DeguelloTex Member

However you can best eat at a caloric deficit is what will probably work best for you. Being in a deficit is all that matters, absent a medical condition. How you get there is up to you. I eat around 500 grams of carbs a day and that works for me.

Strict.

Reschedule your therapy. Put it on your calendar. Stop missing it. It's going to do you more good than soliciting yet more advice on MFP.

Protein works best for me. Fat to some extent, but it's calorically expensive. Chicken breast and Greek yogurt with protein powder are a couple of my favorites. Vegetables are filling but, for me, only in the relatively short term. I get hungrier faster after eating them than I do with protein.

Some people are going to feel put down no matter what. You can't control that. There's no reason to hide your life.

They're wrong. It's just that simple. If they aren't causing you any problems, they aren't causing you any problems. I drink about two gallons of sucralose-sweetened water every day. Well, it's slowing down a little since the weather has cooled, but I still drink over a gallon of it a day. I've lost 125 pounds.

Even less so, actually.

Conversely, it doesn't matter how much you can reasonably and consistently integrate into your life, it's not going to do you a lick of good if the science doesn't support it. Doing something because you can manage to do it isn't enough.

Because that's circular, and circular "reasoning" is useless. "I don't eat X cause it doesn't fit with my dietary goals." "What are your dietary goals?" "Not to eat X." "Why don't you eat X?" "Cause it doesn't fit with my dietary goals." That's different than paleo, etc. don't "allow" that, which is the core of where a…

So, now, you're unclear on what "moderation" means and unclear on what "everyone" means. Got it.

If those have been agreed upon, why did you write "Extremes cannot be defined as anything but 'not in moderation.'"

Definiton of extreme: eating zero of a food. Eating only a food.

I gave you definitions of extreme, which you seemed to be confused about. And, yes, it's a way of eating in the way that white light is a color.

Extremes have been defined repeatedly. For example, would you agree that eating zero of a food is an extreme? And eating only that food is an extreme? And that those are the two extremes on the food-eating continuum?

Who said that? You can choose to eat or not to eat. The moderate way of eating doesn't proscribe foods as clean eating, paleo, etc. do.

No, a way of eating that didn't avoid the extremes would be, by definition, moderate. One that consisted of the extremes would be, by definition, not moderate. (For the sake of clarity, though I know clarity isn't important to people who want to obfuscate, this is in terms of prescriptions of the ways of eating, not…

Well, the opposite of eating zero of a food would be eating only that food, wouldn't it?

Yep. "You can't eat grains" can't be included in moderation. "Zero grains" as a way of eating, for example, is inherently extreme because zero is the extreme lower limit.

Becaue 0 of a food as an inherent part of a way of eating is, by definition, extreme. You can't eat any less. If is is, by definition, extreme, it is, by definition, not moderate.

No. It's not a question of one or the other.

Given a framework that doesn't include unlimited calories... Does a moderate way of eating ever say that if one eats a particular food one will not be adhering to that way of eating? What other ways of eating don't say that if one eats a particular food one will not be adhering to that way of eating?

I've lost 125 pounds since I turned 50. The same rules apply.

If you're not losing weight, you're eating too much. Medications, medical conditions, broken legs, old, young, it doesn't matter. You lose weight, on or off meds, by eating less than you burn. If the meds lower your burn, you have to lower intake to compensate. Whether it's unfair or not fun or something that just makes…

I have no issues whatsoever with a breakfast of bacon and eggs, a dinner of black and blue New York strip, and then some ice cream for dessert. The WHO, the egg-haters, and the meat-haters can all pound sand.

Are you sure the serving sizes are the same? Depending on the ingredients, the USDA food search is probably your best bet for what nutrition the ingredients actually have.

There are cheaper, probably safer, ways to get an energy boost than Hydroxycut. It's certainly going to do nothing substantial for your metabolism.

Great results. Well done.

You should ask your doctor and follow her advice! :)

Anything about eating less than you burn?

Yes to fluctuations and dehydration and being patient, no to starvation mode.