skirtcafe.org

One of the reasons I was thinking about trying one was to see if it would reduce back pain by adding some support. Or would the back weaken further if it had work to do, I decided not to bother then, now my back isn't as bad as it was, but a knee has gone. I really need to lose weight!

B&B,

I have a friend (probably a couple of sizes larger than you) who has been wearing corsets he buys from a company in Brighton that specialises in Male corsets (web site here). He injured his lower back some years ago and the surgeon suggested fusing a couple of his vertebra together to prevent recurrence. Since my friend has a deep seated fear and distrust of all forms of surgery he opted to try external support, hence the girdle. Several years later he tells me that he almost never suffers from back pain and even the doctor has noted that his posture has improved.

It might be worth you talking to them...

Have fun,


Ian.

Thanks for that!

I have degenerative discs in my lower back and had frequent episodes of pain and leg numbness for many years. Losing my upper body mass (belly) has fixed that; now it is rare that I have back pain, even with the considerable wood-splitting and sawing I have been doing this winter. (My wife finally put a halt to the expanding woodpile; said it was "totally out-of-hand"). I am told that corset compression also makes you eat less (well, duuuuhh...) and moves fat away from where it tends to accumulate on us big guys. There are many accounts of it helping relieve back pain, though by which mechanism is unclear. BTW, I placed the order for my corset today. Will keep you apprised how it goes in a few weeks when it is ready.

I have the problem in that as I approach 14 stone my back gives me problems to the extent that I find it difficult to walk more than a few yards. Below 13 stone 7lb my back is fine. So for me it's an early sign of overweightness and spurs me to lose weight. As a diabetic I find losing weight difficult because I just can't stop eating as I need to eat at least a little to maintain my blood glucose levels. Thankfully I have a system that doesn't recognise hunger very easily so I have a diet system in place that maintains my weight and I don't eat a lot of sugary things ( obvious as sugar is more of a poison to me ) so hopefully I can lose a little weight now.

Americans don't use stone - we quote our weight all in pounds unless for babies, and then we use pounds and ounces. I understand a stone is 14 pounds, so for us ignorant Americans 14 stone would be 196 pounds and 13 stone 7 lb would be 189 lbs.

I also notice that when I am under 220 lbs (15 stone 10 lb) I have a much better time controlling my blood glucose.

John

JohnH wrote:Americans don't use stone - we quote our weight all in pounds

Does anyone know why? Is the stone a new measure (i.e. since 1607 or whenever it was that John Smith sailed) that we invented after you had gone?

JohnH wrote:I also notice that when I am under 220 lbs (15 stone 10 lb) I have a much better time controlling my blood glucose.

Being "overweight" (and I use that in quotes because it does vary from individual to individual) is a primary causative factor in diabetes, and that link has been known for a long time indeed. Modern research is also finding links to not just overall mass (weight) but also to where the fatty deposits are stored in the body, so one "overweight" person who's carrying the excess in one spot versus another who's not may well have different diagnoses.

Out of curiosity, I just put my old carcass on a scale to see what it said (other than, "Ouch!"), and it turns out I've actually gained weight, which in my case is likely a good thing. I bottomed out in the upper 160s (good old Imperial pounds, mind!) a few months ago and now find myself back up to the lower 180s (by all rights I should be able to hold about 200, mind, mainly because of my height). This may be down to an overall reduction in stress in my life which, in any event, is always a good thing.

skirtyscot wrote:Is the stone a new measure (i.e. since 1607 or whenever it was that John Smith sailed) that we invented after you had gone?

I think it's more along the lines of simplification where you've got one "distinctive" point (e.g. "decimal point") to settle out the fractions instead of several (e.g. pounds/shillings/pence -- and I do hope I got that right). Once in a while the French do get it right, and we might as well give them some (grudging) credit for it!

Personally, I find the Metric system a lot more rational than the old Imperial one, but, having been raised in the latter I'm rather steeped in it and find it hard to let go. However, every time I'm faced with the notion of a "stone" as a unit of weight (mass at the acceleration of gravity as we know it on Earth) I have to look the ruddy thing up. What is special about fourteen pounds that makes it worthy of a separate unit? Is it the maximum load a 14-year-old labourer can carry repeatedly over the course of a 14-hour day (as in loading ballast)?

crfriend wrote:every time I'm faced with the notion of a "stone" as a unit of weight (mass at the acceleration of gravity as we know it on Earth) I have to look the ruddy thing up.

And every time someone quotes their weight "in the low 180s" or whatever I have to reach for my calculator!

What is special about fourteen pounds that makes it worthy of a separate unit?

Same thing that makes 6 feet special enough to be called a fathom, or 4840 square yards an acre, obviously.

skirtyscot wrote:Same thing that makes 6 feet special enough to be called a fathom, or 4840 square yards an acre, obviously.

That's all well and good, but I cannot, for the life of me, fathom what's special about the number 14!

I suppose if I wasn't three sheets to the wind (not really, mind) it'd make perfect sense. And, why is it that Yankee pints are positively puny compared to the ones in the Old World? That's one that really torques me off! I can deal with the "short ton", but a short pint just seems wrong.

Are there such things as "small stones"?

By the by, my cheek is hurting about now from the amount of tongue in it.....

7 is the complete number or the prefect number in Judeochristian thought therefore 14 must be doublely? perfect ?

John

John, it obviously comes from the fortnight. One pound for each day thereof.

I'll admit that I also grew up using imperial measure. That said, as someone who works with measuring things all the time, I would not want to change over, and not just because of the hassle of learning to think in a different set of units, but also because the imperial system was developed by people for everyday use, which makes the units sizes that are convenient for everyday measurement.

Consider the difference between ten gallons and the (approximately) equivalent forty litres. The former (to me, at least) is an easier number to deal with. Get up to 100 gallons and the litres become even more cumbersome. The same is true of length. I'll freely admit that fractions of an inch become quite cumbersome once you hit 1/32" divisions, which drives one towards measurement in thou, but 1/16" is about the right tolerance for most construction work. Granted, the millimeter is close enough in this case, but, to me at least, the difference between the centimeter and meter is large enough to be cumbersome - and you need millimeters to get a good tolerance. As far as I have seen, combining metric units is awkward at best. If you get into metalwork and the tolerances there, inches are even more decidedly conveniently sized - and practical tolerances are very close to the inch unit sizes, while the same cannot be said for metric measurement.[1] Here is a quote from that source:

Inch Vs. Metric Calibrations wrote:The inch system was developed by craftsmen who took into consideration the materials they were working with as they developed their system. Did you ever watch a seamstress measure cloth from her nose to her fingertips? That human dimension is normally about 36" or a "yard of cloth". It would take a basketball player with arms over 3" longer to measure meters that way.

[1][url=http://www.sherline.com/inchmetr.htm]

P.S. Bah, this whole thing is wandering - but I'll risk leaving it here because it is a reply to what is already here.

Just think about the Imperial collection of measures as we Americans know it - and then add the Stone. Maybe that is where the expression of being stoned comes from!

John

We have lots of stones in NC but no two of them weigh the same. UK must be remarkably uniform, geologically...