How to measure calories of Haagen Dazs ice cream?

Oh FFS.

Have you tried to do an internet search? Google is a pretty good choice.

I did it and I think this is what you are looking for....

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24092765

There. The link you keep wanting but can't seem to search for at all.

*whips out Vitriol Protection Shield*

Isn't protein intake based on LBM because basing it on current (over)weight isn't really productive. For example if I weighed 245 and wanted to get down to 179 (yes, i said it) there would be no point in eating grams of protein based on 245 pounds.

Am I understanding this correctly?

And, you know, I'm just going to say this out of sheer compulsion. A varied vocabulary is not a sign of arrogance. Deeming people arrogant based on vocabulary sure the **** is. I used a four letter word for general comprehension. Fornication for those not offended by diversity of language.

In my bad science, no nothing opinion, basically, yes, that is correct. Studies generally have not used LBM as the methods for measuring BF% are pretty inaccurate and the more accurate ones were generally cost prohibitive. Quoting g per LBM is a decent rule of thumb to use when giving generic advice that is not catered to the individuals circumstances. You have the same issue with fats as well (a point missed by a certain someone), which is why we note that the rules of thumb are not applicable for very lean or significantly overweight people.

Once again bad logic.
g per LBM is a decent rule of thumb. Getting accurate reading for LBM is too costly. So the general population has no real measure of LBM, so their protein intakes are inaccurate.

The rules for protein intake are 0.5-1.5g per pound. So obese people can use these recommendations. A 600lbs peron can eat 300g of protein a day. This would have a better thermogenic effect than the theoretical LBM method.

So in both instances the LBM method fails.

Oh FFS.

Have you tried to do an internet search? Google is a pretty good choice.

I did it and I think this is what you are looking for....

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24092765

There. The link you keep wanting but can't seem to search for at all.

Bad science. Not on the researches behalf, but on yours.

*whips out Vitriol Protection Shield*

Isn't protein intake based on LBM because basing it on current (over)weight isn't really productive. For example if I weighed 245 and wanted to get down to 179 (yes, i said it) there would be no point in eating grams of protein based on 245 pounds.

Am I understanding this correctly?

And, you know, I'm just going to say this out of sheer compulsion. A varied vocabulary is not a sign of arrogance. Deeming people arrogant based on vocabulary sure the **** is. I used a four letter word for general comprehension. Fornication for those not offended by diversity of language.

In my bad science, no nothing opinion, basically, yes, that is correct. Studies generally have not used LBM as the methods for measuring BF% are pretty inaccurate and the more accurate ones were generally cost prohibitive. Quoting g per LBM is a decent rule of thumb to use when giving generic advice that is not catered to the individuals circumstances. You have the same issue with fats as well (a point missed by a certain someone), which is why we note that the rules of thumb are not applicable for very lean or significantly overweight people.

Once again bad logic.
g per LBM is a decent rule of thumb. Getting accurate reading for LBM is too costly. So the general population has no real measure of LBM, so their protein intakes are inaccurate.

The rules for protein intake are 0.5-1.5g per pound. So obese people can use these recommendations. A 600lbs peron can eat 300g of protein a day. This would have a better thermogenic effect than the theoretical LBM method.

So in both instances the LBM method fails.

You know whats sad? Let's say you were correct. I don't believe you are but... I had no idea and this is why I asked for clarification. You've been such an *kitten* from the get go anything you say is without merit. Instead of a potentially interesting discourse you've just blathered on in a crass and offensive manner. The human equivalent of a deflating, spit filled balloon.

Says LBM method is bad because inaccurate results from the less costly methods. Then says .5-1g/lb of bodyweight is better, despite having such a wide variance.


Lololol.

Only one person that I know could make that logical error.

*whips out Vitriol Protection Shield*

Isn't protein intake based on LBM because basing it on current (over)weight isn't really productive. For example if I weighed 245 and wanted to get down to 179 (yes, i said it) there would be no point in eating grams of protein based on 245 pounds.

Am I understanding this correctly?

And, you know, I'm just going to say this out of sheer compulsion. A varied vocabulary is not a sign of arrogance. Deeming people arrogant based on vocabulary sure the **** is. I used a four letter word for general comprehension. Fornication for those not offended by diversity of language.

In my bad science, no nothing opinion, basically, yes, that is correct. Studies generally have not used LBM as the methods for measuring BF% are pretty inaccurate and the more accurate ones were generally cost prohibitive. Quoting g per LBM is a decent rule of thumb to use when giving generic advice that is not catered to the individuals circumstances. You have the same issue with fats as well (a point missed by a certain someone), which is why we note that the rules of thumb are not applicable for very lean or significantly overweight people.

Once again bad logic.
g per LBM is a decent rule of thumb. Getting accurate reading for LBM is too costly. So the general population has no real measure of LBM, so their protein intakes are inaccurate.

The rules for protein intake are 0.5-1.5g per pound. So obese people can use these recommendations. A 600lbs peron can eat 300g of protein a day. This would have a better thermogenic effect than the theoretical LBM method.

So in both instances the LBM method fails.

You know whats sad? Let's say you were correct. I don't believe you are but... I had no idea and this is why I asked for clarification. You've been such an *kitten* from the get go anything you say is without merit. Instead of a potentially interesting discourse you've just blathered on in a crass and offensive manner. The human equivalent of a deflating, spit filled balloon.

Lets get this right... I said nothing to you and yet, you sit here and insult me. I was pointing out where the flaws where in what sara said. Okay, I see what's giong on. What I wrote, wasn't directed to you in anyway. I was just clearing up sara's flaws on the topic to help and support the community better.

Public bulletin board means everyone reads and comments brah. Even when it isn't convenient.

*whips out Vitriol Protection Shield*

Isn't protein intake based on LBM because basing it on current (over)weight isn't really productive. For example if I weighed 245 and wanted to get down to 179 (yes, i said it) there would be no point in eating grams of protein based on 245 pounds.

Am I understanding this correctly?

And, you know, I'm just going to say this out of sheer compulsion. A varied vocabulary is not a sign of arrogance. Deeming people arrogant based on vocabulary sure the **** is. I used a four letter word for general comprehension. Fornication for those not offended by diversity of language.

In my bad science, no nothing opinion, basically, yes, that is correct. Studies generally have not used LBM as the methods for measuring BF% are pretty inaccurate and the more accurate ones were generally cost prohibitive. Quoting g per LBM is a decent rule of thumb to use when giving generic advice that is not catered to the individuals circumstances. You have the same issue with fats as well (a point missed by a certain someone), which is why we note that the rules of thumb are not applicable for very lean or significantly overweight people.

Once again bad logic.
g per LBM is a decent rule of thumb. Getting accurate reading for LBM is too costly. So the general population has no real measure of LBM, so their protein intakes are inaccurate.

The rules for protein intake are 0.5-1.5g per pound. So obese people can use these recommendations. A 600lbs peron can eat 300g of protein a day. This would have a better thermogenic effect than the theoretical LBM method.

So in both instances the LBM method fails.

You know whats sad? Let's say you were correct. I don't believe you are but... I had no idea and this is why I asked for clarification. You've been such an *kitten* from the get go anything you say is without merit. Instead of a potentially interesting discourse you've just blathered on in a crass and offensive manner. The human equivalent of a deflating, spit filled balloon.

Lets get this right... I said nothing to you and yet, you sit here and insult me. I was pointing out where the flaws where in what sara said. Okay, I see what's giong on. What I wrote, wasn't directed to you in anyway. I was just clearing up sara's flaws on the topic to help and support the community better.

Read the paper, it went off nitrogen balance, it got collective studies and made a conclusion...

That's pretty bad. I wouldn't even try to pass that as a valid reference. -1 point for helms on this one.

Says LBM method is bad because inaccurate results from the less costly methods. Then says .5-1g/lb of bodyweight is better, despite having such a wide variance.


Lololol.

Only one person that I know could make that logical error.

What's the problem, a scale cost 20 dollars, dexa few hundred.

Hydrostatic costs less than a hundred.

Says LBM method is bad because inaccurate results from the less costly methods. Then says .5-1g/lb of bodyweight is better, despite having such a wide variance.


Lololol.

Only one person that I know could make that logical error.

What's the problem, a scale cost 20 dollars, dexa few hundred.

Hydrostatic costs less than a hundred.

Still no valid research to support the LBM method regardless of price of BF testing.

*whips out Vitriol Protection Shield*

Isn't protein intake based on LBM because basing it on current (over)weight isn't really productive. For example if I weighed 245 and wanted to get down to 179 (yes, i said it) there would be no point in eating grams of protein based on 245 pounds.

Am I understanding this correctly?

And, you know, I'm just going to say this out of sheer compulsion. A varied vocabulary is not a sign of arrogance. Deeming people arrogant based on vocabulary sure the **** is. I used a four letter word for general comprehension. Fornication for those not offended by diversity of language.

In my bad science, no nothing opinion, basically, yes, that is correct. Studies generally have not used LBM as the methods for measuring BF% are pretty inaccurate and the more accurate ones were generally cost prohibitive. Quoting g per LBM is a decent rule of thumb to use when giving generic advice that is not catered to the individuals circumstances. You have the same issue with fats as well (a point missed by a certain someone), which is why we note that the rules of thumb are not applicable for very lean or significantly overweight people.

Once again bad logic.
g per LBM is a decent rule of thumb. Getting accurate reading for LBM is too costly. So the general population has no real measure of LBM, so their protein intakes are inaccurate.

The rules for protein intake are 0.5-1.5g per pound. So obese people can use these recommendations. A 600lbs peron can eat 300g of protein a day. This would have a better thermogenic effect than the theoretical LBM method.

So in both instances the LBM method fails.

You know whats sad? Let's say you were correct. I don't believe you are but... I had no idea and this is why I asked for clarification. You've been such an *kitten* from the get go anything you say is without merit. Instead of a potentially interesting discourse you've just blathered on in a crass and offensive manner. The human equivalent of a deflating, spit filled balloon.

Lets get this right... I said nothing to you and yet, you sit here and insult me. I was pointing out where the flaws where in what sara said. Okay, I see what's giong on. What I wrote, wasn't directed to you in anyway. I was just clearing up sara's flaws on the topic to help and support the community better.

What you aren't understanding is that I've read the whole thread. This is not help and support. You are not clearing up anything . What you are engaging in is posturing, baiting and general douche baggery. The fact that you are more then likely a sock completes the unsavory package. I don't know the history of conflict, really much if anything about this board. My opinions are based on your conduct alone.

*whips out Vitriol Protection Shield*

Isn't protein intake based on LBM because basing it on current (over)weight isn't really productive. For example if I weighed 245 and wanted to get down to 179 (yes, i said it) there would be no point in eating grams of protein based on 245 pounds.

Am I understanding this correctly?

And, you know, I'm just going to say this out of sheer compulsion. A varied vocabulary is not a sign of arrogance. Deeming people arrogant based on vocabulary sure the **** is. I used a four letter word for general comprehension. Fornication for those not offended by diversity of language.

In my bad science, no nothing opinion, basically, yes, that is correct. Studies generally have not used LBM as the methods for measuring BF% are pretty inaccurate and the more accurate ones were generally cost prohibitive. Quoting g per LBM is a decent rule of thumb to use when giving generic advice that is not catered to the individuals circumstances. You have the same issue with fats as well (a point missed by a certain someone), which is why we note that the rules of thumb are not applicable for very lean or significantly overweight people.

Once again bad logic.
g per LBM is a decent rule of thumb. Getting accurate reading for LBM is too costly. So the general population has no real measure of LBM, so their protein intakes are inaccurate.

The rules for protein intake are 0.5-1.5g per pound. So obese people can use these recommendations. A 600lbs peron can eat 300g of protein a day. This would have a better thermogenic effect than the theoretical LBM method.

So in both instances the LBM method fails.

You know whats sad? Let's say you were correct. I don't believe you are but... I had no idea and this is why I asked for clarification. You've been such an *kitten* from the get go anything you say is without merit. Instead of a potentially interesting discourse you've just blathered on in a crass and offensive manner. The human equivalent of a deflating, spit filled balloon.

Lets get this right... I said nothing to you and yet, you sit here and insult me. I was pointing out where the flaws where in what sara said. Okay, I see what's giong on. What I wrote, wasn't directed to you in anyway. I was just clearing up sara's flaws on the topic to help and support the community better.

What you aren't understanding is that I've read the whole thread. This is not help and support. You are not clearing up anything . What you are engaging in is posturing, baiting and general douche baggery. The fact that you are more then likely a sock completes the unsavory package. I don't know the history of conflict, really much if anything about this board. My opinions are based on your conduct alone.

Okay, here is the help and support you need. Don't do the LBM method, it's wrong. YOU CAN DO IT!