Replies
-
Sounds like we have the same body type. I've lost close to 30 pounds in the past 7 months through diet changes, cardio, and strength training, and my waist has diminished by a measly 2 inches. I'm now 'thin' according to any scales but still look pregnant. I hope you have better luck!
-
My breasts are always the parts of me that shrink first when I lose weight. They've gotten much smaller and very noticeably saggier. I'm nearly 35 though so that may have something to do with the sagginess.
-
Twice a day. Once at around 11 AM and again at around 6 PM on weekdays. Once at around 12-1 PM and again at around 7-8 PM on weekends.
-
While it's definitely true I tend to be a little hard on myself, I've inherited the good old apple shape characteristic of every woman on both sides of my family. This means that unfortunately, even when my upper body looks skeletal (I lose fat in the face, arms, and chest first), I have a belly that hangs over my bottoms…
-
God, posts like these really bring it home to me what a crap body type I have. Even when you were at 140 your stomach was flatter than mine is currently at 109 (same height). And at 118 you look amazing.
-
I'm down to 109 and am not aiming for any specific number, but still have a helluva spare tire and have never in my life been able to shift it. I've got tiny bones and a very short waist so it makes me look a lot heavier than the scale says. Quite frustrating.
-
Cool straw man argument, bro.
-
Have you ever read a scientific study? That's the sort of language they use. They're not positing a scientific theory; that's a lot harder to do and that's why there are so few of them. But my bad; I shouldn't have posted in a forum called "Food and Nutrition" when it appears to be a forum about taste preferences, humor,…
-
Super argument. Clearly you're right.
-
So a completely unfounded opinion (because you don't like controlled experiments) is somehow not an assumption? Right. Way to be completely condescending, too.
-
I clarified upthread. Red meat causes cancer.
-
Scientific studies are invalid as sources to back up stated opinions? Scientific studies are literally the opposite of assumptions. I don't know what to say to that but "wow".
-
I get it: People like beef. (I do, too.) I would probably get the steak in this scenario, because I like tasty food that's cooked correctly. But that wasn't the question asked, and it's sort of shocking to me that anyone could still be of the opinion that beef is as healthy as fish.
-
http://www.pnas.org/content/112/2/542.abstract
-
You're asking two different questions that have two different answers. No, there is not a significant caloric difference (assuming similar preparations), but the salmon is a lot healthier.
