4 ms·

That's not growth, just fat accumulation which is a much simpler process.

by FartyMcFarter 5y ago

agent008t 5y ago
And a child puts on 100% bone and muscle?
- FartyMcFarter 5y ago
  No, but I'm not sure what point you're trying to make?
  - agent008t 5y ago
    I was just pointing out that a baby does not gain weight faster than it ever will again in its life, in absolute terms. That's all. Not sure why I got the downvotes and no-true-scotsman arguments in return.
- tk75x 5y ago
  Plus fat and some water, yes. And furthermore, to go from a 10 pound baby to a 100 pound adult, I will make the claim that a baby has to gain 900% body mass.
Naracion 5y ago
How are you defining growth? Are you defining it by volume? Ie assuming the body mass density remains the same, how much does the weight increase (which means the body is volumetrically growing)? If not--I am very lightweight right now, and I'm trying to put on body mass by eating more and exercising. While my volume will increase, my main growth is in density. My growth is not in fat, but actual muscle mass. Is this growth? If so, I have gone from 125lb to 140lb in ~2 months, which in absolute terms is obviously more than the baby (my goal is 160lb by the end of the year). A few years ago, I went from ~130lb to 165 lb in three months--blame the free food at FAANG cafes during an internship. But this might be closer to what you were saying earlier--putting on fat. Edit. I guess in the original statement saying that a person will never gain weight at this rate again there should be the explicit assumption that we're talking about natural growth, not growth due to external factors (ie more eating--intentional or not). In that case, that statement would be true.
- agent008t 5y ago
  I wouldn't say that growth through eating is unnatural though.
  - Naracion 5y ago
    I guess what I might have implied by "natural" is growth from growing older as opposed to growth from nutrition. But in that sense, of course a baby will have more growth than an adult--isn't it reverse exponential?

That's not growth, just fat accumulation which is a much simpler process.

agent008t 5y ago

And a child puts on 100% bone and muscle?

FartyMcFarter 5y ago
No, but I'm not sure what point you're trying to make?
- agent008t 5y ago
  I was just pointing out that a baby does not gain weight faster than it ever will again in its life, in absolute terms. That's all. Not sure why I got the downvotes and no-true-scotsman arguments in return.
tk75x 5y ago
Plus fat and some water, yes. And furthermore, to go from a 10 pound baby to a 100 pound adult, I will make the claim that a baby has to gain 900% body mass.

Naracion 5y ago

How are you defining growth? Are you defining it by volume? Ie assuming the body mass density remains the same, how much does the weight increase (which means the body is volumetrically growing)? If not--I am very lightweight right now, and I'm trying to put on body mass by eating more and exercising. While my volume will increase, my main growth is in density. My growth is not in fat, but actual muscle mass. Is this growth? If so, I have gone from 125lb to 140lb in ~2 months, which in absolute terms is obviously more than the baby (my goal is 160lb by the end of the year). A few years ago, I went from ~130lb to 165 lb in three months--blame the free food at FAANG cafes during an internship. But this might be closer to what you were saying earlier--putting on fat. Edit. I guess in the original statement saying that a person will never gain weight at this rate again there should be the explicit assumption that we're talking about natural growth, not growth due to external factors (ie more eating--intentional or not). In that case, that statement would be true.

agent008t 5y ago
I wouldn't say that growth through eating is unnatural though.
- Naracion 5y ago
  I guess what I might have implied by "natural" is growth from growing older as opposed to growth from nutrition. But in that sense, of course a baby will have more growth than an adult--isn't it reverse exponential?