ccsernica Member

I pick one and "adjust" my time so that the distance comes out right. See also my complaint about this very issue here: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10564409/recording-running-or-walking#latest

No, but it's still close enough. Not that it really establishes an equivalence between mass and volume for anything but water. Other liquids with other densities won't have this equivalence.

It's either woo-hoo! or woo-woo.

If you think your time is limited now, just wait until you have a family.

It makes ice cream fit into my calorie goal.

My journal is open. Go look at my graph for the past couple of weeks and see what happened to me last Monday. My unrecorded weight from the previous Friday was 162.2. I typically only record once a week since I hit maintenance, but I recorded every day last week just to demonstrate how this kind of weight might come off.…

I was unaware of "portion control" having a distinct sense in the context of weight loss. In the context where I'm familiar with it, food service, you absolutely measure portions accurately. That's the whole point. A few oz. here or there multiplied by a thousand servings adds up to non-negligible costs.

Is there a meaningful difference between "portion control" and "not too many calories"? Particularly when you achieve both by carefully measuring what you eat?

I'm not convinced of the set point idea. You called it "only a theory" but in the scientific sense there's nothing "only" about a theory. Theories are as good as it gets; as close to certain as anything else know. Set point doesn't rise to the exalted level of a theory. It's barely even a hypothesis. Among other things, a…

The lighting and poses aren't right to allow us to judge symmetry, but if your face is asymmetrical that just makes you normal. Most folks are at least a little lopsided. I have one eyebrow noticeably higher than the other, for instance.

You lose weight when you maintain a calorie deficit, and controlling portion size is inevitably involved at some point.

The only way to get better than a very rough estimate is to get yourself hydrostatically weighed. Even those scales, which try to determine your body fat based on impedance, are only approximate.

I'm pretty sure @cwolfman13 was being sarcastic. That would be pretty much always. We need cholesterol -- not as a nutrient, but as an essential part of our biochemistry.

Average life expectancy increased from 1900 because of a dramatic drop in infant mortality. And yes, that was largely due to modern medicine.

You said nothing to support that point at all.

Yeah, yeah. And I can point to thousands of older non-vegans. So what?

It doesn't matter what you think; it's a fact. http://www.health.com/health/condition-article/0,,20188499,00.html http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/Conditions/HeartAttack/UnderstandYourRiskstoPreventaHeartAttack/Understand-Your-Risks-to-Prevent-a-Heart-Attack_UCM_002040_Article.jsp#.WUsYrnp1HRE My grandmother is my n=1…

As Michael Pollan said: Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants. I see no reason why that shouldn't work. The number one risk factor for both heart disease and cancer is age. We would see more people dying of those diseases now simply because we're living longer, even if we had no bad habits at all contributing to them.

It shouldn't. GPS satellites aren't positioned over urban areas in particular. Since they're in low orbits, they aren't positioned over anything in particular; they move too fast. You might find the signal blocked if you're surrounded by steep mountains (rural) or tall buildings (urban) but not otherwise.

I went from 162.6 to 168.8 over the weekend. I'm reasonably certain I didn't suddenly put on over 6 lbs of fat.

The import, or lack thereof, of small pilot studies that even under the best of circumstances can do nothing more than suggest a promising avenue for future research, would be very clear to anyone in the field who actually reads the paper. The problems don't begin until it hits the media and gets promoted with much more…

So would I. But then, I also understand the difference between a casual expression where, in context, the meaning is clear, and technical contexts where absolute clarity is important. I don't know why this should be so difficult for some people, except perhaps they enjoy the opportunity for needless pedantry.

SUPER WEIGHT LOSS POWER FAT BURNER PLUS! Incinerates belly fat like bacon on the griddle! You'll have to sleep on a drip tray after only one dose!

Oh. The Internet. Gotta be true then.

A half gallon of ice cream. Works for me every time.

If you want useful advice, it helps to open your diary so people can see what you have (or have not) been eating.

What they do at the questionable clinics is to redefine the reference range and give TRT to men who are not in fact clinically deficient. That's why they aren't covered by insurance. Their treatments are not medically necessary.

The Breyer's ice cream I eat is 150 cal/half cup serving, I have room for 2 of them on days I run, and if you measure it by weight it looks like a hell of a lot more than half a cup.

It's not that you're not going to get a butt, it's that while eating a surplus you can't expect to put on all muscle even when you're doing a lot of heavy lifting. Otherwise a "sumo wrestler bod" would be like Arnold in his prime. They do a tremendous amount of exercise every day, but clearly much of their weight is not…

Which is why merely tracking calories carefully can help with weight loss. Without accurate awareness, you can't even begin.