to 85 is slightly below average. The trait is slightly weak.
50 to 75 is weak.
50 or lower is VERY weak!

Jason Brown a $37 million dollar bust?

So a fellow by the name of Andy Benoit who blogs for the New York Times, and is occasionally seen on NFL Films, decided to toss an incendiarist position at Ram-fans today. What was that position?

Upon further review of 2010 game footage, it turns out that Jason Brown was the weak link in the interior of the Rams' offensive line. The received wisdom that Jacob Bell is the flawed part just isn't factual. Bell is the stronger of the two. Brown is the weaker of the two. Ergo Brown is a $37 million bust. Bull Rushers drove him back, and stout run defenders locked him up.

Well, you're reading the blog of a highly observant dude who prides himself on his accuracy. While I can't say I have reviewed every down in detail, I can tell you that this ain't what I saw. What I saw was a really strong center, trapped between two weak guards.

I saw Jacob Bell get confused on plays against the Cardinals and head the wrong way. I saw Jason Brown diving in front of blitzers trying to cover, Bell's hole.

I saw cases where Brown & Goldberg were called upon to double team Ndamukong Suh, and it turned out badly several times. Suh chucked Goldberg and Brown had to try to stop him with just one shoulder. You ain't gonna get much stopping power with one shoulder. You need a full square front to block a guy like Ndamukong Suh. In these cases, I did see Brown driven back by a bullrush, but did you notice Goldberg getting up off the ground during that play? A solid double team, as called for in the blocking scheme, would have prevented that.

I would very much like to see some of this footage Benoit claims to have reviewed. If I am wrong, I would like to know about it. However, I don't think I'm wrong about this thing. Jason Brown is one of the few guys we've signed in free-agency who I really, really like. This is one of the few guys I actually trust.

However, Benoit's piece in the New York times is an excellent reminder of why Mike Pouncey was the Rams' correct choice in the 1st round of the 2011 Draft. Adding Pouncey would either have strengthened Brown's position by giving him a solid leftward partner, or it would allow Brown to return to Guard, where he made the Pro-Bowl twice.

Believe me, I am still fulminating over this rotten draft. I haven't calmed down yet. I swear fucking Devaney couldn't pick a receiver to save his life. If you're still pissed that he passed on DeSean Jackson to select Donnie Avery, I got special news for you: He did it twice over again in this year's draft.

I really hope this is not the prelude to some cheap-ass budget cutting special such as the one the Jets ran on Alan Faneca. That is still one of the most intensely pathetic salary dumps I've ever seen. The Jets tried to besmirch Faneca's 24-carrot gold reputation to save some money.

I hope we will not be so stupid as the Jets.

Ah-ha, so Charlie's wife is a Taurus, aye?

So, just as Charlie Casserly gave us his swan song for this draft season, he dropped this nugget of information: Mrs. Casserly's birthday is tomorrow. Of course you know what this means, don't you? She's a Taurus. This seems to confirm a suspicion I've had about Charlie for a long time: He's a Virgo.

I want to make it clear that I don't know this for certain. You can't find Charlie's birthday anywhere on the Internet. Believe me, I've tried. He's a private guy. He keeps personal information personal. That's a hallmark of the Virgo clan, especially in past generations. These days? Well...

The keen observation skills, the pointed criticisms (which are often correct), straight answers without diplomatic spin, shrewed strategy, the willingness to disregard peer pressure (such as the Reggie Bush case), all point the finger at Virgo. The Taurus wife just might be the final clue.

Naturally, Taurus and Virgo go together like bread and butter. These two Earth signs often select each other, and they do just fine together. I will never know what these sensuous creatures see in us brainiacs, but thank God they see something. We're pretty damn lucky to have this option open to us.

A Taurus woman is a pretty damn good 1st round draft pick. I just might go that route myself, Charlie.

It's Cinco De Mayo

It's Cinco De Mayo. Besides being Mexican Independence Day, it also the 90th Day since my gastric bypass surgery. In theory, I am all healed up. My body has finished recovering from the surgery. I am no longer in the recovery phase of the game. I am now in the "life beyond surgery" phase of the game.

I guess that means it is time for a full blow progress report.

First of all, my surgeon (or at least his team) is/are pretty happy with my progress. I have had no complications. Thus far, no vitamin or mineral deficiencies have appeared. My exercise load has shot through the roof. My knees are better. Oh yeah, I just happened to have lost 46.8 pounds in the past 90 days, and 67.4 overall.

I started this odyssey at 330 pounds. After two weeks of liquid dieting, I weighed in at 309.4. This was my weight at the Providence St. Joseph Hospital, just before surgery. Today, I weighed in at 262.6. I've been tracking this thing pretty carefully.

As you know, 262.6 is not precisely where I expected to be on Cinco De Mayo. Whilst laying in my Hospital bed, I though I would be at 237 or 238 come today. I expected the early rate of loss to continue right up to the present moment, and Doctor Quilici assured me that 70 pounds of weight loss within 90 days of the surgery was typical.

On the other hand, each time I've checked in with Team-Quilici, they've assured me my progress is just fine; even a bit rapid. They insist that they want to see no more than 0.5 pounds of weight loss per day on average. I'm a little ahead of that at 0.519 per day. If I were losing weight any faster, they would consider that dangerous.

Why? Follow this logic. One pound of fat contains 3,500 kcal of energy. To lose a single pound of fat, you must consume 3,500 kcals less energy than you expend, over some interval of time. Concomitantly, you must maintain a deficit of 1,750 kcal per day in order to lose 0.5 pounds of fat per day over a long period of time.

Since my surgery 90 days ago, I have averaged 0.519 pounds of fat loss per day. This means I have maintained an energy deficit of 1,816.5 kcal per day, on average. Scientifically speaking, there is no other way I could have arrived at my present result. 1,816.5 kcal is a big energy deficit. I've skipped an entire daily meal-plan for an average woman, each day, every day, for the past 90 days. Any more might be dangerous.

Of course, 0.5 pounds a day for 90 days should result in 45 pounds of loss. This leaves me in quandary. I don’t understand Quilici's statement regarding 70 pounds in the first 90 days. If he was thinking of total losses, combining liquid diet and post-gastric bypass weight loss, the figure of 70 pounds makes a lot more sense. I got damn close to that figure with 67.4 pounds.

Others who were not so carefully to maintain their lean mass might lose more and hit 70. That isn't the good kind of loss, tho. Also, I just might have been heavier than 330 at the start of the liquid diet. I wasn't tracking my weight that closely in those days. It was too depressing. If my weight were 333 at the start, I nailed the average; but that's only a possibility.

What is the final goal? Just what am I shooting for? Where is the finish line? When do you declare victory?

It depends on which doctor you speak with. Dr. Bachner (my knee surgeon) insisted on a 30% mass reduction. He believed this was the minimum mandatory necessary to keep my knees functioning. Dr. Saedi (my GP) recommended 18% body fat as the maximum allowable fat ratio. Those two figures correlate reasonably well. They are in accord.

Presuming that I still have 190 pounds of lean mass, and presuming the goal is 17% body fat is the goal, my target body weight can be computed as follows: (190/ (1 - 0.17). This is equal to 228.915 pounds. At this point I would have 38.915 pounds of fat and 190 of lean.

The docs indicate that they will declare victory at 231. It would be wise to go a bit further than the minimum standard, though.

Based on a lean mass figure of 190 pounds, as tested before my liquid diet, my body fat percentage today is 27.65%... and falling. Of course, this is provided my lean mass has not changed.

I should have a new series of composition tests done to determine whether my lean mass has changed. My GP did an informal Tanita test a month ago, and it indicated that I had 192 pounds of lean mass. Why not use this figure? It is not as reliable as submersion/buoyancy/displacement testing. Until I go through a full re-test, I will continue to work with the 190 figure.

Any change upward or downward in my lean mass will jar the figures considerably.

Based on all the figures I've been keeping, when will I reach the goal-line? Sometime in early July. Anywhere between 7/1/2011 and 7/8/2011 I should cross the goal-line.

Incidentally, I will be visiting my brother and sister in San Francisco on June 11. My little sister hasn't seen me since Christmas. I will be 86 pounds down at that point. My brother hasn't seen me since a few days after the surgery. I was at 307 at that time. They both aught to be stunned if I show up at 244.

Start

------------------------------------------------

Starting weight := 330

Weight on surgery day := 309.4

Today's Weight := 262.6

Total Lean Mass := 190

Total Fat Mass := 72.6

Fat Percentage Today := 27.65 %

------------------------------------------------

Ideal Fat Percentage := 17.00 %

Ideal Body Weight := 228.915662650602

Ideal Fat Mass := 38.9156626506024

Distance from Ideal Weight := 33.6843373493976

------------------------------------------------

Days since Start := 104.468055555556

Days since surgery := 90.0722222222222

30 Days Post-Surgery on := 3/6/2011

45 Days Post-Surgery on := 3/21/2011

60 Days Post-Surgery on := 4/5/2011

75 Days Post-Surgery on := 4/20/2011

90 Days Post-Surgery on := 5/5/2011

------------------------------------------------

Total weight loss := 67.4

Weight loss since surgery := 46.8

------------------------------------------------

Loss per day (overall) := 0.645173298589414

Loss Per day since surgery := 0.519583050638376

------------------------------------------------

Mass reduction percentage := 20.42 %

Completion Percentage := 68.08 %

Pounds to Half Way Mark := Already Done

Days to halfway := Already Done

Half way point := Already Done

Projected Easter Weight := Done 268

Projected Easter Revised := Done 268

Projected Weight 5/5/2011 := Done 262.6

Revised projection 5/5/2011 := Done 262.6

------------------------------------------------

Weight at 90% mass := 297

Weight at 80% mass := 263.4 on 5/3/2011

Weight at 70% mass := 231

------------------------------------------------

Date for 90% mass := Already Done

Date for 80% mass := Done 5/3/2011

Date for 70% mass := 7/4/2011 11:14:11 AM

------------------------------------------------

Fat Percentage at 90% mass := 36.03 %

Fat Percentage at 80% mass := 28.03 %

Fat Percentage at 70% mass := 17.75 %

------------------------------------------------

Revised Date for 80% mass := Done 5/3/2011

Revised Date for 70% mass := 7/7/2011 11:14:11 AM

Distance from 70% mass := 31.6000000000001

------------------------------------------------

Visit San Francisco Date := 6/11/2011

Days until San Francisco visit := 37.03125

San Francisco visit projected weight := 243.359190156048

San Francisco visit revised projected := 244.084375

Total loss before San Francisco visit := 86.6408098439524

Projected Body Fat Percentage := 22.16 %

------------------------------------------------

Last Quilici Last appointment date := 3/28/2011 11:00:00 AM

Days since last appointment := 38.0097222222222

Last weighin at Quilici's office := 281

Loss since last appointment := 18.4

Next Quilici Next appointment date := 6/28/2011 11:00:00 AM

Days past surgery (appointment) := 144.0625

Projected appointment Weight := 234.547566767409

------------------------------------------------