Whats next?

[gc]

[quote:fbe9d9b6a5]this is how they do live wieght in fishing comps and have you ever noticed when you stick fish in a bucket they do stay still until you disturb.[/quote:fbe9d9b6a5] You are correct. But my point was that there is a human test wich weighs people on land and under water to see how much difference there is. Then they can accuratly messure the amount of body fat by doing a simple equation.

[quote:fbe9d9b6a5]The thing is, I haven't seen many overweight Native Australians, apart from some of the elders.[/quote:fbe9d9b6a5]Most of the ones you see are not the people I am refering to. I'm talking about the hunters and gatherers. I dont think they were big fatties. But if you do compaire them to other groups of hunters and gatherers, you will find they do have a slightly higher % of body fat. But this could be just evolution.

[quote:fbe9d9b6a5]One group in the morning, one at mid day & one at night.[/quote:fbe9d9b6a5]OK I will rule out feeding once per day.

The hours of light and darkness will be (unless the fish is nocternal):
On hours: 9am to 11pm. This is 14 hours, Plenty of time do divide up.
Off hours: 10 hours of uninterupted darkness.

Eating once per day wont make you fat, unless you over eat and cant burn off how many calories you over ate by. If you only ate once per day your body would go into a catabolic state due to lack of calories being supplied. When your body gets into a catabolic state, it not only uses fat for energy but it also breaks down skeletal muscle tissue. When you have less skeletal muscle tissue your metabolism slows and you are more likely to store calories as fat. Get it? Not a good thing at all.

[quote:fbe9d9b6a5]If you were feeding a mbuna, a heavy amount once a day, it would put more stress on its internals too.[/quote:fbe9d9b6a5]I agree this test will only give us an example of one species.

Ok ill make this my last post on this, because I don't want it to turn into an argument as that was not my point.

I agree that it would be good to get these results, and i agree that it is possible to get these results, the problem you are going to have is making everyone believe your results when you have come up with several complex calculations yourself that you cannot prove are correct.

Well you probably could prove them, but that would take alot of money alot of time and probably a pretty good controlled research lab.

There are just so many different components that make up the way fish grow, Oxygen levels, ph, tank size, water changes as kev said, lighting, minerals in the water, the genetic background of the species and your strain of that species.

These are all things that need to be taken into consideration when trying to test when and how much is the best amount of food to feed your species.

it would require in my opinion to do this correctly and make everyone in the hobby stand up and listen to you, (and this is what you want, waste of time if half the people think you are full of crap).

5 Different Species X 5 Different Types of Food X 5 Different Water Conditions X 2-3 different Feeding Times X 3-5 Different sized tanks. Plus keep and grow them to there death.

Which would mean you would need over a thousand tanks, and a hell of alot of work and money just to get results.

Alternatively you could just use 1 species, and would only need about 300-400 tanks. Still a fairly large number in anyone's books.

It can be done, I just don't think it's conclusive with 4 tanks, and I personally would take the results of such a test with a grain of salt.

You could of course wait for the test to be completed using the 5 different foods, then use that one food on different feeding times and amounts to get a better picture of when it is the best to feed for growth. But growth wont take into all the tests you where planning on testing for. But it's a start.

This would enhance the results found on the food test, and give you a stepping stone to further tests. No one found all the results on there own, you have to trust in others tests and results and build on there knowledge and experience.

That's why where on the computer; either that or I would still be arguing with you that my spear head is better than yours.

Good Luck

Glen.

[aquariumwarehouse]

who cares


just tell me what food i should stock............ :P


kev

[gc]

OK. This is the test I want to do:
[quote:bea9688901]I think I have found a test wich may answer these questions:
Could feeding my fish X frequency per day be enough?
Could feeding my fish for X minutes be over feeding?
Can fish become "overweight"?

Only two groups:
Group A: Diliberately try to make the fish over eat and become "overweight". eg: 2 x 5 minute feedings per day.
Group B: Same amout of feed as group A, just split up so the fish is less likely to be over eating. eg 5: feeds per day.

If group B gains more % of body weight than group A, Group B will have used more of the calories for cell repair instead of storing it as fat.[/quote:bea9688901]Any objections?

[here fishie fishie]

[quote:34d162e47c]Eating once per day wont make you fat, unless you over eat and cant burn off how many calories you over ate by. If you only ate once per day your body would go into a catabolic state due to lack of calories being supplied. When your body gets into a catabolic state, it not only uses fat for energy but it also breaks down skeletal muscle tissue. When you have less skeletal muscle tissue your metabolism slows and you are more likely to store calories as fat. Get it? Not a good thing at all. [/quote:34d162e47c]

Catabolic state can happen if you have multiple meals a day too :!: Right :?:  :idea:

You can get fat off one meal a day. You can also not eat enough on one meal a day too. It comes down to what you eat, to what you do. Well done :roll: Being fat, skinny....can happen from multiple meals too.

Body Buiders, athletes... have to be very careful with this "Catabolic state" thing. As basic as I can; If your diet is high in sugar, no protein & high in fat & you work out alot, play alot of sport or just active. Your body will use gycogen muscle. Quite simply put, from the perspective of our cells, it is metabolically more efficient to metabolize (chemically break down) muscle tissue, than fat tissue, regardless of whether or not it is beneficial for the next stage of the process. Breaking down fat is a more chemically complex process. While sitting down you burn fat rather than muscle. But if your in starvation{3 or more days} then your body will turn to muscle, because then it becomes a calorie issue.

Anabolism and catabolism are both always happening in your body.
eg; If you meet someone who works out, but is getting no where. When he/she works out one muscle group, the body is taking more likely from another muscle group.(Catabolism) So he builds the one he is working on.(Anabolism) So he/she is basiclly going around in circles, or more than likely getting smaller, or they get big in one region & smaller in others. Look at long term inmates. Usually they can only do free weights, so they end up with the triangle effect or V shape = Good upper body with no legs.
Sure they might eat alot but as I said Ana.. & Cat.. are always happening.

Then again blood type can effect results.
Hormones can also have a part to which gets used first, stress can also play a part too.

So, I think I got it :?:
So you were saying :?: Whats your point :?:

Also with your test; What if you have a nice dominant fish that chases all the fish away from the food in group A :?:  You will have one fat bastard that will drop dead & so many skinny ones that couldnt get any food and probably suffer from Catabolic wasting & die. :lol:

Frenchy :D

[mjscookie]

As long as the test has some statistical signifigance who gives a crap. A lot of the theorys today are based on results without an statistical signifigance. All I say, do some chi-sq tests  or related and i'll beleive you.

Mitch

[here fishie fishie]

Oh I don't give a shit, just having some fun :lol:

Frenchy :D

[gc]

I was thinking of using a larger growing live bearer, then I could have all virgin females. Not very agressive or dominating.

Most inmates are stupid. They get hypertrophy in the upperbody and they dont give a crap about the atrophy in their legs. Imagine the amount of Calories a pro bodybuilder would have to eat. Probably 10,000+.

[quote:79d8f20473]Catabolic state can happen if you have multiple meals a day too[/quote:79d8f20473] It sure can. But it is more likely to be sped up when feedings are spread further apart.

[quote:79d8f20473]it is metabolically more efficient to metabolize (chemically break down) muscle tissue, than fat tissue[/quote:79d8f20473]Then at the next over feed, even less calorie go towards cell repair and even more into fat.

[quote:79d8f20473]It comes down to what you eat, to what you do[/quote:79d8f20473]Yes. calories in vs calories out. Both tanks will have identical water curents.

This test will test the 5 minutes twice a day recomendation on lots of fish feed labels. If the result is the same for both groups, feeding 5 minutes twice a day is no worse off than feeding the same amout more often for this species.

[here fishie fishie]

Finally,
Inmates don't have a choice. I think some have gyms, with limited equipment, not sure on that.
Weights can be used as weapons, so free weights are banned in prisons. So mostly all they can do is chin ups{various ways}, press ups, sit ups...unless of course you get to the farms, home made weights are then an option, but must be kept well hidden.

Bodybuilders are just an example, replace with Joe Blogg's, Tim, Dick or Harry...anyone who plays sport, goes to gym, or a runs the dog, if the diet is poor...

Good luck with the test...let us know how it goes.

Frenchy :D

I think your all missing the point, Inmates are criminals LOL.

[gc]

:idea: I have found a flaw.[quote:32c9c37ebb]Group A: Diliberately try to make the fish over eat and become "overweight". eg: 2 x 5 minute feedings per day.
Group B: Same amout of feed as group A, just split up so the fish is less likely to be over eating. eg 5: feeds per day.

If group B gains more % of body weight than group A, Group B will have used more of the calories for cell repair instead of storing it as fat.[/quote:32c9c37ebb]This is only true in short term, but in the long run group B will plateau and group A will continue to gain fat. We are going to have to wait a bit longer to see results. Im not too sure how long this test will have to run for. I will send a few emails out to some people in the know.

[here fishie fishie]

& if you choose to use guppies, they have a remarkable digestive tract, as in they can pass all food in 25-30 mins. So they might not be a wise choice. You can still manipulate the diet for guppies, usually have better results with what u feed them.

Frenchy :D

[CQ_Pete]

Just out of interest what sort of fish are you going to use? Like French said guppies have a very fast metabolic rate. Also some fish (like Oscars) are gluttons, and some are very picky as to the food that they eat.

[gc]

I'm still undecided. If I go livebearers its either all female Mollies or Swordtails (females dont grow the long tail), because these two grow larger than other Livebearers. I currently own a few mollies and they can realy eat. Lots of scientific tests have been conducted on swordtails, Im unsure why, but they do tend to eat more live foods than mollies in the wild. This test would be amplified if I can find a fish that can eat a large volume of food in 5 minutes and digests it quickly. Any suggestions would be appreciated. Also running the temperature high may also amplify the result ...hmm, not so sure.

Well, the emails have returned. If there is a difference both groups will eventualy plateau, but at different times. Basically the longer the duration the better.