A CALORIE IS NOT A CALORIE

right, we are all too stupid to understand your brilliance.

Maybe you need to step back and realize that there are about ten to fifteen people telling you that you are wrong and you keep contradicting yourself. Yet, every time that is pointed out you just say "stop misrepresenting me" or "you do not understand"..Yes, we understand....you are wrong..deal with it..

Maybe you are. I don't find it that difficult to understand these issues. But I also have degrees and tests that put me in the top 1% of the US population IQ/intelligence-wise. So, it's MUCH more likely that some of you simply aren't able to understand this rather than I'm incorrect about this basic biology (and that was what I got my degree in -- with honors).

I have a PhD in genetics. What exactly was your point here?

Cool. Can you follow the science behind not every calorie is the same? That what you choose to eat impacts you're weight loss as well as it affects whether you catabolize muscle vs fat? Are you with me on that?

I've seen 3500 thrown around for a pound of fat, and people take that as the gold standard (and what you've quoted as well), but I believe there have been some studies that have shown that isn't exactly true, and there has been a very wide range of estimations of how many calories it takes to build or lose a pound of muscle. There have also been studies that have shown that the ability to maintain muscle mass is far more dependent on muscle loading and activity levels. While the food you eat has some impact, it is greatly overshadowed by activity.

So yes, in theory you are partially right (and again, I'd need to check some studies for actual numbers), but in reality and actual people trying to lose weight; it may not matter as much as you say.

But, I'm assuming from how you've been arguing you're going to take that as a win.

The amount of protein needed to have only a small amount of muscles catabolized is pretty low. Something like 60 grams I think. In most diets that is easily met. And even if not, it just simply doesn't happen that only muscle gets catabolized and no fat. So you'll end up at the approximate pound per 3500 calories one way or another.

My son falls in to that same category.

My reason for telling you this...

Sometimes he can't see the forest for the trees (or is that the trees for the forest?). He is so brilliant that at times...he can't see the things that are simple. In his mind...he looks for the complicated...at times he has trouble communicating his thoughts in a way that others can understand.

I have always told him...he is not a special snowflake...in the real world things don't always work as he thinks they should...and that he has trouble some times coming in out of the rain.

The other thing that I taught him...never make someone else feel less than simply because he is in that top 1%.

Maximum weight loss is not the same as optimizing body composition. You've been consistent in confusing the argument. No one is arguing that different protein levels don't affect body composition and muscle loss.

I totally agree with you. My whole argument from the very beginning is that what you eat matters as well as how much you eat, and that has different impacts on weight loss. That was all. I gave protein as an easy example and explained the differences between fat loss and muscle loss.

Some have argued that what you eat makes absolutely no difference whatsoever -- it's all about total calories and that's it. That caloric deficit alone will determine weight loss. That I vehemently disagree with.

We're just trying to argue that to have any noticable difference from the amount of weight loss, you'd have to have a completely unrealistic diet. 100% carbs, no fat, no protein or something like that. And even then your body would still catabolize a mix of muscle and body fat.

right, we are all too stupid to understand your brilliance.

Maybe you need to step back and realize that there are about ten to fifteen people telling you that you are wrong and you keep contradicting yourself. Yet, every time that is pointed out you just say "stop misrepresenting me" or "you do not understand"..Yes, we understand....you are wrong..deal with it..

Maybe you are. I don't find it that difficult to understand these issues. But I also have degrees and tests that put me in the top 1% of the US population IQ/intelligence-wise. So, it's MUCH more likely that some of you simply aren't able to understand this rather than I'm incorrect about this basic biology (and that was what I got my degree in -- with honors).

uh oh- gloves are off. LMAO

I agree with you. Just saying, challenge the premise, not the individual. Saying "well, 15 other people think you're wrong on a fitness website" isn't very convincing.

I don't know if you've noticed, but you are also a random person on the innanets. You could be a pooper scooper for all we know. I'd rather listen to what I've seen work for other people, and myself. But whatevs :-)

I don't know if you've noticed, but you are also a random person on the innanets. You could be a pooper scooper for all we know. I'd rather listen to what I've seen work for other people, and myself. But whatevs :-)

Also a random person with no ticker or avi to show that their wealth of knowledge has translated to real world, visual results.

Yep, taking it as a win. I'm not arguing how much it will impact as that's going to vary a lot depending on a multitude of factors. Merely, that is does have an impact. Some have said that there is no impact, and that's what I've been trying to debunk with the explanations and variety of examples.

So now we've gone from "It's equally important" to "it will have some impact." That's a helluva backtrack.

I don't know if you've noticed, but you are also a random person on the innanets. You could be a pooper scooper for all we know. I'd rather listen to what I've seen work for other people, and myself. But whatevs :-)

Also a random person with no ticker or avi to show that their wealth of knowledge has translated to real world, visual results.

So a picture with my shirt off would garner more legitimacy than the content of my arguments? Really?

My son falls in to that same category.

My reason for telling you this...

Sometimes he can't see the forest for the trees (or is that the trees for the forest?). He is so brilliant that at times...he can't see the things that are simple. In his mind...he looks for the complicated...at times he has trouble communicating his thoughts in a way that others can understand.

I have always told him...he is not a special snowflake...in the real world things don't always work as he thinks they should...and that he has trouble some times coming in out of the rain.

The other thing that I taught him...never make someone else feel less than simply because he is in that top 1%.

I generally agree with you. But when challenge with a herd mentality argument of sheer numbers (i.e. 15 say you're wrong = you must be wrong), I do feel it's fair to counter with a comparison of the individuals in that herd.

The problem is that the only person for whom you actually know credentials is yourself. So you really cannot make a valid comparison to the individuals in the herd, their intelligence, or their level of education on the subject.