Mr_Knight Member

I'm very active, and tall. Anything under 200g/day is low carb in that context.

Every time you bring this up, a few people who know their **** give you great, detailed, accurate answers, and all you do is argue with them. So I'm just jumping to the only answer you want to hear - whatever you're doing is perfect, and if anything, it's underestimating your burns, so you can eat more nummies if you…

The "isocaloric" bit means diets with same number of calories but different macro ratios.

A couple of years ago, maybe. But after all the endless jihad between Carbistas and NoCarbistas, it's more like...

My main meal looks big and heavy - major protein - and keeps me happy until sleepie time. IF is really really good for me...

With a little more effort I'm sure we can work a Carbista vs NoCarbista jihad into this, too. Come on, people, work harder!

Yep.

Woah... TDEE drop of 50 cal/day is 5 pounds a year - assuming the differential doesn't increase over time.

When they prevent someone from meeting the upper end of protein requirements without exceeding their deficit target, on one end. When they don't provide enough fuel to maintain the desired activity level at the other end.

That's 1600 calories. For a substantial, active dude, might be 50% of intake on a TDEE of 3200. I'd be hard pressed to find a non-medical-issue scenario where 50% from carbs is "excess".

All your 58 lbs say is that calorie counting makes a difference. They certainly don't say calorie counting is the *only* thing that made a difference.

There's no obvious reason why you should be, that I know of, anyway.

If I misconstrued, my apologies. :drinker:

Sigh. There go the goalposts again. There is nothing incompatible in believing in both calorie counting and not all calories being "equal". Indeed.

Yes, please.

SAD carb intake is around 300g/day, so I fully accept 140g as being low carb.

I'm 6'1" and exrecis the equivalent of a 10k run per day The standard calculators significantly over-estimate TDEE for obese individuals. I'm 6'1" with relatively high levels of lean body mass and even my "low activity" TDEE is quite a bit lower than that.

Body composition is a function of both what is consumed and how much is consumed. CO is a function of body composition. Deficit at isocaloric intake is a function of CO. Weight loss is a function of deficit. Therefore weight loss is also a function of what is consumed.

3 miles of running * 160 pounds body weight * .6 (some use .65)

You really don't see? Look what you just wrote - other people criticize your *posts* - you want to criticize *people*.

Trying! :drinker:

The threshold point would change, but there would still be a point at which you're just connecting input to output.

Nothing. I go first thing in morning, fasted.

Yeah...no. 275-ish.

No. There are limits to how much the body can absorb, past a certain point new food just pushed old food out that bottom exit before it can be fully digested.

"sabatozor"....? Is that like a kind of bulldozer?

The Author of the study that produced the 31 above subsequently retracted it. There is no One number, and everything from macro ratios to activity level to meal timing affect it. I think you need to reread the posts you're responding to.

We are all responsible for our own reactions. OP isn't ready. It happens. Obladi oblada...

Yeah. That should be a moment of optimism, not let down. We may be saying the same thing...

No, that's almost entirely, completely wrong.