wild_wild_life Member

Good answer. To continue the debate... You say that moral issues are not relative but absolute, but you also say that they are context-specific (for instance, premarital sex may or may not be a moral issue depending on the perception of the people involved). Does that not make morality relative? Also, the CI casts rather a…

I think you need to post the amounts or the game is pretty much impossible to play. Gotta love this site -- where else could "guess the calories" be described as a game with a straight face?

That's a good point. But this woud probably have been shared between a relatively smaller group of people, and people who interacted with each other in daily life. Maybe we (I) have too many FB friends and too many of them are people I barely know and never see. That may dilute the value of this kind of sharing. This…

That's cool, I think the main reason people use protein powder (at least why I do) is the targeted intake of protein without also consuming fat/carbs as you would with most whole foods. Convenience is a factor too.

To debate with myself, I could argue that whether something is a moral issue is wholly up to the individual. For instance, many see pre-marital sex as a moral issue, while I do not. Thus my choices on that matter have nothing to do with morality, whereas for someone else they do. Similarly, if someone does not realize the…

There is a minimum amount of protein (and fat) you need to be healthy regardless of what your overall calorie intake is, so ratios aren't necessarily the best way to do it. The minimum RDA of protein for men is 56g (46g for women), but this is low and should be a bare minimum. Older people and active people probably need…

This is the debating board, so it's a place for people to put forth their position. Would you care to support your statement that diet is not a moral issue? I'm genuinely curious how you see it that way. Your example of starving in winter is a little extreme -- how about on a day to day basis where you have the choice of…

I think the animal/non animal choice is easy to see as a question of ethics, but what about the quality of life of farm workers exposed to pesticides and hazardous working conditions, damage to the environment through irresponsible agriculture, even transportation required in order to provide out of season produce? I think…

Never hurts to ask. Maybe she thought you were so awesome she is intimidated. Maybe she has something else going on. No reason to assume anything when you can just ask.

Cancer is a process, so theoretically if we discovered a way to interrupt or reverse this process, it could be considered a "cure for cancer". As it is, many cancers can already be cured either surgically or medically, so I agree with you it is not a very useful phrase.

This is an interesting comment and probably deserves a thread all to itself. Given that what we eat has broad-reaching effects on other humans, other animals, and entire ecosystems, I wholeheartedly disagree.

I have been 40 for a few months. So far, nothing has fallen out or needed to be replaced. I guess my warranty is still good.

Very cool, thanks for sharing! I wish I kept up with my data as well as you do. Also, you are doing great!

It adds the calories you burn to your goal. Your original goal of 1610 increased to 2241 when you logged 631 cals in exercise. That is why it says you have 1015 cals remaining after you have eaten 1226 cals. You are supposed to eat the calories you burn in order to maintain the same deficit you started out with. That is…

As someone above said, you should see your calorie goal as a goal, not a maximum. If you eat to within 100 or so cals of your goal, you should lose weight at approximately the same rate as what you entered in the "goals" setting (1 lb per week, 2 lbs per week, etc). Your goal went up when you logged exercise because that…

You don't have to go and get all philosophical on us.

I weigh my food after I eat it. If my food starts to weigh too much, I eat less. ** I also somewhat agree that it's important to ensure accuracy in calorie intake as much as is practical/possible but this whole game is pretty inaccurate and we're fooling ourselves if we think we can measure intake or output with a high…

Static bump

Curl up and Dye Fitness? :laugh: I like future proof fitness. That gives the impression of sustainability, something that's tailored to your lifestyle, the word proof has a sciency feel to it, and it's an unusual enough phrase to catch people's attention (at least mine).

TDEE doesn't really have anything to do with macros, it is just a maintenance calorie level. You can do it any way you want. Many people recommend setting macros by gram rather than as a percentage. For a good recommendation of macro setting, see here:…

Sounds like something for people who only want to get moderately fit. You might be able to get the same idea across with the term "balance", as someone suggested above.

The goal you are given is based on your weight, height, age, activity level that you entered (sedentery, lightly active, etc) and how fast you say you want to lose weight. If you say you want to lose 2 lbs per week, you will get a lower goal than if you say you want to lose 1 lb per week. The more weight you have to lose,…

The person who said that was probably feeling very insecure at that moment, so she lashed out. It has nothing to do with you and everything to do with her, and she knows it. Hence the title of your rant I guess!

You seem to have a very evidence-based scientific approach to fitness which you could play up -- maybe something like Method Fitness or Smart Strength. Or, if you like to slap your clients around a little, you could call it Smarting Strength.

Check out this link, it might help: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/819055-setting-your-calorie-and-macro-targets Since 1 lb is equivalent to around 3500 cals, in order to lose 1 lb a week you would need to be at a 500 cal daily deficit (500x7=3500). To lose 1.5 lbs, you would be at a 750 cal daily deficit. MFP…

There's no quick fix. Better to set your macro ratios moderately (40/30/30 c/f/p) and lose weight in a sustainable way. Ketosis works for some people but it takes a huge amount of education and dedication. It's not appropriate for the majority of people seeking to lose weight.

Yeah, I would take both those numbers with a very large grain of salt. You're not obese at 5'10" and 139lbs. Find someone, like a trainer at a gym, to measure you with calipers if you're concerned. Either way, it sounds like you could benefit from a well-planned strength training program and diet re-evaluation.

Yeah, it doesn't really make a lot of sense when you think about it that way. Basically, to lose weight we have to consume less than we expend. If you eat less than you expend, the body uses the extra energy from stored glycogen, fat, and muscle to perform basic functions. Some people on this site use their BMR as a…

No one is saying that anything is "all due" to any one factor or that a calorie deficit doesn't work for everyone.

Very interesting discussion! I agree with both of you and am proud to call myself vegan. Even though there are some that might not agree.